PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269 EDIBLE...

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269

EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

2015

D. G. Garthwaite, I. Barker, A. Mace, G. Parrish, S. Frost, C. Hallam, R. Macarthur & Y. Lu

Land Use & Sustainability Team

Fera Science Ltd

Sand Hutton

York

YO41 1LZ

ii

A NATIONAL STATISTICS SURVEY

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 United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) has a statutory duty to assess National Statistics for compliance with this Code of Practice. Further information is available from the UK Statistics Authority website (https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/monitoring-and-assessment/code-of-practice/). The statistics undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customers’ needs. The UKSA has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics: • meet identified user needs; • are well explained and readily accessible; • are produced according to sound methods; and • are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest. Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. 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:

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

• 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;

• 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 This report presents a comprehensive summary of data for edible protected grown and taken to harvest in 2015. 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: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm

iii

CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2

Edible protected crops – an overview 3

Explanatory notes for the 2015 report 4

Trends 6

Crops 8

Pesticide usage 9

Pesticide usage on tomatoes 10

Pesticide usage on cucumbers 14

Pesticide usage on peppers 17

Pesticide usage on lettuce 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 Biopesticide usage on edible protected crops 55

Appendix 4 Definitions 56

Appendix 5 Methodology 57

Appendix 6 Standard error calculations 61

Appendix 7 First raising factor – edible protected crops 68

Acknowledgements 69

References 69

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from 272 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 2,980 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops. 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 52% of the total area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom during the 2014/15 season. Data from Northern Ireland in 2007 were not available and the comparison to 2007 is to Great Britain rather than the UK. In 2015 Northern Ireland accounted for 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, 2,173 hectares, had increased by 10% since 2013 and by 6% since 2007. Other vegetable crops accounted for 39% of the total area of edible protected crops grown: lettuce 16%, edible plants in propagation 11%, tomatoes 11%, strawberries 8%, cucumbers 8%, peppers 4% and other fruit 2%. Approximately 25% of the total area of edible protected crops was grown in the West Midlands region, 21% in Eastern region, 19% in Yorkshire & the Humber, 15% in London & the South East, 10% in the North West, 4% in East Midlands, 3% in the South West and 1% or less in each of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North East. The registered pesticide-treated area in 2015, 16,558 hectares, had increased by 28% since 2007. The total pesticide-treated area of the United Kingdom in 2015 was 11% greater than that in 2013 in line with the increase in the cropping area. However, the weight of pesticides applied in 2015, 47,703 kg, had increased by 11% since 2007 and by 43% since 2013, primarily due to the increased use of soil sterilants, which are used at very high application rates. Approximately 38% of the area treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents) was cropped with strawberries, 21% with tomatoes, 12% with lettuce, 10% with other vegetables, 7% with edible plants in propagation, 5% with cucumbers and 4% with other fruit and peppers. 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 53% of the total pesticide-treated area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom in 2015, fungicides 24%, insecticides 9%, sulphur 4%, physical control agents 3%, acaricides 3%, disinfectants 2%, herbicides 2% and molluscicides, soil sterilants, growth regulators and tar oil/acid all 1% or less each. By contrast, soil sterilants accounted for 30% of the total weight of pesticide active substances applied, fungicides 28%, disinfectants 14%, physical control agents 12%, sulphur 8%, insecticides 6%, herbicides 1% and acaricides, molluscicides, growth regulators and tar oil/acids all less than 1% each. For many crops, including peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers, biological control agents were the main applications used, exceeding the number of conventional insecticide applications. Biological control agents are not normally associated with a weight as they are mainly living organisms – see definitions. Sulphur was the principal active substance used in 2015, increasing by 76% by area treated and 68% by weight applied since the last survey in 2013. Most usage was to control powdery mildew on tomatoes and strawberries. Between 2013 and 2015 there were large increases in disease control with the biopesticide Bacillus subtilis and the fungicide metalaxyl-M. Whilst Bacillus subtilis was used on a wide variety of crops most usage was on strawberry and other fruit crops. Metalaxyl-M was used almost exclusively on ‘other vegetables’, in particular baby leaf vegetable crops. In terms of weight applied potassium hydrogen carbonate increased by 38% since the last survey. Weight of the insecticide active substance, chlorpyrifos, had declined by 53% between 2013 and 2015, reflecting the decreased area of brassica plants for propagation encountered in the survey in 2015. Chlorpyrifos is applied, by the propagators, as a drench to brassica seedlings in order to control cabbage root fly after planting by outdoor vegetable growers. Important active substances encountered for the first time in 2015 included the fungicide fenpyrazamine, used primarily on tomatoes, but also used on strawberries. Although not new active substances, there were a number of new products encountered which contained a mixture of up to six different biological control species. These are designed in order to cover a wide range of host species, ideally having predators or parasites in place before the host species arrives in the glasshouse. The overall area treated with biopesticides increased by 65% between 2013 and 2015. Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki and Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 were the main active substances showing an increase. Use of the soil sterilant dazomet increased and metam-sodium was encountered for the first time since 2013. Both active substances were in the principal three in terms of weight applied, despite only being used on less than 1% of the area treated. In line with the general move away from chemical soil sterilants there was a return to the use of steam for soil sterilisation on 4 hectares, which is a pesticide free alternative.

2

INTRODUCTION

The Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) 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 are 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 Fera, a joint venture between Capita PLC and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra); Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), a division of the Scottish Government’s Agriculture, Food and Rural Communities Directorate and the Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI), a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland (DARD) conducted surveys of pesticide usage in edible protected crops in 2014/15 by visiting holdings throughout the United Kingdom during the winter of 2015/16.

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. All teams have undertaken recent United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) audits and the data are accredited as National Statistics.

This was the third survey of usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom.

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 Fera, Sand Hutton, York, UK YO41 1LZ.

For further information please contact:

The survey team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462 694

Or visit the website: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm

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:

https://www.afbini.gov.uk/articles/pesticide-usage-monitoring-reports

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

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm Alternatively, pesticide data for the UK can be extracted using the search tool – PUSSTATS:

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/

3

EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS – AN OVERVIEW This report contains information on the application of pesticides to edible protected crops planted throughout 2015 and harvested during 2015 or in early 2016. However, some strawberry crops would have been planted in autumn 2014. The survey covered a 12-month cropping period for each holding during the 2014/2015 growing season. This 12-month cropping period is predefined according to the growing seasons of the individual edible protected crops encountered on each holding. Whilst data are presented in 8 major crop groupings throughout the report they actually include information from 197 separate crops. 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, peppers, lettuce and baby-leaf vegetables, 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 57) 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 propagating edible plants, normally for outdoor production, 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, 61%, 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, such as lettuce and 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 2015 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 almost 26,000 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. Reports prior to 2013 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 Table 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 4 on page 56 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 half 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 normally planted late summer (in this case 2014) 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 2016 soft fruit survey.

5

Standard Errors The standard errors calculated for this report may appear high, 4.4% for area treated and 13.8% for weight applied, when compared to other surveys, for example the 2015 outdoor vegetable crops survey where they were 2.3% for area treated and 3.1% for weight applied. However, these figures should not be used to diminish the value or validity of the report which sampled approximately 52% 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”. The greater variability within the standard error for weight is, in part, due to the relatively high rates of usage of disinfectants, which are often applied at a rate much greater than that for conventional pesticides. Usage of Tar oil, Glass cleaners, Algicides, Pruning paints 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 and algicides 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. Pruning paints were only encountered for use on tomatoes being used to prevent disease entry into the stem of the plant following leaf and side shoot removal.

6

TRENDS

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2007 2011 2013 2015

Figure 1 - Changes in the area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2015 (hectares)1

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2007 2011 2013 2015

Figure 2 - Changes in the overall pesticide treated area of edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2015 (treated hectares)1

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2007 2011 2013 2015

Figure 3 - Changes in the overall weight of pesticides applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2015 (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 - 2015 (hectares treated)1,2

2007

2011

2013

2015

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 Soil sterilants

Figure 5 - Changes in the weight of the major pesticide groups applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2007 - 2015 (kilogrammes applied)1,2

2007

2011

2013

2015

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007 2011 2013 2015

Figure 6 - Changes in the use of biological control agents applied to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2007 - 20152

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. 2Data 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 272 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 2,980 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops. Crops included in the survey were tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, other vegetables, edible plants in propagation, strawberries, and other fruit. The sample accounted for 52% of the total area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom during the 2014/15 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 -2015 (hectares)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Othervegetables

Edible plants inpropagation

Strawberries Other fruit

Figure 8 - Relative areas of the different edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom - 2015

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

EastMidlands



Yorkshire &the Humber


Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 9 - Comparison of regional distribution of the area grown and area treated for edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area grown

Area treated

9

PESTICIDE USAGE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

EastMidlands



Yorkshire &the Humber


Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 10 - Regional distribution of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2015 (area treated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Insecticides Fungicides 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 - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biological control agents Sulphur Physical control agents

Figure 12 - Average number of applications made to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2015 1

1In Figure 12 insecticides and fungicides both contain biopesticides used to control insect and fungal pathogens respectively.

10

PESTICIDE USAGE ON TOMATOES

• 232 hectares of tomatoes grown in the United Kingdom

• 3,827 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)

• 24,551 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)

• 7,267 hectares treated with biological control agents

• 10% of tomatoes remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, tomatoes received on average 27 biological control agents, 15 physical control agents, 4

sulphur sprays, 3 insecticides and 3 fungicides during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, acaricides, growth regulators, soil sterilants, herbicides and tar oils/acids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Insecticides Fungicides Biologicalcontrol agents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Sulphur Physicalcontrol agents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 13 - Usage of the major pesticides on tomatoes in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

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 - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

11

Tomatoes – Fungicides (including biopesticides)

• Area treated: 726 hectares

• Weight of active substances applied: 10,110 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 364 9,929 0.50 0.20 7.87 0.79

Cyflufenamid 98 1 0.14 0.30 1.42 0.95

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 76 47 0.11 0.19 1.77 0.99

Bacillus subtilis 59 6 0.08 0.14 1.77 0.81

Fenpyrazamine 42 24 0.06 0.07 2.46 0.95

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 powdery mildew control in order to prevent any residue issues which may arise from the use of conventional fungicides before harvest. It accounted for 98% of the total weight of fungicide active substances applied.

54%

18%

15%

13%

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

powdery mildew

botrytis

unspecified mildew

other diseases

Usage of sulphur accounted for 10% of the area treated and 14% of the weight applied. The main usage, 76%, was for powdery mildew control with a further 24% of applications being made for unspecified mildews.

12

Tomatoes – Insecticides (including biopesticides)


• Weight of active substances applied: 384 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 365 289 0.44 0.21 7.65 0.83

Pyrethrins 216 34 0.26 0.34 2.76 0.44

Spiromesifen 68 14 0.08 0.22 1.32 0.95

Chlorantraniliprole 42 2 0.05 0.12 1.48 0.44

Spinosad 39 5 0.05 0.13 1.29 0.79

29%

14%

13%

12%

11%

7%

5%

9%

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

Macrolophus

caterpillars

leaf miner

aphids

glasshouse whitefly

two-spotted spider mite

two-spotted spider mite/glasshouse whitefly

other pests

Usage of insecticides on tomato crops was limited, with control of Macrolophus spp. being the main reason specified 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: 7,267 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 5,405 N/A 0.74 0.84 27.81 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis 807 N/A 0.11 0.44 7.82 N/A

Macrolophus pygmaeus 378 N/A 0.05 0.73 2.25 N/A

Diglyphus isaea 214 N/A 0.03 0.10 9.37 N/A

Aphidoletes aphidimyza 97 N/A 0.01 0.21 2.00 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 Aphidoletes aphidimyza was used for control of aphids in the tomato crop.

Bees were important for the pollination of this crop, being used on 89% of the area grown.

Tomatoes – Other pesticides

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

7% of the total treated area but 25% of the weight applied. Garlic and maltodextrin, both for aphid control, were the most

important physical control agents recorded, together accounting for 98% of the total area treated with physical control

agents.

