PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 256 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · dodecadien-1-ol for light brown apple...

i

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 256

EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

2013

D. G. Garthwaite, S. Hudson, I. Barker, G. Parrish, L. Smith & S. Pietravalle

Land Use & Sustainability Team

Food & Environment Research Agency

Sand Hutton

York

YO41 1LZ

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

ii

National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They

are free from any political interference. The UK Statistics Authority has a statutory duty to assess National Statistics for

compliance with this Code of Practice. Further information is available from the Office for National Statistics website

(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html). The statistics undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet

customers’ needs.

If you have any enquiries or feedback on the statistics included in this report they can be directed to the contact given

below:

Pesticide Usage Survey Team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462694

Alternatively please contact: FERA at: [email protected]

DATA USES

The data are used for a number of purposes including:

• Informing the pesticide risk assessment (authorisation) process;

• Policy, including assessing the economic and/or environmental implications of the introduction of new active substances and the withdrawal/non-authorisation of pesticide products (the data reported to organisations such as the OECD and EU enabling the UK to honour international agreements); evaluating changes in growing methods and Integrated Pest Management where this has an impact on pesticide usage;

• Informing the targeting of monitoring programmes for residues in food and the environment;

• Contributing to assessing the impact of pesticide use, principally as part of the Pesticides Forum’s Annual Report;

• Quantifying pesticide usage and changes in the use of active substances over time;

• Responding to enquiries (for example, Parliamentary Questions, correspondence, queries under the Freedom of Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations, etc.);

• Providing information to assist research projects which can support all of the above activities;

• Training/teaching programmes which are designed to improve practice in the use of pesticides by the farming/training industries;

• Informing the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) programme to help identify potential misuse of pesticides.

REVISIONS POLICY

The figures presented in this report are finalised. We will provide information on any revisions we make to the report or

the datasets if any inaccuracies or errors occur. Details of any revisions, including the date upon which they were

changed, will appear on the following website:

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/landUseSustainability/surveys.

iii

CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2

Edible protected crops – an overview 3

Explanatory notes for the 2013 report 4

Trends 6

Crops 8

Pesticide usage 9

Pesticide usage on tomatoes 10

Pesticide usage on cucumbers 14

Pesticide usage on lettuce 17

Pesticide usage on peppers 20

Pesticide usage on other vegetables 23

Pesticide usage on edible plants for propagation 27

Pesticide usage on strawberries 31

Pesticide usage on other fruit 35

Appendix 1 Applications and areas grown 38

Comparisons 48

Appendix 2 Other compounds 54

Appendix 3 Definitions 55

Appendix 4 Methodology 56

Appendix 5 Standard error calculations 60

Appendix 6 First raising factor – edible protected crops 63

Acknowledgements 64

References 64

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from 239 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 3,307 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops, or groups of edible protected crops treated identically. The survey included glasshouse and permanent polythene structures, but excluded French or Spanish Tunnels which are temporary structures. Crops included in the survey were tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other vegetables; edible plants in propagation; strawberries; and other fruit. The sample accounted for 45% of the total area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom during the 2012/13 season.

Data from Northern Ireland in 2007 were not available and the comparison to 2007 is to Great Britain rather than the UK. In 2013 Northern Ireland accounted for less than 1% of the area grown and area treated, it is likely that the totals in 2007 would have been similar. The area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom had decreased by 6% since 2011 and by 4% since 2007. Other vegetable crops accounted for 24% of the total area of edible protected crops grown: edible plants in propagation 19%, lettuce 17%, tomatoes 12%, cucumbers 12%, strawberries 9%, peppers 5% and other fruit 2%. Approximately 28% of the total area of edible protected crops was grown in London & South East region, 23% in Eastern region, 19% in Yorkshire & the Humber, 10% in the North West, 8% in East Midlands, 5% in the West Midlands, 5% in the South West and 1% or less in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the North East.

Between 2007 and 2013, the pesticide-treated area increased by 16%. The total pesticide-treated area of the United Kingdom in 2013 was 8% greater than that in 2011 despite the cropping area decreasing by 6%. However, the weight of pesticides applied had decreased by 23% since 2007 and by 6% since 2011, primarily due to the decreased use of soil sterilants, which are used at very high application rates, as approvals have been lost.

Approximately 38% of the area treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents) was cropped with strawberries, 21% with tomatoes, 12% with lettuce, 12% with edible plants in propagation, 8% with peppers, 5% with cucumbers, 3% with other vegetables and 1% with other fruit.

The protected and enclosed environment is particularly suitable for the use of living biological control agents and pollinators and this has been widely exploited by growers with biological control agents (see definitions) accounting for 55% of the total pesticide-treated area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom in 2013, fungicides 22%, insecticides 9%, physical control agents 5%, disinfectants 3%, acaricides 2%, sulphur 2% and growth stimulants, herbicides, molluscicides and tar oil/acid all 1% or less each. By contrast, fungicides accounted for 36% of the total weight of pesticide active substances applied, disinfectants 22%, insecticides 17%, physical control agents 11%, sulphur 6%, soil sterilants 4%, growth stimulants 3% and herbicides, acaricides, molluscicides, biological control agents (these are not normally associated with a weight as they are mainly living organisms – see definitions) and tar oil/acids all less than 1% each.

Between 2011 and 2013 there were large increases in the use of fungicides such as boscalid/pyraclostrobin and mandipropamid. Both had been encountered in previous surveys although there was introduction of a new mandipropamid product in 2012.

Weight of the insecticide active substance, chlorpyrifos, had increased by 85% between 2011 and 2013, reflecting the increased area of brassica plants for propagation grown in 2013. This product is used to control cabbage root fly before delivery to outdoor vegetable growers.

