The report, Private Costs and Benefits of Pesticide Minimisation, claims farmers can protect the environment and save up to £500 million per year by using pest-resistant crop varieties, reducing dose rates, adopting pest thresholds for spray decisions, improving application techniques, using buffer zones and independent crop consultants. This article explains the thinking behind the report's figures(1).
What is minimisation?
Farmers can minimise the risks from pesticides in four different ways, by:
reducing the need for pesticides-including using resistant varieties, longer or better rotations, or cultivation practices like ploughing or delayed sowing dates;
providing alternatives or supplements to pesticides use-by techniques such as biological control, mechanical weeding or using natural predators;
improving the targeting and application of pesticides by threshold monitoring, reducing pesticide application rates;
specifically protecting the environment by using buffer zones for water, and better mixing and disposal practices.
| Table. Savings and profits for two basic farm types | |||
| Farm type | Profit increase £/ha | Pesticide saving £/ha | Pesticide saving total |
|
Farm A (200 ha) |
£90 |
£36 |
£7,300 |
|
Farm B (420 ha) |
£44 |
£21 |
£9,000 |
The method
It is easier to persuade farmers that it is
worthwhile adopting minimisation techniques if it can be shown to result in a
profit. The report takes a three stage approach. First it calculates the likely
benefits (or costs) on a crop basis, applying identified techniques to a
specific crop-for example, the specific costs of changing to a delayed sowing
date or closed system pesticide transfer for a winter wheat crop. Five specific
sample crops are chosen to work out the figures-winter wheat, spring barley,
sugar beet, potatoes, and apples.
The second stage is to apply a small
package of changes on three different but representative farm types. The ones
chosen were a 200 ha combinable crop farm; a 420 ha farm growing a rotation of
cereals, sugar beet and potatoes; and an orchard.
The third stage is then to aggregate those estimates to a
national level, based on the national crop areas and farm types.
Is there money in it?
On a crop basis, the use of disease and insect damage
thresholds, improved pesticide application (by better calibration of machinery
and better operator training) and lower and more appropriate rates of pesticide
application brings lower costs and more profit. The implementation of water
buffer zones can bring profits to the arable sector, but only if compensation is
available through the Countryside Stewardship Scheme-although there are costs
in implementing buffer zones in sugar beet and potatoes. On the two basic farm
types selected, savings and profit increases are predicted in the table.
The agrochemical industry maintains it is already applying
many of the recommendations in the report and that farmers already use the
minimum amount of pesticides needed. However a MAFF pilot study from the Central
Science Laboratory (CSL) report recently released also claims that farmers are
using too many pesticides2. Dr Judith Turner of CSL said "From evidence
gleaned so far it seems there is huge scope for cash savings. For example many
wheat growers seem to adopt the same spray policy for all their varieties
irrespective of their disease resistance ratings." Half of one resistant
variety was sprayed twice; a quarter sprayed three times; and 2% of the crop
received four sprays-when one spray would have sufficed.
Making it work
How can this message be conveyed to farmers? The Pesticides Forum at its next
meeting in October will consider the Department's report. One issue stands
out-CAP and the structure of supports such as the Countryside Stewardship
Scheme cannot be left out of the equation when looking at pesticides use. The
review of CAP must make it easier for farmers to take on environmentally
friendly measures without financial risk. (PB)