Disinfectants, including glutaraldehyde, ammonium bifluoride, peroxygen compounds and peroxyacetic acid comprised

3% of the total treated area.

Etoxazole (64%) and abamectin (36%) were the only acaricides encountered, with control of two-spotted spider mite

accounting for 84% of all acaricide applications.

Dazomet was the only soil sterilant encountered, comprising less than 1% of the area treated and 4% of the weight

applied.

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

14

PESTICIDE USAGE ON CUCUMBERS

• 181 hectares of cucumbers grown in the United Kingdom

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



• 2% of cucumbers remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, cucumbers received on average 12 biological control agents, 3 fungicides and 2

insecticides during the growing season. Other pesticides used included acaricides, disinfectants, physical control agents, sulphur and soil sterilants

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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 - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 18 - Timing of pesticide applications on cucumbers - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

15

Cucumbers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Myclobutanil 105 5 0.22 0.38 1.52 0.62 Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride 81 152 0.17 0.41 1.10 0.39

Bupirimate 60 23 0.13 0.21 1.59 0.44

Azoxystrobin 54 12 0.11 0.24 1.23 0.64


47%

17%

13%

9%

3%

3%8%

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

powdery mildew

pythium

unspecified mildew

general disease control

botrytis/mycosphaerella

botrytis/mildew

other diseases

Control of root diseases, such as Pythium spp. is normally done soon after planting, applying a fungicide such as fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride through the irrigation lines into the rockwool, coir or foam blocks in which the cucumber is planted. In line with the 2013 survey, 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 surveys prior to 2013 where even the first crop would have had a fungicide application. Cucumbers are a crop which has shown significant decreases in pesticide, particularly fungicides, inputs over the last thirty years.

16

Cucumbers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 52 5 0.36 0.09 3.27 0.99

Pymetrozine 33 9 0.23 0.15 1.24 0.63

Spinosad 25 3 0.17 0.13 1.08 0.82

Flonicamid 16 1 0.11 0.09 1.00 1.00

Thiacloprid 8 1 0.05 0.04 1.00 0.40

Thirty-three percent of insecticides were used for the control of western flower thrips/glasshouse whitefly, 14% for aphid

control, and 14% for two-spotted spider mite and western flower thrips, with all other uses being combinations of these

four pests.

Cucumbers – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Encarsia formosa 1,012 N/A 0.39 0.55 10.10 N/A


Neoseiulus cucumeris 456 N/A 0.17 0.89 2.84 N/A

Aphidius colemani 173 N/A 0.07 0.14 6.59 N/A

Aphidius ervi 137 N/A 0.05 0.08 9.32 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 and A. ervi for aphids.

Cucumbers – Other pesticides

Abamectin, with 66% being used for the control of two-spotted spider mite, was the only acaricide recorded. Other

applications were used to control western flower thrips.

Peroxygen compounds accounted for 43% of the disinfectant treated area. Garlic accounted for 85% of the area treated

with physical control agents.

There was minimal usage of sulphur and the soil sterilant dazomet.

17

PESTICIDE USAGE ON PEPPERS

• 90 hectares of peppers grown in the United Kingdom




• 2% of peppers remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms may have been

applied to the crop

• Where treated, peppers received on average 54 biological control agents, 4 insecticides and 1 fungicide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, acaricides, physical control agents and tar oil/acids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biologicalcontrol agents

Disinfectants Sulphur Physicalcontrol agents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 20 - Usage of the major pesticides on peppers in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 21 - Timing of pesticide applications on peppers - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

18

Peppers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)



• The four formulations encountered by area treated were:


(ha)


Proportion of fungicide –treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Fosetyl-aluminium/ propamocarb hydrochloride 5 4 0.94 0.05 1.00 0.39

Coniothyrium minitans <1 1 0.06 0.00 1.00 0.58

Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 <1 <1 0.00 0.00 1.00 volumetric

Propamocarb hydrochloride <1 <1 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00

There was minimal usage of fungicides, most of which were applied volumetrically, which, as in the case of Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446, resulted in rates that were higher than the available recommended rates on the product database. Most applications, 78%, were made for Pythium control. Peppers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Pirimicarb 308 20 0.55 0.58 5.92 0.49

Fatty acids 73 527 0.13 0.08 9.87 0.71

Pymetrozine 67 7 0.12 0.49 1.51 volumetric

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 54 75 0.10 0.08 7.18 volumetric

Indoxacarb 50 3 0.09 0.21 2.62 volumetric

Aphid control was cited for 75% of insecticide usage, caterpillars 21%, leaf-hopper 3%, western flower thrips 1% and

Aulacorthum aphids specifically for less than 1%

19

Peppers – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Aphidius colemani 1,960 N/A 0.37 0.90 24.21 N/A



Aphelinus abdominalis 386 N/A 0.07 0.20 21.04 N/A


Aphidius colemani, Aphidius ervi Aphidoletes aphidimyza and Aphelinus abdominalis were all used to control aphids

within the pepper crop; Phytoseiulus persimilis for the control of two-spotted spider mites.

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 54 applications during the season.

Bees were important for the pollination of some (82%), but not all, crops.

Peppers – Other pesticides

Disinfectants were the main group of other pesticides, with peroxyacetic acid being the principal disinfectant used,

accounting for 50% of the total disinfectant treated area. Abamectin was the only acaricide recorded. There was

minimal usage of physical control agents or tar oil/acids.

20

PESTICIDE USAGE ON LETTUCE

• 352 hectares of lettuce grown in the United Kingdom

• 2,135 hectares treated with pesticides (biological control agents usage accounted for less than 1 ha)


• Soil sterilants comprised less than 1% of the area treated but 84% of the weight of all pesticides applied

• Less than 1 hectare treated with biological control agents

• 13% 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, 3 insecticides, 1 herbicide and 1 molluscicide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included physical control agents, disinfectants, soil sterilants and biological control agents

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Molluscicides Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physical controlagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 22 - Usage of the major pesticides on lettuce in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 23 - Timing of pesticide applications on lettuce - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Herbicide

Molluscicide

21

Lettuce – Fungicides (including biopesticides)





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Azoxystrobin 221 55 0.19 0.59 1.06 1.00

Mandipropamid 205 32 0.18 0.58 1.00 1.05



Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 109 128 0.09 0.27 1.14 0.92

The reason for the slightly higher rate of mandipropamid is because usage on one holding was made at 1l/ha, rather than

the recommended rate of 0.6l/h. However, this could have been due to a record keeping error on the part of the grower.

36%

30%

16%

7%

4%4%

3%

Figure 24 - Lettuce - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

unspecified mildew

botrytis

rhizoctonia

downy mildew


botrytis/mildew

other diseases

22

Lettuce – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Pirimicarb 155 31 0.20 0.31 1.43 0.87

Spirotetramat 101 8 0.13 0.27 1.06 1.00

Acetamiprid 91 5 0.12 0.26 1.00 1.04

Pyrethrins 76 7 0.10 0.10 2.15 0.52

Spinosad 71 7 0.09 0.20 1.02 1.00

Most insecticides, 79%, were used to control aphids, caterpillars accounted for 17% and aphids/caterpillars combined 4%.

The higher rate of acetamiprid is unfortunately due to the rounding of the rate of 0.25 l/ha, the full label rate, to 0.3 l/ha within a small number of growers’ records.

Lettuce – Other pesticides

Compared with previous surveys, herbicide usage was minimal, accounting for 6% of the overall treated area.

Propyzamide was the principal herbicide used, comprising 64% 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.

Metaldehyde, for slug and snail control, was the principal molluscicide used, accounting for 76% of the total.

Garlic and maltodextrin were the only physical control agents used, and together comprised 1% of the overall treated

area.

Hydrogen peroxide and gluteraldehyde were the main disinfectants encountered.

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

There was also minimal usage of Aphidius spp. for aphid control.

The soil sterilant dazomet, which was used prior to the planting of 7.4 hectares of lettuce, accounted for 84% of the

weight of all active substances used on this crop. Steam, as a soil sterilant, was used prior to the planting of 0.52 hectares

of lettuce.

23

PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER VEGETABLES

• 851 hectares of other vegetables grown in the United Kingdom



• Soil sterilants accounted for 1% of the treated area but for 91% of the weight applied


• 19% 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 39 biological control agents, 3 physical control agents, 3 insecticides and 3 fungicides during the growing season. Other pesticides used included herbicides, molluscicides, soil sterilants, disinfectants, sulphur and acaricides

• The principal crops in this category, which numbered over 100 different crops included herbs (pot grown

& cut); baby leaf salad; Chinese vegetables; watercress (protected); radish; and beetroot

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Insecticides Fungicides Herbicides Biologicalcontrolagents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physicalcontrolagents

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 25 - Usage of the major pesticides on other vegetables in the United Kingdom -2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 26 - Timing of pesticide applications on other vegetables - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

24

Other vegetables – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Metalaxyl-M 377 11 0.32 0.28 1.56 0.49

Mandipropamid 279 42 0.24 0.26 1.25 1.00



Iprodione 78 19 0.07 0.03 2.75 volumetric

58%24%

8%

5%4%

1%

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

downy mildew

mildew

black leg/rhizoctonia

botrytis/mildew


other diseases

25

Other vegetables – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Acetamiprid 81 4 0.38 0.05 2.07 0.93

Lambda-cyhalothrin 34 <1 0.16 0.03 1.50 1.10

Spinosad 22 2 0.11 0.01 1.79 1.00

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 16 6 0.08 0.01 1.43 0.91

Pyrethrins 12 2 0.06 0.01 1.13 0.90

The reason for the use of high rates of application of lambda-cyhalothrin is because of usage on protected celery at 0.1

l/ha rather than 0.05 l/ha and applications to protected herbs where the rate was 0.08l/ha rather than 0.075l/ha which was

due to a rounding error in the growers’ records. Neither application is currently approved for use.

58%

13%

13%

6%

6%4%

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

aphids

caterpillars

flea beetle

other pests

asparagus beetle

aphids/two-spotted spider mite

26

Other vegetables – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)





Chrysoperla carnea 355 N/A 0.14 0.01 43.96 N/A

Encarsia formosa 178 N/A 0.07 0.03 6.56 N/A

Aphidius colemani and Aphidoletes aphidimyza were all used for aphid control; Encarsia formosa for glasshouse whitefly

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

Chrysoperla carnea, would have been used for the control of aphids.

Bees were important for the pollination of some crops, for example aubergines.

Other vegetables – Other pesticides

The main herbicides recorded on other vegetable crops, diquat and glyphosate, would have been used to clear the ground

prior to planting or for crop destruction after harvest. Most applications, 72%, were used in April.

Physical control agents comprised 4% of the total area of other vegetables treated and 5% of the weight applied.

Maltodextrin accounted for 80% of the total area treated with physical control agents.

Molluscicides accounted for 1% of the total treated area of other vegetables with metaldehyde accounting for 51% of the

total and ferric phosphate 46%.

The soil sterilant metam-sodium, used prior to planting 14 hectares of soil grown crops, and dazomet used on a further 11

hectares were the most important “other pesticides” used on other vegetables accounting for 1% of the area treated but for

91% of the weight applied.

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

27

PESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PLANTS IN PROPAGATION

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



• Insecticides accounted for 8% of the treated area and 27% of the weight applied

• 484 hectares treated with biological control agents

• 14% 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 3 fungicides and 1 insecticide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, acaricides, sulphur, herbicides (underneath greenhouse staging) and molluscicides

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biological controlagents

Disinfectants Sulphur

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 29 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible plants in propagation in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 30 - Timing of pesticide applications on edible plants in propagation - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Acaricide

28

Edible plants in propagation – Fungicides




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 94 42 0.13 0.31 1.22 0.95 Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride 72 1,167 0.10 0.29 1.00 1.00

Potassium hydrogen carbonate 67 666 0.09 0.03 8.47 0.45


Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 56 72 0.07 0.22 1.00 1.00

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

off and mildew in newly sown seed accounted for 39% and 17% of the weight of fungicides applied respectively.

