See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343122439

Integrated Farming Systems

Chapter · July 2020

DOI: 10.1201/9780429346255-23

CITATIONS READS

6 990

1 author:

John M. Holland
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
164 PUBLICATIONS   8,490 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Farm4Bio View project

QuESSA (HU) - landscape context View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John M. Holland on 16 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS
John M. Holland
The Game Conservancy Trust, Fordingbridge,
Hampshire, United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
The system of agricultural production has undergone im-
mense changes in the past three decades (1). Crop yields
have increased through a combination of plant breeding,
intensive use of pesticides and inorganic fertilizer, and
greater mechanization. Farming systems based on high in-
puts of agrochemicals and intensive tillage are now rec-
ognized as being unsustainable because they cause soil
erosion, soil nutrient depletion, environmental pollution,
increased pest problems, and public health hazards. In
addition the profitability of cereal and oil crop produc-
tion also declined at the end of the 20th century forc-
ing farmers to examine ways of reducing their production
costs (1). As a consequence farming is facing economic,
political, environmental, and social pressures that are
forcing changes in the methods of crop production. In
response, a range of different production systems has
evolved that try to address these issues. The most extreme
are the organic or biological systems in which agro-
chemical use is almost eliminated. Various systems have
been defined that are between the extremes, such as
integrated farming systems, and these aim to use lower
inputs and as such are regarded as being more sus-
tainable (2). Many definitions exist for integrated farm-
ing but the most appropriate is all encompassed in the
description by El Titi (3) ‘‘an holistic pattern of land
use, which integrates natural regulation processes into
farming activities to achieve a maximum replacement of
off-farm inputs and to sustain farm income.’’ Integrated
farming therefore incorporates the principles of inte-
grated crop management (ICM) and integrated pest
management (IPM) but takes a long-term, whole-farm
approach that considers all aspects of crop production
and land management (2). The emphasis is on preserving
farm profitability by optimizing inputs, although conse-
quently there may be ecological benefits and overall
greater sustainability (4).
Encyclopedia of Pest Management
Copyright D 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All rights reserved.
WHAT IS FORCING THE CHANGES?
The driving forces where integrated farming has been
adopted vary between countries and farmers. The main
influences are outlined below.
Legislation
The withdrawal of many pesticides (e.g., in Denmark) has
led to some farmers having no option but to adopt in-
tegrated or organic systems. Some countries (e.g., The
Netherlands) have set targets for national conversion to
sustainable agriculture based on integrated farming (5).
Economic Pressure
Recent declines in cereal and oil seed values and price
support has made European farmers look closely at their
variable and fixed production costs and therefore a more
integrated approach. Agrienvironment payments encour-
age better habitat management. Cross compliance, modul-
ation, etc., if adopted may force more widespread changes.
Green Marketing Incentive
Crop assurance schemes may include integrated practices.
These may provide a premium over conventionally pro-
duced food or are a requirement for the larger supermarket
retailers (5).
Environmental
The widespread decline in farmland wildlife is now
recognized by governments, farmers, environmental or-
ganizations, and the general public (1, 6). To mitigate
some of these changes farmers are adopting some of
the principles of integrated farming, especially with
respect to pesticide use and management of their ecolo-
gical infrastructure.
410
Integrated Farming Systems
Agronomic
When pesticide resistance reaches such levels that chem-
ical control is no longer possible or economical then far-
mers have to look for alternative solutions (7).
DEVELOPMENT OF INTEGRATED FARMING
The integrated approach incorporates all aspects of farm
management and therefore requires knowledge of the in-
teractions between components in the system, before the
