Pesticide Free Production: a tool for use reduction

Farmers in Canada are experimenting with a new system of managing pests that can eliminate the use of many chemicals. The system encourages those keen to farm with little or no pesticides. Farmers and university researchers are working together with federal and provincial officials to set guidelines, certify and market pesticide-free crops. Ronald Macfarlane describes the considerable success farmers have had.

David Day harvesting PFP certified CDC Stratus 2-row Malt Barley, near Deloraine Manitoba, August 2002. Photo Scott Day

The idea of Pesticide Free Production (PFP*) emerged when researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada began looking at ways of reducing the use of pesticides and possibly getting a market premium. In November 1999, researchers at the university, in collaboration with some farmers, obtained a 5-year research grant to explore ways in which PFP could be put into practice.
    PFP is a system in which non-GM crops are grown without the use of chemical pest control methods from the time of emergence until the time of marketing. Pre-emergence products that have pesticidal action after planting are also excluded. PFP is also more flexible than organic production. If, during the cropping year, a pest outbreak is severe enough that it requires treatment with a pesticide, then the grower is still able to market that product as conventional and is not prevented from attempting PFP on that same field the following year. Pesticides are permitted in non-PFP years, and some non-residual pre-seed chemicals are also permitted in the year of PFP. Fertilizers and fertility-oriented seed treatments can be used as they would on conventionally grown crops.

Guidelines for PFP
The guidelines for producing a certifiable Pesticide Free Production crop are simple: a PFP crop is grown without the use of any pesticidal seed treatment or in-crop pesticide.
    Barley and oats make ideal candidates for PFP. They are vigorous and competitive and are less likely to succumb to weed invasions, diseases or insect pests. Weeds are less likely to be a problem if the field has had two or more years of a perennial forage such as alfalfa. A perennial crop can also provide a break in disease and insect cycles.
    Another way to reduce pressures from weeds is to ensure the field is well fertilised. Better weed control is obtained when fertilisers are applied in bands rather than broadcast. Fertility-oriented seed treatments, such as inoculants (e.g. the naturally occurring soil fungus Penicillium bilaji) are also allowed in PFP. High seeding rates and shallow seeding are other ways of reducing competition from weeds.
    Although a PFP crop can be grown on a field where insecticides and fungicides have been applied in previous years, these cannot be used in a PFP crop year. Neither are insecticidal or fungicidal seed treatments allowed. The use of resistant cultivars is the best option reducing fungal attacks on crops. In a PFP system, it is permissible to use a herbicide with no residual action such as bromoxynil, glyphosate or paraquat up until the time of crop emergence. For other herbicides, restrictions vary. For example, metsulfuron-methyl and triasulfuron need a 4-year interval between pesticide application and cultivation of a PFP crop.
    If the intent of the farmer is to sell the crop as pesticide free, then a one-metre buffer around fields that have been sprayed is usually adequate to ensure that the PFP crop can be marketed separately. In addition, the crop should be stored separately and the bins cannot be fumigated.
    To grow crops without pesticides requires the use of diverse cropping systems and pest control practices. This helps to create more stable agro-ecosystems, in which chances of pest outbreaks and development of pesticide resistance are minimized. It is also possible to include PFP crops in a rotation with conventionally grown ones to decrease overall pesticide loads in agricultural systems.
    Participants in the PFP programme have used the following strategies to produce a PFP crop:

• rotation with a forage crop such as alfalfa in the previous year
• higher seeding rates
• delayed seeding
• growing competitive crops or varieties
• use of pre-emergence herbicide (usually glyphosate)

Justin Griffith in his field of PFP sunflowers that he processes and markets directly to retailers and consumers from his farm as premium PFP Sunflowers, August 2002. Photo Scott Day

Incentives and marketing
Rising costs of inputs result in decreased net returns for farmers. If alternative agronomic methods can reduce the need for inputs, growers may be able to reduce costs without sacrificing yield, and so retain more of the income generated by the sale of their produce. Through the use of a certification and labelling scheme, it is hoped that marketing opportunities will arise for crops produced within the PFP system. The Pesticide Free Production Farmer’s Co-op Ltd. has been established to help in marketing PFP crops. Many farmers are probably producing some crops that could qualify for PFP. Whether all such crops could command a market premium is still not known. Up to now there is an interest for PFP flax, malting barley, oats and buckwheat. Results from a market survey conducted by the University of Manitoba show that consumers are interested in products made from PFP grains, oilseeds and pulses and there may be a market for all PFP crops.

