47th BCPC Annual Weed Review
2010
held on
Monday 8th November 2010
at
PGRO Conference Centre
Great North Road
Thornhaugh
Peterborough
Cambs
PE8 6HJ
BCPC 7 Omni Business Centre, Omega Park, Alton, Hampshire GU34 2QD www.bcpc.org
Field performance of recent herbicide introductions in the
UK 2001-10
David R Ellerton
HL Hutchinson, Weasenham Lane, Wisbech, Cambridgeshire PE13 2RN
INTRODUCTION
This paper is based on a survey of 34 agronomists from HL Hutchinson Ltd and ProCam UK Ltd advising
on farms throughout the UK and was conducted from June to August 2010.
Respondents were asked to record their practical field experience of some 21 new herbicide active
ingredients which have been introduced to the UK market since 2001. (see Appendix 1). Where possible
answers were based on products containing the new ai alone but if not then a limited range of coformulations were assessed.
A number of criteria were assessed for each product as follows:
1) range of dose rates used
2) main application timings
3) main tank mixes used
4) main crops sprayed
5) major weeds targeted by the product
6) efficacy of product out of 10
7) key advantages of the product
8) key disadvantages of the product
9) likelihood of product usage by the agronomist increasing, decreasing or remaining static in the future
CEREALS
Picolinafen (with Pendimethalin in Orient and Pico Pro)
53% of the agronomists had used picolinafen since 2001 either as Orient or Pico Pro. All of these had
applied the product to both winter wheat and winter barley.
Dose rates varied from 2-4 l/ha for Orient and 1.5-3.0 l/ha for Pico Pro and were applied pre emergence or
mainly post emergence up to GS30.
The products were occasionally applied alone but more usually in mix with products such as
iodosulfuron/mesosulfuron, flupyrsulfuron, chlorotoluron, pendimethalin or diflufenican.
Key weeds targeted were general broad leaved weeds although specific mention was made of common
poppy, cleavers, charlock, field pansy, speedwells and red dead nettle as well as meadow grass and
blackgrass with efficacy varying from 6-9 with a mean rating of 7.8.
Main benefits of the products were classed as broad spectrum, reliability, persistence, cost effectiveness
and visual effects while negatives were high cost, crop safety, staining, the need for a tank mix partner or a
perceived weakness on mayweed and groundsel.
There was a wide difference in views on the future use of picolinafen.
Flufenacet (with pendimethalin in Crystal)
Views were sought on use of Crystal and 100% of respondents had used the product on both winter wheat
and winter barley.
Dose varied between 2 and 4 l/ha with dose rates increasing over the years (now mainly 4.0 l/ha)
Crystal was mainly applied pre-emergence although there was some peri emergence use up to GS22.
41% of agronomists tended to use the product alone while others tank mixed with a range of products such
as prosulfocarb, flufenacet/diflufenican, iodosulfuron/mesosulfuron, flupyrsulfuron, chlorotoluron,
pendimethalin and diflufenican.
Weeds targeted were mainly blackgrass, ryegrass, bromes and wild oats but annual meadow grass and a
range of broad leaved weeds including cleavers and common poppy were also mentioned. Efficacy ranged
from 6-10 with a mean of 7.6. Main benefits of the product were its reliable residual performance as part
of an anti resistance grass weed control strategy as well as its broad leaved weed spectrum. However
there were issues over its high cost, crop damage, drill depth restrictions, staining and groundsel control.
There was a wide range of views on future use although generally it was thought to be static.
Iodosulfuron (Hussar)
30% of respondents had applied Hussar mainly on winter wheat but a few on spring barley and rye.
Dose rates varied from 150-200g/ha (mainly at 200g /ha alone and oil) and was applied between GS21 and
30.
Weeds targeted were mainly rye grass and general broad leaved weeds and some mentioned chickweed
and mayweed specifically. Efficacy ranged from 6 to 8 with a mean score of 7.4.
Benefits of the product were regarded as good control of ryegrass and broad leaved weeds although some
had poor results and were concerned about ALS resistance.
