Oral evidence: Food Security, HC 926Wednesday 5 March 2014
Oral evidence, 5 March 2014.
Witnesses
Henry Robinson, President, CLA, and Nick von Westenholz, Chief Executive, Crop Protection Association, gave evidence.
Chair
Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you very much for participating in our inquiry. If you could just introduce yourselves please for the record.
Henry Robinson
Thank you very much indeed. Henry Robinson, President of the CLA.
Nick von Westenholz
Nick von Westenholz; Chief Executive of the Crop Protection Association.
Chair
I just have a housekeeping matter.
Roger Williams
Just to place on the record, I am a member of the CLA.
Mr Spencer
So am I, Chair, apologies.
Henry Robinson
How nice to be amongst friends.
Chair
You are both very welcome. It is your first appearance before us, so I hope it is a pleasant one. First of all, each of you, what do you think is the one issue that you would like to see to promote better food security?
Henry Robinson
If you have to pin me down to one thing, I would probably say that sustainable production is not the preserve of any one single method of production. I think there is room for all sorts, and I think we see it as a broad church.
Nick von Westenholz
I would say we have heard about diets and about waste, and I certainly agree that those are issues that need to be focused on, but we have not heard today so far very much about production and attempting to increase yields. I think a big issue in the UK is breaking out of the current yield plateaus that we have been experiencing for some time.
Chair
I would just like to turn to the recent floods and the ongoing effect of either flooding or drought, in other years. I was at the NFU conference, not being a member, but I did attend part of the NFU conference last week, where we heard the percentage of agricultural land that is at risk of flooding on a year‑on‑year basis—what assessment has the CLA made of the threat to food security and production caused by the recent flooding of the UK?
Henry Robinson
Recent flooding in the UK, certainly for those involved is an agricultural disaster for them personally; it is also, I would say, an environmental disaster as well. The two are completely linked. Will it affect food security within the UK? No, I am afraid it will not. It is simply not a large enough area. We are in a world market, and a world market will fill any shortfall we have in this country with imports.
Chair
If you just look in my own area, there are going to be multiple licence applications for fracking. We do not yet have an extraction policy. Does the water use that might be required either for farming or for fracking worry you?
Henry Robinson
I think the amount of water required for fracking is clearly an issue, and you will know as well as I do that—the Water Bill is in front of the House at the moment. Clearly the distribution of water and the availability to important and indeed strategic industries is something that we have to get right.
Neil Parish
Good afternoon. Are you concerned about the UK’s reliance on the global market for products we do not produce here, especially perhaps on seasonality and the like? Is there any way we can change any of that?
Henry Robinson
Products we do not produce here.
Neil Parish
Yes, that is right.
Chair
Out‑of‑season products.
Henry Robinson
I see. So you are not thinking of bananas. We clearly have to import a large amount of food.
Neil Parish
Yes, global warming has not got quite that warm yet, but to be serious, no, it is about the products that we are importing, and I think not just the products that we cannot produce here, but also the products that we are importing when seasonally we could grow them here, but not perhaps strawberries in January, or whatever.
Henry Robinson
I think the point there is about the variety of supply from a multitude of different destinations including, of course, home‑grown crops where we can, but food security depends on, and is enhanced by, being able to import, and not being just dependent on supply from one area. Saying we could produce it all from our own resources, if it were true, would leave us liable to a disease or a pest outbreak in this country that would put food security at risk.
Neil Parish
If you look at the moment at the situation in the Ukraine, for instance, Black Sea grain produces a huge percentage of wheat, even in the world market, so there could be a problem, even with something like wheat. So is there a need for us to look at growing more wheat in this country?
Henry Robinson
I do not go down the route of saying that we need to have quotas or be growing more; the market will decide, and if there is a shortage of wheat coming from the Ukraine in the near future, like they had two years ago when they stopped exports when they had a bad harvest, then the price will go up and more wheat will be grown over here.
Neil Parish
Therefore, yes, add to security.
Chair
Mr von Westenholz?
Nick von Westenholz
I would agree with that. I think it is about 60% or so total self‑sufficiency for UK production at the moment, which feels quite low, but I would absolutely agree that you want a diversity of supply, and you would not want to put all your eggs in one basket, to use that phrase. But wheat is a very sophisticated, highly developed marketplace, and you have seen milling wheat prices and wheat prices generally go up in the last week because of the Ukraine crisis. That may well stimulate some sort of supply increase in future, but I think a diversification of supply, both domestic and abroad, is important for food security in the UK.
Neil Parish
Perhaps taking it a bit wider to world security, what impact do you think increased demand for food from China will have on our food security?
Henry Robinson
It is clearly going to be one of the major issues as to food security throughout the world. They are saying that the Asian middle class will rise from 500 million to 3 billion in the next 15 years; that is an absolutely colossal increase, and given what we know to be the case about changing diets, that will have a very considerable effect on the availability of meat and dairy products in particular.
Neil Parish
You are expecting that middle class in the Far East to eat more meat, are you?
Henry Robinson
I think I would, yes.
Neil Parish
Even despite all sorts of propaganda being put about, they may still carry on eating more meat.
Henry Robinson
I think that as long as food remains a free market, they will choose to do that, yes.
Nick von Westenholz
I think it is worth saying as well that you cannot really pull apart domestic food security issues from global food security issues. The fact that there is going to be increased demand across the globe will have an impact on what we are required to do in the UK and Europe in terms of production, and I think the really crucial point about increased population, whether it is China or elsewhere in the globe, is that Europe is going to have to be part of the response to meeting that increased demand.
Neil Parish
Not only is it a matter of food security; it is also going to be a matter of price, is it not, because actually if there is a greater demand, the price will go up?
Henry Robinson
It is a market.
Richard Drax
My next question moves on quite nicely from that one. The world’s population is increasing; demand for food will increase. The EU, bless its socks, is continuing to look at imposing regulations on the farming industry, not least of course on its control of chemicals and pesticides. What are your concerns about this increased use of EU regulations that are targeting this, and of course the impact no doubt on yields and food production? Mr von Westenholz, I will start with you.
Nick von Westenholz
As I said at the beginning, we have a concern about yield plateaus and the fact that there was an extended period of time post‑war where cereal and other crop yields increased exponentially, and that has not happened in the last decade or so. The European regulatory and policy environments do not appear to encourage any way of breaking out of that stalling. The real concern is that as climate change hits over the next 30 to 50 years, and as population globally continues to increase, Europe is going to become comparatively better as a place to produce food because there will be parts of the globe where it becomes very difficult to produce food. Despite that, it appears to me that Europe is actually nobbling its own productive capacity, therefore actually requiring other areas of the world to provide—
Richard Drax
Because of the regulations of what you can put on the crops.
Nick von Westenholz
Yes. So that is a key area. GM is obviously another issue.
Richard Drax
I am assuming an awful lot of research is going on to try to reduce what we put on our crops.
Nick von Westenholz
Precision farming would allow you to target better what you use in terms of inputs on your crops. Most farmers would be absolutely delighted if they were given the tools that allowed them to be much more targeted and therefore reduce their overheads in terms of inputs. So absolutely, if you look at investment in Europe in terms of crop protection products—so insecticides, herbicides, fungicides—it has dropped since the mid-1990s from about 33% of global expenditures being focused on Europe to now about 7%. So there is a desertion of investment in these technologies.
Richard Drax
Are yields dramatically down in that period?
Nick von Westenholz
Yields have plateaued. From post-war until the 1970s or 1980s, you got 2% to 3% yield increases decade on decade. Since the 1990s, wheat yields have essentially been the same in the last 15 to 20 years.
Henry Robinson
Can I just pick up on that? I think the real need for reform is in this process of how long and how costly it is to bring forward new products. It is an incredibly long period—something like 10 years—and it costs something like £200 million to bring a new product to the market. Two‑thirds of that £200 million is in the authorisation process, and what is happening is multinational firms are choosing, frankly, to go elsewhere rather than do it in Europe because it is too expensive, too long, and too complicated.
Richard Drax
Which member states generally support the EU approach and which do not? Do you know?
Nick von Westenholz
It slightly depends on the issues. There is obviously always going to be—
Richard Drax
Generally on herbicides and pesticides, which are you —
Nick von Westenholz
I would say that we would support the UK’s approach over recent times in the way that they have approached these issues, which has been very much pro‑innovation, pro‑science, and based on evidence. Elsewhere in Europe, there have been other countries that have not followed that, many of them. It depends on what particular issues—
Richard Drax
Sorry, the EU approach, now—the regulatory system—which of the EU countries are backing it, and which are not? Over half? Are we on our own?
Nick von Westenholz
As I say, it is on a case‑by‑case basis, but take, for instance, an example that some people here will be familiar with: the recent neonicotinoid debate around bee health and pollinators, where the EU actually did not come to a majority decision about banning those, but a number of countries— for example, France—certainly voted to ban those products, whereas the UK did not. I can provide a breakdown of how the voting went.
Richard Drax
I am just looking for a general picture on agriculture and growing agricultural crops; where are we? Are EU members for or against the regulatory system generally?
Nick von Westenholz
Generally for it.
Richard Drax
They are for it, despite the fact that years of—
Nick von Westenholz
Much of it is based obviously in the Commission, so it is not necessarily a member-state-by-member-state issue. The Commission itself has obviously backed up the regulatory system. The Commission seems to be very comfortable with that, and actually moved the last review five or six years ago to a hazard‑based system, where it looks at regulating products simply on the basis that it poses a hazard, rather than actually the specific risk that it may in real life provide.
Richard Drax
So that is the Commission, unelected commissioners. What are the countries saying? Can you expand on what you think the EU countries are feeling about all this regulation?