25%

23%

14%

13%

13%

7%5%

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

botrytis

powdery mildew


downy mildew

botrytis/mildew

mildew

other diseases

Sulphur, which accounted for 3% of the total treated area, was used for powdery mildew control.

29

Edible plants in propagation – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Chlorpyrifos 70 2,186 0.49 0.28 1.01 volumetric

Lambda-cyhalothrin 21 <1 0.15 0.08 1.11 0.92

Pirimicarb 15 8 0.11 0.04 1.42 volumetric

Spinosad 10 3 0.07 0.02 1.77 1.00

Deltamethrin 10 <1 0.07 0.04 1.00 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.

Details on the use of pesticides on the field grown brassica crop can be found in the recently published Pesticide Usage

Survey on Outdoor Vegetable crops (Report 270).

37%

27%

27%

9%

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

cabbage root fly

caterpillars

aphids

other pests

30

Edible plants in propagation – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)




Dacnusa sibirica 79 N/A 0.16 0.09 3.45 N/A

Diglyphus isaea 79 N/A 0.16 0.09 3.45 N/A


Aphidius colemani, Aphidius ervi and Aphidoletes aphidimyza were all used for aphid control. Dacnusa sibirica and

Diglyphus isaea would both have been used for leaf miner control.

Edible plants in propagation – Acaricides





(ha)


Proportion of acaricide –treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Abamectin 46 <1 0.47 0.04 5.13 0.91

Tebufenpyrad 20 4 0.20 0.04 2.20 0.63

Clofentezine 17 3 0.17 0.04 1.84 0.89

Etoxazole 9 1 0.09 0.02 2.00 volumetric

Fenpyroximate 5 <1 0.05 0.02 1.00 1.00

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 14% of the total by area treated and 35%

by weight applied. Peroxyacetic acid accounted for 49% 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 and molluscicides.

31

PESTICIDE USAGE ON STRAWBERRIES

• 182 hectares of strawberries grown in the United Kingdom




• One percent of strawberries remained untreated with pesticides although living bio-control organisms

may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, strawberries received on average 11 fungicides, 5 sulphur applications, 5 biological control agents, 3 insecticides, 3 acaricides and 2 physical control agents during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, 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 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 2016 soft fruit survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Insecticides Acaricides Biological control agents Sulphur

Per

cent

age

of to

tal

Figure 33 - Usage of the major pesticides on strawberries in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 34 - Timing of pesticide applications to strawberries - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control agents

Acaricide

Herbicide

32

Strawberries – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Myclobutanil 615 54 0.14 0.90 3.74 0.98


Fenhexamid 440 329 0.10 0.70 3.44 1.00

Azoxystrobin 389 98 0.09 0.87 2.46 1.01

Bupirimate 337 119 0.08 0.84 2.21 1.01

40%

44%

5%

4%

3%

4%

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

botrytis

powdery mildew


botrytis/mildew

phytophthora

other diseases

The average number of fungicide applications used on strawberries was 11 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 of 2014 being pulled out in May and June of 2015. 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 6% of the area treated and 28% of the weight applied. The main usage was for unspecified mildew control (85%) with a further 15% specifying that it was for powdery mildew control.

33

Strawberries – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Thiacloprid 244 29 0.33 0.89 1.50 1.00

Pirimicarb 111 31 0.15 0.33 1.85 0.99

Lambda-cyhalothrin 101 1 0.14 0.54 1.03 0.64

Chlorpyrifos 92 50 0.12 0.48 1.05 0.76

Spinosad 90 6 0.12 0.29 1.68 0.91

59%

9%

5%

5%

5%

3%14%

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

aphids

glasshouse whitefly

caterpillars

aphids/caterpillars

western flower thrips

capsid

other pests

Strawberries – Acaricides





(ha)


Proportion of acaricide –treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Abamectin 246 2 0.36 0.74 1.82 0.92

Clofentezine 170 35 0.25 0.60 1.56 0.92

Bifenazate 86 9 0.12 0.46 1.02 0.69

Etoxazole 75 3 0.11 0.40 1.02 1.06

Spirodiclofen 58 6 0.08 0.32 1.00 0.91

Eighty-two percent of acaricide applications were made to control two-spotted spider mite, 8% for two-spotted spider mite eggs, with the remaining 10% being used for a combination of glasshouse whitefly, tarsonemid mite, leaf miner and thrips control.

34

Strawberries – Biological control





(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Neoseiulus spp. 795 N/A 0.45 0.44 10.00 N/A


Hypoaspis spp 242 N/A 0.14 0.45 2.98 N/A


Heterorhabditis bacteriophora 88 N/A 0.05 0.46 1.06 N/A

Neoseiulus spp. and Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris were primarily used to control thrips species (normally

western flower thrips), Phytoseiulus persimilis was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite and Hypoaspis spp.

would have been used to control sciarid fly larvae infestations. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora would have been used for

the control of vine weevil and applied as a drench to the bags in which they were grown.

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

Strawberries – Other pesticides

Herbicides, molluscicides, disinfectants and physical control agents were all used on this crop.

Herbicides comprised 4% of the total area treated and 8% of the weight of all pesticides applied. Diquat was the main

herbicide recorded accounting for 48% of the treated area and being applied to the ground below table top or raised bed

systems.

Ferric phosphate was the only molluscicide recorded.

Disinfectants accounted for 1% of the total treated area, with peroxyacetic acid comprising 50% of the total area treated

with disinfectants.

Maltodextrin and carbonic acid/urea were the only physical control agents recorded.

35

PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER FRUIT

• 37 hectares of other fruit grown in the United Kingdom


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

• 414 hectares treated with biological control agents

• All ‘other fruit’ crops received a pesticide treatment

• Where treated, other fruit received on average 11 biological control agents, 7 fungicides, 3 insecticides

and 2 acaricides during the growing season. Herbicides, molluscicides and disinfectants were the only other pesticides recorded

• Raspberries (90% of the total area) and blackberries (10%) were the principal crops encountered

• Because of the way in which data were collected there is no information on other fruit grown in Scotland, data relating to these crops will be published in the 2016 soft fruit survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biological controlagents

Disinfectants

Per

cena

tge

of to

tal

Figure 37 - Usage of the major pesticides on other fruit in the United Kingdom - 2015

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Per

cent

age

of a

pplic

atio

ns

Figure 38 - Timing of pesticide applications on other fruit - 2015

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological control

Acaricide

36

Other fruit – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated (ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)



Fenhexamid 50 30 0.11 0.48 2.79 0.79

Azoxystrobin 36 6 0.08 0.48 2.00 0.64

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 36 14 0.08 0.48 2.00 0.97


Cane disease accounted for 44% of the fungicide treated area, Phytopthora 26%, unspecified mildew 20%, with the

remaining 10% being for general disease control.

Other fruit – Insecticides (including biopesticides)





(ha)




Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Thiacloprid 36 4 0.27 0.97 1.00 0.96

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 28 11 0.22 0.38 2.00 volumetric

Chlorpyrifos 19 9 0.14 0.51 1.00 0.64

Pyrethrins 18 1 0.14 0.48 1.00 0.45

Spinosad 10 1 0.08 0.28 1.00 0.75

43%

21%

20%

16%

Figure 39 - Other fruit - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)

aphids

thrips

light brown apple moth

aphids/two-spotted spider mite

37

Other fruit – Biological control



• The most common biological control agents were:


(ha)



treated area


Average number of

applications (where

applied)


Neoseiulus spp. 178 N/A 0.43 0.48 10.00 N/A


Hypoaspis spp 54 N/A 0.13 0.48 3.00 N/A

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora 28 N/A 0.07 0.76 1.00 N/A

Orius spp. 18 N/A 0.04 0.48 1.00 N/A

Neoseiulus spp. would have been used for the control of western flower thrips, Phytoseiulus persimilis was used

primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite. Hypoaspis spp. would have been used to control sciarid fly larvae

infestations. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora was used for the control of vine weevil larvae and normally applied as a

drench or through the irrigation lines. Orius spp. is a generalist predator and would have been used to control both aphids

and western flower thrips.

Bees were important for the pollination of 99% of other fruit crops grown.

Other fruit – Other pesticides

Abamectin and clofentezine were the only acaricides recorded with two-spotted spider mite being the only reason cited

for their use.

Carfentrazone-ethyl, diquat and glufosinate-ammonium were the only herbicides recorded with usage being confined to

the area around pot-grown crops.

Ferric phosphate was the only molluscicide encountered; peroxyacetic acid the only disinfectant.

38

APPENDIX 1 – APPLICATIONS & AREAS GROWN

Table 1 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2015 by crop group (treated hectares) Chemical group Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other

vegetables Edible plants

in propagation Strawberries Other fruit All edible

crops

Insecticides & nematicides1 824 146 561 760 213 143 749 131 3,527 Fungicides1 726 475 5 1,161 1,162 747 4,373 452 9,101 Herbicides 2 127 186 1 334 17 667 Growth regulators 11 . . . . . . . 11 Molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 <1 47 37 <1 84 14 183 Acaricides 13 99 7 . <1 98 690 96 1,005 Biological control agents 7,267 2,614 5,249 <1 2,547 484 1,749 414 20,325 Soil sterilants 2 <1 . 7 25 . . . 34 Disinfectants 336 96 77 8 16 260 64 21 878 Tar oils/acids <1 . <1 . <1 . . . <1 Sulphur 1,135 3 . . 4 61 498 . 1,700 Physical control agents 778 89 <1 23 163 <1 32 . 1,086 All pesticides 11,094 3,522 5,900 2,135 4,354 1,796 8,572 1,144 38,517 Area grown (hectares) 232 181 90 352 851 248 182 37 2,173 1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens

Table 2 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2015 by crop group (kg of active substances) Chemical group Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other

vegetables Edible plants

in propagation Strawberries Other fruit All edible

crops Insecticides & nematicides1 384 26 632 84 19 2,200 143 29 3,517 Fungicides1 10,110 286 6 727 289 3,022 2,567 137 17,144 Herbicides 2 109 77 1 399 4 592 Growth regulators 5 . . . . . . . 5 Molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 <1 13 11 <1 17 3 45 Acaricides <1 <1 <1 . <1 9 60 9 80 Biological control agents . . . . . . . . . Soil sterilants 864 80 . 5,084 12,454 . . . 18,482 Disinfectants 3,795 766 704 16 225 2,860 176 7 8,548 Tar oils/acids <1 . <1 . <1 . . . 1 Sulphur 3,370 9 . . 1 97 1,385 . 4,863 Physical control agents 6,020 444 4 24 650 <1 218 . 7,362 All pesticides 24,551 1,612 1,346 6,056 13,727 8,191 4,966 189 60,638 1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens

39

Table 3 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2015 - percentage area of crops treated with pesticides (excluding seed treatments)

Crop group

Insecticides Acaricides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Physical control

agents Soil sterilants Disinfectants

Bio-control agents

Not treated

Tomatoes 44 2.9 53 52.3 1.9 0.3 9.6 1.7 52.6 74.3 9.6

Cucumbers 34.9 43 78.9 1.7 <0.1 <0.1 9.9 1.8 29.5 97.2 1.5 Peppers 79.2 1.3 19.9 . 0.2 <0.1 2.2 . 31.6 90.5 2.5 Lettuce 62.9 . 68.2 . 31.5 31.5 6.8 0.5 6.1 0.7 13.5

Other vegetables 9.9 0.2 28.9 1.5 5.6 3.4 2.3 1.8 4.9 13.2 19.1 Edible plants in propagation 65.3 5.7 60.9 3.7 . 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 25.6 0.7 13.9

Strawberries 92.8 76.9 92.4 36.9 7.3 13.2 19 . 60 95.8 0.6

Other fruit 99.2 95.3 99.2 . 38.1 6.3 . . 41.9 63.2 0.5

All crops 42.5 17.1 56.1 10.1 9.1 7.6 6.3 1.2 22.8 42.3 12.6

Table 4 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2015 – average number of applications made to crops when treated with individual pesticide groups (excluding seed treatments)1

Crop group Insecticides Acaricides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides

Physical control agents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Bio-control

agents All pesticides

Tomatoes 3 2 2.8 4 1 1 15.4 1 1.9 26.6 27.9 Cucumbers 2 1.1 3.1 1.2 1 1 7.6 1 1.7 12.4 16.8 Peppers 4.3 1 1 . 1 1 3.5 . 2.2 53.8 46.4 Lettuce 2.5 . 3 . 1 1 2.2 1 1 1 3.9 Other vegetables 2.9 1 2.7 1.1 1 1.2 3.1 1 1.3 39.1 14.6 Edible plants in propagation 1.4 6.3 2.9 4 . 1 1 1 1.6 12 3.1 Strawberries 3.4 2.9 10.9 4.7 6.5 1.3 2.3 . 1.2 4.6 16.6 Other fruit 2.7 1.7 6.7 . 3.5 1 . . 2 10.7 17.9 All crops 2.5 1.7 3.5 3.4 1.3 1.1 3.5 1 1.6 21.8 13.7 1 Indicates number of passes of application machinery. Parts of a crop may be treated more than once or one crop may have several different parts visited on different occasions. The number of applications relates only to those crops receiving a treatment with an individual pesticide group. In some cases only part of a crop may have been treated resulting in a proportion in the table above.

40

Table 5 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2015 (ha)

Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other vegetables

Edible plants in propagation

Strawberries Other fruit All edible crops

Fungicides

Azoxystrobin 13 54 . 221 34 30 389 36 778

Bacillus subtilis1 59 23 . 121 147 <1 452 199 1,002

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 11 35 . 106 68 94 199 36 549

Bupirimate . 60 . . <1 11 337 . 408

Cyflufenamid 98 32 . . . . . . 131

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 76 52 . 132 87 64 230 36 678

Dimethomorph . . . 52 37 26 113 . 229

Fenamidone/fosetyl-aluminium . . . . . 9 64 . 72

Fenhexamid 4 . . 31 <1 20 440 50 545

Fenpyrazamine 42 . . . . . 36 . 78 Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride 10 81 5 53 35 72 . . 255

Gliocladium catenulatum strain J14461 2 22 <1 4 2 20 . . 49

Iprodione 8 . . 78 78 38 261 . 461

Kresoxim-methyl . . . . . 22 172 . 194

Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M . . . 109 <1 56 . . 166

Mandipropamid . . . 205 279 . . . 484

Mepanipyrim . . . . . . 203 . 203

Metalaxyl-M . 5 . . 377 3 . . 385

Myclobutanil <1 105 . . <1 48 615 8 777

Penconazole . . . . . 24 232 . 256

Potassium hydrogen carbonate 364 <1 . <1 <1 67 33 . 465

Propamocarb hydrochloride 14 . <1 3 <1 25 . . 43

Pyrimethanil 3 . . 9 . 31 137 28 207

Quinoxyfen . . . . . 25 236 . 261

Thiram . . . . . . 209 . 209

Tolclofos-methyl . . . 25 11 33 . . 70 Other fungicides2,3 22 5 11 2 28 16 60 145 All fungicides 725 475 5 1,161 1,158 746 4,373 452 9,099

Sulphur 1,135 3 . . 4 61 498 . 1,700 1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of fungal pathogens 2Throughout all tables, “Other” refers to chemicals grouped together because they were applied to less than 0.1% of the total area treated with pesticides 3Other fungicides include Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 101, azoxystrobin/difenoconazole, captan, chlorothalonil, Coniothyrium minitans1, copper oxychloride, difenoconazole, dimethomorph/mancozeb, fenarimol, fenpropimorph, fluazinam, fluopicolide/propamocarb hydrochloride, phosphorous acid and salts, prochloraz, tebuconazole, Trichoderma harzianum1 and urea

The data presented in tables 5 & 6 are calculated numbers and may give a level of accuracy that is unwarranted – please refer to the Standard Error calculations on page 61 for further clarification

41

Table 5 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2015 (ha)




Disinfectants

Ammonium bifluoride 68 . 5 <1 <1 20 4 . 97 Gluteraldehyde 78 5 . 2 <1 23 8 . 117 Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid 24 23 . . 4 38 8 . 97 Peroxyacetic acid 44 11 39 <1 5 128 32 21 280 Peroxygen compounds 60 41 9 . <1 . . . 110 Unspecified disinfectants 5 1 8 . 1 25 . . 40 Other disinfectant1 57 15 17 5 5 25 12 137 All disinfectants 336 96 78 7 15 259 64 21 878 .

Herbicides .

Diquat <1 . . 45 167 . 159 6 378 Glyphosate 2 <1 <1 <1 12 1 53 . 68 Propyzamide . . . 81 . . 36 . 117 Other herbicides2 . . . <1 4 . 86 11 102 All herbicides 2 <1 <1 127 183 1 334 17 664

Molluscicides & repellents

Ferric phosphate <1 . <1 10 17 <1 84 14 125 Metaldehyde <1 <1 . 36 19 <1 . . 56 Other molluscicides & repellents3 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 <1 . . 2 All molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 <1 47 37 <1 84 14 183

Soil sterilants Other soil sterilants4 2 <1 . 7 25 . . . 34 All soil sterilants 2 <1 . 7 25 . . . 34

Growth regulators

Other growth regulators5 11 . . . . . . . 11 1Other disinfectants were acetic acid/hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid, benzoic acid, chlorine dioxide, cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride/gluteraldehyde, formaldehyde, gluteraldehyde/quaternary ammonium complex, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite.

2Other herbicides include carfentrazone-ethyl, glufosinate-ammonium, glyphosate/pyraflufen-ethyl, lenacil, mesotrione, metamitron, metribuzin, pendimethalin and prosulfocarb.

3Other molluscicides were methiocarb and unspecified molluscicides.

4Other soil sterilants include dazomet and metam-sodium.

5Other growth regulators include 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid.

42





Insecticides & nematicides

Acetamiprid 15 <1 <1 91 81 <1 . . 187

Alpha-cypermethrin . . . 50 . . . . 50

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki1 365 <1 54 42 16 <1 38 28 545

Chlorantraniliprole 42 . . . . . . . 42

Chlorpyrifos . . . . . 71 92 19 181

Deltamethrin . . . 65 9 10 . . 84

Fatty acids 21 2 74 . <1 <1 . . 97

Indoxacarb . 3 50 68 <1 . . 10 131

Lambda-cyhalothrin <1 . . 3 34 21 101 . 160

Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve61 . 52 . . <1 . . . 52

Pirimicarb 2 . 308 155 10 16 111 10 611

Pymetrozine 28 33 67 26 12 10 27 . 202

Pyrethrins 216 . 7 76 12 <1 7 18 336

Spinosad 39 25 2 71 23 10 90 10 268

Spiromesifen 68 3 . . <1 1 40 . 112

Spirotetramat <1 . . 101 4 1 . . 107

Thiacloprid <1 8 . 5 <1 2 244 36 297 Other insecticides & nematicides2 29 20 6 10 <1 . . 65 All insecticides & nematicides 822 145 561 760 211 142 749 131 3,526

Acaricides

Abamectin 5 99 7 . <1 46 246 50 455

Bifenazate . . . . . . 86 . 86

Clofentezine . . . . . 17 170 46 233

Etoxazole 9 . . . . 9 75 . 94

Fenpyroximate . . . . . 5 44 . 48

Spirodiclofen . . . . . 1 58 . 59 Other acaricides3 . . . . . 20 11 . 31 All acaricides 14 99 7 . <1 98 690 96 1,005

Tar oils/acids

Other tar oils4 <1 . <1 . <1 . . . <1 1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of insect pests 2Other insecticides and nematicides include Beauveria bassiana ATCC-740401, bifenthrin, cypermethrin, flonicamid and lambda-cyhalothrin/pirimicarb. 3Other acaricides includes tebufenpyrad. 4Other tar oils include tar oil/acid

43





Biological control agents Adalia bipunctata . . 48 . . . . . 48 Amblyseius . . <1 . <1 . 795 178 974 Amblyseius swirskii 22 51 18 . 2 2 8 . 102 Aphelinus abdominalis 22 . 386 . . . . . 407 Aphidius abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Praon volucre . . . . 82 . . . 82 Aphidius colemani 22 173 1,960 . 518 123 . . 2,795 Aphidius ervi 22 137 882 . 19 115 31 . 1,206 Aphidius spp 8 6 95 <1 1 . <1 . 112 Aphidoletes aphidimyza 97 86 776 . 442 78 <1 . 1,480 Chrysoperla carnea . 27 28 . 355 . . . 410 Dacnusa sibirica 25 . . . 115 79 . . 219 Diglyphus isaea 214 9 <1 . 9 79 . . 311 Encarsia formosa 5,405 1,012 5 . 178 <1 16 . 6,617 Encarsia formosa/Eretmocerus eremicus 93 4 . . 1 . . . 99 Eretmocerus eremicus 69 . . . 6 . . . 74 Feltiella acarisuga . 33 17 . <1 . . . 50 Heterorhabditis bacteriophora . . . . . . 88 28 116 Hypoaspis spp . . . . . . 242 54 296 Macrolophus pygmaeus 378 10 50 . 3 . . . 441 Neoseiulus californicus <1 90 2 . <1 . 18 . 111 Neoseiulus cucumeris <1 456 272 . 509 7 91 . 1,335 Orius laevigatus . 51 202 . 144 . . . 398 Orius spp. . . 48 . . . 80 18 145 Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita . . . <1 2 . 80 18 100 Phytoseiulus persimilis 807 469 376 . 6 <1 294 108 2,060 Steinernema feltiae . . . . 129 . . . 129 Other biological control agents1 84 . 86 . 24 <1 5 10 209 All biological control agents 7,266 2,614 5,249 2,545 484 1,748 413 20,325 Physical control agents Carbonic acid diamide/urea 16 3 <1 . 19 <1 5 . 43 Garlic 402 76 . 13 2 . . . 492 Maltodextrin2 360 4 <1 10 132 . 27 . 533 Other physical control agents3 . 7 . . 11 . . . 17 All physical control agents 778 89 <1 23 164 <1 32 1,086 1Other biological control agents include Amblyseius andersoni, Amblyseius degenerans, Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi, Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Ephedrus cerasicola/Praon volucre, Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi, Aphidius matricariae, Cryptolaemus montrouzieri, Dacnusa sibirica/Diglyphus isaea, Episyrphus balteatus, Orius strigicollis, Steinernema kraussei, Stratiolaelaps scimitus, Trichogramma brassicae/Trichogramma evanescans and unspecified nematodes. 2Maltodextrin is an authorised pesticide 3Other physical control agents included dodecylphenol ethoxylate, natural plant extracts and Oleum foeniculi

44

Table 6 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2015 (kg active substance)




Fungicides

Azoxystrobin 4 12 . 55 8 18 98 6 201

Bacillus subtilis1 6 3 . 16 18 <1 59 27 128

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 5 16 . 45 34 42 105 14 261

Bupirimate . 23 . . <1 3 119 . 145

Cyflufenamid 1 <1 . . . . . . 2

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 47 11 . 49 36 33 144 22 342

Dimethomorph . . . 9 6 2 170 . 187

Fenamidone/fosetyl-aluminium . . . . . 19 153 . 172

Fenhexamid 2 . . 14 <1 15 329 30 390

Fenpyrazamine 24 . . . . . 22 . 45 Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride 8 152 5 96 73 1,168 . . 1,500

