The old-fashioned plow survives in northwestern Europe

Sunday, June 8, 2014

It is a dilemma that has lasted for decades: to plow or try a simpler system that can save money, but can let you down in a bad sowing season. Hundreds of crop research institutions have compared the available solutions and found there's still a place for old-fashioned inversion

by NORMAN DUNN

From East Anglian clay to Ukraine's ultra-fertile black soils, the grain-growing lands of Europe have experienced a turbulent 50 years as far as cultivations go.

Most of us grew up with the plow as the primary tillage tool. Then, at countless demonstrations across Europe, the benefits of non-inversion were preached. "Just a few passes to create five or six inches of seedbed and get rid of the weeds, that's the way ahead," was the advice I heard at farm college.

But back in the real world, at least in my part of northern Europe, the planned non-inversion revolution never got off the ground. Our parents were still in charge back home and there was strong resistance to dumping the plow. It took a generation change to see minimum till being tried out in any scale in Europe. That was back in the 1960s.  

In most cases, though, the revolution didn't last too long then, either. Over the years, we've seen "min till" join direct drill, strip till and a number of other permutations, all heralded as ultimate solutions for sustainable cultivation. Yet, in Europe, the plow lumbers on in the majority of crop-growing farms. New models are still launched at farm shows every year. Researchers continue to wring their hands at the input costs involved.

Scientific comparisons of cost, time and subsequent yield continue throughout the European Union. Stand back and look at all the thousands of results from research institutes, then listen to the farmers that have tried the different approaches and one thing becomes very clear: there's no outright winner. Success depends on the farm in question.

One of the most practical trials I reported on in this respect was run by a farming group on a range of units growing continuous winter wheat on widely differing soils over a number of years in England. Growing a winter (i.e. autumn-sown) crop did, however, highlight the greatest advantage for direct drilling and, sometimes, min till – speed of operation. Funded by the British Home Grown Cereals Authority, the trial reckoned an average 1.5 acres per hour was needed for plowing. Min till increased this work rate to 2.7 acres and hour – and an awesome average of 4.5 acres per hour were covered by the direct drill which, remember, ended with the seed safely in the ground and only spraying to follow.

Average yields measured over three or four years of continuous wheat were much the same for all three contenders. Direct drilling was mostly best and plow gave the worst results. But there was seldom more than six per cent between the two extremes on the different soils and weather conditions.

An interesting aspect of this English trial was that it focused on sustainability: the energy input per acre and per ton of grain produced. Here, the basic input of cultivation averaged just over 800 MegaJoules per acre for plowing, exactly 463 MJ for min till and a very environmentally-friendly 295 MJ for direct drilling. Total energy input by the end of the respective harvests did not mirror precisely the establishment results. But the running order was maintained with respective averages of 5,200, 4,880 and 4,720 MJ per acre. With acknowledgement of the extra chemical input of direct drilling, minimum cultivations took over first place in MJ per ton of wheat driven home, with an average 732 per acre. Direct drilling came close at 792 MJ, with plowing leaving a just slightly larger carbon footprint caused by an input of 804 MJ per acre.

It's almost 10 years since the results were totted up, but these last three figures, plus physical inputs, meant costs were around the equivalent of C$88 per ton for direct drilling, $81 for min till and just under $92 for the plowing approach. Incidentally, yields in the best growing years during this trial all varied between 3.2 and 3.6 tons per acre, a little above the average southern English yield for the autumn-sown crop.

But, from all these results, farmers still left the final presentation reluctant to part with plowing. Why? It was more expensive, took more time and did not, on average, offer a yield advantage. However, during one very bad establishment year with continuous rain over all areas, plowing produced easily the best crop and therefore still turned a respectable profit, while direct drilling, in particular, dived deep into the disaster zone that year.

Here, we've got the reason why the permutations – including the old-fashioned plow – will survive, at least in northwestern Europe, where the soils and local weather leave a place for all systems. I guess this is what our fathers already knew (without the researcher input) 50 years ago when they turned down our teenage, fresh-from-college plans of throwing out the plow. BF

Norman Dunn writes about European agriculture from Germany.