NIAB - National Institute of Agricultural Botany

Orson's Oracle

Meeting the challenge

Posted on 12/11/2012 by Jim Orson

I gave a talk in Cornwall last week. It was the only the second time I have visited that county as part of my job and the subject of the talk was equally unusual for me; weed control in grassland.

A large part of my presentation was about keeping pesticides out of water. You may think that there are no such problems in a largely pastoral county. However, South West Water is picking up some pesticides in raw water at concentrations that exceed the Drinking Water Directive. They tend to be the usual culprits including mecoprop and metaldehyde. Also, some of the more specialist grassland herbicides are being detected in water during the summer. The latter is also true for East Anglia, despite the low proportion of land that is occupied by grass.

Pesticides in water are currently a huge issue for both the agricultural and water industries. The standards are demanding, particularly for drinking water. In areas where drinking water is not sourced, pesticides in water have to meet the Environmental Quality Standards needed to protect aquatic life. For many but not all pesticides these are generally laxer than the standard for drinking water.

Now maps are being produced showing where drinking water is sourced and the land that drains to it over a short space of time. These are being designated Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs). Where surface water DrWPAs are at risk upstream Safeguard Zones are also being delineated. There are also some groundwater drinking water abstractions at risk from pesticides, but these are fewer in number.Drinking Water

By doing a postcode search in the Environment Agency’s ‘what’s in your backyard’ website, farmers can see if they are in such a surface or groundwater area. Just click on the icon with the tap on it (on the last row of icons). Should they farm in a Drinking Water Protected Area or Safeguard Zone then they will be have to be particularly careful about keeping pesticides out of water. However, even with the best will in the world problems may still occur.

So what happens next? There is much debate about this with a report being prepared on what needs to be done should voluntary measures fail in any area. There are a lot of possible options including removing authorisation of those pesticides that regularly occur in water at above the drinking water standards. Authorisation could be removed, either just locally where there is a problem, or nationally.

At the other end of the range is the option for Water Companies to pay for alternative pesticide or cropping practices to avoid offending pesticides being used in the Drinking Water Protected Areas (and also possibly the Drinking Water Safeguard Zones). In some cases this could prove to be the cheaper option. For example, Wessex Water is paying some farmers in key areas to use ferrous phosphate slug pellets rather than metaldehyde.

One option that really isn’t available is to install more treatment facilities to remove pesticides from water. This option is not desirable under the Water Framework Directive since it asks Member States to reduce the level of treatment needed at drinking water plants (complicated isn’t it?!).

Hence the issue of pesticides in water has a long way to run. It is a fundamental part of the UK National Action Plan for Pesticides that is being prepared as a result of the Sustainable Use Directive. It is clear that at least some of those who farm in the Drinking Water Protected Areas (and possible those in the Drinking Water Safeguard Zones) will have some very significant challenges to face over the next few years. So it is worth all farmers having a look at the website to check if they are in these areas.

For those outside these areas, the issue of pesticides in water still demands high standards of pesticide use. As I said earlier, the Environmental Quality Standards are generally less demanding. Cypermethrin is an exception. The Drinking Water Standard is 0.1 parts per billion but the Environmental Quality Standard for cypermethrin is 0.1 parts per trillion. This will mean a fraught process when it is re-evaluated as part of the EU pesticide regulations.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that there may be other areas of land designated to protect waterbodies such as those used for recreation or which have particular wildlife habitats etc. Life does not get any easier!

 

Leave a comment / View comments

 

Blemishes are back

Posted on 29/10/2012 by Jim Orson

It came as a real shock when my wife informed me that the local corner store was selling blemished apples. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that our local corner store is a Waitrose supermarket and apparently they’ve done it before under the banner of fruit for jam-making.Waitrose blemished apples

However, selling blemished apples is neither a long way from, nor a long time since, when pre-packed fruit had to be without blemish and even in size. In 2009, an EU ban on fresh produce that didn’t match standard shapes and sizes was lifted. Up to that point as much as 20% of farm produce was thrown away or fed to livestock because it didn’t comply. Now pre-packed fruit and vegetables of mixed sizes are commonly on offer.

This year’s late frosts really hammered apple production in Northern Europe and it’s no wonder that more limited supplies mean less wastage by selling fruit that’s blemished. This is all a response to the new reality of more limited food supplies. One way to tackle a shortage of food is to reduce needless waste.

Surveys show that UK consumers are increasingly aware that there is a concern over future food supplies. This is a real turn-around. It wasn’t that long ago that Defra appeared to hold the view that UK food production was not that important. At the time I attended a meeting of researchers on the subject of sustainable land management. There was a significant number in the audience who thought that the last thing that our land should be used for was the production of food because it was far too environmentally damaging. They seemed to have no consideration that food has to be produced somewhere and that it would also inevitably be more damaging to the natural environment of the producing country than letting nature take its course.

There are other issues regarding the threat of food shortages. I’ve just read an article on the pros and cons of trying to bolster EU protein crop production. Much of the enthusiasm for this is based on the fact that non-GM supplies of soya are very limited. There are also strategic and food security reasons for the EU being less reliant on imported soya. The article’s author had calculated that 1.4 hectares of peas would have to be grown in Northern Europe to replace each hectare of soya beans grown in Brazil. In fact wheat produces more crude protein per hectare than peas in much of Northern Europe but of course the concentration of the protein in the harvested product is around half that of peas.