Gliocladium catenulatum strain J14461 2 57 <1 3 1 52 . . 115

Iprodione 7 . . 17 19 20 197 . 259

Kresoxim-methyl . . . . . 3 25 . 29

Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M . . . 128 1 72 . . 202

Mandipropamid . . . 32 42 . . . 74

Mepanipyrim . . . . . . 81 . 81

Metalaxyl-M . <1 . . 11 <1 . . 12

Myclobutanil <1 5 . . <1 4 54 <1 64

Penconazole . . . . . 1 12 . 13

Potassium hydrogen carbonate 9,929 5 . 2 <1 666 415 . 11,017

Propamocarb hydrochloride 21 . <1 1 8 516 . . 547

Pyrimethanil <1 . . 3 . 25 101 11 140

Quinoxyfen . . . . . 3 30 . 33

Thiram . . . . . . 431 . 431

Tolclofos-methyl . . . 252 28 331 . . 611 Other fungicides2,3 53 1 1 4 1 29 25 27 144 All fungicides 10,109 284 6 727 286 3,022 2,567 136 17,142

Sulphur 3,370 9 . . 1 98 1,385 . 4,863 1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of fungal pathogens 2Throughout all tables, “Other” refers to chemicals grouped together because they were applied to less than 0.1% of the total area treated with pesticides 3Other fungicides include Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 101, azoxystrobin/difenoconazole, captan, chlorothalonil, Coniothyrium minitans1, copper oxychloride, difenoconazole, dimethomorph/mancozeb, fenarimol, fenpropimorph, fluazinam, fluopicolide/propamocarb hydrochloride, phosphorous acid and salts, prochloraz, tebuconazole, Trichoderma harzianum1 and urea. The data presented in tables 5 & 6 are calculated numbers and may give a level of accuracy that is unwarranted – please refer to the Standard Error calculations on page 61 for further clarification

45

Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2015 (kg active substance)




Disinfectants

Ammonium bifluoride 819 . 49 2 1 59 20 . 950 Gluteraldehyde 450 15 . 3 1 41 45 . 556 Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid 45 196 . . 188 288 49 . 765 Peroxyacetic acid 153 32 122 <1 12 334 54 7 715 Peroxygen compounds 1,759 411 183 . 5 . . . 2,357 Unspecified disinfectants 4 <1 3 . 13 <1 . . 20 Other disinfectant1 566 113 347 10 4 2,138 8 3,186 All disinfectants 3,795 766 703 15 223 2,860 176 7 8,548

Herbicides

Diquat <1 . . 21 51 . 64 2 138 Glyphosate 2 <1 <1 <1 19 2 93 . 115 Propyzamide . . . 87 . . 50 . 137 Other herbicides2 . . . <1 6 . 192 2 201 All herbicides 2 . . 108 75 2 399 4 591

Molluscicides & repellents

Ferric phosphate <1 . <1 4 4 <1 17 3 29 Metaldehyde <1 <1 . 9 6 <1 . . 16 Other molluscicides & repellents3 . . . <1 . . . . <1 All molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 <1 13 11 <1 17 3 44

Soil sterilants Other soil sterilants4 864 80 5,084 12,454 18,482 All soil sterilants 864 80 5,084 12,454 18,482

Growth regulators

Other growth regulators5 5 . . . . . . . 5

1Other disinfectants were acetic acid/hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid, benzoic acid, chlorine dioxide, cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride/gluteraldehyde, formaldehyde, gluteraldehyde/quaternary ammonium complex, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite.

2Other herbicides include carfentrazone-ethyl, glufosinate-ammonium, glyphosate/pyraflufen-ethyl, lenacil, mesotrione, metamitron, metribuzin, pendimethalin and prosulfocarb. 3Other molluscicides were methiocarb and unspecified molluscicides.

4Other soil sterilants include dazomet and metam-sodium.

5Other growth regulators include 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid.

46

Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2015 (kg active substance))




Insecticides & nematicides

Acetamiprid <1 <1 <1 5 4 <1 . . 9

Alpha-cypermethrin . . . <1 . . . . <1

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki1 289 <1 75 17 6 <1 15 12 414

Chlorantraniliprole 2 . . . . . . . 2

Chlorpyrifos . . . . . 2,186 50 9 2,246

Deltamethrin . . . <1 <1 <1 . . <1

Fatty acids 26 5 527 . <1 <1 . . 558

Indoxacarb . <1 3 2 <1 . . <1 5

Lambda-cyhalothrin <1 . . <1 <1 <1 <1 . 1

Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve61 . 5 . . <1 . . . 5

Pirimicarb <1 . 20 31 2 8 31 1 94

Pymetrozine 10 9 7 5 2 2 5 . 40

Pyrethrins 34 . <1 7 2 <1 <1 1 45

Spinosad 5 3 <1 7 2 3 7 <1 28

Spiromesifen 14 <1 . . <1 <1 5 . 20

Spirotetramat <1 . . 8 <1 <1 . . 8

Thiacloprid <1 <1 . <1 <1 <1 29 4 35 Other insecticides & nematicides2 3 3 . <1 <1 <1 . . 6 All insecticides & nematicides 382 25 631 82 17 2,199 142 27 3,515

Acaricides

Abamectin <1 <1 <1 . <1 <1 2 <1 4

Bifenazate . . . . . . 9 . 9

Clofentezine . . . . . 3 35 9 46

Etoxazole <1 . . . . <1 3 . 4

Fenpyroximate . . . . . <1 5 . 5

Spirodiclofen . . . . . <1 6 . 6 Other acaricides3 . . . . . 4 2 . 6 All acaricides <1 <1 <1 . <1 7 60 9 80

Tar oils/acids

Other tar oils4 <1 . <1 . <1 . . . 1 1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of insect pests 2Other insecticides and nematicides include Beauveria bassiana ATCC-740401, bifenthrin, cypermethrin, flonicamid and lambda-cyhalothrin/pirimicarb. 3Other acaricides includes tebufenpyrad. 4Other tar oils include tar oil/acid

47

Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2015 (kg active substance)




Physical control agents

Carbonic acid diamide/urea 56 14 2 . 38 <1 9 . 120

Garlic 3,696 306 . 16 <1 . . . 4,020

Maltodextrin1 2,267 118 2 8 581 . 209 . 3,186

Other physical control agents2 . 6 . . 31 . . . 37

All physical control agents 6,020 444 4 24 650 218 7,362

1Maltodextrin is an authorised pesticide 2Other physical control agents included dodecylphenol ethoxylate, natural plant extracts and Oleum foeniculi

48

Table 7 Estimated area (ha) of application of the fifty most extensively used active substances on all edible protected crops surveyed in 2015 in the United Kingdom (including edible plants in propagation)

Rank Active substance Area treated in 2015

(ha)

Area treated in 2013

(ha) % change on 2013 Movement

1 Sulphur 1,700 965 76 ↑

2 Bacillus subtilis 1,002 214 369 ↑

3 Azoxystrobin 778 916 -15 ↓

4 Myclobutanil 777 836 -7 ↓

5 Cyprodinil 678 900 -25 ↓

6 Fludioxonil 678 900 -25 ↓

7 Pirimicarb 611 656 -7 ↓

8 Metalaxyl-M 551 263 109 ↑

9 Boscalid 549 446 23 ↑

10 Pyraclostrobin 549 446 23 ↑

11 Fenhexamid 545 407 34 ↑

12 Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki

545 435 25 ↑

13 Mandipropamid 484 297 63 ↑

14 Potassium hydrogen carbonate 465 488 -5 ↓

15 Iprodione 461 742 -38 ↓

16 Abamectin 455 526 -14 ↓

17 Bupirimate 408 434 -6 ↓

18 Peroxyacetic acid 380 720 -47 ↓

19 Diquat 378 7 5,663 ↑

20 Pyrethrins 336 119 182 ↑

21 Fosetyl-aluminium 327 379 -14 ↓

22 Propamocarb hydrochloride 315 568 -44 ↓

23 Thiacloprid 297 171 74 ↑

24 Spinosad 268 244 10 ↑

25 Quinoxyfen 261 339 -23 ↓

26 Penconazole 256 239 7 ↑

27 Dimethomorph 238 192 24 ↑

28 Clofentezine 233 222 5 ↑

29 Thiram 209 346 -39 ↓

30 Pyrimethanil 207 231 -10 ↓

31 Mepanipyrim 203 266 -24 ↓

32 Pymetrozine 202 371 -46 ↓

33 Kresoxim-methyl 194 195 0 ↓

34 Acetamiprid 187 81 131 ↑

35 Chlorpyrifos 181 183 -1 ↓

36 Mancozeb 174 291 -40 ↓

37 Lambda-cyhalothrin 160 102 57 ↑

38 Gluteraldehyde 152 214 -29 ↓

39 Indoxacarb 131 76 71 ↑

40 Cyflufenamid 131 69 90 ↑

41 Ferric phosphate 125 64 97 ↑

42 Hydrogen peroxide 124 258 -52

43 Propyzamide 117 61 93 ↑

44 Spiromesifen 112 205 -45

45 Peroxygen compounds 110 147 -25 ↓

46 Spirotetramat 106 42 152 ↑

47 Ammonium bifluoride 97 85 14 ↑

48 Fatty acids 97 168 -42 ↓

49 Etoxazole 94 23 301 ↑

50 Bifenazate 86 106 -19 ↓

49

Table 8 Estimated amount (kg) of the fifty active substances, used most by weight, on all edible protected crops surveyed in 2015 in the United Kingdom (including edible plants in propagation)

Rank Active substance Amount used in 2015

(kg) Amount used in 2013

(kg) Percentage change on

2013 Movement

1 Dazomet 12,167 1,953 523 ↑

2 Potassium hydrogen carbonate

11,017 7,978 38 ↑

3 Metam-sodium 6,314 0 Newly encountered

4 Sulphur 4,863 2,899 68 ↑

5 Peroxygen compounds 2,357 1,686 40 ↑

6 Chlorpyrifos 2,246 4,795 -53 ↓

7 Gluteraldehyde 1,586 1,360 17 ↑

8 Propamocarb hydrochloride 1,510 3,578 -58 ↓

9 Benzoic acid 1,068 122 772 ↑

10 Quaternary ammonium complex

957 833 15 ↑

11 Ammonium bifluoride 950 611 55 ↑

12 Peroxyacetic acid 843 2,286 -63 ↓

13 Fosetyl-aluminium 710 1,274 -44 ↓

14 Hydrogen peroxide 659 2,425 -73 ↓

15 Tolclofos-methyl 611 353 73 ↑

16 Fatty acids 558 3,235 -83 ↓

17 Thiram 431 700 -38 ↓

18 Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki

414 28 1,390 ↑

19 Fenhexamid 389 273 43 ↑

20 Iprodione 259 614 -58 ↓

21 Boscalid 209 189 10 ↑

22 Cyprodinil 205 328 -37 ↓

23 Azoxystrobin 201 276 -27 ↓

24 Mancozeb 192 280 -31 ↓

25 Dimethomorph 187 268 -30 ↓

26 Bupirimate 145 236 -39 ↓

27 Pyrimethanil 140 150 -7 ↓

28 Diquat 138 4 3,119 ↑

29 Propyzamide 137 48 189 ↑

30 Fludioxonil 137 218 -37 ↓

31 Metamitron 128 27 369 ↑

32 Bacillus subtilis 127 28 363 ↑

33 Glyphosate 116 30 288 ↑

34 Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446

115 41 181 ↑

35 Pirimicarb 94 188 -50 ↓

36 Mepanipyrim 81 138 -41 ↓

37 Mandipropamid 74 42 76 ↑

38 Cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride

73 234 -69 ↓

39 Myclobutanil 64 99 -35 ↓

40 Pendimethalin 58 0 Newly encountered

41 Pyraclostrobin 52 47 10 ↑

42 Copper oxychloride 48 280 -83 ↓

43 Clofentezine 46 53 -12 ↓

44 Fenpyrazamine 45 0 Newly encountered

45 Pyrethrins 45 7 545 ↑

46 Pymetrozine 40 95 -58 ↓

47 Thiacloprid 35 26 35 ↑

48 Quinoxyfen 33 48 -31 ↓

49 Ferric phosphate 29 14 114 ↑

50 Kresoxim-methyl 29 33 -13 ↓

50

1This figure excludes protected fruit grown in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Table 9 Comparison of the area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2007 - 2015

