The survey was designed to assess the
quantity of pesticides use, analyse the category of user, and determine the
locations of use. These results, where possible, were compared with the last
major study of this type which covered the year 1989.
Since 1989 there has been an overall increase in the weight
of herbicide active ingredient used from 550 tonnes to 623 tonnes, which
represents an increase of 13% in six years.
Herbicides accounted for 92% of the weight of all pesticides
applied in the amenity market. Fungicides, insecticides and growth regulators
accounted for the remaining 8% of usage. In 1995 the top six active ingredients
were glyphosate, diuron, 2,4-D, dichlorophen, dichlobenil and ferrous sulphate.
This represents a change from 1989 when the top six active ingredients were
atrazine, simazine, diuron, 2,4-D, mecoprop and amitrole.
Decline in triazine use confirmed
Triazine herbicides are no longer present in the
market in any significant volume, largely having been replaced by glyphosate and
diuron. The triazines atrazine and simazine were banned for non-agricultural use
in 1993 because residues were appearing too frequently in drinking water
supplies. Since 1989 there has been an increased polarisation in the amenity
herbicide market. The top two herbicides accounted for 69% of herbicide use,
whereas six ingredients account for this level in 1989.
The ban on the triazine herbicides has probably resulted in
an increase in the number of herbicide applications and an increase in the
overall volume used. This is because glyphosate is a non-residual herbicide and
generally requires repeat applications in order to have the same control as the
more persistent triazines.
Hard surfaces and gravel areas account for 45% of pesticides
applications which can allow pesticides to run-off quickly into water courses.
The remaining 55% of applications were made to grassland or other vegetation
surfaces.
Amenity pesticide use is highest in densely populated areas
where there is a higher road network demand, large leisure areas, typically more
municipal buildings and support areas, and employment.
An average 9.6% of work time was spent by those individuals
dealing with weed/pest/disease control. The relatively low proportion of time
emphasises the low priority some users place on these aspects and suggests that
the decision maker may have difficulty gaining sufficient knowledge to reflect
changes in environmental thinking.
Costs, excluding machinery for weed/pest/disease control
involve 55% labour costs and 45% chemical costs.
Methods of control
Weed control: Respondents were asked what weed control methods they used from a selection list. Nearly all (99%) used herbicides, 68% used mowing as a method of control, 61% used hoeing and 55% used hand or mechanical sweeping. Additional responses were mulching, hand weeding and hand digging.
Disease control: Just over a third (35%) used only chemical control against diseases. Non-chemical control methods used included cultural methods (34%), good management (17%), soil aeration (14%), correct fertiliser application (9%), drainage (9%), and iron sulphate (7%). (It is interesting to note that iron sulphate was not classified by many as a 'chemical'.)
Insect and pest control: About half (48%) used chemicals only to control insects and other pests. Non-chemical methods used included cultural control (15%), trapping (11%), biological control (10%), good husbandry (7%), and maintaining soil acidity (6%).
Conclusion
Major legislation changes, most notably the banning of
triazine herbicides in 1993, implemented since the last study, have
significantly altered the pesticide market. Initiatives by both the water
industry and the DoE were also undertaken during the period 1991 to 1995 in an
attempt to ensure the 'safe' use of pesticides, as well as providing some
guidance to the user on alternative methods of control.
However, the surveyors Produce Studies say it was evident
that the private sector was the least aware of pesticide use issues. Low numbers
of qualified decision makers in this sector highlighted the need for DoE and
other government departments to target this sector of users. Low understanding
of issues plus a low pesticide knowledge base must increase the risks of
applications, the report concludes. (DB)
The Non-agricultural use of pesticides in
England and Wales, Produce Studies, November 1996, 96pp. (Copies of the report
are available from Andy Croxford, Chemicals and Biotechnology Division, DoE,
Room A337, Romney House, 43 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3PY.)
[This
article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 35,
March 1997, page 14]