The requirement to reduce the impact of pesticides by 50% may involve an obligatory reduction in pesticide use by a similar amount. To some, this may seem like an admirable objective, but it would kill commercial crop production as we know it today on this island. Our high cost production system necessitates high yields and our combined contribution of herbicides, aphicides, fungicides and growth regulators help provide 20% to 60% of that yield level.
So, is this a step too far? The simple answer is yes and it is important that our political masters be aware of this or we will witness further erosion in the tillage sector on this island.
At least, it is a step too far for now, as we do not seem to have any viable alternatives for both the products we will lose plus a forced reduction in usage. Nor do we have a pipeline of new varieties produced with the help of novel precision breeding tools that would help substitute the need for pesticides.
I recently spoke to Dr Ewen Mullins, Head of the crop science department at Teagasc in Oak Park and asked for his view on our ability to meet this requirement, both now and in the future.
We spoke about what the biggest challenges will be and where the most immediate solutions may come from.
It will take time
“With the breeding systems the industry has in place today, we would not be in a position to meet this obligation in the timescale envisaged, if we have to rely on current production practises” Ewen stated.
“However, we must look for ways to achieve this target. To do that, we have to look at how we generate new varieties and what is the optimum way to manage them and reduce production costs for the sustainability of both tillage enterprises and the environment”
As we look to the future, our ability to cut pesticide use will depend on three major actions:
More diverse and resilient rotations. More active use of integrated pest management (IPM).The use of genetics to deliver varieties whose performance is more durable in the field.Not only will success depend on all three, it will depend on them working together in unison. Because, whether we like it or not, the days of having a total solution for a problem from a bottle are numbered.
Put simply, being a farmer in the future will require more ‘farming’ and IPM will be essential, not optional.
The new target is unrealistic from the base line we are starting from.
This is the same for all member states and so Ewen believes there may be a realisation amongst member states of the necessity to consider precision breeding tools as one way to assist us meet the Green Deal goals.
Other breeding technologies were seen as delivering only for farmers and manufacturers, but this time the consumer also has a lot to gain.
Precision breeding
“Access to the new precision tools for plant breeding would make a big difference to our ability to achieve this objective,” Ewen said, “but they still cannot do it all on their own”.
Varieties produced by precision breeding are most likely to fit in as part of a new system for successful production that has clear benefits for the environment, which is what the consumer and society at large need to see.
The EU funded ‘AMIGA’ project that was carried out at Oak Park up to 2015, looked at a genetically modified blight resistant potato, but precision breeding, which is technically not equivalent to GM, can be used to provide similar gains.
The Amiga project at Oak Park looked at a genetically modified blight-resistant potato, but precision breeding could provide similar resistance.
The project looked at how a potato variety with good induced resistance to late potato blight could be managed with the help of other tools, like blight forecasting, to reduce the blight control treatment from up to 15 per season down to just one or two, which reduced the environmental impact of potato growing by more than 80%. Even precision breeding will need to be part of an integrated approach to crop management.
Integrated pest management
The use of IPM involves the integration of lots of different tools and decisions to help reduce or eliminate the pressure from all forms of pests. It can involve doing things like choosing a variety, deciding to plough, deciding not to plough, stubble cultivation, no-till, using thresholds for treatments, using implements to assess risk and so on.
One of the projects that Teagasc is working on is an improved assessment of BYDV infection risk. Currently, the advice is given based solely on aphid counts, but we have little knowledge of aphid movement or if they are carrying the virus.
Teagasc have recently erected aphid suction towers with one in Oak Park, with one under construction in west Dublin and in east Cork. Combined, these will assess aphids in flight (the spread risk) and then Teagasc will check if the aphids are carrying the virus using molecular assay.
With each tower representing a 60km radius the three together will provide a much better indication of the infection risk in future. This will lead to better advice on the risk and the need to spray or not. “The big picture will allow us to give more detailed advice, which is what the sector needs”, Ewen commented.
Rotation
Having a range of crops in any area reduces the pressures imposed on any one. Saying this another way, the lower the concentration of an individual crop the less likely it will be to suffer as many problems.
Having more pulses would reduce the loading of fungicides in an area, especially if we can exploit genetics to deliver better field resistance, while using management practises to maximise the protein potential of the crop for downstream food/feed processing.
But the crops themselves need to be economically viable and having more diverse crops in a rotation will help reduce the pesticide input across the system.
