Several influential reports have suggested that one of the most appropriate responses to expected food shortages and ongoing environmental degradation is sustainable intensification, i.e. the increase of food production with at worst no increase in environmental harm, and ideally environmental benefit. Here we sought evidence of sustainable intensification among British farmers by selecting innovative arable, dairy, mixed and upland farms and analysing their own data on yields, inputs and land use and , where area took into account estimated area to grow any imported animal feeds), regulation of climate, air and water quality (modelled -1-1-1 emissions of GHGs (CO2e ha), ammonia (kg ha) and nitrate loss (kg ha)) and biodiversity (using an index based on the presence of habitats and management).Several farms have increased both food production and other ecosystem services over this time by increasing yields, using resources more efficiently and /or enhancing biodiversity, and sometimes by reducing livestock numbers and increasing cropping. The motivation has been to improve farm profitability through increasing food production, reducing input costs and accessing public payments through agri-environment schemes and generating renewable energy. Such sustainable intensification was not achieved by farmers who increased meat or milk yields. Sustainable intensification can be achieved when the correct drivers are in place to influence the actions of individual farmers. Also, it is possible to indicate sustainable intensification by using a small number of high-level indicators derived from data that farmers already hold, though such an approach may not capture the impacts of farmer innovative practices. HIGHLIGHTSSustainable intensification is being achieved by innovative farmers in Britain Sustainable intensification is driven by the desire to raise income and cut costs Biodiversity enhancement is seen by farmers as a cost, to be borne by public payments Sustainable intensification can be indicated using farmers" own data but the metrics need to be refined Research is needed to capture the impacts of innovations such as zero tillage

MANNER‐NPK (MANure Nutrient Evaluation Routine) is a decision support tool for quantifying manure (and other organic material) crop available nutrient supply. The user‐friendly design of an earlier version of MANNER was retained, but in response to user and stakeholder feedback, additional functionality was included to underpin new and revised nitrogen (N) transformation/loss modules (covering ammonia volatilization, nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide/di‐nitrogen emissions, and organic N mineralization) and also to estimate manure phosphorus (as P2O5), potassium (as K2O), sulphur (as SO3) and magnesium (as MgO) supply. Notably, MANNER‐NPK provides N availability estimates for following crops through the mineralization of organic N. Validation of the crop available N supply estimates was undertaken by comparing predicted values with data from more than 200 field experimental measurements. For cattle, pig and poultry manures, there was good agreement (P < 0.001) between predicted and measured fertilizer N replacement values, indicating that MANNER‐NPK provides robust estimates of manure crop available N supply and N losses to the wider environment.

No abstract

1. Improved water quality, through a reduction in diffuse pollution from agricultural sources, is an expected benefit of agri-environment schemes, but this has yet to be demonstrated in practice. Here, we evaluate the impact of Welsh agri-environment schemes on water quality and freshwater ecosystem condition through a combined monitoring and modelling framework. 2. To determine the influence of the agri-environment schemes on ecosystem condition, spatially independent catchments dominated by a single scheme (>40% of catchment) were compared to control catchments dominated (>70%) by agricultural land that was not part of any scheme. Biological indicators of water quality were monitored at the outfall of each catchment and a spatially explicit modelling framework of diffuse pollutant emissions applied to each of the 80 catchments. 3. Direct comparison (scheme/non-scheme) was unable to identify any significant effect of agrienvironment scheme participation. However, derived biological indicators that reflected organic pollution, eutrophication and pesticide run-off were strongly correlated with modelled concentrations of corresponding diffuse pollutants, thus providing a ground-truth for the models. Scenarios that assessed the correct counterfactuals (i.e. the influence of scheme entry on pollutant output) were developed for the whole of Wales. The models indicated an important effect of scheme entry on water quality, but this effect was not evenly distributed across the landscape. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our results indicate that agri-environment schemes can deliver improvements in water quality, through a reduction in diffuse pollution from agricultural sources. However, it is not easy to demonstrate scheme effectiveness; the combination of field survey and modelling used here provides a framework for addressing these difficulties. A spatially targeted approach for agri-environment scheme options to protect water resources from diffuse pollution is likely to be most effective at delivering water quality improvements.

HighlightsStakeholders scored ninety measures for water pollution from agriculture.Model optimisation shortlisted twelve measures for livestock and arable farms.Shortlisted measures reduced national nitrate load to rivers by 2.5%, sediment 5.6%.Shortlisted measures reduced national phosphorus load to rivers by 11.9%.Annual cost to farms at national scale was £450 M equating to £52 per hectare.