When you consider that land is one of the most limiting resources for food production this fact is of enormous significance. It supports the concept of free world trade in agricultural production where individual farmers only grow what they produce the most efficiently. In the UK we ‘do’ wheat and oilseed rape and in terms of land-use it is best to leave it to others to ‘do’ protein crops such as soya.

However, this bland statement hides other realities, such as the need for break crops. On the other hand, it seems that protein crops in Northern Europe have a long way to go to be competitive with soya, even when taking into account transport costs.

Let’s hope that R&D can deliver protein crops in Europe that can compete with soya or alternatively improve the prospects for home-produced soya. Until that time, financially inducing EU farmers through CAP to grow more crops than they can produce competitively in world markets or that are required to sustain a rotation doesn’t make much sense in the context of getting the best out of the current arable land in the world. It can only increase the possibility of more of the world’s remaining wild areas coming under the plough.

Leave a comment / View comments

 

Not a lot of people know that

Posted on 22/10/2012 by Jim Orson

You can imagine Michael Caine saying ‘not a lot of people know that’ when you hear that more sunlight hits the surface of the earth in one hour than the entire human race uses in a whole year.

Solar panels can generate electricity from solar radiation but it is intermittent and difficult to store. Only plants, algae and some bacteria have the amazing ability to capture and store the sun’s rays as sugars using photosynthesis. Unfortunately, photosynthesis is quite an inefficient process. For instance, in wheat less than 1% of the intercepted solar radiation is converted into plant material over the life of the crop. This can creep up to just over 1% during the grain fill process.

There are three photosynthetic systems - C3, C4 and CAM. The main ones are C3 and C4 with wheat and rice using C3 photosynthesis and maize and sugar cane the C4 system. The C4 system is far more efficient in converting solar radiation than C3, particularly in warm climates; for example, sugar cane can be up to 7% efficient. This means that the C4 systems also tend to be more efficient users of nitrogen and water in terms of crop produced per unit of input.Leaf stomata

So research establishments are taking the first steps in trying to convert both wheat and rice from C3 to C4. There is no guarantee that they can achieve this goal or that the C4 system in these crops will provide the expected increases in productivity. However, it is a breeding goal that is well worth investigating.

One of the reasons for the recent plateau in wheat yields is that we have exhausted many of the technologies that produced the huge steps forward in the 1970s and 1980s. There is little doubt that plant breeding offers the major opportunity to provide the much needed yield improvements.

When you look back, the technologies that can now be used to improve crop performance through plant breeding are amazing. My A-level biology studies were totally disrupted by the teacher’s enthusiasm to discuss the early findings of Crick and Watson, shortly after each paper was published. Now plant researchers are in a good position to say what traits they would like to see in a plant and identify a method to achieve that end. No longer is plant breeding based on serendipity - in just crossing specific varieties and assessing the outcome by eye.

I may be doing pesticide discovery a disservice by saying that they still rely on serendipity by just testing a range of chemicals and seeing if they work. I realise that it has become more sophisticated over recent years with high throughput screening. However, I have yet to hear of a pesticide that has been discovered using the reverse process of getting an end point and working back to a pesticide that will achieve the result required.

Plant researchers are entering into new areas of opportunity. They now have the tools to design and make complicated biological molecules. The discipline is called synthetic biology and offers great opportunities. For instance they are trying to create an artificial system to mirror photosynthesis by stripping it back to a level of basic reactions where much higher levels of energy conversion are possible. In a world concerned about the implications of the current reliance on fossil fuels, the rewards for such an achievement would be huge.

Leave a comment / View comments

 

Sorry

Posted on 15/10/2012 by Jim Orson

As you may have heard, NIAB TAG have set up a task-force to investigate the 2012 yield performance issues in winter wheat, with the aim of understanding and explaining the drop in yield across much of the country as well as significant local yield variations.

I was doing a bit of background work for the task-force when I realised that I’d made a bit of a misjudgment in a previous blog (Exceptional! 6 August 2012). I commented on the output of a model at Rothamsted Research. For their farm the major loss of nitrogen in winter wheat during this year’s exceptionally wet late spring and early summer was due to denitrification and not leaching. The model also showed that the roots of the crop during this period were largely starved of air due to waterlogging and it was this aspect that I rather brushed aside in my blog. However, this issue may have had a large impact on yields this year.

So, a couple of weeks ago I found myself in the library in Rothamsted looking up references on the impact of timing of waterlogging on wheat yields. There aren’t many studies on the impact of waterlogging during stem extension and grain fill of wheat and some of these have been done in very large containers (lysimeters) rather than in field trials.

Rothamsted LibraryHowever, they all show the same thing...

The conclusion, based on my reading of the literature, is that waterlogging alone in May and June this year must have had a significant impact on yield. As a rough guide, one day’s waterlogging in mid-May has the same impact on yield as five days waterlogging in the winter. Waterlogging during grain fill can reduce grain set and reduce grain size.