Important active substances encountered for the first time in 2013 included the fungicide cyflufenamid, the insecticide chlorantraniliprole (Extension of Authorisation for Minor Use (EAMU) in 2013), the pheromone disrupter (E,E)-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol for light brown apple moth control, and the biological control agents citrus fruit extract, Praon volucre, Adalia bipunctata and Amblydromalus limonicus.

In addition to the newly-encountered biological control agents there were also increases in the use of the biopesticides Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040, Verticillium lecanii, Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 and Coniothyrium minitans. Increases in the use of biological control agents, biopesticides and some chemicals, such as potassium hydrogen carbonate (Figure 4), reflect both the lack of available pesticides and a move away from the use of conventional pesticides.

Use of the soil sterilant dazomet decreased in line with the general move away from chemical soil sterilants and as methyl bromide no longer has authorisation there has been a return to the use of steam for soil sterilisation, which is a pesticide free alternative.

2

INTRODUCTION

The Advisory Committee on Pesticides advises government on all aspects of pesticide use. In order to discharge this function, the Committee must regularly monitor the usage of all pesticides. It needs accurate data on the usage of individual pesticides. Pesticide usage data is now also required under the EU Statistics Regulation (1185/2009/EC).

As part of the on-going process for obtaining data, the Pesticide Usage Survey Teams of the Food & Environment Research Agency, an executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture, a division of the Scottish Government’s Agriculture, Food and Rural Communities Directorate and the Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute, a Non-Departmental Public Body of DARD, conducted surveys of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in 2012/13 by visiting holdings throughout the United Kingdom during the winter of 2013/14.

Since 2010 all surveys of pesticide usage in agriculture and horticulture have been fully co-ordinated by the survey teams of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The methodology used for sample selection and the collection of data from sample holdings is identical in each region. Reports are produced of pesticide usage throughout the United Kingdom. Whilst the teams in England and Northern Ireland have recently completed United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) audits, the team in Scotland is currently undertaking its first audit. However, the data published by the team in Scotland are part of the official statistics for Scotland.

This was the second survey of usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom. The first report for the United Kingdom covered usage in 2011 (Garthwaite et. al., 2012). The previous reports for Great Britain covered 2007 (Garthwaite, Thomas, Parrish & Smith, 2009), and for Scotland covering the same year (Reay, 2008). This was the first reported survey of pesticide use on Northern Ireland edible protected crops since 1991.

Additional data on crop agronomy are collected for all surveys but may not be presented within the report. For additional data relating to the surveys please refer to the contacts below.

Information on all aspects of pesticide usage in the United Kingdom as a whole, or for Wales or the Defra regions of England, may be obtained from the Pesticide Usage Survey Team at the Food & Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, York, UK YO41 1LZ.

For further information please contact:

Pesticide Usage Survey Team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462694

Or visit the websites: http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/landUseSustainability/surveys/

http://pusstats.fera.defra.gov.uk/

Alternatively please contact: FERA at: [email protected]

Further data relating specifically to Scotland may be obtained from the Pesticide Usage Survey Team at Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture, Edinburgh. Also available at:

http://www.sasa.gov.uk/pesticides/pesticide-usage/pesticide-usage-survey-reports

Copies of reports on pesticide usage in Northern Ireland may be obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Offices. Also available at:

http://www.afbini.gov.uk/index/services/specialist-advice/pesticide-usage-overview.htm

Recently-published reports for the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England & Wales and Northern Ireland can also be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at:

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/landUseSustainability/surveys/

3

EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS – AN OVERVIEW This report contains information on the application of pesticides to edible protected crops mainly grown and harvested in 2013 or early in 2014. Some strawberry crops would have been planted in autumn 2012. Whilst data are presented in 8 major crop groupings throughout the report they actually include information from 194 separate crops, some of which would have been planted in autumn of 2012 or throughout 2013. Growing edible protected crops commercially is a specialist operation with many of the larger growers having to ensure a continuity of supply for major retailers. In some cases, and to ensure continuity from the larger growers, supply from the United Kingdom is augmented with edible protected crops, such as tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers, imported from abroad. The benefits in growing crops in a protected environment, permanent glasshouse structures or polythene tunnels, are that the conditions within the structure can be closely monitored and maintained. It also means that use of biological control agents and pollinators can be maximised within the enclosed environment. The disadvantages include increased energy costs and the incidence of pests such as leaf miner and glasshouse whitefly that reproduce rapidly under these conditions. The sample selected for the survey covers five separate holding size groups (please see the Methodology section on page 56) which ensure that all types of management are represented within the survey. Within the United Kingdom there is a marked difference of behaviours between the smaller and the larger holdings. Smaller holdings are often growing a diverse range of crops used to supply a retail or local market, whilst the larger holdings, who regularly supply the major retailers directly, are more specialised and grow one or possibly two crops (e.g. tomatoes & peppers) or crop groups such as herbs or baby leaf vegetables. Larger holdings growing edible plants for propagation will grow a vast range of crops but the way in which they are grown, normally in module trays or rockwool cubes, is consistent. The majority of farms sampled, 65%, were members of one or more crop assurance schemes. The aim of the crop assurance schemes is to provide consumers and retailers with confidence about product quality including food safety and environmental protection. Of particular relevance are the assurance scheme requirements to follow strict protocols in the approved use and recording of pesticide applications, these records are used widely by members of the survey team in the collection of accurate data sets. The demands from major retailers, in terms of the quality of edible protected crops purchased, are extremely high and, as a consequence, the use of biological control agents, insecticides, fungicides and disinfectants needs to match these requirements. As this is a specialist area many of the staff involved on the nursery are well trained and have a high level of expertise in monitoring pest and disease incidence around the site. Pesticide recommendations from qualified agronomists are made in discussion with the trained staff on site. Both tomatoes and peppers are single cropped, normally being planted in December or January and being pulled out in the following October or November. Strawberries are normally planted in July or August with the first harvest taking place in the autumn, a second harvest from the same crop occurs in the spring with the plants being pulled out in June and July. Occasionally a single cucumber crop will be grown but normally there will be two or three crops grown during the year. Multiple cropping, particularly for a crop such as lettuce, is widely used, with up to five crops being grown during the year. Other crops such as baby leaf vegetables and herbs can either have several sequential plantings or a single planting with multiple cuts during the year. Although some crops, lettuce, baby leaf vegetables, are grown in the soil others such as tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers are grown in rockwool or coir blocks. Strawberries are normally grown in bags on a table top system to make picking more efficient, raspberries & blackberries are normally grown in pots stood on the ground.