The requirement to reduce the impact of pesticides by 50% may involve an obligatory reduction in pesticide use by a similar amount. To some, this may seem like an admirable objective, but it would kill commercial crop production as we know it today on this island. Our high cost production system necessitates high yields and our combined contribution of herbicides, aphicides, fungicides and growth regulators help provide 20% to 60% of that yield level.
So, is this a step too far? The simple answer is yes and it is important that our political masters be aware of this or we will witness further erosion in the tillage sector on this island.
At least, it is a step too far for now, as we do not seem to have any viable alternatives for both the products we will lose plus a forced reduction in usage. Nor do we have a pipeline of new varieties produced with the help of novel precision breeding tools that would help substitute the need for pesticides.
I recently spoke to Dr Ewen Mullins, Head of the crop science department at Teagasc in Oak Park and asked for his view on our ability to meet this requirement, both now and in the future.
We spoke about what the biggest challenges will be and where the most immediate solutions may come from.
It will take time
“With the breeding systems the industry has in place today, we would not be in a position to meet this obligation in the timescale envisaged, if we have to rely on current production practises” Ewen stated.
“However, we must look for ways to achieve this target. To do that, we have to look at how we generate new varieties and what is the optimum way to manage them and reduce production costs for the sustainability of both tillage enterprises and the environment”
As we look to the future, our ability to cut pesticide use will depend on three major actions:
More diverse and resilient rotations. More active use of integrated pest management (IPM).The use of genetics to deliver varieties whose performance is more durable in the field.Not only will success depend on all three, it will depend on them working together in unison. Because, whether we like it or not, the days of having a total solution for a problem from a bottle are numbered.
Put simply, being a farmer in the future will require more ‘farming’ and IPM will be essential, not optional.
The new target is unrealistic from the base line we are starting from.
This is the same for all member states and so Ewen believes there may be a realisation amongst member states of the necessity to consider precision breeding tools as one way to assist us meet the Green Deal goals.
Other breeding technologies were seen as delivering only for farmers and manufacturers, but this time the consumer also has a lot to gain.
Precision breeding
“Access to the new precision tools for plant breeding would make a big difference to our ability to achieve this objective,” Ewen said, “but they still cannot do it all on their own”.
Varieties produced by precision breeding are most likely to fit in as part of a new system for successful production that has clear benefits for the environment, which is what the consumer and society at large need to see.
The EU funded ‘AMIGA’ project that was carried out at Oak Park up to 2015, looked at a genetically modified blight resistant potato, but precision breeding, which is technically not equivalent to GM, can be used to provide similar gains.
The Amiga project at Oak Park looked at a genetically modified blight-resistant potato, but precision breeding could provide similar resistance.
The project looked at how a potato variety with good induced resistance to late potato blight could be managed with the help of other tools, like blight forecasting, to reduce the blight control treatment from up to 15 per season down to just one or two, which reduced the environmental impact of potato growing by more than 80%. Even precision breeding will need to be part of an integrated approach to crop management.
Integrated pest management
The use of IPM involves the integration of lots of different tools and decisions to help reduce or eliminate the pressure from all forms of pests. It can involve doing things like choosing a variety, deciding to plough, deciding not to plough, stubble cultivation, no-till, using thresholds for treatments, using implements to assess risk and so on.
One of the projects that Teagasc is working on is an improved assessment of BYDV infection risk. Currently, the advice is given based solely on aphid counts, but we have little knowledge of aphid movement or if they are carrying the virus.
Teagasc have recently erected aphid suction towers with one in Oak Park, with one under construction in west Dublin and in east Cork. Combined, these will assess aphids in flight (the spread risk) and then Teagasc will check if the aphids are carrying the virus using molecular assay.
With each tower representing a 60km radius the three together will provide a much better indication of the infection risk in future. This will lead to better advice on the risk and the need to spray or not. “The big picture will allow us to give more detailed advice, which is what the sector needs”, Ewen commented.
Rotation
Having a range of crops in any area reduces the pressures imposed on any one. Saying this another way, the lower the concentration of an individual crop the less likely it will be to suffer as many problems.
Having more pulses would reduce the loading of fungicides in an area, especially if we can exploit genetics to deliver better field resistance, while using management practises to maximise the protein potential of the crop for downstream food/feed processing.
But the crops themselves need to be economically viable and having more diverse crops in a rotation will help reduce the pesticide input across the system.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: