CROPROTECT: web-based knowledge exchange for crop protection

CROPROTECT is an ambitious new project which plans to revolutionise knowledge exchange for crop protection by making use of 21^st century web-based technologies which mean that practical information about crop protection can be shared and exchanged very easily. It is developing and providing a two-way web-based free knowledge exchange resource through which farmers and agronomists can get specific information relevant to their needs. In this blog Toby Bruce from Rothamsted Research, who is the contact for the project, explains what it aims to achieve and how it will develop.

 

Farmers face a continuous battle against pests, weeds and diseases. To ensure efficient production, pest management solutions are required for crop protection. These challenges have been managed primarily with pesticides for the last few decades but now alternative solutions need to be delivered. Crop protection is getting more difficult, not only because pesticides are being restricted by legislation but also because the remaining ones which are still available are less effective as pests, weeds and diseases evolve resistance to them.

Farmers are caught in a difficult situation because of dependency on pesticide. Their crops have been bred in a pesticide treated background and without the pesticides crop losses to pests, weeds and diseases mean that both yield and quality can be seriously compromised. Currently pesticides are being lost at a much faster rate than they are being replaced with alternatives. As well as novel control solutions, farmers need better information about what can be done.

Alternative approaches are often more complicated relying on a combination of resistant cultivars, biocontrol, agronomic practices and rationalised, better targeted pesticide use. Information about integrated pest, weed and disease management is scattered in disparate places which are hard for busy farmers to track down for every pest, weed and disease threat they face.

The capacity to share information via the internet is tremendous and access is increasingly via mobile devices. These have the potential to reach a wide audience in the farming community, to provide rapid updates and to interact more with the users. In the internet age, availability of information is not the main constraint, there is more of an issue of accessing relevant information.  CROPROTECT hopes to provide content which is relevant to the users by interacting with them, asking what their priorities are and encouraging feedback. Because electronic documents are living documents and can be adjusted unlike printed documents, there is an opportunity to continuously refine the information provided as the system evolves. The project is funded by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Innovation Club (SARIC) which is  a joint BBSRC and NERC initiative to support innovative projects that will provide solutions to key challenges affecting the efficiency, productivity and sustainability of the UK crop and livestock sectors.

We are very keen to develop CROPROTECT in partnership with farmers and agronomists and are working with the Association of Independent Crop Consultants (AICC), Hutchinsons, Agrii and the NFU to ensure the system is appropriate for them. We are also very pleased to have AgriChatUK, a leading online forum for agricultural discussions, supporting the project. Indeed, part of the inspiration for the project is from the vibrant community of farmers using twitter. When I wrote the proposal, I was thinking of reaching the thousands of farmers and agronomists and other stakeholders who are active on twitter as followers of @AgriChatUK or members of #clubhectare and who interact this way. The levy boards HGCA and HDC (under the AHDB umbrella) are collaborating with us in developing CROPROTECT.

We started the project in November 2014 and the second version of the website is now live. This is starting to give information about management recommendations for pest, weed and disease targets (the first version was for user registration only). The targets being prioritised are as specified as being of concern by the pioneer users of the system. Registration is free and quick but we do ask users to specify what their main pest, weed and disease targets are so that we can unsure the system meets their requirements.

CROPROTECT accounts are free and we encourage farmers and agronomists to join and try it out! It is designed to work on smartphone browsers and will also open on a desktop screen. The system is evolving and it is early days in the project so there is more to come. To make login easier users can now login via twitter and we are planning to make the system available as a smartphone App in the near future.

 

 

The Farm Business Survey team at the Northern Farming Conference in Hexham

Charles Scott, Manager of the Farm Business Survey at Newcastle University writes:

 

The Farm Business Survey team attended the 5th Northern Farming Conference held at Hexham Mart on Wednesday 13th November.

A well attended conference got under way under the chairmanship of Newcastle graduate Robert Sullivan (Partner, Strutt and Parker Farming Department) with a strong opening speech from Allan Wilkinson; Head of Agriculture at HSBC. Allan impressed upon the conference the increasingly volatile global marketplace that UK producers must adapt to and warned of over reliance on a support regime under ever increasing budgetary constraints.

