Shortage of independent advice on pesticides 

By far the biggest concern from the three working groups at the Holme Lacy meeting was the lack of resources devoted to helping farmers with practical ways of reducing pesticide use. 

Doubts about where farmers can go for independent advice on pesticide use were evident at the conference.
    All three conference working groups recognised that some advice was available from the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC), ADAS, independent consultants and The Arable Group (TAG) – a company formed from the merger of Arable Research Centres and Morley Research Centre.
    But the workshop on advice and extension services questioned whether any of these were truly independent from agrochemical companies. The national pesticides strategy workshop concluded that the lack of advisory services could hinder farmers’ response to whatever the government is planning. The working group on crop protocols and farm assurance found that the variety of different schemes confused farmers and growers who were required to meet different sets of standards. 

An independent crop consultant’s view
After the conference, PN spoke to Allen Scobie, the immediate past chairman of the Association of Independent Crop Consultants (AICC). Mr Scobie remains an AICC member, and works for Scottish Agronomy, which gives advice to 250 farmer clients across Scotland.
    Asked about sources of independent advice for farmers on pesticide use, Mr Scobie said that ten years ago, independent crop advisers only represented between 20% and 30% of the market. Now the AICC alone has 180 members and represents 30% of the market, with the advisory arms of ADAS, SAC and TAG making up another 20%. 
    The agrochemical industry’s distribution network – using companies such as Dalgety and United Agri Products (UAP) – makes up the remaining 50%. The difference between the distribution network and AICC members is that distributors give farmers free advice on the proviso that they buy their agrochemical inputs from them. 
    By contrast, independent consultants will charge a fee for their advice on crop production, which includes seed, fertiliser and agrochemical recommendations. In theory, this should mean a farmer is using less chemical and the cost of his chemicals decreases because he or she has a wider selection of distributors to choose from.
    Asked whether supermarkets encouraged farmers to use less agrochemicals, Mr Scobie said this is not always the case as some of the very tight protocols for pests and diseases left farmers with no other option than to treat crops as near to the harvest interval as possible. ‘If supermarkets spent more time educating their customers not to expect perfection and were more understanding regarding pests and diseases on their shelves then farmers could exercise more judgement regarding integrated crop management (ICM) and use less chemical treatments close to harvest.’

Cross compliance and the Mid Term Review
There were also concerns about advice on the cross compliance rules under the Mid Term review of the common agricultural policy which DEFRA (the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) is consulting on (see article, page 7). Mr Scobie used the example of Flexity, a fungicide produced by BASF which was approved by the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) on the basis that it was used as part of an anti resistance strategy and could not be applied in two consecutive treatments.
    ‘If a farmer applies that fungicide outside the terms set down by the PSD and the manufacturer, he could be contravening the cross compliance rules and putting his single farm payment at risk.’
    As well as encouraging farmers to know their pesticide law, cross compliance and the single farm payment (SFP) could remove areas from production so they are no longer sprayed. ‘I have several clients involved with precision farming so they can monitor variations in yields across their fields. 
    Once the SFP is introduced as a flat payment per hectare, those farmers could identify areas where the cost of producing a crop is greater than the value of that crop. Those areas – round hedgerows or sheltered by trees, for example – will come out of production and may go into agri environment schemes.’

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 64, June 2004, page 5]