concept can be promoted to farmers. In many countries,
long-term farm studies have been conducted to develop an
integrated system and in some cases economic and envi-
ronmental comparisons were made with the conventional
approach (4, 8). Overall integrated farming proved equally
profitable (4, 8). Lower yields could be expected, but this
loss was compensated for by using lower inputs of agro-
chemicals and energy. In the United Kingdom results from
nine farm-scale studies in which integrated and conven-
tional farming was compared were pooled for analysis. In
the integrated system substantial reductions in inputs
were achieved without losing crop quality (Table 1).
The reduction in agrochemical inputs is likely, but as
yet not satisfactorily proven to reduce the risk of pollution
and toxic or sublethal effects to nontarget organisms.
Nevertheless, some environmental benefits were attained
(1, 6). Some studies reported greater numbers and di-
versity of soil fauna where an integrated system was used,
although this was not always apparent. Beneficial insects
vary naturally in their abundance between years, fields,
and different crops and these fluctuations were usually
greater than those between the two farming systems. In
small-scale (often < 5ha) trials conventional inputs ap-
peared to have few long-term, direct effects on nontarget
arthropods, however, farm-scale monitoring in the United
Kingdom for the past 20 years has indicated that many
arthropods have declined since the advent of intensive
Table 1 Integrated farming inputs and their costs as a
percentage of conventional systems
Input % Change in quantity of use % Change in cost
Fungicides 50 41
Herbicides 42 32
Insecticides 40 42
Fertilizers 18 15
Seeds + 10 + 12
Operational – 9
(Adapted from Integrated Farming: Agricultural Research into Practice;
MAFF Publications: London, 1998.)
411
farming and are showing little sign of recovering (1). In all
farming system experiments weed, disease, and insect pest
infestation levels were routinely monitored to aid crop
protection decisions. Most studies reported lower disease
and insect pest incidence, but higher weed burdens in the
integrated system, although rigorous experimental apprais-
als were seldom given.
PRINCIPLES OF INTEGRATED FARMING
Arable crops are complex ecological systems (1) and con-
sequently a blueprint for their management using an in-
tegrated approach cannot be applied universally. Each
farm, crop, and even each field must be considered sepa-
rately based upon the previous history, current crop mo-
nitoring, and the farmers’ individual objectives. There are,
however, some broad principles that apply (2, 3, 5, 7, 9).
Multifunctional Crop Rotation
Rotation is the core of any integrated system with a min-
imum of four different crops, although a longer rotation
may add more opportunities to build soil fertility and pre-
vent disease and pest carryover. Although the choice of
crops will depend on locality, markets, and prices, there are
some broad principles. Crops that build soil fertility (le-
guminous crops and those with high inputs of organic mat-
ter, e.g., grasses) must be alternated with those that reduce
soil physical and chemical fertility (root crops with low
input of organic matter, e.g., potatoes and sugar beet). The
sequence of each crop can also be used to ensure there are
opportunities to control grass weeds in broadleaved crops
and that pest organisms are kept below economic thresh-
olds by ensuring that no single type or group of crops are
grown in succession. There may have to be compromises
and the rotation chosen will reflect the economic, agro-
nomic, or environmental priorities of individual farmers.
Integrated Nutrient Management
Inputs of inorganic fertilizers are essential to maintain
yield and quality but must be balanced to ensure supply
does not exceed demand by more than 10%. Excessive
nutrient supply encourages weeds, pests, and diseases and
causes pollution. Application should maximize uptake by
the crop and minimize loss to the environment. Where
possible inorganic fertilizer should be replaced with ani-
mal and green manures. This has many benefits:
Improved soil nutrient supply and physical structure
Encouragement of beneficial organisms such as preda-
tory invertebrates and microbials
 412
Lower cost
Savings in nonrenewable resources
Optimizing nutrient supply through judicious use of
off-farm inputs, organic manures wherever possible, and
choice of a nutrient supplying crop rotation will generate