Area grown (hectares)

Crop 2007 2011 2013 2015

Tomato 155 217 239 232

Cucumber 318 234 229 181

Pepper 69 93 105 90

Lettuce 253 387 336 352

Other vegetables 566 605 469 851

Fruit 233 212 2221 2191

Edible plants in propagation 447 340 374 248

Total - all protected crops 2,058 2,094 1,974 2,173

51

Table 10 New compounds encountered on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom in 2015

Active substance Area treated 2015 (ha) Amount used 2015 (kg)

1 Fenpyrazamine 78 45

2 Alpha-cypermethrin 50 1 3 Pendimethalin 37 58 4 Metam-sodium 14 6,314

5 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid 11 5 6 Fenpropimorph 7 5 7 Urea 3 2 8 Pyraflufen-ethyl 3 <1

9 Mesotrione 1 <1

10 Metribuzin 1 <1

Table 11 Major increases in the use of individual active substances on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom since 2013 (ha)

Active substance Area treated 2015 (ha) Area treated 2013 (ha) % change on 2013

1 Diquat 378 7 5,663

2 Flonicamid 16 1 2,977

3 Fenamidone 72 3 2,183

4 Tar oil 0 0 2,045

5 Bifenthrin 1 0 1,820

6 Fluazinam 24 2 1,146

7 Metaldehyde 56 5 1,037

8 Dazomet 20 3 569

9 Fenpyroximate 48 9 424

10 Tebuconazole 31 6 413

11 Metamitron 37 8 377

12 Bacillus subtilis 1,002 214 369

13 Fluopicolide 17 4 313

14 Etoxazole 94 23 301

15 Glyphosate 71 23 202

16 Glufosinate-ammonium 17 6 183

17 Pyrethrins 336 119 182

18 Carfentrazone-ethyl 8 3 179

19 Spirotetramat 106 42 152

20 Formaldehyde 3 1 132

Table 12 Major decreases in the use of individual active substances on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom since 2013 (ha)

Active substance Area treated 2015 (ha) Area treated 2013 (ha) % change on 2013

1 Acetic acid 3 96 -97

2 Cypermethrin 16 286 -94

3 Coniothyrium minitans 1 12 -94

4 Methiocarb 2 22 -93

5 Phosphorous acid and salts 1 10 -92

6 Copper oxychloride 19 180 -89

7 Cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride

15 89 -83

8 Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040

33 160 -79

9 Difenoconazole 3 12 -79

10 Quaternary ammonium complex

20 77 -74

11 Trichoderma spp. 7 23 -70

12 Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 10

2 4 -63

13 Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6

52 133 -61

14 Deltamethrin 84 184 -54

15 Hydrogen peroxide 124 258 -52

16 Chlorine dioxide 25 51 -50

17 Captan 17 33 -49

18 Peroxyacetic acid 380 720 -47

19 Pymetrozine 202 371 -46

20 Spiromesifen 112 205 -45

52

Table 13 Comparison of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom, 2007 - 2015 area treated (ha) and amount used (kg)

Chemical 2007 2011 2013 2015

ha kg ha kg ha kg ha kg

Acaricides 952 114 705 45 967 85 1,005 80

Insecticides 2,944 1,944 2,979 3,709 2,922 8,430 2,897 3,093

Biopesticides 203 12 1,529 154 1,026 232 1,690 672

Fungicides 7,231 13,487 6,377 19,849 8,531 17,551 8,041 16,895

Sulphur 607 1,907 1,387 3,486 965 2,899 1,700 4,863

Herbicides 543 543 381 251 110 117 667 593

Molluscicides 320 300 102 17 90 21 183 45

Soil sterilants 43 22,704 7 4,240 3 1,953 34 18,482

Tar oil/acids 12 308 1 36 <1 <1 <1 1

Authorised disinfectants 4 281 65 248 21 122 32 1,068

Authorised physical control agents

59 1,405 247 3,234 297 1,907 297 1,907

Growth regulators . . 3 2 . . 11 5

Total - all pesticides 12,918 43,005 13,783 35,270 14,932 33,317 16,558 47,703

Biological controls 22,602 609 27,560 357 22,410 9 20,325 .

Area grown 2,058 2,094 1,974 2,173

53

Table 14 - Biological and physical control agents encountered in the survey - comparison with usage in 2013

Rank Active substance Amount used in 2015

(ha) Amount used in 2013

(ha) Percentage change on

2013 Movement

1 Encarsia formosa 6,715 5,381 25 ↑

2 Aphidius colemani 2,907 4,514 -36 ↓

3 Phytoseiulus persimilis 2,060 2,407 -14 ↓

4 Aphidoletes aphidimyza 1,480 2,971 -50 ↓

5 Aphidius ervi 1,340 2,335 -43 ↓

6 Neoseiulus cucumeris 1,335 1,381 -3 ↓

7 Amblyseius 974 29 3,273 ↑

8 Maltodextrin 533 297 80 ↑

9 Garlic 492 1,374 -64 ↓

10 Macrolophus pygmaeus 441 420 5 ↑

11 Aphelinus abdominalis 438 1 37,503 ↑

12 Chrysoperla carnea 410 36 1,044 ↑

13 Orius laevigatus 398 158 152 ↑

14 Diglyphus isaea 342 507 -33 ↓

15 Hypoaspis spp 296 39 663 ↑

16 Dacnusa sibirica 250 194 29 ↑

17 Eretmocerus eremicus 173 333 -48 ↑ ↓

18 Orius spp. 145 23 530 ↑

19 Steinernema feltiae 129 121 6 ↑

20 Aphidius matricariae 118 6 1,834 ↑

21 Heterorhabditis bacteriophora

116 66 77 ↑

22 Praon volucre 112 235 -52 ↓

23 Aphidius spp 112 67 67 ↑

24 Neoseiulus californicus 111 70 59 ↑

25 Amblyseius swirksii 102 400 -74 ↓

26 Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita

100 17 476 ↑

27 Aphidius abdominalis 82 6 1,238 ↑

28 Feltiella acarisuga 50 71 -30 ↓

29 Adalia bipunctata 48 54 -12 ↓

30 Urea 43 168 -74 ↓

31 Amblyseius degenerans 33 0 Newly encountered

32 Ephedrus cerasicola 30 0 Newly encountered

33 Episyrphus balteatus 28 54 -49 ↓

34 Stratiolaelaps scimitus 24 65 -63 ↓

35 Amblyseius andersoni 22 33 -33 ↓

36 Orius strigicollis 14 0 Newly encountered

37 Dodecylphenol ethoxylate 10 0 Newly encountered

38 Trichogramma brassicae 10 158 -94 ↓

39 Trichogramma evanescans 10 29 -65 ↓

40 Oleum foeniculi 7 9 -31 ↓

41 Steinernema kraussei 5 4 21 ↑

42 Cryptolaemus montrouzieri 5 0 Newly encountered

43 Unspecified nematodes 0 0 Newly encountered

44 Natural plant extracts 0 0 Newly encountered

54

APPENDIX 2 – Other compounds encountered in the survey but not presented elsewhere in the report

Area Treated (ha) Weight applied (kg)

Algicides

Benzalkonium chloride 19 18

Glass cleaners

Ammonium hydrogen difluoride 59 345

Hydrofluoric acid 14 17

Hydrofluoric acid/sulphuric acid 33 229

Nitric acid 5 72

Oxalic acid 14 616

Unspecified glass cleaners 87 6,606

Growth stimulants

Plant extracts 51 284

Pruning paints

Unspecified pruning paints <1 26

Soil sterilants

Steam 4 N/A

55

APPENDIX 3 – BIOPESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS IN 2015

Crop treated Biopesticide Formulation area

treated (ha) Weight of a.s. applied (kg)

Proportion of area grown Average number of applications Average proportion of full

label rate (where applied) Cucumbers Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 10 2 1 0.01 1 volumetric Cucumbers Bacillus subtilis 23 3 0.02 6.39 0.99

Edible plants in propagation Bacillus subtilis <1 <1 0 1 0.1

Lettuce Bacillus subtilis 121 16 0.19 1.82 0.97

Other fruit Bacillus subtilis 199 27 0.48 11.15 1

Other vegetables Bacillus subtilis 147 18 0.08 2.26 0.89

Strawberries Bacillus subtilis 452 58 0.51 4.84 0.96

Tomatoes Bacillus subtilis 59 6 0.14 1.77 0.81 Cucumbers Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 1 1 0.01 1 volumetric

Edible plants in propagation Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki <1 <1 0 2.63 volumetric

Lettuce Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 42 17 0.07 1.66 volumetric

Other fruit Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 28 11 0.38 2 volumetric

Other vegetables Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 16 6 0.01 1.43 volumetric

Peppers Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 54 75 0.08 7.18 volumetric

Strawberries Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 38 15 0.1 2.01 volumetric

Tomatoes Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 365 289 0.21 7.65 volumetric Cucumbers Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 4 1 0.02 1.32 1.43

Other vegetables Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 2 1 0 6 1.57

Tomatoes Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 27 3 0.03 4.43 0.45 Lettuce Coniothyrium minitans <1 2 0 1 1

Other vegetables Coniothyrium minitans <1 1 0 1 0.58

Peppers Coniothyrium minitans <1 1 0 1 0.58 Cucumbers Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 22 57 0.02 5.65 volumetric

Edible plants in propagation Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 20 52 0.07 1.08 volumetric

Lettuce Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 4 3 0.01 1.26 volumetric

Other vegetables Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 2 1 0 1 volumetric

Peppers Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 <1 <1 0 1 volumetric

Tomatoes Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 2 2 0.01 1 volumetric Cucumbers Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 52 5 0.09 3.27 0.99

Other vegetables Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 <1 <1 0 4 1 Cucumbers Trichoderma harzianum 3 <1 0.02 1.05 0.35

Edible plants in propagation Trichoderma harzianum <1 <1 0 2 <1

Other fruit Trichoderma harzianum 4 1 0.03 4 1

Tomatoes Trichoderma harzianum <1 <1 0 2.1 1

56

APPENDIX 4 – DEFINITIONS

a) 'Pesticide' is used throughout this report to include commercial formulations containing active substances of insecticides, acaricides, molluscicides, fungicides, herbicides, desiccants, soil sterilants, nematicides, and growth regulators.

b) 'Treated area' is the gross area treated with a pesticide, including all repeat applications, some of which may have been applied to the land in preparation for planting and thus may appear as an inappropriate use on that crop.

c) 'Reason for application' indicated in the text is the grower's stated reason for use of that particular pesticide on that crop and may not always seem entirely appropriate.

d) Where individual pesticides are mentioned in the text, they are listed in descending order of use by hectares treated.

e) The term “formulation(s)” used within the text is used here to describe either single active substances or mixtures of active substances contained within an individual product. It does not refer to any of the solvents, pH modifiers or adjuvants also contained within a product that contribute to its efficacy.

f) For the purposes of this survey the total area of edible protected crops was taken as the sum of the areas of the following crops: tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other veg; other fruit; strawberries: vegetables for propagation & fruit for propagation.

g) Where referred to as a pesticide group, “other pesticides” includes urea, physical control agents, growth stimulants and disinfectants (see also k and l below).

h) Volumetric rates – some products are applied using a standard dilution rate in a set volume of water. As growers’ water volume rates/hectare vary it is not possible to compare the actual rates with a pre-set maximum product rate.

i) Pesticide applications included those applied prior to planting, or in some cases to glasshouse crops that failed and were subsequently re-planted, and, as these are associated with that crop they may appear as inappropriate uses.

j) Where highlighted in the text the amount of active substance is calculated from the weight of product applied per hectare multiplied by the proportion of each individual active substance within a product. Arthropod biological control agents are applied by number rather than weight, so the weight of biological control agents refers only to preparations of bacterial and fungal origin.

k) Disinfectants are used for general cleansing and disinfection and are subject to the biocidal products regime. Not all disinfectants require authorisation.

l) Physical control agents, such as maltodextrin, which is based on potato starch, work by blocking insect spiracles, causing death by suffocation. Other physical control agents include garlic which repel and prevent insect pests landing on the crop.

m) EAMU – Extension of Authorisation for Minor Use (formerly known as Specific Off-Label Approvals or SOLAs).

n) Full label rate refers to the maximum rate, in litres or kilograms per hectare, indicated on a product label, permitted on

a specific crop. Where the average proportion of full label rate is indicated within the report this is the average product

rate encountered in the survey, compared to the maximum product label rate for each crop.

57

APPENDIX 5 – METHODOLOGY

METHODS

The samples of holdings to be surveyed were selected using data from the June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture, 2014 for England & Wales (Anon., 2015a and 2015b).

Whilst most of the information below relates to England & Wales, further detailed information relating to Scotland & Northern Ireland can be found on the relevant websites listed on page 2.

The samples were drawn from the June Survey returns so as to represent the area of all edible protected crops grown throughout England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. For England the sample was selected within each of the eight Government Office Regions (GOR’s). The Welsh Government provided a further sample, which represented the area grown in Wales. For Scotland and Northern Ireland the sample represented the regions in each country.

The samples were stratified according to the total area of protected crop structures (permanent structures such as glasshouses and polythene tunnels but excluding French and Spanish tunnels which are temporary structures) within each region and by size group based on the total area of protected crop structures grown on each holding. The area of protected crop structures sampled in each size group and each region was proportional to the total area of protected crop structures grown on holdings of each size group in each region. Detailed information on the use of French and Spanish tunnels can be found in the soft fruit report.

All three survey teams followed the same methodology for data collection and used the same forms and instructions for their completion. However, for Wales it was not possible to select the sample on the basis of edible protected crops. For Wales, where the sample provided contained a mixture of edible & ornamental holdings, a factor of 0.5 was applied to the regional areas of glasshouse & polythene structures. This figure was based on our own experience of the level and distribution of edible protected and ornamental crop holdings present in Wales.

The size groups, based on the total area of structures (glasshouse & polythene) edible protected crops are as follows: <0.4ha (Size Group A); >0.4-<=0.8 ha (Size Group B); >0.8-<=1.25 ha (Size Group C); >1.25-<=2.5 ha (Size Group D); and >2.5 ha (Size Group E).

For the purposes of this survey the total area of edible protected crops was taken as the sum of the areas of the following crops: tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other vegetables; other fruit; strawberries; vegetables for propagation & fruit for propagation.

An introductory letter was sent to the occupiers of the selected holdings explaining the purpose of the survey. In total 272 holdings (232 in England, 16 in Scotland, 9 in Northern Ireland and 15 in Wales) were visited during the winter of 2015/16 and data collected during a personal interview with the grower conducted by an experienced pesticide usage surveyor. Where a holding listed in the original sample was not able to provide data it was replaced with another from the same size group and region, held on a reserve list. Within England and Wales a total of 472 nurseries were contacted, of which 136 (29%) were not growing edible protected crops commercially. Of the 336 nurseries growing edible protected crops, 38 (11%), were unwilling to help with the survey, a further 66 (20%) either provided data after the deadline or were willing to help at a later date. A total of 247 nurseries (74%) in England and Wales provided data for the survey.

58

Commercial farm management software and in-house electronic record keeping systems are now used extensively within many areas of agriculture and horticulture. However, because of the complexity of growing edible protected crops, multiple cropping, variable growing systems, diversity of crops etc., the use of electronic record systems is more limited than in field vegetable, field grown fruit or in arable systems. Electronic record keeping was used by 17% of the holdings contacted in England & Wales, with these records accounting for 45% of the total pesticide-treated area. In line with the complexity of the growing systems used for edible protected crops most, 54%, of those using computer records used systems developed by the growers themselves. Paper based record keeping accounted for the remaining 83%.

Where possible, and in order to minimise the burden on individual growers, pesticide usage data were emailed or posted by the growers back to the survey teams. In a few cases, and normally on smaller holdings, information was collected over the telephone. In total, data from 39% of the holdings in England & Wales were collected using non-visit methodologies.

One of the requirements placed on growers by their customers is the membership of farm assurance schemes. These schemes require detailed pesticide records (computer based or hand written) which ensure traceability and can be examined by crop assurance auditors at any time, but normally at least once each year. These records are used extensively by members of the survey team. Of the 263 holdings providing responses to this question in Great Britain, 61% were members of one or more crop assurance schemes (94% of the area grown), with 35 of the holdings being registered organic on all or part of their farm. A number of smaller growers were growing crops without any pesticide treatments but were not registered organic.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire for the main part of the survey consisted of two forms, which were completed during an interview with the grower.

Form 1 summarised the areas of edible protected crops grown on the designated holding during the 2014/2015 season.

Form 2 dealt with all aspects of pesticide usage on the individual crops grown on the holding and harvested in 2015, a separate form being used for each glasshouse block/crop combination. These included pesticides applied prior to planting, or in some cases to crops that failed and were subsequently re-planted, as these are associated with that crop they may appear as inappropriate uses. Certain agronomic details that may have influenced pesticide usage (including planting methods, growing medium, irrigation systems, planting & harvest times, use of adjuvants and the volume of spray applied) were also recorded on form 2.

59

Raising factors

The pesticide usage data collected from each holding were raised by a ratio of two factors to give an estimate of regional usage using a standard ratio raising statistical technique; the first factor being dependent on farm size group and region (see Appendix 5) and the second dependent on crop area and region. The data were further adjusted by a third factor to compensate for regions in which specific crops were not sampled and to make estimates of total pesticide usage related to the national cropping areas in the United Kingdom (Thomas, 1999).

The raising factors were based on the areas of glasshouse and polythene structures, and the area of edible protected crops grown and harvested in 2015 as recorded in the June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture for England & Wales (Anon., 2016a & b) and the Basic Horticultural Statistics (BHS) (Anon., 2016c).

The first raising factors from the edible protected crops survey are presented in Appendix 7. It is the first raising factor which does most of the work and gives an indication of the robustness of the sample with smaller numbers indicating a larger area sampled within each size group and region. The first raising factor is often largest in the smaller size groups where there is generally a much larger population. For edible protected crops the first raising factor is based on the area of glass and polythene structures on holdings that indicated they were growing vegetables, salad and fruit in the 2015 June Survey.

It can be seen that some of the first raising factors that are less than 1. This could indicate that the June survey data was inaccurate for that individual size group and region combination. Initially it was thought that changing the first raising factors to 1 where this occurred would compensate and correct any potential errors. However, discussions with statisticians at Fera suggested that doing this may bias the sample and that any overestimates in the June Survey data for areas within other size group and region combinations would not be accounted for.

Whilst we have confidence in the methodologies used for the pesticide usage surveys and the data collected from individual farmers and growers (see Appendix 5), the raised estimates for individual crops will be subject to higher standard errors simply because available data on National and Regional areas for individual crops is much more limited. Where possible, the survey team have used data collected as part of the June Survey to make estimates of national & regional pesticide usage as this survey is subject to the same strict methodologies as our own. However, where these estimates are not available then other sources of data such as combinations of June Survey data and our own observations or the Basic Horticultural Statistics have been used and these data may therefore be associated with a higher standard error. In particular we have concerns relating to the estimated areas used for strawberries, other fruit and protected lettuce. Data within this survey report exclude fruit grown in Scotland, whilst the Basic Horticultural Statistics were assumed to include data from Scotland. Estimates for protected fruit in Scotland (excluding temporary structures) exceed 400 hectares (SASA pers. comm.), whilst the BHS data showed a total figure of 219 hectares for the whole of the UK. However, this figure has now been established to cover England & Wales only and has therefore been used to make the estimates in this report. It is important to remember that the bulk of the strawberry crop is grown under temporary tunnels; usage on these crops will be reported in the 2016 soft fruit pesticide usage survey report. The use of temporary tunnels causes complications with the edible protected crops survey in that many of the holdings that had been selected in the sample, particularly those in the larger size groups, were growing strawberries and other fruit under French & Spanish tunnels. Whilst these holdings were rejected for the purposes of this survey, they would have been included within the June Survey data and will therefore have an influence on this survey’s raising factors. The area estimated by the BHS for protected lettuce is 352 hectares. From our own sample estimates the BHS figure is possibly an overestimate, with growers either ceasing production or changing to alternative crops. However, we have no other data available and have used the Basic Horticultural Statistics figures. Detailed data for other vegetable crops (including herbs and baby leaf salads) and edible plants in propagation were not available from the Basic Horticultural Statistics and we have used our own estimates, by multiplying the sampled area by rf1, for these crops.

60

Error checking

Extensive checks are made on the data before, at the time of and following data entry. Data checking routines are used to verify the authenticity of the data collected including: database integrity; growers’ reasons for application; the authorisation status of all crop/pesticide combinations; high and low rates of application; the methods of application used to apply pesticides; crop growth stages at the time of application; the timing of pesticide applications and consistency within a spray tank mix.

Further checks are made on the integrity of the relational database used to store the raw data collected ensuring that links to product databases are in place prior to the production of the report. The product databases used for the pesticide usage surveys are maintained alongside the commercial product database, LIAISON, which is used extensively by agronomists and the major farm management software companies.

Where inconsistencies are found, for example where there are high rates of application or non-authorised product usage, these are checked first against the farm records and secondly with the grower and amended if necessary. Reports are written and checked within the team after which they are sent to reviewers within the Working Party on Pesticide Usage Surveys for their comments and checking. The final report is pre-announced and published via the Government Publication Hub and the FERA website in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics.

Rounding

Due to rounding of figures, the sum of constituent items in the tables may not agree exactly with the totals shown.

Data limitations and use of data

Our experience has shown that the proposed face to face interview and ‘main contact plus reserves approach’ delivers the highest quality data and minimises non response bias. Drawing a fresh stratified random sample each year is clearly an appropriate survey methodology. Despite this, the population of horticultural growers is much smaller than the number of arable or grassland & fodder holdings in England, so that, especially in the strata of larger enterprises, the same growers come around fairly often which means that this sample is already closer to a panel than a sample from a larger population might be. As part of this survey FERA has implemented the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice for Official Statistics, published in 2009. Whilst all eight principles apply, we acknowledge in particular, the following: • Integrity – in particular, that statistical reports must be issued separately from other statements or comments about the

figures, that the public interest prevails. • Confidentiality – the identity of individuals or their information is not revealed, information is kept secure and

respondents are informed how their confidentiality will be protected. • Proportionate burden - seeking participation through informed consent. • Accessibility – to all users, providing information on the quality and reliability of the statistics, adopting formats that

enhance clarity and consistency, disseminating in formats that encourage analysis and re-use. Use & Users of the Data In accordance with UKSA Code of Practice for Official Statistics, we continue to work in partnership with statisticians from Fera and the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemicals Regulation Division to build on our existing extensive and effective relationships with users of the surveys to further enhance user engagement. There is a broad spectrum of users and stakeholders across policy, research, agricultural supply industry (including consultancies), farming and horticultural businesses, NGOs and members of the public. Over the years we have an excellent record of listening to our users and incorporating their feedback into the way we collect and report our statistics.

61

APPENDIX 6 - ESTIMATES OF STANDARD ERRORS FROM THE EDIBLE PROTECTED CROP PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY Yi Lu & Roy Macarthur

ANALYSIS OF PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY

The aim of this analysis is to provide an estimate of the pesticide usage associated with each type of use (e.g. arable, soft fruit, orchard crops) by region, by crop type and within each region and nationally.