An inspirational delivery from Nuffield Scholar and Sussex dairy farmer Joe Delves followed with a strong focus on attitudinal and mindset approaches to farming.

The conference welcomed the Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who delivered a very upbeat and optimistic Keynote speech that covered progress and future action on TB control and eradication and hinted at future possibilities of policy devolvement from Brussels. The Secretary of State welcomed forthcoming European national food labeling - that would encourage greater consumption of domestic produce, and announced a new Countryside Stewardship Scheme (detailed in a later session delivered by the Regional Director of Natural England).

A technical delivery from Agricultural Engineer Tim Chaman followed the break. Tim extolled the virtues of Controlled Traffic Farming, where all vehicle wheelings are restricted to tramlines at all times - precision guided and working-width-compatible implements, on reducing soil compaction and consequential beneficial impacts on yields.

Local egg producer and 2013 Farmers Weekly Poultry Farmer of the Year Richard Tulip (Lintz Hall Farm) then presented the success story of the expansion of the family business to becoming the largest poultry farm in the North East with all the allied marketing, sponsorship and brand building activities that must go hand in hand with increasing farm output.

Following a splendid lunch, MD of Hexham & Northern Marts Robert Addison, chair for the afternoon sessions, introduced Rob Aubrook the North East Regional Director for Natural England. Rob outlined the details of the new Countryside Stewardship Scheme which will have 3 tiers, the highest of which will be similar to the current HLS scheme but would no longer need to be underpinned by ELS options. He recognised that in the past the relationship between farmers and Natural England was not always perfect but this is improving by taking farmers' opinions on board and working together to deliver the schemes' intended outputs.

Consultant and Adviser to the Agricultural Law Association Geoff Whittaker delivered a lighthearted and myth-busting view of various aspects of EU agricultural law, which can often, unnecessarily he says, provoke resentment and mistrust, but which are regularly the result of language interpretations and varying law codes across the member countries.

John Henderson (Branch President CLA Yorkshire)'s impassioned speech on the merits of Share farming followed. John could not understate the value of share farming agreements to both; allow an easier path to new entrants with limited access to capital, and facilitate an easier and more dignified exit for leavers from the industry.

The final delivery was from Lowther Estate Director of Farming and 2013 Farmers Weekly Farm Manager of the Year Richard Price. Richard outlined the Estate's farm strategy to return the farms to profitability in a sustainable and locally responsible manner, stressing the importance of teamwork and local engagement (with Estate tenants) in supply chains and business operations.

Following questions on the afternoon sessions the conference was closed and delegates encouraged to continue to review the day at the bar or over a splendid array of tea and sandwiches.

Improving knowledge exchange in arable farming

Sean Ryan, Defra’s lead on the Agri-Tech Strategy reflects on a recent workshop exploring knowledge exchange in the arable sector and how it brought new insights to his work

What’s the difference between knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange? Knowledge transfer is one way – someone has a bright idea which then needs to find its way into practice. Knowledge exchange assumes that everybody in the supply chain – farmers, researchers, agronomists, suppliers - has valuable knowledge and experience; the flow of knowledge is much more multi-track than the idea of knowledge transfer would allow.  It sounds much more appealing, doesn’t it, particularly in the world of agriculture where practical expertise is so important.

A well-run workshop is a great way to understand the current debates and concerns in a sector and knowledge exchange certainly comes into that category.  So I was delighted, to receive an invitation from the Agricultural Industries Confederation to a workshop in Peterborough on knowledge exchange in arable farming on 23^rd September.

I work in Defra on the Agri-Tech Strategy (http://www.agritechuk.org/) which is about promoting technology and innovation to make farming more productive and sustainable. The workshop brought some new perspectives about how our work relates to other activities that are already encouraging innovation in the sector.

We got off to a good start by working in groups on mapping knowledge/information flows. This provoked a lively discussion in the group I joined which had agronomists, academics and other experts. In fact this was so absorbing that our facilitator forgot to write anything down so we had a bit of a scramble at the end of the session.  After some scene setting presentations, there was further discussion about possible ways of improving knowledge exchange, helped by an illustrious panel from Newcastle University, Innovate UK, Rothamsted, HL Hutchinsons, Syngenta and AICC.

One theme that came up several times was that the link between commercial research and the farmer worked satisfactorily because there are commercial and/or contractual  reasons for that to happen. However, there were issues with public sector research. Some people thought that that the gap between farmers and researchers had got wider in recent years. Others thought that there were some signs of improvement. There were already positive changes in the way that research councils and institutes were already trying to engage with farmers. The Agri-Tech Strategy is about joining up academics and farming businesses. Some people thought that the Centres for Agricultural Innovation that are being set up under the Strategy should have knowledge exchange built into how they operate.

We also talked about involving farmers in commissioning research and the role of levy boards both in terms of their efforts to ensure the research they support is relevant and in involving them in prioritising research.

For me the main benefit of the workshop was that it helped me understand better the contributions that different types of organisations make to knowledge exchange and the challenges that each faces in doing so.

Plugging the gaps in the knowledge exchange system

Dr Paul Neve, Senior Research Scientist at Rothamsted Research reflects on the growing significance of knowledge exchange in his research

 

As a researcher working in the area of herbicide resistance and weed management, I worked for a number of years in Australia and I have collaborated with researchers at US Land Grant Universities. When I was part of a University research group (the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative) in Perth, Western Australia, knowledge exchange (extension, communication, outreach ….. call it what you will) was an integral part of the group’s work. Amongst a group of about 12 researchers, two full-time staff members worked full time on knowledge exchange. These important members of the team coordinated a KE strategy for the research group, organising farmer events, press releases, research bulletins etc. Importantly, they worked closely with researchers on a day-to-day basis, digesting latest results and distilling these into practical management advice for farmers. Groups of farmers and agronomists regularly visited the university to learn about latest research and provide feedback to researchers – were we asking the right questions? During visits to the US, it has become clear to me that many agricultural researchers have a ‘direct line’ to farmers and ‘extension’ is a key, and clearly recognised aspect of their role as an academic.

 

But it has been obvious for some time that the agricultural research community in the UK has become fragmented. Much excellent research is conducted in universities and institutes, but lines of communication have become a little fuzzy, often resulting in poor translation of ‘pure’ research into applied outcomes.  So I was very pleased to attend the recent Landbridge organised event ‘Building on a solid foundation: improving knowledge exchange in arable farming’ at the Marriott Hotel, Peterborough.  It is encouraging to see that groups such as Landbridge, AHDB and AICC are addressing this important issue and identifying ways to improve knowledge exchange in the arable sector.  This workshop clearly established that independent agronomists and distributors form a key link in the chain between research, interpretation and implementation. I hope that the workshop organisers can synthesise suggestions and ideas that delegates were putting forward into some actions and recommendations that will help to remedy the situation. The signs are promising. Increasingly researchers at Universities and research institutes such as Rothamsted are being encouraged to demonstrate the impact of their research. Fundamental knowledge published in high impact scientific journals is important (very important!) and a clear indication of the scientific strength of individuals, institutes and countries. However, it is clear that the job is only half-done if these scientific breakthroughs do not result in the ‘on the ground’ impacts.

 

Finally, by way of a shameless plug, the BBSRC-HGCA funded black-grass resistance initiative (www.bgri.info) , kicked into life this year. More details can be found at the web site. As part of this project we have established a stakeholder group, consisting of groups such as Landbridge, the HGCA and distributors. We will also set up farmer focus groups for two way exchange of information about herbicide resistant black-grass. Through these channels we hope to ensure effective knowledge exchange and a two way flow of information. We look forward to working with Landbridge and other members of our stakeholder group in the future and learning important lessons about effective KE along the way!

Why farmers need agronomists – but which kind?

Agronomist and Chair of the Association of Independent Crop Consultants, Patrick Stephenson, reflects on the roles of independent and distributor agronomists in knowledge exchange 

 

Who advises farmers?   I took part in a group session tasked with finding the current method of delivering KT to farmers and growers at the Knowledge Transfer meeting in September. The discussion revealed a complex and varied number of organisations/groups/individuals who delivered advice either directly or indirectly to the farmer. The strongest delivery system highlighted by all five groups was the agronomist. It became apparent that any future successful system must involve this trusted on farm relationship.   The delivery of KT at the farm gate, in most cases requires the cooperation of the agronomist to ensure that uptake is good and effective.

But are agronomists a single homogenous group? I was attending on behalf of (AICC) the Association of Independent Crop Consultants. This body represents individuals and groups who deliver on farm advice with no sales related returns. The farmer buys the advice at face value usually in a payment per hectare or per visit. This accounts for approximately 40% of the arable area and consists of 244 advisors, a small proportion of farmers are self advised, the remaining area is covered by a wide group of distributor agronomists.

Distributor agronomists receive a proportion of their individual income from the amount of product they sell.   So there is a big difference between the delivery of an independent agronomist and a distributor agronomist. Non independent agronomists spend the majority of their face to face farmer contact time on sales related discussion how much where and when. The independent agronomists divide their time between a wide sweep of agronomic issues, cultivation, rotation environmental, farm management and planning.

The major distribution companies have invested heavily in near market research primarily geared on product efficacy and added value sales. AICC members have invested heavily in both near market research (product comparisons) and transitional research. The commercial KT is self funding as new products or ideas, in theory, have an added economic value which gives the grower an immediate return. This is not always the case for transitional research or environmental improvements. These messages are much harder to deliver and usual contain some negative economic effects for the grower at least in the short term. But this advice is often the most important and relating it to sales often dilutes or negates the overall message.

 

Thinking afresh about impact and how it's achieved

School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Director of Research Jeremy Phillipson reflects on the constant requirement for "impact" - both from the research funders and from that person who wants to chat to you on the train.

 

We hear so much about “impact” from research now that it threatens to become part of the wallpaper for academics.  But there are occasional situations that really bring it home.  Many of my colleagues will, I’m sure, have faced that situation of sitting on a train when someone asks you what you do and you admit you’re a scientist at a research institution.  And you just know that this will lead to a series of tricky questions, which in all probability will include a rant about taxes paying for researchers and their value and relevance. Of course, we respond by pointing to impacts of research, and how we aim to achieve these by engaging with the people who can benefit.  Research has to justify itself but being put on the spot can be uncomfortable.  It’s true that we can tell the person on the train that things are changing. Success in getting a research grant increasingly depends on producing a convincing Pathways to Impact Plan, setting out how the research will engage industry, professionals, policy makers and others, and how they will benefit. But, like anything else that is prescribed by research funders it’s very easy to make producing those kinds of documents an automatic part of the process.  There’s a danger that writing the plan becomes an end in itself, rather than a means of achieving that all important “impact”.

 

So I have been trying to think anew about ways of achieving real impact in the past few days, prompted by a presentation I would be giving at a workshop in Peterborough.  The event was being organised by Landbridge, the knowledge exchange network that we have launched here in AFRD, and for this particular workshop we were working in association with the Agricultural Industries Confederation, the Association of Independent Crop Consultants and the Home Grown Cereals Authority.  Landbridge aims to bring together farm and land advisers – including veterinarians, agronomists and crop advisers, ecologists, land agents and many others – with researchers for mutually beneficial knowledge exchange. This is a particularly timely endeavor as the Government’s strategy for agricultural technologies and plans for new Centres for Agricultural Innovation rely heavily on translational research and require effective mechanisms for knowledge exchange.

 

But how do we achieve fruitful relationships?   When Philip Lowe and I were directing the Rural Economy and Land Use programme from here in Newcastle we didn’t start from the usual assumption that the researchers would do the science then feed it to the people who needed the results. We decided that we needed to take a step back from focusing on impact as an end product and look more closely at the process of research.  We also realised that scientists needed to draw much more on non-academic sources of expertise. There are many experts who are not scientists. And outside their own fields, scientists may be quite inexpert. However, we emphasise science as a mode of thinking and we pay much less attention to expertise: the skilful deployment of knowledge, skills, experience and other technical capabilities. But expertise is what underpins innovation and problem solving.  Relu was based on this philosophy of expertise exchange. A primary objective of the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme was: “to enhance the impact of research on rural policy and practice by involving stakeholders in all stages”. Stakeholders were involved in the overall design and governance of the programme, shaping its scientific direction and knowledge transfer strategy, and also in the formulation, assessment and conduct of its individual projects. Overall, more than 4000 stakeholders were involved across 90 projects. From this experience we distilled the following principles of expertise exchange.