Henry Robinson
I am not in a position to give you, I am afraid, what is happening in Europe. I could just give you two examples as to where we are on the wrong end of chemicals being restricted in this country, and one is the well‑known example of Asulam, which we only get as an annual licence now, and it is essentially for controlling the bracken in upland areas for sheep production, and the other of course is the well‑known example of Warfarin, which is costing far too much to re‑license, and which we lose, as of 1 April this year, for control of that invasive species, the grey squirrel.
Sheryll Murray
Could I turn to organic production please? Is it possible to reconcile the identified need for greater output produced sustainably with reliance on more organic and extensive agricultural production?
Henry Robinson
If you are asking me, I find it very difficult to; I really do. If I take you back 200 years, when Thomas Malthus was writing that he did not think it was possible to feed the world when there was 1 billion people in it; we are now feeding 7 billion, wasting a remarkable amount of food as it is at the moment, and food has never been cheaper as a percentage of average income, in this country at least. So technologically, we have done it, and I think the technological route is the solution to this problem. We need to get better ways, and better methods, and more science and better science, in order to find our way through to food security.
Nick von Westenholz
When we talk about sustainable intensification, it is a buzz‑phrase often used around these discussions. We are talking about increasing output on the same, or even less resources—using less resource, so less land being an obvious one. I do find it hard to see, and it was discussed in the last session, how we would achieve that through entirely organic approaches. Having said that, I do think it is not just about being able to use more inputs or more pesticides or even fertilisers; it is about taking quite an integrated approach. So it is about taking new approaches in terms of cultivation, rotations, precision technology, but also using, in a targeted manner, technology through things like pesticides and fertilisers.
Sheryll Murray
Can I ask you both please, whether there is any evidence to suggest that organic farming encourages greater biodiversity, rather than conventional agricultural systems, which might have the environmental policy requirements?
Nick von Westenholz
The key to biodiversity is about management; it is about the approach to farming you take. There was some research done recently by the University of Southampton, and it showed that some of the best results in terms of biodiversity—this used farmland birds as its indicator—was through either environmental stewardship approaches or conservation grade‑specific wildlife‑management approaches to farming, and not organic approaches. However, if you had an organic farming approach that actually followed those same criteria, that would then have equally positive effects. It is not about organic farming or the use of pesticides or not; it is about the specific approach you take to creating a habitat alongside your farming and food production that encourages biodiversity.
Henry Robinson
I would echo that; it is exactly what we do as part of an HLS farm at home. Environmental management requires active management and setting aside land for doing good things with the environment. The issue, of course, is how you then pay for that, because it is land that is then not producing food.
Roger Williams
This is perhaps a question for the CLA. Do EU and UK farmers have poorer access to new technology than farmers in the USA and South America would have?
Henry Robinson
There are two potential answers to your question. One is that, if by technology you mean things like precision farming, GPS satellites and robotic tractors, the answer is no. It is certainly available over here, and larger farms are certainly using those. However, of course, with any new technology you need it to be profitable in order to be able to pay for it. The second answer to that is, if by technology you mean GM new technology, clearly the answer is no. We do not have the same access to that, and that, on balance, is a shame.
Roger Williams
Would you say the necessary advice is available to farmers in order to change their production method?
Henry Robinson
We have lost a great deal of the advisory system. Certainly, there is an enormous role for the levy boards, for the Farming Advice Service and for a lot of close‑to‑the‑market advice there. The area where there is an obvious and distinct shortage is in scientific research and development, and, of course, extending that knowledge into the marketplace after that.
Roger Williams
Perhaps I could ask the representative of the Crop Protection Association what farmers and landowners should be doing to access the technology needed to improve their yields.
Nick von Westenholz
It is a good question, because it is something that has occupied the minds of successive Governments recently—the whole issue of knowledge transfer, about how we try and connect up the R and D work that is being done to go beyond the farm gate. The agri‑tech strategy recently launched by this Government very much focused on doing that, but, of course, the proof will be in the pudding. There is a lot of positive intent there in terms of knowledge transfer, but it remains to be seen—it is early days yet—whether that actually gets borne out. Henry has already spoken about some of those mechanisms or vehicles, such as the levy boards and the Farming Advice Service, which can actually link up. It is important that those are used, as well as more informal routes such as advisors, agronomists and crop advisers and so on, whom farmers listen to and take advice from.
Roger Williams
Going back to the issue of EU regulation, I am sometimes told that research is cramped because there may be a regulation on the appearance of particular chemicals in groundwater at such low concentrations that, in fact, the only criteria that is used is, “Can it be measured?” If it can be measured, it stops the research going ahead. So many potentially new chemicals are ruled out because of these particular regulations. Is that a fair suggestion?
Nick von Westenholz
It is broadly recognised that the regulations around drinking water are basically arbitrary and that the very low‑level thresholds for chemicals in drinking water pose no risk whatsoever to health. However, that is where we are. It is an EU Directive and it is posing problems. For example, Metaldehyde slug pellets, which are widely used, are very much under the spotlight at the moment, because they do occasionally crop up at levels above that threshold, even though nobody is suggesting they pose any risk to public health above those levels. However, the industry is working very hard—this is a voluntary approach to stewardship—to try to keep those levels well below the threshold.
