First, variety ratings on the winter cereal recommended lists - to be launched shortly - are likely to remain broadly similar to this year. Second, all crop advisers must go onto a register before 26 November to be eligible to advise, under the new Sustainable Use Directive (SUD).

Varieties

While the recommended lists for 2014 are almost complete, many growers are making decisions on variety choice for this backend based on performance in 2013.

While this is always a good guide, it would appear from the results of the recommended list trials, presented by Josephine Brennan from the Department, that the average trial differences were not as big as individual field differences. This is important because the recommended list performance is over a number of sites and gives a truer picture of what one might expect in the future.

Winter barley

The trials are based on five sites and 18 varieties. Seven of these were six-row, five of which were hybrids. Volume had the highest yield in 2013 (Table 1) followed by a new six-row hybrid, SY 210-77. This latter variety is not up for recommendation this year.

While there were very many high yielding fields of Cassia this year, it still only managed to do 101 in the 2013 trials which provide a good indication of yield potential.

It has not yet been decided as to whether any of the three new contenders – Tower, Bamboo or California – will be recommended but Bamboo will not be, due to the lack of seed availability.

Tower may not be considered either as it is not yet on the national list. Amarena will drop off the recommended list.

||PIC2||

Winter oats

There is one new variety, Binary, up for recommendation on the winter oat list. Otherwise, Barra had a good year to yield at 95% of controls with Husky at 105 in 2013. Binary yielded 99.

Other varieties tested include a true winter type, Oxalis, which did 106 and a spring type, Vodka, which yielded 102 in 2013.

Winter wheat

No big surprises here either except that, as with Cassia, Avatar appeared to show a bigger yield benefit at farm level compared with Diego. But both of these have done well in the trials (Table 2).

There are four new varieties up for consideration – Lumos, Dunmore, Evolution and Croft. The first three averaged above 100 on yield (Table 2) and so are in with a shout.

But there was still one trial to add to these results and this might alter the 2013 numbers somewhat.

||PIC3||

While we are not sure what will come onto the recommended list this year, it is certain that both Kingdom and Grafton will be dropped.

A number of other varieties were also tested and the better performers included Leeds at 103, Weaver at 105 while the numbered SJ8576003 did 106. But these are only one-year results.

Josephine also presented results from early sowing of many of these varieties. On balance, the best varieties from the recommended list tended to be the best varieties when sown early, with Diego, Lumos and Croft performing somewhat better when sown early.

And on place in rotation, Josephine reported that Lion, Diego, Epson and Avatar performed much better when sown as a first wheat after a break crop while Lumos was more versatile.

The new SUD requirements

The Sustainable Use Directive (Directive 2009/128/EC), or SUD as it is now known, comes into effect from January 2014.

Sheila Macken from the Department’s pesticide division outlined the four main requirements:

Training/education/information exchange.

Controls on application equipment.

Controls on storage, supply and use.

Adoption of principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

Training

This applies across the distribution and use chain. It involves advisers, distributors, users (those who apply the product) and testers. It also means setting up registers to list all persons in the different categories.

Advisers

All existing crop advisers must register before 26 November 2013 to be on this list. New advisers post 26 November 2013 must undergo a diploma in Integrated Pest Management and the Sustainable Use of Pesticides to be listed.

This will be a new course with FETAC Level 7 and it is due to start in January 2014. It will be organised by the Department, UCD and Teagasc and will involve four modules:

The biology and control of weeds, pests and diseases of crops.

Pesticide use and the environment.

Principles and practices of IPM.

Use of IPM practices in crop management programmes (project-based).

Advisers will also have to undergo CPE (continuous professional education) and the current IASIS programme will meet this requirement. Registration as an adviser implies a commitment to CPE.

Distributors

All points of sale of pesticides will have to have a certified individual present at all times by 26 November 2015. This caused some discussion at the forum and Scott Lovell of Dairygold said that this would mean having 38 such advisers to cover all the Dairygold branches. Currently, the co-op has 10 IASIS certified advisers, so something will have to change if this provision holds.

Distributors would also have to undergo training and be subject to CPE.

Professional Users

A professional user is deemed to be anyone who uses pesticides in the course of their professional activities. But it really means those who apply pesticides rather than those who buy them.

For practical reasons, there is an exemption in place for grassland-only farmers who purchase less than 20L of pesticide per annum to treat less than 10ha.

This exemption only applies to grassland farmers who apply the product themselves. If product is being applied by a spraying contractor then it is the sprayer operator who must be trained.

The basic training requirement is a Teagasc Level 5 certificate, including the pesticide application module or the Coillte/City & Guild certificate. The user must be aware of product labels, the safe use and application of PPPs, record keeping, storage and disposal, the environment and IPM and relevant legislation.

Equipment inspectors

The SUD requires that all sprayers with booms greater than three metres, and orchard and blast sprayers, must be tested at least once by 26 November 2016.

Testing must take place at least every five years up to 2020 and every three years thereafter.

This will mean the registration and training of sprayer testers. British-trained inspectors are currently in place but these will have to take the new Irish course, when it is developed, to remain on the register. Inspectors will also have to undergo CPE.

Integrated Pest

management

This is a new requirement, but not a new phenomenon. Growers and advisers have already done this for years. It is really about making choices and doing things to lessen the dependence on chemicals during production. It means things like variety choice, cultural weed control, pest thresholds, etc. The difference is that such actions will need to be documented in future.

Details of what IPM will mean for the different parties were scarce, other than that non-compliance would mean penalties.

Speaking on the experiences of using IPM in the Netherlands, Frank Wijnands, a researcher from Wageningen University, recommended that the introduction of IPM should involve all stakeholders from the very beginning to help optimise its success.

Research and science have long identified techniques that would help achieve specific objectives in this regard, but uptake at farm level has been low. And this is the case in most countries. In order to help the adoption of these techniques, Frank recommended that the stakeholders identify the most important objectives and then work towards achieving them together. “Together is essential,” he stated.

IPM must be about maximising the tools available to growers rather than constraining them, Frank explained.

In Holland, the reduction of pesticides in water was set as a major objective and when this was explained and agreed, all parties worked towards achieving this objective.

Having a large number of theoretical objectives only alienated growers and then they just did the minimum to ‘tick the box’.

At the panel discussion, Noel Delany of IFA said that he was happy with the IPM concept, saying it was “fundamentally good”.

However, this is an additional cost on producers against a background where tillage farmers alone must adhere to the principles of greening.

Growth in the tillage sector must be based on research, advice and education and the SUD and IPM can only help in this regard, said Paddy Browne of Teagasc.

From an advisory perspective, most advisers will already be at Level 8. Teagasc will play a role in training and certification but that manpower is a real issue.