So this must be part of the explanation to the variation in yields we saw this year. There are other aspects that also need to be considered and these are being tackled by the task-force.

It was the visit to the Rothamsted library that also highlighted how the communication of science is changing. There were stacks and stacks of books and a lot of desks on which to read them but I was the only person there. The reason is that scientists now access and read papers on-line.

This will also change in the near future. Publishers have been charging non-subscribers to scientific periodicals a fairly substantial fee to access a single paper. There are now firm proposals that there should be open access in 2014 to all papers based on scientific research funded by the British taxpayer. There are similar proposals throughout Europe. This will inevitably impact on learned societies, some of which generate as much as 90% of their income from publishing papers in their periodicals. They are being offered alternative funding arrangements to peer review papers. I hope that these proposals will be realistic and allow them to continue.

These learned societies provide a structure to science and facilitate like-minded scientists to get together and debate relevant issues in an academic setting. Let us hope that the move to open access of the papers that these societies publish (a move which I wholeheartedly support) does not reduce their effectiveness in sharing and advancing knowledge.

Leave a comment / View comments

 

Is arable farming going to hit the buffers?

Posted on 04/10/2012 by Jim Orson

We now have a few new registrations coming through that have been completed since the HSE’s Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD) introduced its interim arrangements on assessing aquatic buffer zones.

The new product Teridox (dimethachlor) has a buffer zone requirement of 10-metres and the new Hurricane (diflufenican) labels will have a buffer zone requirement of 12-metres. Dow claims that Dursban (chlorpyrifos) would require a 72-metre buffer zone according to the method of assessment that’s being used under the interim measures. Under the interim arrangements buffer zones wider than 5-metres cannot be reduced under any circumstances, but they are only necessary when there is water in the ditch.

These are worrying buffer zone widths and all kinds of issues arise from this situation.

First of all, are the new widths based on good science? I know that the basic drift model used to develop the original LERAPs scheme was based on a narrow boom width sprayer travelling slowly. Drift from sprayers travelling at 12-14 kph is undoubtedly higher. So there may be some logic in the wider buffer zones from that point of view. But the question has to be, has something been identified that suggests that current buffer zones and application techniques are causing a problem?

The only information I can find on the likely scale of any problem is dated 2010 and says that only 1% of surface water bodies monitored by The Environment Agency are failing their Environmental Quality Standards for pesticides. This is a low level of failure, but of course any failure has to be regretted. However, a failure may have been due to pesticides moving to water through the soil or on the soil surface rather than spray drift.

Buffer stripsMonitored water-bodies tend to be lakes and rivers and not small ditches on farms. So the question is whether farm ditches, which may have water in them from time to time during the year, contain a viable aquatic ecosystem that requires an aquatic buffer zone to protect them? The French authorities appear to be of the opinion that this is only seen with larger on-farm streams and water-bodies.

The other issue is whether mitigation will eventually be introduced so that these newly introduced buffer zones that are wider than 5-metres can be reduced in the future. Let us hope so. The great thing about the original LERAPs scheme was that it rewarded good practice by allowing a reduction in buffer zone width due to the adoption of lower doses and/or reduced drift spraying techniques. This resulted in many farmers using the lower drift air induction nozzles for nearly all spraying operations and there are now other engineering solutions that could further reduce drift, including improved control of boom height. Let us hope that good practice will eventually be rewarded when the arrangements are finalised.

There are other mitigation methods that also need to be investigated. Drift studies are carried out where there is very short vegetation, but there is some evidence that taller vegetation in the buffer will trap a very significant amount of drift. This also offers the opportunity for a bit of joined-up thinking because such vegetation, correctly managed, may also be a large step forward for biodiversity.

Some farmers think that one way forward would be to use adjuvants to reduce drift. This is a minefield as an adjuvant may reduce the drift for one product but may increase it for another; the ultimate minefield would be when tank-mixes are used.

The graph shows the impact on land availability for food production of wider buffer zones. Paradoxically, it is those farmers who have ‘done the right thing’ for biodiversity who are the ones that will be most penalised because they haven’t created large fields by ‘piping-in’ ditches and removing hedges.Impact of buffer zones on arable land availability

I recognise that this is the worst case scenario because I’ve assumed a buffer zone on every side of the field but you get the ‘drift’ (sorry about the pun). It is sobering fact to mention that our high yields mean that for every hectare of cereals not produced in this country a few hectares will have to be grown elsewhere in the world. It is beholden on us not to export environmental impacts to other countries.

There are other implications as well. Farmers, where they can, will avoid those products with wide buffer zones, and not just on the fields that have ditches that may have water in them at the time of application. This is because of the way that arable farming now has to work - spray operations are pre-planned and appropriate to not just one but a number of fields. Hence, there could be more reliance on fewer modes of action and an increase in the risk of pesticide resistance.

So, there’s a lot to play for and we look to the regulators to consult widely and to develop a simple but scientifically robust solution that meets the concerns of the farmer and the conservationist as well as the consumer who is reeling from higher food prices.

Leave a comment / View comments

 

Page: ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >