According to the government, temperatures are rising. In the 20th century alone average global temperatures have increased by more than 0.6°C, and nine out of the 10 hottest years on record occurred between 1990 and 2007.
“The general consensus is that while our summers are getting drier, winters are becoming wetter and storms and extreme weather events are more commonplace,” says Ben Sartain of Fairfield Control Systems. The global average temperature has increased since the turn of the last century and this trend is widely predicted to continue. With CO2 emissions unchecked, the global average temperature is predicted to rise a further 3°C by 2080 according to Met office data. Summer rainfall, by the same date, is predicted to halve. So what should growers be doing in anticipation of such changes?
“Demand for water in summer months is set to increase affecting both the price and regulation of water resources,” says Sartain. “This is already being seen with the introduction of a new Water Act.”
In future, all users will be competing with one another for limited water resources. Along with other users, growers will need to justify their water usage to the Environment Agency by collecting data that proves they are utilising water efficiently. Now is the time for producers to find out what data they should be collecting and to take steps to manage their water resource more effectively.
“Public water suppliers, and factory owners do not keep such records on the back of envelopes and to effectively compete, neither should growers,” said Sartain. “It is not simply an exercise in keeping regulators happy there are genuine bottom line benefits to be had in improving irrigation management.”
Francisco Javier Fernandez farms 450ha of sugar beet and cotton in the south of Spain. Although irrigation has been a way of life for generations, it is only in the last five years that he has made real progress. Information on how much water he used, and the economic impact this had on his business led him to install a weather station measuring wind speed, rainfall, temperature and humidity. From this information he is able to calculate daily evapo-transpiration rates to produce his irrigation schedule. Five years on, he is using 30 per cent less water - giving him savings on water, labour and machinery bills. This has reduced disease outbreaks and improved crop quality. Taking into account the investment in irrigation management tools, profits have risen by 30 per cent.
To further improve accuracy, and profitability, Fernandez now plans to measure soil moisture across the entire farm. He is confident that he can then achieve an additional 30 per cent saving in water and labour.
Accurate, consistent recording of water use and water requirement on farms is the way of the future, Sartain continues. “How the relevant factors are measured is a matter of choice,” he says.
A demand-led automated irrigation system, the Precision Irrigation Control (PIC) system is an example of an irrigation management system where the costs are small relative to the potential savings that can be made.
To build up a detailed picture of conditions in the crop, this flexible system collects readings from soil moisture probes, air and soil temperature and relative humidity sensors. A data logger acts as an information buffer, storing the measurements, while data retrieval takes place remotely via e-mail, satellite or GSM modem, hard-wired serial link or via a low-powered radio.
“The data can be downloaded to a computer in the farm office or sent directly to a farm’s consultant agronomist,” says Sartain. “Users have access to detailed real-time data on which to make informed irrigation decisions and efficient water application.”
The PIC software incorporates a prediction algorithm to predict soil moisture up to three days in advance. Linked to a 10-day weather forecast, the system provides users with all the information for improved decision making.
“It is clear that as the climate gets hotter and summers get drier it is the growers who act now to improve their water management, and keep detailed records, that are going to be less likely to feel the heat,” says Sartain.
Since the early 1990s, Rush Potatoes has been pro-active in preparing for the effects of climate change. “In terms of production, potato yields can vary from four to 40 tonnes an acre in the same field, depending on the weather and season,” says the company’s chairman, Gale Rush. “For this reason we felt it was vital to tackle the potential issues of climate change from an early stage. For example, different weather systems can encourage disease and pests to proliferate in areas that are unused to controlling them - leading to produce unfit for the proposed markets if suitable controls are not put in place.”
In order to maximise supply-chain security for customers, Rush has developed first-rate production facilities globally, throughout the best agricultural areas. The company employs the most respected and qualified agronomists in the potato industry so that the right decisions can be made at the right time in order for the produce to be of optimum quality and for it to arrive with the customer at the scheduled time.
“After six months of pampering in the production process, the best potatoes in the world can be ruined within minutes if strict disciplines for harvesting, storage and shipping are not enforced,” says Rush. “Our technicians invest as much time with shippers and customers as they do in the field to ensure the consumer is happy every time. Rush will continue to invest heavily in research and production techniques so that efficient production in new areas is guaranteed.”
The impact of climate change has the potential to be far reaching and to include situations such as transport disruption and the reduced reliability of energy supply. A further consequence could be higher costs for building repairs and refurbishment and increased flooding in lowland areas due to more frequent river flooding and severe storm surges.
The Climate Change Levy (CCL) and its associated measures aim to encourage business to use energy more efficiently and given business success in delivering on climate change objectives, this year’s Budget froze the rate of CCL. Horticultural businesses, however have been spared the full effect of the levy since it was introduced in 2001, thanks to the hard-won, but temporary, 50 per cent rebate negotiated by the NFU through a voluntary energy-saving agreement - in return, growers have to meet a series of energy-saving targets.
“The concession was granted to help growers improve their energy efficiency and prepare them for the day when they would have to pay the levy in full,” says Graham Ward, chairman of the NFU’s Board for Horticulture.
In the future though, growers could secure an even bigger discount on the levy once investigations being carried out by HM Customs & Excise (HMCE) are concluded. HMCE has consulted business on the possibility of extending eligibility to Climate Change Agreements (CCAs). Horticulture is one of the sectors that may benefit from such an extension.
If the CCAs are extended to include horticulture, it could mean an 80 per cent rebate on CCL to all horticultural business that choose to participate, says the NFU. Under the Climate Change Levy, a typical tomato or cucumber producer would have had to have find an extra £10,000ha each year if there is no concession of any kind. The 50 per cent rebate saves £5,000ha a year, but an 80 per cent rebate could be worth £8,000ha. Bedding plant growers, whose crops are less energy demanding, would pay as much as £3,000ha if the levy was imposed in full. Likewise they could claim back £2,400 a year under the new agreement.
Access to CCAs, which already cover some other industries including pig and poultry farms, depending on meeting energy reduction targets. Should a sector fail to make its target, each business can still claim the rebate as long as it has reached its own specific target (which it can do by buying carbon allowances). And if a business falls short of its target, it can still continue to benefit from the discount if its sector has met the overall target. “Growers would have more control,” says Chris Plackett, an energy consultant with horticultural energy specialists Farm Energy Centre Services (FECS). “They could guarantee their rebate if they work hard at energy efficiency, no matter what others in their sector are doing.”
There are other advantages too, over the current voluntary scheme. “At present, the rebate applies only to energy used on heating, lighting and soil sterilisation which define the production process - everything else is excluded,” explains Plackett. “Under a full CCA, participating growers could claim the rebate on energy used for other purposes, such as for seeding and transplanting machinery, in packhouses or by the office, as long as these did not account for more than 10 per cent of total use.” At the same time, there would be an opportunity to argue the case for redefining the production process to include, for instance, ventilation, irrigation, cooling and packaging, which all need energy.
And while the voluntary agreement depends on participating sites representing 50 per cent or more of the protected cropping area, there is no minimum level of participation for a full agreement.
Unlike the present voluntary rebate arrangement, a CCA involves a legal undertaking between the sector association, each business and the government. “As with any other legal contract, there will be consequences if you claim the rebate when you are not entitled to it,” says Plackett. “And the rebate will be lost to those businesses if both they and their sector fail to meet their targets.”
The guidelines governing the full agreement might be viewed by some as being more demanding than those governing the voluntary arrangement. But Plackett believes that for those companies whose energy use is already being audited by other schemes, or who have incorporated energy saving into their management system, it should involve little extra work. “If you are serious about energy saving, you should be doing it anyway,” he says.
Nurseries will need to nominate a person responsible for energy management, and a deputy, and draw up a site plan showing where the meters are. They must have a company energy policy, an energy management action plan, be able to produce evidence of formal written procedures for handling CCA data, and document any action they take. While that may sound challenging for small-scale holdings in particular, Plackett says Defra acknowledges the small size of some businesses and will accept an energy plan that can be summed up on a sheet of A4. “It doesn’t have to be complicated,” he says.
The figures collected for submission to Defra would have to be supported by full production records. “The figures must be traceable,” says Plackett. “These must be based on a grower’s own meter readings, as estimated readings from a utility supplier will not be accepted. “ Existing voluntary rebate arrangement has been the requirement to assess energy use in kWh/sqm, chosen because it was the only measure that could be applied across the industry. Discussions with Defra suggest that in future it might accept submissions in kWh/kg as well, preferred by growers of crops such as tomatoes, where using more energy to increase yields can sometimes be more efficient than cropping less from a lower energy input. “It must be remembered though, that yields can go down as well as up and that no allowances will be made for yield loss from crop failure or disease infection,” says Plackett. “The NFU is looking, too, at continuing with kWh/sqm but refining the system to account for changes in cropping patterns.”
The first target horticulture was set for the voluntary agreement - of reducing energy use by three per cent between 2000 and 2002 - was achieved, but the number of growers taking part fell over the course of the period, giving Plackett reason to believe the agreement is unlikely to run beyond its initial term to 2006. “Defra has indicated that it will be expecting more detailed and timely information anyway as evidence that growers are taking energy saving seriously,” he says. “I think that what growers will be asked for in future under the voluntary agreement will be similar, if not identical, to what would be required for a full CCA.”
The NFU has been canvassing growers’ views to assess support for swapping over to a full agreement should horticulture be given the chance. “It would be down to each grower to choose whether they wanted to sign up to a CCA but the rewards for growers who are committed to reducing their energy use could be much greater,” says Ward.
No comments yet