Scoping review: impact of different crop nitrogen nutrition scenarios on cereal and oilseed varietal performance

AHDB REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ)

1.Introduction

The AHDB Recommended Lists for cereals and oilseeds (RL) publications and resources provide information on yield and quality performance, disease resistance and agronomic features as well as market options to assist with variety selection.  The project is managed by AHDB and produced in collaboration with the British Society of Plant Breeders, United Kingdom Flour Millers and the Maltsters Association of Great Britain. 

Each year tests and trials are commissioned to provide robust data to allow selection of the best varieties which have a balance of features which are sufficiently better than existing varieties.  Currently information is provided for 11 crops, as detailed below.

In RL cereals trials fertiliser applications take into account inherent fertility, previous cropping, winter rainfall, best local practice and advisory guidelines such as the AHDB Nutrient Management Guide (RB209).  Care is taken to provide adequate P, K and S, taking into account local circumstances.  Nitrogen applications are tailored to give maximum yields within the constraints of obtaining the appropriate grain protein contents for intended uses e.g. bread making or malting.

For winter oilseed rape, fertiliser applications are done in line with advisory guidelines such as RB209.  Sulphur is applied to trials in accordance with soil tests.  An application of a minimum of 40 kg S/ha is made in early spring. Trial operators are asked to be aware of the implications of other nutrient requirements and be prepared to apply an appropriate treatment.

Further information on trial protocols, including on fertiliser applications to described crops is available here: Trial protocols

Links:

Further information on the RL

 2. Background / Aims

In November 2022 AHDB launched a review of the RL project.  Review activities included a questionnaire, focus groups and stakeholder interviews.  Results of this activity have shown that there is demand for information on varietal performance with lower or more commercially typical inputs, this includes crop nutrition.   

AHDB is seeking to commission a high-level review that will provide critical overview on the evidence for any significant differences between cereal and oilseed varieties in nitrogen use efficiency. 

Examples of work in this area include:

Nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser management for yield and quality in winter and spring oats | AHDB

Nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser management to achieve grain protein quality targets of high-yielding winter milling wheat | AHDB

Updating nitrogen and sulphur fertiliser recommendations for spring barley | AHDB

Science Search (defra.gov.uk)

Hawkesford, M. J. & Riche, A. B. (2020).  Impacts of G x E x M on Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Wheat and Future Prospects.  Frontiers in Plant Science, Vol. 11, article 1157 (doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.01157)

The results of this high-level review will be used to help guide decisions on how levy payer demand for information on variety performance with lower inputs will be met.

3. Service Requirement

 a. Provide an assessment of differences between cereal and oilseed varieties in nitrogen use efficiency. This should include:

          a.Evidence to show difference between varieties in overall nitrogen use efficiency as well as any evidence for differences in nitrogen uptake efficiency, nitrogen utilisation efficiency and nitrogen harvest index
          b.Evidence to show the impact of reduced nitrogen applications on the rank order of varieties, by yield, in variety trials
          c.Evidence to show that specific varietal characteristics or attributes are associated with nitrogen use efficiency e.g root mass.

b. For each of the areas above an evaluation of the strength of evidence should be provided, this should consider:

       a.The robustness of the available evidence base
       b.The context under which evidence has been obtained, for example laboratory research, field trials and/or on-farm practice
       c. An assessment of how much confidence we should place in the conclusions reached.

c. Outline where there are gaps in evidence that AHDB may seek to address through the commissioning of future research.

In addition to providing this overall picture, the supplier should – where possible – also provide AHDB with supporting information about:

  a. How recently the evidence was published and an assessment of its quality. A separate spreadsheet should be provided as a bibliography and include web links, if used (this should be in addition to the reference list in the final report).

  b. Upcoming pieces of relevant research – e.g. UKRI-funded research projects and when they’re due to report.

  c. Where – UK/EU/other – the research was undertaken, drawing the boundaries of the search parameters to include only research from climates and locations that will resonate with UK farming practice.

  d. Whether there are any limitations – commercial sponsorship, patents etc – on AHDB’s ability to access and verify the evidence.

  e. A broad assessment of the ‘academic/grey’ split in the evidence – and, alongside that, any attempt to give a sense of proxy measures for the quality of the evidence.

With this information AHDB will consider how information on varietal performance with lower inputs can be delivered.  This may be achieved through changes to the Recommended List, or outside of the RL through other related activities.  Results of this scoping review will be used by AHDB in direct communication with RL stakeholders, including farmers and processors.

AHDB will arrange a meeting for the selected supplier to present their findings.

A report will be submitted within 3 months of the project’s start date.

 4. Structure / Format of Submission

Applicants are requested to complete the AHDB Research and KE Application Form – Full Proposal Small.

You should include:

• How you intend to address the project objectives and deliverables.
• Timelines and milestones.
• Details and the capabilities of the team that will complete the work.
• Details of any subcontractors/other organisations you will work with to achieve deliverables.
• Evidence you or your team have completed similar or related work.
• Proposed budget.
• Your contact details.

The maximum budget available for this work is £25,000 (inclusive of VAT).

5. Evaluation and Award of Contract

Evaluation of tenders will be on the following basis:

All bids will be scored against the criteria shown in the table below.  The selection will be an open and fair competition according to AHDB’s procurement policy, which complies with EU state aid rules.

 6. Tender submissions

Submission instructions:

Electronically:

Submissions will remain unopened until after the closing date and time has passed.

 7. Timetable

 8. Additional Information

Not applicable

 9.Terms / Conditions of Participation

If you have any questions relating to this tender please contact: