Archive Article: 1997/09/06
Wanted: new answers to
old problems
FLUSH with cash from building society windfalls, consumers are in the throes of a spending frenzy. Or so the economists say.
Perhaps they didnt speak to anyone involved in agriculture. For arable businesses, carefree spending is out of the question. The fall in commodity prices rules out all but essential inputs this season.
But the critical problem remains: which inputs will repay the investment, and which are now not worthwhile? In order to make the right decisions, growers need accurate, independent and up-to-date information. Such facts and figures are becoming increasingly hard to track down.
At Crops, we make it our business to supply you with the knowledge you need to help with day-to-day practical management. For example, in these pages we tackle four major issues: seed rates, lodging, slugs and the effect of adjuvants on spray patterns.
These topics continue to throw up new challenges for growers. There is still a huge dilemma on seed rates. When do you cut seed rates to save on other inputs? Or do you spend more on seed to save on the more expensive agrochemical inputs?
The odds are that slugs will return with a vengeance this autumn, threatening crop emergence. We desperately need fresh weapons against this old enemy.
Lodging has been a big problem this year. But there can be many reasons why crops fall flat. What is going on at ground level is more than half the battle.
Adjuvants have been around for some time, but we are still largely in the dark as to just what effect they have on spray patterns.
These are all down-to-earth issues, that directly affect the profit margins for arable businesses. Scientists and researchers take heed: when times are hard, its fundamental problems such as these that must take priority.
Blighted prospects
ITS been the worst season for potato blight for 20 years or so. Some growers have had to make over a dozen trips through crops with the sprayer, in an effort to keep infection at bay.
The weather must take much of the blame; rain prompted vigorous growth at the start of the season, and then prevented a timely first spray. But with the benefit of hindsight, its clear that the industry was also at fault.
Some growers attempted to cut costs by using cheaper contact products for blight control. Sadly, because plant growth was so fast and infection followed suit, they ran into trouble.
Its a case of calculated risk. This was one season when the odds were not in favour of cutting corners.
But there was also a serious risk factor present, that could – with a little foresight – have been prevented.
Sitting around this spring was a large number of rotting potatoes, dumped following last years glut. They acted as the ideal breeding ground for an immense amount of early fungal inoculum, released into this seasons crops.
We have had a salutary reminder this summer, of how difficult it can be to control rampant blight. But most of the varieties now required by the supermarkets and processors are only too vulnerable to this disease.
Blight-tainted potatoes, unwanted by buyers, are likely to be left to rot once more this year. It must not be allowed to happen. For the good of all, the industry needs to adopt a hygiene code on the disposal of unwanted crop.
"Oui" to farm assurance
THE NFUs farm assurance initiative has not met with the whole-hearted approval of all its members. At the grass-roots level, there are still worries about the cost and hassle of bringing farm storage up to scratch, for example.
We should beware. Whilst the British committees continue to debate the details of the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme, the French grain trade are now waking up to the idea of quality assurance.
One of the largest French flour millers – Grands Moulins de Paris – is promoting its own traceability system, which purports to provide guarantees of quality from seed, to farm, to miller – and then on to British bakeries as French flour.
Whether or not the scheme will match the standards of the British farm assurance scheme, at least at farm level, is open to question. Traceability and quality assurance are separate issues, and should not be confused.
Being able to identify which growers have supplied the grain which may be heaped together in a merchants store is one thing -guaranteeing the quality standards of individual grain growers, through independent auditing of those farms, is quite another.
Theres no doubt that farm assurance will not be an easy option for some British growers. If it were that easy, it would carry no credibility with consumers. But an internationally recognised, industry-wide scheme will give British produce a marketing edge.
This French initiative demonstrates that they have latched on to the fact that in order to access British markets, some form of traceability – or quality assurance – is now a selling point. We mustnt let them overtake us.
Spreading
the word
HOW would you improve the "responsible use of pesticides in the UK"? If youre a politician, the answer is obvious: set up a committee to discuss the issue.
Thats just what the last Government did, creating the Pesticides Forum last year. The Government fell, but the Pesticides Forum has survived. It now has the backing of a new crop of Labour politicians.
Membership of the committee is drawn from a wide range of disciplines. Theres a sprinkling of the "great and the good" high profile farming figures, with consumer, environmental and food processing interests represented, sitting alongside Government scientists, advisors and the agrochemical and sprayer manufacturers and distributors.
No one would disagree that the idea is a laudable one. And now the Pesticides Forum has produced its first Action Plan (available from the PSD, tel 01904 455754).
It says all the right things about how to minimise the possible adverse impact of pesticide use on the environment. The report talks about collaboration and consensus, about practical methods of reducing pesticide use, and about the importance of training. And the vital phrase "cost-effectiveness" is mentioned in the context of integrated methods of pest control.
All well and good. But there is one critical element missing from this Action Plan. How is the message going to be broadcast to the general public?
This Action Plan should address the problem of public image. Theres no doubt that moving further down the road towards more environmentally-responsible use of pesticides is the right route – but the industry needs to shout about it.