Estimates are derived from pesticide usage survey data which are stratified by region and holding size within each crop type. The survey reports the mass of pesticide applied and the area to which it is applied. The survey information is combined with the total area of glass and polythene structures within each stratum to provide an estimate of the total mass of pesticide used on that crop type by region and nationally, and of the area sprayed. Each estimate (E) is provided with a standard error (se). In general we expect, with approximately 95% confidence, that the true quantity of pesticide used will lie within the interval:

Estimation method

We are provided with information about holdings in J regions. Holdings are assigned one of K size classes. L holdings are surveyed within each stratum (j,k). In addition the total area of glass and polythene structures and number of holdings in each stratum from which samples have been taken is reported. Hence, we are given:

: the total area of the stratum (in holdings of size class k, in region j)

: the total number of holdings in the stratum

: number of holdings surveyed within the stratum

: area of each holding surveyed within the stratum

: area of each holding sprayed within the surveyed stratum. Reported as the product of the area sprayed and the

number of times it is sprayed.

: mass of pesticide applied to each holding in the surveyed stratum

62

Then we estimate:

: mean area sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum

: mean mass applied per area surveyed within the stratum

: standard deviation area sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum

: mass sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum

: estimated total area sprayed in a region

: standard error of estimated total area sprayed in a region

: estimated total mass applied in a region

: standard error of estimated total mass applied in a region

: estimated total area sprayed

: standard error of estimated total area sprayed

: estimated total mass applied

: standard error of estimated total area sprayed

Estimators

64

Methods:

Regions were treated as the only strata in this report because of the low number of holdings in some size groups in some regions in the PUS data and in the June Survey data. Then “ratios” (i.e. the pesticide treated area per unit area of the crop grown and the weight of active substances per unit area of the crop grown, respectively) were raised in these regions. “Ratios” were assumed to be constant across all farm sizes within a region. Furthermore, some adjacent regions were grouped together and ratios were assumed to be constant between these adjacent regions. For example, North East and North West were grouped together as “North” and East Midlands and West Midlands were grouped as “East & West Midlands”.

Also, some un-sampled size categories within a region were grouped with sampled size categories.

Note that three potential exclusions could have been made when looking at pesticide usage on edible protected crops:

1. Exclude soil sterilants because of the relatively high rates of usage of these products 2. Exclude soil sterilants and bio-controls 3. Exclude soil sterilants, bio-controls and disinfectants

In this report, it was decided to follow the second approach because soil sterilants and bio-controls are applied (recorded) at very different rates (weight); with extremely large rates for soil sterilants and “zero weight” for bio-control. Excluding soil sterilants and bio-control meant that four holdings were excluded from the calculations, resulting in a total number of 268 (see table A.1).

This follows the approach taken in the 2013 survey of edible protected crops.

Results:

Tables A.2 and A.3 show the estimates of pesticide treated areas and the weight of active substances for edible protected crops, with relative standard errors and 95% confidence intervals, respectively.

Tables A.2 and A.3 show that the relative standard error of the estimate of treated areas is lower than the target of 5% and the relative standard error of the estimate of active substances by weight is higher than the target of 5% (4.4% and 27.7% respectively).

Tables A.4 and A.5 show the relative standard errors excluding Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. All three areas showed a similar level of usage in that the overall weight applied in each country was quite small. The main reason for excluding these data was to see whether their exclusion would reduce the relative standard error for weight. As can be seen there is very little difference from tables A.2 and A.3.

Further studies can be conducted to improve the precision of the standard error calculation. From PUS standard error calculation reports during the surveyed years, we can see that the June survey data has been treated as a census rather than a survey (actually, it is a survey conducted in June). In other words, the assumption has been made that there is ZERO uncertainty about the area grown according to the June survey. This is a quite strong assumption and may not always be the case. From the process of national standard error calculation, we can also observe that an assumption has been made that there is NO correlation between area grown and mass quantity applied but these two variables are correlated in some cases. The accuracy of standard error estimation can be improved if these factors are considered in future PUS standard error calculations.

Please see Tables A.1- A.5 for a summary of holdings and national estimates of area treated and weight of active substance for edible protected crops with relative standard errors and 95% confidence intervals.

All data are analysed using R version 3.2.2.

65

Table A.1: Summary of the number of holdings with edible protected crops sampled in the UK as part of the Pesticide Usage Survey

Region PUS June Survey

East Midlands 15 77

Eastern 61 176

London & South East

35 181

North East 2 23

North West 37 127

South West 26 240

West Midlands 21 111 Yorkshire & the

Humber 33 92

Wales 14 169

Northern Ireland 9 23

Scotland 15 514

Overall 268 1,733

Table A.2: Relative standard error and 95% confidence interval for the area of edible protected crops treated (ha) with active substances

Region Total RSE (%) 95% confidence interval for the

total

Wales 16 19.3 [ 10;22]

Eastern 2,345 8.1 [1,970; 2,720]

London & South East

3,124 8.9 [2,360; 3,889]

North1 1,174 5.3 [1,050;1,299]

South West 661 28.4 [293;1,030]

East & West Midlands2

1,825 6.9 [1,578;2,073]

Yorkshire & the Humber

2,115 5.2 [1,898;2,332]

Northern Ireland 66 7.3 [0;149]

Scotland 18 33.3 [ 6;30]

Overall 11,349 4.4 [10,353;12,345]

1 Regions “North East” and “North West” were combined to produce the estimate for the “North” in this table. 2 Regions “East Midlands” and “West Midlands” were combined to produce the estimate for “East Midlands & West Midlands” in this table.

66

Table A.3: Relative standard error and 95% confidence interval for the weight of active substances (kg) applied to edible protected crops

Region Total RSE (%) 95% confidence interval for

the total

Wales 2 90 [0;6]

Eastern 15,477 18.5 [ 9,838;21,115]

London & South East

12,327 43.5 [1,815;22,838]

North3 1,280 5.7 [1,134;1,425]

South West 3,631 37.9 [928;6,333]


5,805 12.2 [4,413;7,196]


6,365 0.7 [6,268;6,461]

Northern Ireland 524 83.2 [0;1,378]

Scotland 17 45.2 [2;32]

Overall 45,428 13.8 [33,087,57,768]

3 Regions “North East” and “North West” were combined to produce the estimate for the “North” in this table. 4 Regions “East Midlands” and “West Midlands” were combined to produce the estimate for “East & West Midlands” in this table.

67

Table A.4: Relative standard error and 95% confidence interval for the area of edible protected crops treated (ha) with active substances (excluding Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales)

Region Total RSE (%) 95% confidence interval for the

total

Eastern 2,345 8.1 [1,970; 2,720]

London & South East

3,124 8.9 [2,360; 3,889]

North5 1,174 5.3 [1,050;1,299]

South West 661 28.4 [293;1,030]


1,825 6.9 [1,578;2,073]


2,115 5.2 [1,898;2,332]

Overall 11,248 4.5 [10,256;12,239]

Table A.5: Relative standard error and 95% confidence interval for the weight of active substances (kg) applied to edible protected crops (excluding Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales)

Region Total RSE (%) 95% confidence interval for the total

Eastern 15,477 18.5 [ 9,838;21,115]

London & South East

12,327 43.5 [1,815;22,838]

North5 1,280 5.7 [1,134;1,425]

South West 3,631 37.9 [928;6,333]


5,805 12.2 [4,413;7,196]


6,365 0.7 [6,268;6,461]

Overall 44,885 13.9 [33,117;57,738]

5 Regions “North East” and “North West” were combined to produce the estimate for the “North” in this table. 6 Regions “East Midlands” and “West Midlands” were combined to produce the estimate for “East & West Midlands” in this table.

68

APPENDIX 7 – FIRST RAISING FACTORS FOR EDIBLE PROTE CTED CROPS

Region/Country Farm size group rf1 Regional area (ha) Area surveyed (ha) Number of farms

visited

East Midlands A 20.27 6.74 0.33 6 B 4.92 2.61 0.53 * C 1.53 2.94 1.92 * D 0.23 1.84 8.12 *

E 2.86 25.03 8.74 * Eastern A 8.33 11.94 1.43 8

B 4.95 25.52 5.16 9 C 0.57 8.08 14.28 14 D 1.02 24.18 23.72 14 E 0.93 101.69 109.39 17

London & South East A 10.28 13.41 1.31 13 B 3.85 13.62 3.54 6 C 3.09 9.93 3.21 3 D 1.56 13.95 8.92 6 E 1.25 117.45 93.75 7 North East A 38.86 1.50 0.04 * North West A 5.78 9.74 1.69 10 B 3.98 16.89 4.24 8 C 0.69 5.02 7.26 7 D 4.44 14.15 3.19 * E 0.90 41.59 46.42 10 Northern Ireland A 2.30 2.14 0.93 6 B 1.80 2.23 1.24 * E 8.25 23.77 2.88 * Scotland A 3.70 5.48 1.48 15 B 6.75 2.97 0.44 * South West A 11.64 15.00 1.29 19 C 2.58 4.66 1.81 * D 0.42 2.13 5.01 * E 1.26 19.66 15.56 * Wales A 6.99 6.31 0.90 15 West Midlands A 5.52 8.17 1.48 9 B 3.08 6.01 1.95 * C 1.88 2.25 1.20 * D 0.46 3.62 7.83 * E 3.08 95.05 30.86 * Yorkshire & the Humber A 7.46 4.99 0.67 * B 8.58 4.34 0.51 * C 1.28 5.64 4.41 * D 1.89 19.45 10.30 6 E 1.00 90.28 90.50 18

For confidentiality reasons a * has been used where 5 or less holdings have been sampled

The first raising factor (rf1) is the largest of the three raising factors and gives an indication of the robustness of the sample with smaller numbers indicating a larger area sampled within each size group and region.

Vales of rf1 that are less than one indicate that the area recorded on the June Survey was less than the area sampled. This could either be because of a) multi-cropping on the holdings which would mean that the basic area (recorded on the June survey) was cropped more than once resulting in a higher area of edible protected crops grown or b) that the area provided by the June Survey was incorrect.

69

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to all of the growers who willingly participated in this survey, providing invaluable information upon which this report is based. Many thanks are also due to Jackie Hughes, Stephen Jess, Trudyann Kelly, Michael Lavery, David Matthews, Carol Monie, Gillian Reay, Johan Wardlaw and David Williams for their role in the collection and provision of data; Yvonne Powell-Wainwright and Josephine Roberts for their role in maintaining the pesticides database; and Jennie Blackburn, Sarah Thompson and John Bleasdale for their help with the cropping areas of vegetable crops in England & Wales respectively. Thanks also go to the members of the ECP Working Party on Pesticide Usage Surveys, in particular Sarah Cook, Peter Gladders and Mike Lole, for their invaluable comments.

REFERENCES

Anon. (2015a) Agricultural Statistics in England 2014. London: HMSO Anon. (2015b) Agricultural Statistics in Wales 2014. London: HMSO Anon. (2016a) Agricultural Statistics in England 2015. London: HMSO Anon. (2016b) Agricultural Statistics in Wales 2015. London: HMSO Anon. (2016c) Basic Horticultural Statistics 2015, UK: York: Defra Garthwaite, D.G., Barker, I., Parrish, G., Smith, L. Hudson, S., & Pietravalle, S. (2014) Pesticide Usage Survey Report 256 – Edible Protected Crops in the United Kingdom 2013. FERA. Internet. Thomas, M. R., (1999), Guidelines for the Collection of Pesticide Usage Statistics within Agriculture and Horticulture, OECD, Eurostat, http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/2078031.pdf (last accessed 21.07.2016)

OTHER USEFUL REFERENCES For June Survey Statistics please see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/structure-of-the-agricultural-industry (last accessed 21.07.2016)

For Basic Horticultural Statistics please see: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horticultural-statistics (last accessed 21.07.2016) For further information on commodity chemicals please see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/commodity-substances.htm (last accessed 07.10.2016) For further information on biopesticides please see: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/applicant-guide/biopesticides-home.htm (last accessed 07.10.2016)

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269 EDIBLE...

Documents

Transcript of PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 269 EDIBLE...