 

The first principle is to engage stakeholders throughout as active partners in research, to help establish its focus, priorities, conduct and dissemination. We found that practical efforts of upstream engagement could lead to real benefits, in terms of the quality, relevance and take-up of research.

 

The second principle is that expertise exchange relies on an inclusive approach, whereby everyone who is interested in a problem should be engaged in its resolution – that includes public institutions, organised interests, industry, and others across the public, private and third sectors.

 

The third principle is that expertise exchange can occur at any time during the life of a research project, through varied mechanisms. This can include formalised knowledge transfer based upon intellectual property contracts, as well as soft knowledge exchange, including informal networks, and the transfer of warm bodies between research and practice.

 

The fourth principle is that expertise exchange must be reciprocal between researchers and stakeholders. Both must be open to new perspectives, otherwise the relationship can become rather one way. But critically the opening up of the research process to stakeholders recognises the contribution of their expertise in the focusing, conduct and application of research projects.  

 

Landbridge epitomises the learning that came out of the Relu programme.  Within research concerning land use and the rural economy, farm and advisers are key elements in this process of knowledge exchange.  Farmers and land managers rely on them for their expertise.  They don’t just include agronomists but also professions such as vets, land agents, ecologists, and many more.  Events like the one we hosted in Peterborough are the living embodiment of knowledge exchange and the principles outlined above.  But the event was also a reminder to me that as researchers that we have to consider afresh, with each new research application, how we can build knowledge exchange into the process and how enriching that process can be for the research and for achieving that elusive “impact”.

 

Addressing the ‘knowledge gap’

Dr Julie Ingram, Senior Research Fellow at the Countryside & Community Research Institute reflects on the landbridge workshop and her involvement in a European project which is attempting to synthesise and convert agricultural research outcomes into suitable formats for farmers, advisers and others in the supply chain.

I attended the Landbridge workshop Taking Stock of the Links between Research and the Land Professions.at the British Academy on 1 May.

The context of the workshop was knowledge exchange between land professional and researcher. In particular it was looking at how to make communication between research and advisers more effective. One of the emerging themes at the workshop was the so-called ‘knowledge gap’ between researchers and advisers. This has been attributed to past changes in funding and policy, which were intended to make research more responsive to users’ needs, but have led to what some feel is an increasing disconnect between research and practice.

Participants at the Workshop thought that this gap is exacerbated by the large number of research providers (public and private) and their extensive research outputs which makes it difficult for advisers to find relevant information. The nature of the outputs was also considered to be problematic with scientific reports and peer reviewed publications often being too lengthy and written in complex scientific language. Commercial sensitivity, copyright issues and cost also prevented some advisers from accessing outputs.

A recently launched European funded project called VALERIE (VALorising European Research for Innovation in agriculturE and forestry) aims to address some of these issues. It is based on the rationale that many EU and nationally funded research projects in the fields of agriculture and forestry provide excellent scientific results but that outreach and translation of these results into farming and forestry practices is limited.  VALERIE over the course of the next four years  will:

•          Review and summarise knowledge - from national, international and EU research projects and studies - for innovation in agriculture and forestry

•          Convert research outcomes with innovation potential into suitable formats for end-users (farmers, advisers, and enterprises in the supply chain)

•          Consult stakeholders in ten case studies to identify knowledge gaps, assess technical and economic viability of innovative solutions and to reveal barriers to uptake

•          Develop a ‘smart’ search engine for agricultural and forestry knowledge and research outputs, for use by farmers, foresters, advisers and researchers. This ‘Communication Facility’ (“AskValerie.eu”) will not only make new knowledge accessible to the end-users, but will also enable them to share their knowledge, experience and views with peers across Europe. Continuity is ensured by embedding it in the European Innovation Partnership NF Platform

For more information: www.valerie.eu