Future use was regarded as either static or declining.
Propoxycarbozone (Attribut)
53% of agronomists had applied propoxycarbozone to winter wheat crops since 2002.
A full dose of 100g/ha was always used but timings varied between GS22 and 32 (the latest growth stage
had been bought back from GS39 to GS33 due to serious crop damage).
The product was always applied alone and was used almost exclusively for control of brome although
volunteer barley was also mentioned as a target. Efficacy ranged from 3 to 10 with a mean rating of 6.4.
As mentioned key benefits of the product were viewed as control of brome and volunteer barley but there
were a number of disadvantages such as limited weed spectrum. ALS sequence and following crop
restrictions, crop damage as well as resistance issues.
Generally it was felt that the product had been superceded by products such as mesosulfuron and
pyroxsulam and was therefore in decline.
Florasulam (Boxer)
70% of agronomists reported using florasulam since 2002, mainly in winter wheat but also in winter
barley and oats.
Dose rates varied from 50 to 150g/ha depending on weed size and spectrum and the product was applied
between GS22 and GS39.
Roughly half the agronomists applied the product alone but where mixed mesosulfuron/Iodosulfuron was
the main partner followed by fluroxypyr.
Weeds targeted were cleavers, chickweed, groundsel and brassicas such as volunteer oilseed rape with
efficacy varying between 5 and 10 with a mean rating of 7.4
Key benefits were viewed as good early season control of cleavers in particular in cool conditions,
although ALS resistance + sequence restrictions and a limited weed spectrum were viewed as
disadvantages.
Future use was expected to remain static.
Mesosulfuron (with Iodosulfuron in Atlantis)
100% of respondents had used mesosulfuron in winter wheat since 2003 and reported always applying the
full dose of 0.4kg/ha.
Generally the product was applied with Biopower alone or with a range of residuals such as
pendimethalin, diflufenican, flufenacet/pendimethalin, flufenacet/diflufenican or
picolinafen/pendimethalin in the autumn or with florasulam in the spring.
Timing varied considerably from GS11 to GS39 and key weeds targeted were mainly black grass followed
by ryegrass, brome, wild oats and annual meadow grass as well as a range of broad leaved weeds.
A wide range of efficacy was reported, especially on black grass with so much variability a mean score
was impossible to calculate from 1 to 10 and the general level was reported to be decreasing.
Despite this, benefits were still viewed as grass weeds in general as well as broad leaved weeds, flexibility
of timing and a low dose. However, there were major disadvantages of seriously declining reliability due
to resistance and growing conditions issues, tank mix sequences, following crop and cultivation
restrictions as well as crop safety concerns.
Views varied considerably on the future use of the product.
Pinoxaden (Axial)
100% of respondents had used pinoxaden in winter wheat, winter barley and occasionally spring barley
since its launch in 2006.
Dose rates varied considerably from 0.25 to 0.6l/ha depending on weed and weed size and the product was
applied at a wide range of growth stages from GS11 to GS41.
The product was normally applied alone (+ Adigor) but sometimes in mix with chlorotoluron, fluroxypyr
and a range of sulfonylureas in the spray.
Main weeds targeted were wild oats and ryegrass, although black grass featured to a limited extent.
Efficacy varied from 4 – 10 with a mean score of 8.1 on wild oats and ryegrass whereas black grass scored
from 4-6 with a mean of 5.
Benefits were reported as reliability of wild oats and ryegrass control, crop safety, the ability to control
grasses in barley as well as sequence with SU grass weed products in wheat.
Disadvantages were a high cost, poor control of black grass and brome and the necessity to use Adigor.
Future use was thought to remain at current levels.
Prosulfocarb (Defy)
88% of agronomists had used prosulfocarb since 2007 in both winter wheat and winter barley (as well as
more limited experience in potatoes, beans, linseed, poppies and onions). Only cereal usage will be
considered in this paper.
Dose rates varied from 2 to 5l/ha and the product was always applied in tank mix, originally with
trifluralin and latterly with flufenacet/diflufenican, fllufenacet/pendimethalin, diflufenican, pendimethalin
and chlorotoluron.