4

EXPLANATORY NOTES FOR THE 2013 REPORT The range of crops and products used, which include both authorised and non-authorised active substances, the use of different substrates and multiple cropping all combine to make this report the most complicated of the series of reports published by the team. This report is based on over 24,000 rows of pesticide data. The following are some explanatory notes to help the reader. Authorised/non-authorised pesticides, biopesticides/biological control agents: terminology and classification for purposes of this report. Previous reports used the term ‘registered’ pesticides, however the requirements of Regulation 1107/2009 mean that we need to change the terminology used in this report. • Pesticides products require to be ‘authorised’ ; their constituent active substances require to be ‘approved’ . • Biopesticides (such as Bacillus subtilis) also require to be ‘authorised’ . • Biological control agents (usually living parasites or predators), the most important group encountered in edible

protected crops, do not require authorisation.

‘Pesticides’: For clarity, this report refers to all authorised active substances and pesticides products (including biopesticides) simply as ‘pesticides’ and ‘active substances’. All biopesticides have been grouped with either insecticides or fungicides depending on their intended target, be it a fungal pathogen or insect pest. With the exception of Figures 4 & 5 and Tables 3, 4 & 13 all references to insecticides or fungicides also include biopesticides.

‘Biological control agents’: This category includes macro-biological control agents such as predatory mites and parasitic wasps. In previous years, biopesticides and biological control agents were grouped together. However, this report treats biological control agents separately since they do not require authorisation.

‘Other pesticides’: These include a number of products which are classified as either ‘disinfectants’ or ‘physical control agents’, some require authorisation (such as benzoic acid and maltodextrin) and others do not. See Appendix 3 on page 55 for more details. Seed Treatments In line with previous reports and in order to make historical comparisons consistent, no seed treatment data are presented in the current report. Many of the crops are grown from modules, blocks or other planting material originally grown from seed by plant propagators. For these crops the seed and seed treatment information is recorded with the data collected from plant propagators. Crops grown from seed account for a third of the total cropping area but account for less than 3% of the total treated area. Seed treatment data have been collected and these data can be extracted if required. Volumetric Rates Because of the range of crops grown and the differing methods of application, the water volumes used vary from crop to crop and from grower to grower. The range of water volumes used by horticultural growers varies from 150-200 litres per hectare, which are similar to the water volumes used for many arable crops, up to 2,000 litres per hectare for crops such as peppers and strawberries. Whilst rates per hectare are generally applicable to broad acre crops, most applications to protected crops are based on volumetric rates where there is a dilution rate based on the number of grams or millilitres of product used per litre of water. Therefore as the volume of water goes up, so does the rate of application. As such, some of the rates in the report may seem high, but they are only high because they are being compared to the best available data on a product database which may in fact be using a lower volume of water to calculate an application rate. Strawberries Within permanent protected structures the majority of strawberries are grown in bags on raised table tops. Crops are planted late summer for cropping in the autumn and spring of the following year. Although these plants are cropped twice for the purposes of this report they have been dealt with as a single crop as the same plants are used in both autumn and spring. In addition, and because of changes to the way in which data were collected there is no information on strawberries grown in Scotland, data relating to these crops will be published in the 2014 soft fruit survey.

5

Standard Errors The standard errors calculated for this report may appear high, 8.9% for area treated and 15.2% for weight applied, when compared to other surveys, for example fodder crops where they were 3.6% for area treated and 4.6% for weight applied. However, these figures should not be used to diminish the value or validity of the report which sampled approximately 35% of the area of permanent protected structures (glass and polythene) and 45% of the area grown. What the figures reflect is the variability of the edible protected crop population as a whole, showing great extremes of usage from no treatments to multiple treatment applications to an individual crop. It is unlikely that even by increasing the size of the sample that this variability would be reduced and this extreme variability would still be present, and produce higher standard errors even if all holdings were “sampled”. Usage of Sulphur, Tar oil, Glass cleaners and Growth Stimulants Usage of tar oils/acid in this survey is relatively minor with its usage being confined to the cleaning of the glasshouse, or equipment within it, prior to the planting of crops. Growth stimulants and glass cleaners are reported in Appendix 2. Whilst the usage of glass cleaners is primarily to increase light penetration through the glass, use of growth stimulants is, in the main, management by growers to increase plant health, thereby allowing them to build up their own resistance and avoid disease infection. Usage of sulphur was minimal in this survey where its use was for either mildew control or as a foliar feed to specific crops.

6

TRENDS

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2007 2011 2013

Figure 1 - Changes in the area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2013 (hectares)1

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

2007 2011 2013

Figure 2 - Changes in the overall pesticide treated area of edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2013 (treated hectares)1

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

2007 2011 2013

Figure 3 - Changes in the overall weight of pesticides applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2013 (kilogrammes)1

1Data for Northern Ireland were not available for 2007 and the figures for 2007 relate to GB data

7

TRENDS (cont.)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Acaricides Insecticides Biopesticides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides

Figure 4 - Changes in the area treated with the major pesticide groups applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2013 (hectares treated)1

2007

2011

2013

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Acaricides Insecticides Biopesticides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides

Figure 5 - Changes in the weight of the major pesticide groups applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2013 (kilogrammes applied)1

2007

2011

2013

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007 2011 2013

Figure 6 - Changes in the use of biological control agents applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2007 - 2013

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

1Whilst figures 4 & 5 separate biopesticides from insecticides and fungicides; these are the only figures in this report to do so.

Data for Northern Ireland were not available for 2007 and the figures for 2007 relate to GB data

8

CROPS Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from 239 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 3,307 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops, or groups of edible protected crops treated identically. Crops included in the survey were tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, other vegetables, edible plants in propagation, strawberries, and other fruit. The sample accounted for 45% of the total area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom during the 2012/13 season. Data for crops such as other vegetables, whilst accounting for a significant area, are not split because of the lack of availability of June Survey/Basic Horticultural Statistics data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

EastMidlands

Eastern London &South East

North East North West South West WestMidlands

Yorkshire& the

Humber

Wales Scotland NorthernIreland

Figure 7 - Regional distribution of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom -2013 (hectares)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Tomatoes Cucumbers Lettuce Peppers Othervegetables

Edible plants inpropagation

Strawberries Other fruit

Figure 8 - Relative areas of the different edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom - 2013

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

EastMidlands


North East NorthWest

South West WestMidlands

Yorkshire& the

Humber


Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 9 - Comparison of regional distribution and pesticide treated areas of edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area grown

Area treated

9

PESTICIDE USAGE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

EastMidlands


North East North West South West WestMidlands

Yorkshire &the Humber


Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 10 - Regional distribution of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2013 (area treated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biological controlagents

Soil sterilants Sulphur Physical controlagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 11 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom -2013

Area

Weight

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Sulphur Physical controlagents

Other pesticides

Figure 12 - Average number of applications made to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom -20131,2

1In Figure 12 “Other pesticides” includes herbicides, molluscicides, soil sterilants, disinfectants, tar oils/acids and growth stimulants as the average

number of applications of each made to edible protected crops is 0.1 or less. In contrast to many other pesticide usage surveys herbicide usage is

minimal as many of the crops are not grown in the soil and there is therefore limited weed pressure.

2In Figure 12 insecticides and fungicides both contain biopesticides used to control insect and fungal pathogens respectively.

10

PESTICIDE USAGE ON TOMATOES

• 239 hectares of tomatoes grown in the United Kingdom

• 3,781 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)

• 14,754 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)

• 4,172 hectares treated with biological control agents

• 4% of tomatoes remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated tomatoes received on average 23 biological control agents, 13 biopesticides, 2 sulphur

sprays, 2 physical control agents, 2 fungicides and 2 insecticides during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, growth stimulants, acaricides, molluscicides, soil sterilants and tar oils/acids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biologicalcontrolagents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Sulphur Physicalcontrolagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 13 - Usage of the major pesticides on tomatoes in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 14 - Timing of pesticide applications on tomatoes - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

11

Tomatoes – Fungicides (including biopesticides)

• Area treated: 814 hectares

• Weight of active substances applied: 4,484 kg

• The five most common formulations by area treated were:

Formulation

area treated (ha)

Weight of a.s. applied (kg)

Proportion of fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of area grown

Average number of

applications (where

applied)

Average proportion of full label rate

Potassium hydrogen carbonate 233 3,927 0.29 0.13 7.26 volumetric

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 202 149 0.25 0.33 2.56 1.18

Copper oxychloride 180 279 0.22 0.35 2.15 0.42

Propamocarb hydrochloride 52 47 0.06 0.10 2.15 volumetric

Azoxystrobin 49 13 0.06 0.19 1.08 volumetric

Use of the food grade commodity chemical potassium hydrogen carbonate was intensive compared to the use of fungicides. Its use would have been primarily for mildew control in order to prevent any residue issues which may arise from the use of conventional fungicides before harvest. Unfortunately this reason for use has not been identified in Figure 15 below and the reasons shown relate to conventional fungicides.

79%

16%

3% 2%

Figure 15 - Tomatoes - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

botrytis

pythium

cladosporium

other diseases

Usage of sulphur accounted for 10% of the area treated and 16% of the weight applied. The main usage, 73%, was for powdery mildew control with a further 26% of applications being made for unspecified mildews. The remaining 1% was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite.

12

Tomatoes – Insecticides (including biopesticides)


• Weight of active substances applied: 116 kg

• The five most common formulations were:

Formulation area treated

(ha)


Proportion of insecticide –treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 123 6 0.29 0.04 14.08 volumetric

Spinosad 105 12 0.25 0.36 1.24 volumetric

Spiromesifen 104 21 0.24 0.21 2.10 volumetric

Pyrethrins 39 3 0.09 0.11 1.49 0.15

Chlorantraniliprole 32 1 0.07 0.13 1.00 0.46

42%

20%

13%

9%

5%

11%

Figure 16 - Tomatoes - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)

caterpillars

two-spotted spider mite

leaf miner

macrolophus

aphids

other pests

Usage of insecticides on tomato crops was limited, with control of caterpillars, two-spotted spider mite, leaf miner and Macrolophus spp. being the main reasons for use. Macrolophus spp. is a predator normally used as part of a biological control programme, however when available prey is limited it will feed on pollen from tomato flowers. The action of the piercing mouthparts can damage the flower and result in fruit which is unmarketable.

13

Tomatoes – Biological control

• Area treated: 4,172 hectares

• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms

• The five most common biological control agents were:


(ha)


Proportion of biological control –

treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Encarsia formosa 3,072 N/A 0.74 0.92 14.01 N/A

Diglyphus isaea 352 N/A 0.08 0.09 15.77 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis 305 N/A 0.07 0.23 5.44 N/A

Macrolophus pygmaeus 298 N/A 0.07 0.81 1.54 N/A

Aphidius colemani 78 N/A 0.02 0.03 12.06 N/A

Encarsia formosa and Macrolophus pygmaeus were used primarily to control glasshouse whitefly and tobacco whitefly.

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite, Diglyphus isaea for the control of

leaf miners, and Aphidius colemani was used for control of aphids in the tomato crop.

Bees were important for the pollination of this crop, being used on 96% of the area grown.

Tomatoes – Other pesticides

Use of physical control agents was also important and they were the major “Other pesticide” group used although most of

these were not pesticides, accounting for 12% of the total treated area but 22% of the weight applied. Garlic and citrus

fruit extract/garlic, both for aphid control, were the most important physical control agents recorded accounting for 74%

of the total area treated with physical control agents.

Disinfectants, including peroxyacetic acid and glutaraldehyde, comprised 6% of the total treated area.

Abamectin accounted for 83% of acaricide usage, with control of two-spotted spider mite accounting for 91% of all

acaricide applications.

There was minimal use of molluscicides and tar oils/acid on tomatoes.

14

PESTICIDE USAGE ON CUCUMBERS

• 229 hectares of cucumbers grown in the United Kingdom

• 887 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)



• 1% of cucumbers remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated cucumbers received on average 13 biological control agents, 3 biopesticides, 2 fungicides

and an insecticide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, acaricides, sulphur, molluscicides, growth stimulants and physical control

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biologicalcontrol agents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physicalcontrol agents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 17 - Usage of the major pesticides on cucumbers in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 18 - Timing of pesticide applications on cucumbers - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

15

Cucumbers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Myclobutanil 85 4 0.20 0.21 1.73 0.59

Cyflufenamid 69 1 0.16 0.19 1.56 0.90

Bupirimate 59 64 0.14 0.12 2.07 volumetric Fosetyl-aluminium/ propamocarb hydrochloride 55 130 0.13 0.24 1.00 0.10


46%

36%

10%

3%3% 2%

Figure 19 - Cucumbers - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

powdery mildew

pythium

mildew

general disease control

mycosphaerella

botrytis

Control of root diseases, such as Pythium spp. is normally done soon after planting applying a fungicide such as fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride or propamocarb hydrochloride through the irrigation lines into the rockwool, coir or foam blocks in which the cucumber is planted. Interestingly, some of the first crops planted into new substrate did not receive an application for the control of Pythium spp., whilst subsequent, second and third plantings did. This reflects the fact that there would be minimal disease risk from new substrate. This is in contrast to previous surveys where even the first crop would have had a fungicide application.

16

Cucumbers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Verticillium lecanii 28 10 0.32 0.05 2.53 0.73

Pymetrozine 24 8 0.27 0.10 1.04 volumetric

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 10 0 0.11 0.03 1.53 volumetric

Fatty acids 10 116 0.11 0.01 3.20 volumetric


Forty-five percent of insecticides were used for the control of aphids, with other important pests, whitefly and western

flower thrips, accounting for a further 26% and 22% of the total respectively.

Cucumbers – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Encarsia formosa 1,562 0 0.56 0.84 8.09 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis 508 0 0.18 0.39 5.65 N/A

Neoseiulus cucumeris 246 0 0.09 0.77 1.40 N/A

Aphidius colemani 174 0 0.06 0.08 9.03 N/A

Amblyseius swirksii 91 0 0.03 0.31 1.29 N/A

Encarsia formosa was used primarily to control glasshouse whitefly, Phytoseiulus persimilis for the control of two-

spotted spider mite, Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris used to control western flower thrips and Aphidius

colemani for aphids. Amblyseius swirskii is more of a generalist predator but would have been used primarily to control

whitefly, being introduced only once or twice during the life of the crop, compared to the regular weekly applications of

Encarsia formosa.

Cucumbers – Other pesticides

Abamectin, again used for the control of two-spotted spider mite, was the only acaricide recorded.

Disinfectants, including peroxygen compounds and cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride/glutaraldehyde were the

major “Other pesticide” group used.

There was minimal usage of sulphur, herbicides, molluscicides, growth stimulants and physical control.

17

PESTICIDE USAGE ON LETTUCE

• 336 hectares of lettuce grown in the United Kingdom



• Soil sterilants comprised less than 1% of the area treated but 43% of the weight of all pesticides applied

• 4 hectares treated with biological control agents

• 6% of lettuce remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been

applied to the crop

• Where treated lettuce received on average 3 fungicides, 2 insecticides and 1 biopesticide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included physical control agents, herbicides, molluscicides, disinfectants, biological control agents, soil sterilants and tar oil/acid

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Molluscicides Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physical controlagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 20 - Usage of the major pesticides on lettuce in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 21 - Timing of pesticide applications on lettuce - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Herbicide

18

Lettuce – Fungicides (including biopesticides)





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Mandipropamid 269 39 0.22 0.73 1.09 0.97

Azoxystrobin 221 55 0.18 0.66 1.00 1.00


Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 144 148 0.12 0.42 1.03 0.82

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 126 58 0.10 0.37 1.02 0.92

Mandipropamid, the most frequently encountered fungicide on lettuce, has a recommendation for a single application

throughout the life of the crop. In a limited number of cases the recommended number of applications was exceeded.

45%

36%

7%

5%4%

3%

Figure 22 - Lettuce - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

botrytis

mildew

rhizoctonia


sclerotinia

other diseases

Downy mildew, rather than powdery mildew, would have been the principal disease of lettuce crops as powdery mildew is only a minor threat.

19

Lettuce – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Cypermethrin 214 4 0.28 0.45 1.41 0.79

Pirimicarb 175 39 0.23 0.49 1.06 volumetric

Deltamethrin 123 1 0.16 0.26 1.41 0.82

Acetamiprid 70 3 0.09 0.21 1.00 0.99

Pymetrozine 56 11 0.07 0.15 1.13 0.98

Most insecticides, 61%, were used to control aphids, caterpillars accounted for 26% and aphids/caterpillars combined 13%.

Lettuce – Other pesticides

Garlic and maltodextrin were the only physical control agents used, and together comprised 5% of the overall treated

area.

Compared with previous surveys, herbicide usage was minimal, accounting for 4% of the overall treated area.

Propyzamide was the principal herbicide used, comprising 78% of the total herbicide treated area. The use of polythene

mulches to prevent basal lettuce leaves coming into contact with the soil and as mulch for weed control may account for

some of the reduction in herbicide usage.

Ferric phosphate, for slug and snail control, was the principal molluscicide used, accounting for 56% of the total.

Peroxyacetic acid was the only disinfectant encountered.

Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita was the only biological control agent encountered, being used for the control of slugs.

The soil sterilant dazomet, which was used prior to the planting of less than a hectare of lettuce, accounted for 43% of the

weight of all active substances used on this crop. Its use was only encountered on a single holding and all dazomet usage

accounted for less than 0.1% of the treated area and is therefore associated with higher standard errors.

Peroxyacetic acid was the only disinfectant encountered.

20

PESTICIDE USAGE ON PEPPERS

• 105 hectares of peppers grown in the United Kingdom




• 3% of peppers remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been

applied to the crop

• Where treated peppers received on average 74 biological control agents, 12 biopesticides, 9 insecticides, 4 physical control agents and 1 fungicide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included growth stimulants, acaricides, molluscicides, sulphur and tar oil/acid

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Disinfectants Sulphur Physicalcontrol agents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 23 - Usage of the major pesticides on peppers in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 24 - Timing of pesticide applications on peppers - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

21

Peppers– Fungicides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)



Azoxystrobin 21 8 0.21 0.09 2.11 volumetric

Lysobacter 17 17 0.17 0.16 1.00 1.00


Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 11 12 0.11 0.03 3.00 volumetric

There was minimal usage of fungicides, most of which were applied volumetrically, which, as in the case of azoxystrobin, resulted in rates that were higher than the available recommended rates on the product database. Most applications, 70%, were made for powdery mildew control, with a further 30% for Pythium control. Peppers– Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Pymetrozine 169 33 0.24 0.68 2.37 volumetric

Fatty acids 140 3,043 0.20 0.04 30.21 volumetric

Pirimicarb 78 19 0.11 0.45 1.66 volumetric

Indoxacarb 72 3 0.10 0.38 1.77 volumetric


Aphid control was cited for 74% of insecticide usage, caterpillars 19%, mealy-bug 2%, whitefly 2% and other pests the

remaining 3%.

The high rate of fatty acids on peppers is due to the use of this product by growers using a volumetric calculation (where

the rate varies according to the volume of water used).

22

Peppers– Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Aphidius colemani 3,288 N/A 0.34 0.93 33.54 N/A

Aphidoletes aphidimyza 2,235 N/A 0.23 0.92 22.99 N/A

Aphidius ervi 1,810 N/A 0.19 0.83 20.72 N/A


Eretmocerus eremicus 333 N/A 0.03 0.37 8.62 N/A

Aphidius colemani, Aphidoletes aphidimyza and Aphidius ervi were all used to control aphids within the pepper crop;

Phytoseiulus persimilis for the control of two-spotted spider mites; Eretmocerus eremicus for the control of whitefly.

There is a great reliance on the use of biological control agents to reduce pest infestations in pepper crops. It is common

practice to introduce 3 or 4 different predators or parasites each week throughout the growing season which can span

between 9 or 10 months resulting in an average of 74 applications during the season.

Bees were important for the pollination of some (58%), but not all, crops.

Peppers – Other pesticides

Disinfectants were the main group of other pesticides, with cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride/gluteraldehyde and

peroxygen compounds being the principal disinfectants used. Abamectin was the only acaricide recorded; ferric

phosphate was the principal molluscicide. There was minimal usage of sulphur.

23

PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER VEGETABLES

• 469 hectares of other vegetables grown in the United Kingdom



• Soil sterilants accounted for less than 1% of the treated area but for 36% of the weight applied


• 68% of other vegetables remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may

have been applied to the crop

• Where treated other vegetables received on average 17 biological control agents, 6 fungicides, 5 insecticides, 3 biopesticides, and 2 physical control agents during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, herbicides, molluscicides, acaricides, sulphur and tar oil/acid

• The principal crops in this category included baby leaf salad; herbs (pot grown & cut); radish; watercress

(protected); Chinese vegetables; aubergines; and cress

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biologicalcontrolagents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Sulphur Physicalcontrolagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 25 - Usage of the major pesticides on other vegetables in the United Kingdom -2013

Area

Weight

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 26 - Timing of pesticide applications on other vegetables - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Herbicide

24

Other vegetables – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Bacillus subtilis 70 12 0.37 0.13 1.14 1.00

Dimethomorph 28 5 0.15 0.06 1.04 1.00

Mandipropamid 24 2 0.13 0.05 1.05 0.69


Azoxystrobin 15 3 0.08 0.02 1.91 0.96

40%

20%

19%

19%

2%

Figure 27 - Other vegetables - Reason for use of fungicides - (where specified)

powdery mildew


downy mildew

botrytis

sclerotinia

Fungicide usage on other vegetables was minimal although the most intensively treated crops were perennial herbs, such as sage and tarragon, which were both treated and cut regularly throughout the year.

