Comment
Comment
Strobilurins: the verdict
WAS it worth the expense? Growers will now be weighing up whats in the barn, against the extra cost of the strobilurin fungicide chemistry, writes Gilly Johnson.
Judging by the comments from our readers, consensus is that the strobs have had an effect on both yield and quality. Whether this is solely due to new chemistry is open to question – because much wheat seems to have done rather well south of the Border even where conventional triazoles were used.
That said, trials evidence does back the much publicised yield boost from strobilurins. BASF, the agchem manufacturer responsible for the Landmark mix (kresoxim-methyl with epoxiconazole, aka Opus), has released the results of its 1998 trials which show that Landmark and its sister formulation, Mantra (which has an added mildewicide element), are worth the extra spend.
Cries of "But they would say that, wouldnt they?" can be countered by the companys realistic approach. It isnt banging the drum about a few cases of 10% yield increase. Instead it has averaged out results across a range of sites and different wheat varieties to come up with a more believable 4% yield boost, as compared with the best of conventional chemistry, apparently costed in at a similar level.
At grain prices of £70/t, that means an extra £28/ha in the bank. And even if – heaven forbid – markets were to tumble down to £45/t, the kresoxim-based fungicides would still be economically worthwhile, says BASF.
For the technically minded, the comparisons were with two half-rates of Landmark at T1 and T2 as against a robust but not over-the-top conventional programme of Opus (half and three-quarter rates) and Tern (fenpropidin) at T1 and T2, followed by a low rate of Folicur (tebuconazole) at T3.
To anyone whos shelled out on strobs this year, its reassuring to see this story backed by independent ADAS research, funded by HGCA levy cash (see p8). The case for strobilurins on barley is less convincing because the gap between the cost of equivalent conventional programmes is so much greater.
There remain many unanswered questions. Some varieties do seem to react more to the strob effect than others – and its not just a matter of inherent disease susceptibility. From the BASF trials, Equinox, Consort, Riband and Caxton have all shown significantly greater response to Landmark, as compared with triazoles alone, than other wheats.
But in the ADAS trials, some contradictions appear. It seems to be less worthwhile to use Landmark on Riband, but Charger, Spark and Hereward all benefited more. Why the disparity?
Then theres the green straw problem. This isnt solely down to strobilurin chemistry – the season has played a part as well. Harvest was not an early one; sunshine was lacking and crops struggled to ripen off. But theres no doubt that the new products appear to have exacerbated the delay. Growers dont want to have to spend extra on pre-harvest treatments. Perhaps by tweaking the spray timings, this problem might be avoided?
Overall, the verdict must be a thumbs up for strobilurins. But we need answers, and quickly, on how to make the most from these unquestionably expensive tools.
Drilling dilemma
UH-Oh! – just as you thought you had that rotation sussed…
Drillings are being geared up for Agenda 2000. Setting the scene for a maximum first wheat hit next year, theres 10% more oilseed rape going into the ground this autumn.
But perhaps this isnt such a clever move after all. EU farm commissioner Franz Fischler may be having second thoughts. The upheaval in the worlds financial markets might force him to change plan, according to a recent report in the Financial Times.
Last month a meeting of European farm ministers was told that Mr Fischler had ordered a new series of studies on market prospects and farm incomes, in the light of global financial problems. Russias turmoil is a particular worry, given its potential role as a big customer for European exports.
Its thought that Mr Fischler will do everything he can to push through the Agenda 2000 proposals as they stand; hes made it plain that his reform of the CAP takes top priority. But this is no guarantee of what lies ahead. The details may yet be overhauled.
Deadlines on Agenda 2000 are pressing. Growers are having to take the possible changes into account now, as they drill the crops that will precede those to be harvested in 2000 under the new system.
Its unfair to burden the industry with further uncertainty at the last minute. The agricultural sector desperately needs to know what the rules will be, as quickly as possible. Politicians, take note.
Are you in or out of ACCS?
MORE than 5,000 growers are signed up members of the Assured Combinable Crops Scheme. Thats above the targets set by the scheme organisers. They are happy with the response theyve had, and are looking forward to bringing in more members for the 1999 harvest.
Yet the grumblers continue to stir the pot. The latest revelation is that the Office of Fair Trading has become involved in assessing all the assurance schemes in the crop sector. Although the anti-lobby will milk this suggestion for all that it is worth, it is a red herring.
Whats at stake is food safety, and this issue will carry the day. And it should be remembered that the ACCS and its sister schemes for trade and horticulture are voluntary; no-one is being forced to join.
Five thousand growers have voted with their feet. They easily outnumber those who are making such loud protests about anti-competitiveness. But time will prove which side is right – and who has lost out. Can you risk the waiting idly by to find out?
Where the real crisis lies
THE "Worst crisis in living memory" was the headline. The subject? East Anglian arable farms.
A firm of accountants put together this message of gloom and doom from a survey of their clients in the East Anglian arable heartland. Sure enough, it was picked up by the media, particularly the regional papers. No doubt the accountancy firm received the publicity it desired.
This message was disingenuous at best, harmful at worst. Yes – times are hard for arable growers. Prices are at rock bottom, the pound has been painfully strong and there is uncertainty ahead. But compared to the fortunes of the livestock and hill sector, arable businesses have escaped the worst.
Families are being forced to abandon hill holdings they have farmed for generations. Its adding insult to injury for them to hear the complaints of the arable sector. And it makes the public less inclined to take the true disaster seriously – the fact that large areas of our countryside will be laid to waste.
Arable businesses are facing tough times, but in the early 1990s they enjoyed good profits, as the Government is only too well aware. The industry should rightly give priority to the livestock sector – thats where the crisis headlines truly belong.
When change could use a helping hand
GO FORTH and diversify. How many times have you heard that said?
Of course, this advice makes sound business sense, and deserves encouragement, when the combinable cropping sector is in the doldrums. But be warned: making a success of diversification isnt just a matter of budgets, market surveys and investing a lot of management time.
A salutary tale from the dairy sector highlights the bureaucratic broken glass liable to be strewn in front of anyone with bright ideas for rural regeneration. You may not have heard of Bonchester cheese, but it was much enjoyed by the customers of Harrods and Fortnum & Masons – and delighfully graced the Crops table prior to our annual Scottish Conference (10 Nov at Perth, by the way).
This exclusive soft cheese has however been strangled by red tape. The diversification project, started 18 years ago by Borders farmer John Curtis, has ceased.
Mr Curtis blames ever-increasing regulation and demands for repeated inspections of his premises and equipment. Its a story liable to be repeated elsewhere, when growers encounter local planners and bureaucrat jobsworths, insisting on rigid interpretation of structure plans and regulations. But common sense should dictate making a distinction between rural enterprises and factory-type businesses.
No-one is asking for exemption from standards designed to protect the consumer or the general public. But it doesnt make sense to have four to five expensive inspections a year, when one is enough to establish whether a new value-added enterprise is functioning properly and safely.
The planners may not be that keen to encourage rural diversification. Perhaps it makes their lives more difficult if industry moves out of the urban fringe estates and on to the farm. But with arable redundancies increasing, farm diversification may be the only way to keep rural jobs. It needs official support – not official hindrance.