To plough or not to plough – That is the question

This comes up regularly at any famers meeting you may be attending. The plough has been the primary instrument of agriculture ever since the humans began the noble craft of growing food in one place, as opposed to wandering around to hunt and gather your rather unpredictable source of nutrition. The plough has been with us in various forms for over 10,000 years, initially made from the branch of a tree and pulled by human power it developed over millennia to the use of steel for making the wearing parts in the early 18th century with gangs of well-trained horses removing some of the human energy. The use of power in the form of draft animals was well established long before the steel plough was introduced and goes back almost to the beginning of agriculture. The human mind is programmed to exploit any form of labour-saving device, the turning of soil is seriously hard work. A team of horses could manage to plough up to an acre a day, that’s about the size of the average football pitch, and could on good land produce enough wheat to make 2-3000 loaves of bread. Two horses would be needed on some land, and they would only be able to work half the day before a fresh pair would be brought in to relieve them. The poor ploughman was expected to work the whole day and would walk at least 12-14 miles.

The image of the shire horse and it’s plough in a part-cultivated field is one that appears frequently on the packaging for food in particular bread products in supermarkets. This image conjuries up the lazy, halcyon days that seems to exist in the public’s idea of farming, the romance perpetuated for market gain is one that has never existed. You try walking behind a horse for 12 hours then have to put it to bed before you walk back home. You will  soon see just how tough and gruelling this work was. Everything about ploughs and ploughing changed in 1939 when Britain was facing the serious threat of starvation. The biggest empire that the World had ever known in its total arrogance had forgotten to grow food to feed its rapidly growing population, reliant on its colonial roots to bring food from every corner of the globe. Britain was barely able to produce a third of its needs. The Ministry of Food (need them back again) and The Ministry of Agriculture collectively turned agriculture around and did an amazing job at increasing food production on our rather limited land area. They controlled much of what farmers did and the supply of food rocketed to a self-sufficiency of over 90% within a few years. One of the biggest steps forward was the introduction of the diesel tractor to couple with the plough. One man could now plough up to 10-15 acres easily in a day, without the walking! New ploughs were developed that could go faster and land could now be prepared in hours rather than weeks. More land became available as it was no longer needed to feed horses. The average farm used up to a third of its land to feed the horses. More labour became available too, as persons that were caring for horses now could do other work on the farm. Food production surged dramatically, and farmers were guaranteed a fair price for their efforts.

All this was great news for the War department, and nobody went hungry. However as with any technological leap forward there were negative consequences. Land was being over-ploughed, and soils were beginning to suffer as the pressure on land grew. The mass introduction of nitrogen fertiliser soon after the war further damaged already fragile soils. This trend continues today, however there is a new and refreshing awareness amongst agriculturalists that soil is finite and fragile, and we need to be looking after it if we are to maintain food production for ever. This new attitude has opened up a big debate in farming around the use of the plough, challenging its use at all is seen by some agriculturalists as the devil of the farm. And indeed, much harm has been done by ploughing too deep and too often, turning soil into lifeless dusts. The anti-plough brigade is using a technique known as “no till” or “min till” depending on your soil type. It sounds good, less fuel, less tractor hours and lower costs as well as a potential restoration of soil organic matter, what is the problem with that?

There are of course some problems with this approach, farmers are beginning to see what the long-term consequences could be. The no-plough system relies on regular inputs of herbicide to control the weeds that will inevitably develop, these herbicides are now also under close scrutiny as links to cancer in humans are emerging. Also, damage to critical soil microbes is now showing up and in particular earthworms declining health is seen as a bad side effect. Some farmers are experiencing soil compaction problems which are having a negative effect on yields, some have returned to their ploughs to sort this out.

We at Hardwick plough 4 years out of seven within our rotation. We never plough deep, 6” is the maximum and usually only 4-5” we use a small light weight tractor and ensure that we keep soil health at the top of the list of farm systems, plenty of cover-crops and resting periods has given is a wonderful soil full of health with a long-term increase in soil organic carbon, deep in the soil where it is safe and resilient.  Our plough is from the early 1950s, same age as me and still gives good service and will do so for many more lifetimes yet if cared for. It is a very valuable piece of kit and when used with care and in respect of soil health will continue to share a place in or food system.