Mr Spencer
Mr Robinson, I wanted to talk about small farmers. Perhaps you could also tell us what defines a small farmer in your answer, but should the Government be doing anything to support small farmers or should we leave it to the market?
Henry Robinson
The UK has a larger average farm size than most of the rest of Europe, but that does not mean to say the holdings are any bigger. In my terms, a small farmer would probably be in two figures rather than three figures of acreage, but it is very hard to be specific, because if you are on an intensive system on 50 acres you can be producing a great deal of food. In essence, small farmers are very good at finding niche markets and producing local produce for local areas. Of course, that is it. However, it is and has to remain part of the market. There is help being pushed towards them as part of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms, but it is pretty small and pretty limited.
Neil Parish
Along the same lines, Mr Robinson, how important are new entrants to the farming industry for our future food security?
Henry Robinson
Behind your question, I suspect, is the knowledge that the average age of farmers is about 58 or 59, which I used to think was rather old. It has grown a lot, however.
Neil Parish
As someone fast approaching that age, I am inclined to agree with you.
Henry Robinson
We always say we need new entrants; actually, what we need is good farmers. Farmers have to work hard and be technologically good, which is what will happen if the market makes them do that. It is a market‑based system.
Neil Parish
As a CLA representative, perhaps share farming initiatives could assist.
Nick von Westenholz
We pioneered share farming in the 1980s. Coming out on 2 July this year will be our updated share farming system. We are as innovative and forward‑thinking about this as anyone. Contract farming has taken a lot of the ground on that, but, for livestock systems, share farming is extremely useful.
Chair
I have a particular interest in tenant farmers and whether there is a problem in having new entrants into tenant farms. I do not know whether it is a problem of succession, but is there more we could be doing to encourage new entrants into tenancies?
Henry Robinson
It is clearly about education coming out of the agricultural colleges and making land available. That is certainly happening with regard to new enterprises and people doing—
Chair
I will give you a little story. I heard about it on the radio, even though it is a local boy. A local lad wanted to become a farmer, but had no access to land; he had no family connections with farming. Castle Howard gave him a field so that he could start his rare breeds. This is just about how to explore what the vehicle should be.
Henry Robinson
Was that not almost exactly what would have been covered by the CLA share farming agreement? There you are: you have somebody putting the land in and the other man putting in his expertise and perhaps a percentage of the stock. That system is available already. We get very hung up on the difference or the similarity of owning land and farming land. The two are separate occupations.
Chair
As far as you are concerned, share farming works very well.
Henry Robinson
Share farming is a good system. I was speaking to a farmer the other day who had eight different share farming arrangements. The real point is this: he has had them all for 30 years. They have just been carrying on.
Chair
Okay, thank you very much indeed. I am going to wind up now, because we have another Panel as well, but you have been incredibly patient and generous with your time. Thank you. Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses
Professor Melanie Welham, Executive Director of Science, BBSRC, Dr Paul Burrows, Executive Director of Corporate Policy and Strategy, BBSRC, and Professor Sue Hartley, Director, York Environmental Sustainability Institute, University of York, gave evidence.
Chair
Good afternoon, and welcome. You have been very patient. Could each of you introduce yourselves for the record?
Professor Hartley
I am Professor Sue Hartley. I am Professor of Ecology at the University of York, where my research focuses on novel, sustainable pest‑control methods and improving crop resilience to climate change. I am also the Director of the York Environmental Sustainability Institute, which is a cross‑disciplinary institute between natural, social and physical sciences, designed to provide the evidence base for sustainable solutions to global challenges.
Professor Welham
I am Professor Melanie Welham. I am currently on secondment from the University of Bath. I am Executive Director of Science at the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. I am here with my colleague to represent both our research council and also the strategic partnership of the seven research councils in the UK, RCUK.
Dr Burrows
I am Paul Burrows; I am Executive Director of Corporate Policy and Strategy at BBSRC, but part of my brief is also to look across our food security strategy more generally.
Chair
Obviously, where you agree, you do not have to speak, but where you disagree, it would be helpful to know. If there was one thing you would like to see to promote food security, what would it be? Professor Hartley?
Professor Hartley
One thing that would be extremely helpful would be to have a rather longer‑term and larger‑scale perspective on research to underpin food security. It is a grand challenge; research can support it both directly and indirectly, but a lot of the issues will require rather longer‑term and larger‑scale experimentation than we are currently very well equipped for. For example, if we wanted to understand the most efficient use of break crops in a crop rotation and how they could foster improved soil health and productivity, you cannot do that in a three‑year research grant. We need rather longer‑term programmes and we also could do with some facilities on which to base those programmes. That is probably two things, which is cheating. The number of agriculture departments in universities and university farms has declined quite steeply recently, but there is considerable interest now in on‑farm technology platforms, where we can trial some of the new approaches to improving food security.
Professor Welham
I would build on that theme, really. It is a complex area and there are many interdependencies. The one thing we really need is to get people working across disciplines, in a multi‑disciplinary fashion, to address some of these interdependencies between food, environment and energy, and to consider not just the food aspect, but the wider social, economic and environmental context as well.
Chair
From where you sit, what do you believe the main driver for research is? If you look at the farming community, for example, the CLA highlights the need for more research to be transferred commercially to bring the product closer to the market and greater public‑sector funding into food and farming research. The Government has a new £160 million fund for agricultural technologies, we were hearing earlier. Where do you think the main driver for research is at the moment? Is it in the right place, Dr Burrows?
Dr Burrows
From RCUK’s perspective generally, one of the issues is trying to enable sustainable intensification, which is a concept I am sure you are very familiar with. The challenges ahead for food security are familiar to us all: rising global populations needing to produce more from the same area of land, broadly, with fewer inputs and so on. These really are enormous challenges. As Sue says, that is going to take long‑term strategic investment in research. The basic research, the sort of research we are talking about, will probably not pay dividends for 10 or 15 years. However, at the same time, that needs to be translated into solutions and practical applications on‑farm. Getting the balance between those two is the really crucial issue. When you did your original inquiry back in 2009, if you had asked me that I would have said, “We have got the balance completely wrong,” because there was clearly, in my view, not enough translation of the fantastic science that the research councils have funded into practical application. We have seen that beginning to change over the last few years quite positively. The TSB has come into the mix and has started to make a difference there. However, more recently, the agri‑tech strategy—in particular, the agri‑tech catalyst fund—provides a new funding stream to help academics and business, working together, to take the great ideas coming out of the research base a little bit further towards application and commercialisation. I believe that is really to be welcomed.
Chair
Would you agree with that, Professor Hartley?
Professor Hartley
Yes, certainly. There is a lot to be learned about the new agri‑tech innovation strategy. It is great to see that level of investment from the heart of Government. It can deliver on a number of fronts. The obvious one, as Paul said, is it can help academics and end users interact more effectively. The agri‑tech catalyst programme has been a great stimulus. The first round of that programme was six‑fold oversubscribed. There is a lot of interest from industry in those kinds of interactions. They do help deliver the solutions that the farming industry is looking for. If I have a concern, it is that we are building up from quite a low baseline in terms of academic researchers interacting with industry in this area. A lot of the key industry players are global companies, whose food production lies outside the UK. The issue for the leadership council will be to ensure the message gets out to the big players in the UK—such as they are these days; a lot of companies have left the UK—that this is for them and to persuade them to come up with the level of investment the Government is looking for.
Chair
I have one more question in two parts. Is the present funding for research into food security adequate? Is the focus specifically on securing food supplies or is it on improving food security as a secondary objective?
Professor Welham
I can speak to that, if you like. Following the 2009 inquiry, BBSRC were leading in establishing the Global Food Security programme, which brings in a lot of the research councils and Government Departments. Collectively, those Departments spend £350 million annually on food security‑related research across a whole range of areas. That is not just in production, but also around resilience, sustainable productivity and supply, nutrition, health and wellbeing, and reducing waste in the food supply chain as well. By bringing that collective together and identifying where some of the key challenges are where people can work together, we have identified a lot of those key questions and are continuing to do so. GFS is very proactive in looking at whether we are addressing the right questions and whether there are other questions we should be looking at. They have active programmes ongoing in this area.
Professor Hartley
I would agree there has been a very positive start from the research councils. It is particularly nice to see them working together so closely in initiatives like GFS. As I mentioned before, for some of the larger‑scale and longer‑term work, there might need to be some reinvestment. As we have already said, looking at food security as a whole, I would emphasise that it does require an interdisciplinary approach. Certainly, the focus has probably been on improved crop production, but that is only one small part of food security. At YESI, what we try to do is look across the whole food supply chain, from studying soil health, crop production and crop protection right through to studying on‑farm waste and how make the best use of it, and, critically, the socioeconomics of the farming system, the uncertainty in global food supply chains and the volatility produced by climate change and other drivers. That kind of integrated approach, right across the piece, is what is required.
Richard Drax
Can we move onto precision agriculture now? We have heard that China has apparently invested quite heavily in this. Here in Europe and the UK, certainly, companies are not doing so, or they are investing less. What is your view of precision agricultural techniques? Dr Burrows, let us start with you.
Dr Burrows
They hold a lot of promise. If we take one of the challenges of food security as resource use efficiency and getting more from less, that kind of technological approach is low‑hanging fruit—no pun intended—in a way, because they are fantastic ways that we can use agricultural machinery in real time, going across fields, to map yields, nutrient content and so on, and be very sparing with the amount of pesticides or fertilisers we are putting on. The TSB has recently had a call for—I am paraphrasing—engineering for agriculture, which TSB and the BBSRC have defined, with others—about moving some of the existing technologies closer to market. The Global Food Security programme, and BBSRC within that, recognises the need to inspire more basic research, which can lead through eventually into those kinds of practical applications. Under the auspices of GFS, we had a workshop in recent months that identified things like robotics, sensors and imaging—particularly satellite imaging—as key areas of technology, which we might try to invest in and develop. This is very early stage, basic research, but it would come through to practical application down the line. To answer your question, it holds a lot of promise.
Richard Drax
Everyone is nodding their heads. Do you want to add anything to what Dr Burrows has said?
Professor Welham
No. The only thing I would add is that, actually, the use of precision agriculture can help with the environment, because there can potentially be less damage to the soil, less compaction and fewer issues around that, as well. That is the only thing I would add.
Professor Hartley
We are doing a lot of interesting research in this area in the UK. I was talking to a colleague of mine at the University of Manchester, who directs the Syngenta Sensors Centre, and they have some really innovative projects using sensors, either in the soil or on tractors and other robotics, not only to reduce inputs of pesticides and nutrients by spatial precision, but also doing things like early‑warning systems for fungal pathogens in cereal crops. These sensors are now starting to deliver on a lot of different fronts and it is really exciting.
Richard Drax
Just briefly, are there any quick wins we can adopt now that are not being adopted or are not available and need further exploration immediately?
Professor Welham
There are none that come immediately to mind.
Richard Drax
Satellite imagery is already being used; I know that we do it ourselves, with satellite equipment on combine harvesters and so on. That is all coming in, but are there any other quick wins?
Professor Hartley
I would just make one comment. Our spatial precision is probably better than our temporal precision.
Richard Drax
Forgive me; I am very stupid. In English, that means what?
Professor Hartley
That means we are very good at putting sensors on our tractors and saying, “You need to dollop a bit of fertiliser on this particular patch in this spatial area.” We are probably less good at saying exactly when you should dollop that little bit of fertiliser on, in terms of the use of things like slow‑release fertilisers and fertilisers that do not get washed away the minute it rains. It is that sort of area. We could do more on temporal precision, on the timing.
Richard Drax
So more tying in with weather forecasters and those sorts of things so the application goes on at the right time.
Professor Hartley
Exactly, yes. The other quick win would be to improve our interaction between ground‑truthing and remote sensing.
Richard Drax
Sorry; in English again.
Professor Hartley
It means measuring things on the ground with a real person and linking that to what your satellite or aircraft is telling you from the air. We could improve the quality of our predictions from remote sensing by understanding the link between what is actually happening on the ground and what the sensors tell us.
Richard Drax
It is about having a real person on the ground to do the ground‑truthing.
Professor Hartley
Yes.
Dr Burrows
To finish your question, if we could invest in just one thing, my bet would be sensors, because I am told so many times, “If we can measure it, we can do something about it.”
Richard Drax
Finally, will the new agri‑tech catalyst fund encourage the commercialisation of precision agriculture in the UK?
Dr Burrows
It should do, because it is precisely there to encourage the translation and application of good ideas that are in the academic community or in business already. It provides a source of funding to do that, which has not been there previously.
Professor Hartley
Very quickly, all of the projects I have spoken to Bruce Grieve about in the Syngenta Sensors Centre are funded by TSB under the agri‑tech catalyst programme.
Richard Drax
That sounds like an advert, does it not?
Professor Hartley
It is definitely working.
Roger Williams
From all three panels, we have heard about the importance of soil, and soil fertility, compaction, composition and structure. It seems that soil science is regaining some of its status in the scientific world. You have already answered quite a lot of this, but could you tell us how the publicly funded research is addressing these issues? We have had some comments in written evidence saying that there is a fundamental lack of knowledge in this area.
Professor Welham
The research councils have recognised collectively—this is partly due to coming together under the GFS programme—that we really need to consider the soil, because soils actually provide a whole lot of services to us that we would not perhaps think about. They are the medium for growth; they are a location where microorganisms and other organisms live; and, obviously, they are key to food, fodder and fuel production. The Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, has been leading on developing a soil‑security programme, which BBSRC, Defra and the Scottish Government are also involved in, which is really trying to build up a series of approaches to understand much better how our soils function, what determines their function and how those functions change when either the climate, land use or nearby land use change. It is not just at a small‑plot scale. You need to look at multiple scales: plot, field, landscape and earth systems. Again, it requires this multidisciplinary approach, which is why we are working together to address some of those problems. It is an area that is very much recognised. We are seeing increasing activity from the public funders in wanting to encourage and support research in that area, recognising that we need to look at it in a very holistic way, because it is multifaceted and we need to take into account all of those things. You mentioned that other witnesses have suggested that there are gaps in knowledge; there certainly are gaps in knowledge. That is why we need to invest in the fundamental understanding, so we can develop that knowledge and so we can inform policy and land‑management decisions, not just at the level of the farmer, but actually more broadly as well. Those gaps are recognised and we are trying to encourage research to address those challenges.
Professor Welham
It is a very complex area, however.
Dr Burrows
It is very complex and could largely absorb our whole budget.
Professor Hartley
It is a critical time for soils. They are certainly at risk globally from a great number of threats. In some areas of the world, we are losing soil 100 times faster than it is being formed. The time to act is now, but we have one very positive thing and one slightly tricky thing. The very positive thing is that we now have techniques that help us see into the soil. It is a kind of black box full of organisms that we cannot see and we do not know how they work, but now we can tell because we have new genomic and DNA technologies, which means we can understand a lot more about the biological functions of soil. That is a positive development in terms of technology helping us understand how soil organisms underpin soil function, whether that is carbon storage or crop production. However, because these techniques are very new, what we do not understand is how to link that biological function with the information we have about soils from soil surveys. They have almost been collected with Victorian‑type parameters, such as soil pH and texture. It is about linking those physical and chemical parameters with the biological ones that is quite hard, because we cannot look back. It is linking that knowledge together that is really important, but it could be very fruitful, and now is the time to do it. The slightly difficult thing is that, despite a lot of new investment in soils, both from NERC and BBSRC, both of those programmes are relatively small. The soil security programme is only £8 million. It sounds like a lot, but that funds six or seven projects. The issue is that the soil surveys we are using to try to understand the long‑term changes in soils are carried out by different organisations. CEH carry out some; BGS carry out some; Cranfield University carry out some. The information is fragmented. That is an issue. The other issue is it is not clear now whose responsibility it is to do the next soil survey. There are no plans at the moment to do a soil survey of England. Wales and Scotland are taken care of.
Roger Williams
Could you write to us about this?
Professor Hartley
Yes. That means, of course, that we do not knit those things together. There is one more very positive point that I must just say in defence of the research council. NERC have started a soil observatory. They are going to distil all the soil information into one place and launch that in April. That will be a huge benefit, but we do need to look at this issue for the future.
Roger Williams
To get all of that work done, you need soil scientists and hydrologists. When I was on this Committee about six years ago, we found that there were very few hydrologists being trained in this country. How are you going to get these young people enthused and excited about this work?
Professor Welham
The research councils are continually looking at where we need to have skills, where skills need to be developed and where we can work with others to enable those skills to be developed, either through directly funding studentships or other types of partnerships. We have funded advanced training partnerships, where people working in the agri‑food sector can actually undergo professional postgraduate training courses towards qualifications. Those are ways of changing people’s skills. However, as people more generally understand how critical the issue around food security is, it will increase people’s perception, and people’s interests will naturally follow that. It is incumbent on all of us to continue to emphasise how important it is.
Professor Hartley
One very small additional point is that a lot of soil science departments, rather like the agriculture departments, have fallen by the wayside in universities. A last issue to consider is that a lot of our hydrologists and soil scientists are currently in the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. The ownership of that organisation is currently under debate, which is another thing to consider for the future.
Neil Parish
What research has been carried out on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock? A recent FAO report indicates that the livestock sector contributes some 14.5% of all human‑induced emissions.
Professor Welham
We are funding a number of research programmes. I will give you the example of IBERS, our strategically funded institute at the University of Aberystwyth, where they have actually bred high‑sugar grasses. When cattle are fed on these, it has been shown that they have 24% higher meat and milk production and a 20% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. You are getting greater outputs of products that you would want to use—milk and meat—and less greenhouse gas emissions.
Neil Parish
Is this partly because the animals finish quicker?
Professor Welham
It is in terms of the way the high‑sugar grasses are actually digested and treated within the cattle rumen. I am aware that both Asda and Sainsbury are encouraging the use of those high‑sugar grasses on their farms as a way of mitigating or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Another programme that we are also funding at IBERS is trying to model the cattle and sheep rumen to understand how it functions and how we can optimise its function, both from the point of view of production, so that there is maximum nutrient production, but also from the point of view of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Another point I would like to make is that it is well recognised that healthy animals produce far less greenhouse gas than unhealthy animals. Animals suffering from endemic diseases in the UK contribute more extensively to greenhouse gas. We have very large investments, with the Roslin Institute and the Pirbright Institute, in maintaining animal health and managing disease to mitigate against that as well. That is an important point.
Dr Burrows
May I add to that? The other side of this is the management system of the animals themselves. If we look at pasture, for example, depending on how it is managed, pasture emits a lot of greenhouse gases. It is fertilised; ammonia comes off the pasture. We really need the infrastructure to be able to understand, measure and experiment with these farm‑scale effects of agricultural management. At the moment, we effectively have one farm‑scale research platform, which is North Wyke in Devon, which is lowland sheep and beef. I believe some of the Members of the Committee might be visiting there shortly. This really is a national infrastructure. We need more of them. We need more of those experimental‑type and highly instrumented farms, where various parameters of the water runoff and greenhouse gas emissions can be measured under different agricultural regimes in different parts of the country, and not just livestock, too. There are different forms of arable and different geographic regions. That ties in with what Sue was saying right at the beginning about the big picture, the big programme and the big project that would really help the sustainability of agriculture.