25

Other vegetables – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 101 11 0.42 0.07 2.98 0.50

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 47 2 0.19 0.10 1.00 1.00

Pymetrozine 35 6 0.14 0.05 1.37 1.00

Deltamethrin 28 0 0.12 0.05 1.24 1.01

Lambda-cyhalothrin 9 0 0.04 0.02 1.01 0.86

49%

25%

8%

6%

5%

3% 2%2%

Figure 28 - Other vegetables - Reason for use of insecticides - (where specified)

aphids

caterpillars

flea beetle

asparagus beetle

thrips

whitefly


vine weevil

26

Other vegetables – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)



Encarsia formosa 630 N/A 0.15 0.21 6.45 N/A

Aphidoletes aphidimyza 585 N/A 0.14 0.12 10.25 N/A

Neoseiulus cucumeris 449 N/A 0.11 0.18 5.35 N/A

Aphidius ervi 406 N/A 0.10 0.10 8.28 N/A

Aphidius colemani, Aphidoletes aphidimyza and Aphidius ervi were all used for aphid control; Encarsia formosa for

whitefly control; Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris was used primarily for western flower thrips control.

Bees were important for the pollination of some crops including aubergines.

Other vegetables – Other pesticides

Physical control agents comprised 2% of the total area of other vegetables treated and 11% of the weight applied.

Carbonic acid/urea accounted for 97% of the total and maltodextrin the remaining 3%.

Disinfectants accounted for 1% of the total treated area with ammonium bi fluoride, hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid

and peroxygen compounds being the most commonly used active substances.

The soil sterilant dazomet, used prior to planting 2 hectares of soil grown crops, was the most important “other pesticide”

used on other vegetables accounting for less than 1% of the area treated but for 36% of the weight applied.

Herbicides, molluscicides, acaricides, sulphur and tar oil/acids each accounted for less than 1% of the total area treated.

27

PESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PLANTS IN PROPAGATION

• 374 hectares of edible plants in propagation grown in the United Kingdom



• Insecticides accounted for 18% of the treated area and 38% of the weight applied


• 8% of edible plants in propagation remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control

organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated edible plants in propagation received on average 4 fungicides, 1 insecticide, 1 biopesticide and 1 acaricide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, sulphur, herbicides (underneath greenhouse staging), molluscicides, growth stimulants and physical control agents

• Crops included both vegetable and fruit crops, with lettuce; brassicas; tomatoes; celery; and strawberries for propagation being the most important crops recorded

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Disinfectants Sulphur

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 29 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible plants in propagation in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 30 - Timing of pesticide applications on edible plants in propagation - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Acaricide

28

Edible plants in propagation – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Fosetyl-aluminium/ propamocarb hydrochloride 254 2,773 0.21 0.63 1.07 0.95


Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 114 101 0.10 0.29 1.03 0.69


Myclobutanil 66 6 0.06 0.04 4.09 1.00

Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride and propamocarb hydrochloride alone, both used for controlling damping

off and mildew in newly sown seed accounted for 53% and 30% of the weight of fungicides applied respectively.

36%

31%

11%

10%

5%7%

Figure 31 - Edible plants in propagation - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

mildew

botrytis

pythium

mildew/pythium

phytopthora

other diseases

Downy mildew was the disease recorded most in the other diseases category accounting for 4% of the total treated area. Sulphur, which accounted for 1% of the total treated area, was used for a combination of mildew (87%) and botrytis (13%) control.

29

Edible plants in propagation – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Chlorpyrifos 130 4,764 0.30 0.32 1.07 0.67

Verticillium lecanii 103 50 0.23 0.08 3.37 1.00

Pirimicarb 81 30 0.19 0.21 1.05 1.49

Cypermethrin 68 2 0.15 0.18 1.01 1.00

Pymetrozine 15 3 0.04 0.04 1.12 1.00

The use of chlorpyrifos is primarily as a drench to brassica seedlings before delivery to outdoor vegetable growers in

order to control cabbage root fly (see figure 32). As can be seen above this is a relatively high rate of application applied

to a small area. This rate is totally dependent on the water volumes used and these can be very high in some cases.

Similarly the pirimicarb would have been applied volumetrically resulting in a rate which appears higher than the full

label rate.

63%

28%

6%

3%

Figure 32 - Edible plants in propagation - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)

cabbage root fly

aphids

pests

aphids/caterpillars

30

Edible plants in propagation – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Diglyphus isaea 103 N/A 0.39 0.08 3.37 N/A


Aphidoletes aphidimyza 40 N/A 0.15 0.08 1.32 N/A


Macrocheles robustulus 6 N/A 0.02 0.01 2.30 N/A

Diglyphus isaea was used for leaf miners, Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris for thrips control, Aphidoletes

aphidimyza and Aphidius colemani both for aphid control. Although usage of Macrocheles robustulus was minimal, it

was used for controlling both sciarid flies and thrips.

Edible plants in propagation – Acaricides





(ha)


Proportion of acaricide –treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Abamectin 46 0 0.53 0.04 2.86 volumetric

Clofentezine 15 3 0.17 0.02 2.37 volumetric

Bifenazate 15 2 0.17 0.02 1.85 1.00

Etoxazole 7 0 0.09 0.02 1.18 volumetric

Spirodiclofen 3 0 0.03 0.01 1.00 volumetric

All acaricide usage was on fruit plants in propagation, rather than vegetable plants.

Edible plants in propagation – Other pesticides

Disinfectants were the most important “Other pesticides” used accounting for 16% of the total by area treated and 21% by

weight applied. Peroxyacetic acid accounted for 41% of the total area and was used mainly as a wash to sterilise trays

and pots prior to the planting of a new crop.

There was minimal usage of herbicides, molluscicides, growth stimulants and physical control.

31

PESTICIDE USAGE ON STRAWBERRIES

• 179 hectares of strawberries grown in the United Kingdom




• Less than 1% of strawberries remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated strawberries received on average 17 fungicides, 8 biological control agents, 4 acaricides, 4

biopesticides and 1 physical control agent during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, growth stimulants, herbicides and molluscicides

• Figure 34 clearly shows a double spike in treatments to strawberry crops. Crops are normally planted in late summer and cropped in the autumn and again in the spring. For the purposes of this report we have treated this as a single crop as the plants for both cropping periods are the same.

