Sustainable intensification of agricultural production systems will require changes in farm practice. Within arable cropping systems, reducing the intensity of tillage practices (e.g. reduced tillage) potentially offers one such sustainable intensification approach. Previous researchers have tended to examine the impact of reduced tillage on specific factors such as yield or weed burden, whilst, by definition, sustainable intensification necessitates a system-based analysis approach. Drawing upon a bio-economic optimisation model, ‘MEETA’, we quantify trade-off implications between potential yield reductions, reduced cultivation costs and increased crop protection costs. We extend the MEETA model to quantify farm-level net margin, in addition to quantifying farm-level gross margin, net energy, and greenhouse gas emissions. For the lowest intensity tillage system, zero tillage, results demonstrate financial benefits over a conventional tillage system even when the zero tillage system includes yield penalties of 0–14.2% (across all crops). Average yield reductions from zero tillage literature range from 0 to 8.5%, demonstrating that reduced tillage offers a realistic and attainable sustainable intensification intervention, given the financial and environmental benefits, albeit that yield reductions will require more land to compensate for loss of calories produced, negating environmental benefits observed at farm-level. However, increasing uptake of reduced tillage from current levels will probably require policy intervention; an extension of the recent changes to the CAP (‘Greening’) provides an opportunity to do this.

中文翻译：

---

在生物经济模型框架内分析减耕做法

农业生产系统的可持续集约化需要改变农业实践。在耕作系统中，减少耕作的强度（例如减少耕作）可能提供一种这样的可持续集约化方法。以前的研究人员倾向于研究减少耕作对产量或杂草负担等特定因素的影响，而根据定义，可持续集约化需要一种基于系统的分析方法。利用生物经济优化模型“MEETA”，我们量化了潜在产量降低、种植成本降低和作物保护成本增加之间的权衡影响。除了量化农场层面的毛利率、净能源和温室气体排放外，我们还扩展了 MEETA 模型以量化农场层面的净利润。对于最低强度的耕作系统，零耕作，即使零耕作系统包括 0-14.2% 的产量损失（所有作物），结果也表明比传统耕作系统更具经济效益。零耕文献平均减产幅度为 0% 到 8.5%，表明减耕提供了一种现实且可实现的可持续集约化干预，考虑到经济和环境效益，尽管减产将需要更多土地来补偿产生的卡路里损失，否定在农场一级观察到的环境效益。然而，从目前的水平增加减少耕作的使用可能需要政策干预；对 CAP（“绿化”）的最新变化的扩展提供了这样做的机会。结果表明，即使零耕系统包括 0-14.2% 的产量损失（所有作物），也比传统耕作系统具有经济利益。零耕文献平均减产幅度为 0% 到 8.5%，表明减耕提供了一种现实且可实现的可持续集约化干预，考虑到经济和环境效益，尽管减产将需要更多土地来补偿产生的卡路里损失，否定在农场一级观察到的环境效益。然而，从目前的水平增加减少耕作的使用可能需要政策干预；对 CAP（“绿化”）的最新变化的扩展提供了这样做的机会。结果表明，即使零耕系统包括 0-14.2% 的产量损失（所有作物），也比传统耕作系统具有经济利益。零耕文献平均减产幅度为 0% 到 8.5%，表明减耕提供了一种现实且可实现的可持续集约化干预，考虑到经济和环境效益，尽管减产将需要更多土地来补偿产生的卡路里损失，否定在农场一级观察到的环境效益。然而，从目前的水平增加减少耕作的使用可能需要政策干预；对 CAP（“绿化”）的最新变化的扩展提供了这样做的机会。