The PFP Team
Pesticide Free Production Canada (PFPC) is composed of farmers working in association with federal, provincial, and university researchers. It is committed to research and education activities that support reduced pesticide crop production and its members have been responsible for developing PFP.
    A survey of all the 71 farmers who participated in PFP in the 2000 and 2001 season showed that they were fairly typical of the farmers in Manitoba although younger and more educated. They also had an interest in alternative farming – about a third were in transition to organic. Farmers were motivated primarily by the possibility of the lowered production costs that PFP offers. Some were also motivated by concerns about the impact of pesticides on the health of their families and the environment.
    Participants in the research programme all farm in Manitoba but in 2002, there was also interest among farmers in the neighbouring prairies provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The average farm size was greater than 600 ha and many farms included livestock operations. About 20 percent were zero-till farms. Over 120 fields were part of the programme during 2000 and 2001 and the total acreage in the project was 7000, with an average field size of 30 ha.

Results for 2000 and 2001 seasons
A farmer starting the season with the intent of producing a PFP crop may not be successful at first (Table 1). In spite of best efforts, a farmer may decide that a pest or disease presents a serious enough threat to the crop to warrant using a pesticide. Yields of PFP crops were about 10% below the 10-year yield average for conventional crops, but about 30% above organic yields.
    PFP fields have higher weed densities, but 45% of farmers thought their weed densities were light. Forty percent of farmers indicated greater weed densities the year after a PFP crop. This increase in weeds in the subsequent year was not a concern, except for farmers who were in transition to organic production who indicated that there were increased production costs. There is no indication that decreases in the use of pesticides in one year will result in the need for greater pesticide use in the following crop year.
    Crop rotation seems to be a key element for PFP: successful PFP farmers tended to grow more diverse crops or to grow specialty crops. Crops grown in fields that did not have a forage rotation history were more likely to need some pesticide application during the growing season. Tillage methods (e.g. conventional, low or no-till) did not seem to be such an important factor, although in 2000 more conventionally tilled fields achieved PFP. Higher seeding rates and weed burn-off before seeding were two other commonly used methods to help reduce weed pressures. There was also a greater chance of success when farmers planned for a PFP crop and selected a field which had little weed pressure in the previous years.
    Weed control in the PFP crop and in the years after PFP has been identified as the biggest issue facing farmers wanting to practice PFP. Although some farmers expressed concerns during the crop year, none of the farmers involved expressed regrets the year after trying PFP. Most farmers found that they had gained financially by growing a PFP crop and would consider doing so again.

Evaluating in the longer term
Three long-term crop rotation studies including PFP are underway. One of them, the Glenlea Rotation study has been in existence since 1992 and will help evaluate the effects of continuous PFP within a cropping system. A second rotation trial is examining the effect of rotation diversity and frequency on the sustainability of the cropping system. The third is examining the effects of weed control in non-PFP years on the ability to include PFP within the crop rotation.

Conclusion
PFP seems to offer the promise of reducing the amount of pesticide use in agriculture. The practice of PFP falls within the framework of integrated pest management (IPM), and may be a tool that fosters such a practice by focusing on reduced reliance on pesticides. PFP certification can help meet consumer demand for pesticide free crops at a lower premium than organic food. Whether PFP is truly a form of sustainable agriculture is sure to be the subject of debate but it certainly shows promise as a low-risk way of encouraging farmers to make the transition towards more environmentally sound agriculture.

* Pesticide Free ProductionTM and PFPTM are registered trademarks of the University of Manitoba.
Information for this article was obtained for the Pesticide Free Production Canada Internet site: www.pfpcanada.com
Ronald Macfarlane, formerly with PAN Asia Pacific is currently Supervisor of Environmental Health Assessment and Policy with Toronto Public Health, Toronto, Canada.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 60, June 2003, page 14]