• Because of changes to the way in which data were collected there is no information on strawberries grown in Scotland, data relating to these crops will be published in the 2014 soft fruit survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Disinfectants Sulphur Physical controlagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 33 - Usage of the major pesticides on strawberries in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 34 - Timing of pesticide applications to strawberries - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control agents

Acaricide

32

Strawberries – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Myclobutanil 680 89 0.14 0.79 4.79 1.45

Iprodione 561 543 0.12 0.90 3.49 1.29

Azoxystrobin 545 174 0.11 0.86 3.53 1.27

Bupirimate 358 168 0.07 0.79 2.52 1.34


40%

35%

12%

5%

8%

Figure 35 - Strawberries - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

botrytis

mildew

powdery mildew


other diseases

The average number of fungicide applications used on strawberries was 17 which may seem high. However, because of the way in which the data are presented this relates to a single crop that is cropped twice from planting in late summer being pulled out in May and June of the following year. This is an exceptionally long period in which to keep a crop free from disease, particularly diseases such as powdery mildew and botrytis. Usage of sulphur accounted for 1% of the area treated and 5% of the weight applied. The main usage was for mildew control (84%) of which 5% specified it was for powdery mildew. The remaining 16% indicated that sulphur was being used as a foliar feed.

33

Strawberries – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Pirimicarb 315 99 0.33 0.77 2.29 1.12

Thiacloprid 131 21 0.14 0.53 1.38 1.35



Lambda-cyhalothrin 77 1 0.08 0.36 1.20 1.62

As can be seen from the full label rates above most of the applications to strawberries would have been made using high

volumes of water, up to 2,000 litres per hectare, resulting in rates that appear to be higher than the full label rate.

55%

14%

11%

11%

9%

Figure 36 - Strawberries - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)

aphids

whitefly

thrips


other pests

Strawberries – Acaricides





(ha)


Proportion of acaricide –treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Abamectin 344 4 0.48 0.72 2.68 volumetric

Clofentezine 191 47 0.27 0.57 1.87 volumetric

Bifenazate 91 12 0.13 0.35 1.46 0.93

Tebufenpyrad 38 5 0.05 0.15 1.44 volumetric

Spirodiclofen 30 3 0.04 0.17 1.00 volumetric

Eighty-two percent of acaricide applications were made to control two-spotted spider mite, 12% for a combination of two-spotted spider mite, thrips and tarsonemid mites, 3% for whitefly, 2% for thrips and the remainder for aphids.

34

Strawberries – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)




Aphidius spp 67 N/A 0.05 0.13 2.97 N/A


Hypoaspis spp 38 N/A 0.03 0.10 2.13 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite, Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris

was primarily used to control thrips species (normally western flower thrips), Aphidius species (including colemani), used

for the control of aphids. Hypoaspis spp. would have been used to control sciarid fly larvae infestations.

Bees were important for the pollination of 96% of the area of strawberries grown.

Strawberries – Other pesticides

Disinfectants, physical control agents, growth stimulants, herbicides and molluscicides were all used on this crop.

Disinfectants, particularly peroxyacetic acid, accounted for 2% of the total treated area.

Physical control agents comprised 1% of the total with carbonic acid/urea being the only formulation encountered.

Herbicides comprised less than 1% of the total area treated and weight of all pesticides applied. Glufosinate-ammonium

was the only herbicide recorded and being applied to the ground below strawberries grown on table top or raised bed

systems.

Ferric phosphate was the only molluscicide recorded.

35

PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER FRUIT

• 43 hectares of other fruit grown in the United Kingdom


• 27 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)


• 6% of other fruit remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have

been applied to the crop

• Where treated other fruit received on average 4 biological control agents, 3 insecticides, 2 fungicides, 1 acaricide and 1 biopesticide during the growing season. Herbicides, molluscicides and physical control agents were the only other pesticides recorded

• Raspberries was the principal crop encountered

• Because of changes to the way in which data were collected there is no information on other fruit crops grown in Scotland, data relating to these crops will be published in the 2014 soft fruit survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Physical controlagents

Per

cena

tge

of to

tal

Figure 37 - Usage of the major pesticides on other fruit in the United Kingdom - 2013

Area

Weight

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 38 - Timing of pesticide applications on other fruit - 2013

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

36

Other fruit – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Bacillus subtilis 13

37

Other fruit – Biological control



• The most common biological control agents were:


(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Phytoseiulus persimilis 87 N/A 0.60 0.55 3.68 N/A Trichogramma brassicae/Trichogramma evanescans 28 N/A 0.20 0.40 1.64 N/A

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora 17 N/A 0.12 0.40 1.00 N/A Aphidius abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Praon volucre 6 N/A 0.04 0.14 1.00 N/A

Heterorhabditis megidis 3 N/A 0.02 0.04 2.00 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite. The combination of Trichogramma

species would have been used to control a range of lepidopterous pests, but bearing in mind the use of (E,E)-8,10-

dodecadien-1-ol above, which is used as a pheromone disrupter for light brown apple moth (LBAM), it is likely that the

target species would have been this pest. The mix of Aphidius abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius

matricariae/Praon volucre would have been used to target a wide range of aphid species. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora

and H. megidis were used for the control of vine weevil larvae and were normally applied as a drench or through the

irrigation lines.

Bees were important for the pollination of 95% of other fruit crops grown.

Other fruit – Other pesticides

Clofentezine and abamectin were the only acaricides recorded with two-spotted spider mite being the only reason cited

for their use.

Carfentrazone-ethyl and glyphosate were the only herbicides being recorded with usage confined to the area around pot-

grown crops.

Ferric pho

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 256 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · dodecadien-1-ol for light brown apple...

Documents

Transcript of PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 256 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · dodecadien-1-ol for light brown apple...