On-farm trials at Strategic Cereal Farm South (2021–2024)

Host farmer: David Miller

Location: Wheatsheaf Farming Company (Folly Farm), Hampshire

Duration: 2021–2024

AHDB Strategic Cereal Farms put cutting-edge research and innovation into practice on commercial farms around the UK. Each farm hosts field-scale and farm-scale demonstrations, with experiences shared via on-farm and online events to the wider farming community.

Strategic Cereal Farms

The goal at Strategic Cereal Farm South is to be profitable, while maximising carbon sequestration and biodiversity.  David’s time as a Strategic Cereal Farm has come to an end. He will continue his agricultural journey as a regenerative farming advocate and advisor.

This page features a summary of information published in the latest annual report.

Cover crops and water quality (harvest 2024)

This project investigated the impact of cover crops on water quality, beneficial invertebrates, wider soil health and following crop performance. The work complemented cover crop trial data from a project by South East Water (led by FWAG-South East).

Headlines

• Cover crops have been grown at Wheatsheaf Farming Company since 2010
• All spring crop ground has included a cover crop since 2015 (when the farm became fully no-till)
• Work, led by FWAG-South East, demonstrated the benefits of cover crops on water quality (reduced nitrate leaching), beneficial invertebrates and wider soil health
• The AHDB work investigated the interaction between the cover crop species mix, soil health status and productivity of following spring crops
• None of the cover crop mixtures had any observable deleterious effect on spring crop establishment, health or yield
• Cover crops increased slug numbers slightly (compared with stubble), but the overall benefits for beneficial invertebrate species outweighed pest increases
• Therefore, the selection of the most appropriate cover crop mixture can be made by considering the rate of establishment, canopy development and capacity to develop above or below ground biomass
• For example, radish, phacelia and mustard contributed substantially to the above-ground biomass (helping to, for example, reduce the likelihood of capping)
• Difference in rooting structures meant that only radish and mustard further significantly contributed to below-ground biomass
• However, the dense fibrous root network of phacelia in the top 15 cm of soil created and stabilised a distinct crumb structure                                                                                                                                                         

Action points

• Note that cover crop integration is unlikely to be as straightforward on heavy soils
• When selecting a cover crop mix, the rate at which various species emerge and develop above/below-ground biomass and the anticipated drilling date need to be considered (aim to maximise ground and root coverage)
• Be aware that early-season green cover and canopy development varies between mixes and that each species makes different contributions to above-ground and below-ground biomass production
• For on-farm monitoring of rooting patterns and soil structure impacts, consider using  spade assessments, based on the VESS approach (take photos), to monitor rooting patterns and soil structure impacts

Soil and crop health: impacts of different management systems (harvest 2024)

Two work packages examined the long-term impact on soil health and crop performance of management practices, including changes to cultivation systems and the use of cover crops.

Action points

• This work showed the value of monitoring soil health status and yield, especially to help assess the impact of changes to farming systems or in areas associated with potential productivity constraints
• Consider monitoring in alternate years to detect long-term trends (however, a well-designed study may yield useful data each year)
• Use monitoring data to compare performance with other fields or farms
• Interpret yield maps (and other spatial datasets) to identify stable and variable zones within fields (to enable targeted soil health assessments and crop monitoring)
• Conduct soil and grain nutrient sampling within these management zones to help account for spatial variability and improve long-term soil monitoring and management
• Consider setting up on-farm experiments within identified zones to minimise the impact of historical yield variability and ensure more accurate evaluation of agronomic practices and treatments

Soil and crop health: interventions at crop establishment (harvest 2024)

This work examined two approaches to enhance soil–plant interaction at or soon after drilling.

Headlines

• One experiment* assessed two biological amendments, each with a different mode of action (vermicompost humates and molasses with microbial nutrition), and compared them with an untreated control
• Treatments were applied with seed
• Early crop development, root growth and soil health were assessed
• No significant differences in crop establishment or root development metrics were detected between treatments/untreated areas
• Therefore, the use of these tactical amendments is not worthwhile on this farm
• This may be because the longer-term, soil-improving measures (cover cropping and no tillage in combination) have improved soil health to the point that such treatments are ineffective
• A second experiment assessed whether a companion crop grown with wheat has benefits for soil biology and early crop growth 
• The presence of unintended volunteer beans meant drawing conclusions from the trial was not possible 

*The biological amendment trial ran for two growing seasons (2021–22 and 2022–23).

Action points

• Adding biological amendments to the soil did not have an observable influence on crop establishment or root development in these trials, which may reflect the general good soil health at the site, due to the long-term use of cover crops and no-till
• Such products may deliver benefits in other soils and systems, especially where soil health is suboptimal
• However, given the inherent variability within soils and root growth habit, anyone thinking of using (or ceasing use of) these or similar products should consider carrying out well-designed strip trials to support decision-making 
• This project used simple monitoring strategies that did not require specialist equipment
• All sample analyses used are offered by commercial laboratories
• This case study can be used to help implement similar strategies on other farms

Regenerative practices and food quality: targeted grain quality testing (harvest 2024)

This study examined wheat grain samples from five regenerative fields at Strategic Cereal Farm South and 10 conventional sites (across six farms) to identify any differences in nutrient metrics between the two production systems.

Headlines

• Grain samples were taken from the same winter wheat varieties on the same soil type just before harvest 2024
• Samples were analysed for standard food/feed quality, micronutrients, inulin and vitamin E
• Relative wheat yields ranged from 8.2–11.4 t /ha (average of 10 t/ha)
• Protein contents were low in all samples due to the dull (low sunshine) conditions during the grain fill period
• All grain samples were relatively low in iron and zinc, likely due to the high soil pH (all sites) that reduced the availability of these micronutrients
• There was no clear impact of differences in variety or farming system on grain quality measures

Action points

• A wide range of crop, soil and other environmental factors can affect grain nutrient density
• This study has found no differences between wheat grain samples sampled in one year (2024) from a range of farming systems on high pH soils
• There are no simple links between farming practice and food quality
• Changes to farm management and food chain practices may improve the nutrient quality of grain and downstream products but more research is required in this area