Neil Parish
This final part is a slightly different angle to the question I asked Mr Melchett. Given the contribution livestock makes to our emissions, are the changes in the grass system—producing new grasses and the like—sufficient or will we have to begin to eat less meat?
Professor Welham
You can ask from a scientific point of view or from a philosophical point of view, I suspect.
Professor Hartley
I am a vegetarian.
Professor Welham
Clearly, if the high‑sugar grasses are used more widely, we will see significant reductions in greenhouse gas emission, which will help us as a country meet the targets we have for 2050. However, if there is a rebalancing in our nutritional diets and the nutrition that we require, you could see a case where we have higher‑quality and higher‑welfare livestock production, which could mitigate against that. However, there has been research conducted by the ESRC, who are one of our research councils, which has shown that it is very, very difficult to change human consumption behaviour. It does not move very much.
Neil Parish
That is really the correct answer.
Chair
Just before I lose everyone, could I ask a couple of questions on biofuels? There is a big argument about biofuels. This is specifically directed at the University of York, who mentioned it in their submission. Are biofuels a threat to food security? What are the benefits of second and third‑generation biofuels?
Professor Hartley
The second and third‑generation of biofuels are an important development, because, clearly, if we have to produce more food, if we are growing fuel we are not growing food by definition. However, the new generation of biofuels are removing that kind of issue, because they are focusing on generating fuel from the non‑food part of crop products, such as the straw components and the non‑grain components, which are often not used for anything useful at the moment. Using them for biofuels is really helpful.
Chair
We have spent years investigating how to stop diesel from freezing in the winter. Now that we have 10% biofuels in a diesel tank, it is now thickening and freezing in the winter, because that does not have any additive in it. Will there be some research done into that?
Professor Hartley
My understanding is the third‑generation biofuels will be much more similar to existing fuels and will be alkane-based, and so they will not suffer from these disadvantages.
Professor Welham
They are not there yet, however.
Professor Hartley
That should save your tank.
Chair
Professor Hartley, how are you getting on with the Initiative in Agri‑food Resilience that you started last year? It was a joint initiative between FERA—you will be pleased to hear we went to visit them at Sand Hutton—and the University of York. When is the study likely to conclude?
Professor Hartley
That is an ongoing collaboration between the University of York and FERA. We are pooling our expertise to try to understand the resilience of the entire food chain right across it, from improving soil health right through to making better use of waste and securing food supply chains, looking at the socioeconomics of this. A big part of it is also food integrity, which is around understanding more about food safety and how to ensure that food supply chains remain safe and unadulterated. That is about less horse meat, basically.
Neil Parish
There are not enough agriculture graduates. What is being done to encourage more and address this?
Professor Welham
I can start. The research councils do not fund undergraduate degrees, but obviously we are interested in working with the university sector around the skills that are needed. We do fund postgraduate students; 27% of the postgraduate students we do fund are in the area relating to food security. At that level, we are taking students and they are developing the skills that are going to be needed for this area. I cannot speak for the university sector in its agricultural capacity; perhaps Sue can.
Professor Hartley
As I have already mentioned, the number of university agriculture departments is now vanishingly small.
Chair
There are very good agricultural colleges, however, which have university status.
Professor Hartley
There are, yes. That is the way forward, because a lot of agriculture departments have closed, but what is happening now is that some of the skills are within other departments in universities. The good thing would be to facilitate interactions between research‑intensive universities doing, say, crop science and practitioners training the next generation of farmers. At York, that is very much in our minds. We have had long conversations with Askham Bryan College and Bishop Burton College, because, of course, they are training the next generation of farmers on‑farm. That is a good way forward to bring together the fundamental research into plant and animal science at universities and these agricultural colleges. That is a great way forward.
Neil Parish
Could I just follow up? Are you finding, within the education institutions, that, because food, food security and agriculture are starting to become more important across the world again, partly because of food prices and everything else, there are more students within higher education interested in agriculture again?
Chair
Also, how are you transferring the knowledge from your institutions and universities to the agricultural sector?
Professor Hartley
There are a number of options. I can only speak for York, and we do not recruit to an agriculture degree per se; we have biology degrees. Recruitment to biology is robust, but the students often veer towards the biomedical side, to be honest. Encouraging them to pursue the more agricultural and ecological modules can be actually quite hard. I do not know whether that is a feature of the kind of debts they graduate with and whether they are more focused on careers they perceive as delivering debt reduction a bit quicker than being a farmer. That is one challenge, but the other challenge is to try to inspire them with something of the nature of the grand challenge that we face. It is incumbent upon us, as university teachers, to get the message across to the next generation of biologists: these problems and issues need addressing now. They are the guys who will have to fix it, because they are living with it. If we can inspire them that the solutions are out there and if they can train up and help deliver improved food security, it is a huge thing to do.
Chair
That is a very inspirational note on which to close, if I may. There may be things that we write to you about to expand on, which we have not had time for, particularly on that point in relation to Mr Williams’ question; it would be very helpful. Thank you all very much for being with us. Oral evidence: Food Security, HC 926 28