economic benefits for the farmer and the environment,
especially water quality.
Minimum Soil Cultivation
Soil cultivations require high inputs of energy and ma-
chinery, are damaging to beneficial soil fauna, and en-
courage erosion and nutrient leaching. Adopting a soil
cultivation system to minimize these effects is an es-
sential component of any integrated system. The type and
intensity of cultivation must be chosen according to soil
type and agronomic concerns (e.g., weed species compo-
sition). Conservation tillage/noninversion tillage in com-
bination with mulching should be maximized thereby
concentrating soil organic matter in the upper soil layers.
This improves soil structure and workability, decreases
erosion and leaching, improves drought tolerance, and
creates more favorable conditions for beneficial preda-
tory invertebrates, soil microorganisms, and earthworms.
Weeds may be encouraged but these may be overcome
by utilizing the benefits of rotation and targeted weed
control. Considerable cost savings may be made and this
is the driving force behind the recent interest in the nonin-
version tillage in western Europe.
Integrated Crop Management
Integrated crop management encompasses IPM but ex-
tends the principles to the control of weeds and diseases.
The approach maximizes natural regulatory mechanisms
through adoption of the above components and uses plant
resistance, time of planting, economic thresholds, and the
most environmentally safe pesticides. This requires more
intensive crop monitoring and in some cases greater tole-
rance of pests. Mechanical weed control combined with
low doses of herbicide may be appropriate. Encourage-
ment of pest predators through provision of suitable hab-
itat and trap cropping is also recommended.
Ecological Infrastructure Management
This is the provision of a suitable proportion of noncrop or
ecological areas that if correctly managed can
Provide a source of beneficial species for pest control;
Act as buffer zones along ecologically sensitive areas
such as watercourses preventing nutrient loss and
soil erosion;
View publication stats
Integrated Farming Systems
Provide a refuge from which reinvasion may occur
after any adverse agricultural operations;
Prevent weed ingress into fields; and
Act as a source of biodiversity.
These areas may be field margins, hedgerows, fence
lines, grass, or herbaceous strips arranged to ensure the
maximum connectivity while keeping individual field size
to a minimum. A minimum area of 5% of cropped land is
recommended (3) although the ecological gains will be
dependent on the quality of these areas. Research has
identified the potential of different ecological areas to pro-
vide pest control and act as buffer zones.
Implementing an Integrated System
The approach requires considerable knowledge and com-
mitment by the farmer. A whole farm evaluation helps the
transition from high to lower inputs. On-farm trials may be
needed to ascertain the most effective system. Extension
services are needed for the transition period and afterward
if it is to remain successful (2). New technology, such as
decision support and precision farming techniques, are
advocated.
REFERENCES
1. The Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields; Carter, N.,
Darbyshire, J.F., Potts, G.R., Firbank, L.G., Eds.; Blackwell
Scientific Publications: Oxford, UK, 1991; 469.
2. Vereijken, P. A methodic way to more sustainable farm-
ing systems. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 1992, 40, 209 – 223.
3. El Titi, A.; Boller, E.F.; Gendrier, J.P. Integrated Pro-
duction—Principles and Technical Guidelines; IOBC/
WPRS Bulletin 16 (1), IOBC/WPRS: France, 1993; 96.
4. Jordan, V.W.L. The development of integrated arable pro-
duction systems to meet potential economic and environ-
mental requirements. Outlook on Agric. 1998, 27 (3), 145 –
151.
5. Proost, J.; Matteson, P. Integrated farming in the Nether-
lands: flirtation or solid change. Outlook on Agric. 1997,
26 (2), 87 – 94.
6. Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems; Greaves, M.P.,
Glen, D.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK,
1995; 329.
7. Tiwari, P.N. Integrated farming research for sustaining
food production. J. Nucl. Agric. Biol. 1993, 22 (1), 1 –
13.
8. Holland, J.M.; Frampton, G.K.; C˛ilgi, T.; Wratten, S.D.
Arable acronyms analysed—a review of integrated arable
farming systems in Western Europe. Ann. Appl. Biol.
1994, 125 (2), 399 – 448.
9. Integrated Farming Systems. www.gct.org.uk/index.html
(accessed July 2000).