Timing was mainly pre emergence although there was some post emergence use up to GS13.
Main weeds targeted were black grass, ryegrass, annual meadow grass and a range of broad leaved weeds
including volunteer oilseed rape, cleavers and cranes-bill with efficacy ranging considerably from 2 – 10
and a mean of 5.7.
Key benefits were regarded as crop safety, cost effectiveness and a different mode of action being part of
an anti resistance strategy. However, unreliability, cost, crop safety (especially post emergence and on
barley) and the need to tank mix were viewed as disadvantages.
There was wide variation in thoughts on future use of this active.
Flumioxazin (Guillotine / Sumimax)
29% of agronomists had applied flumioxazin to crops of winter wheat (and a small amount to peas) since
2008.
Dose was almost invariably kept at the full rate of 100ml/ha although there was some use at 80ml/ha. The
product was mainly used alone although it was occasionally mixed with flufenacet/difluenican and timing
ranged from pre emergence to GS13.
Weeds targeted were general broad leaved weeds and cleavers and cranes-bill in particular as well as
secondary effects on black grass and annual meadow grass. Efficacy varied from 1 to 8 with a mean of
5.7.
A different mode of action on grass weeds was viewed as a key benefit of flumioxazin as well as a wide
range of broad leaved weeds. However there was concern over inflexibility in timings and dose,
unreliability and in particular, crop safety.
The future of this product was thought to be static at best.
Pyroxsulam (with Florasulam in Broadway Star)
47% of agronomists questioned had used pyroxsulam in winter wheat since 2009 with the dose
consistently at the full rate of 265g/ha.
Timing varied from GS23 -33 and the product was usually applied alone (+ adjuvant) and occasionally
with pendimethalin.
Weeds targeted were bromes, wild oats, ryegrass and a range of broad leaved weeds including cleavers,
poppy, volunteer oilseed rape and beans.
Efficiency ranged from 5 – 10 with a high mean of 8.1. Not surprisingly key benefits of the product were
viewed as reliability on control of wild oats, ryegrass and brome as well as broad leaved weeds, low
dosage rates and crop safety.
However, lack of black grass and annual meadow grass control, resistance issues, sequence limitations and
complex usage requirements by the manufacturer were viewed as negatives.
Despite this all respondents predicted an increase in future use.
OILSEED RAPE (AND PULSES)
Clomazone (Cirrus / Centium)
41% of agronomists had used clomazone in oilseed rape (and in pulses and poppies) since 2001.
Dose varied from 0.1 – 0.35 l/ha although 0.25l/ha was the most common rate applied. All applications
were made pre emergence although delayed application post emergence was reported to have resulted in
major crop damage.
The product was usually applied in mix with metazachlor in oilseed rape and prosulfocarb, pendimethalin
and pendimethalin/imazamox in pulses.
Weeds targeted were generally cleavers, sow thistle, shepherds purse and hedge mustard and efficacy was
high varying from 7 to 9 with a mean of 8.1.
Key advantages were therefore considered reliability on broad leaved weeds and cleavers in particular
coupled with a low dose.
However disadvantages were pre emergence use only, cost, limited weed spectrum and in particular, crop
safety causing serious crop bleaching especially on certain varieties.
Future use was thought to be static or increasing.
Picloram (Galera)
82% of agronomists had used picloram since its launch in 2004 on winter oilseed rape.
Dose rates were usually the full rate of 0.35 l/ha although occasionally this dropped to 0.25 l/ha and the
product was applied from autumn right up to just before flower buds visible depending on weed
emergence and suitable weather conditions.
The product was always applied alone and weeds targeted were cleavers, mayweed, sow thistle, cranesbill
and groundsel. Efficacy ranged from 4 to 10 with a mean of 7.4.
Key benefits of picloram were regarded as reliable post emergence control of cleavers and sow thistles
although this was largely due to a lack of other options. However the product was often viewed as
inconsistent, with a narrow weed spectrum and very limited windows of spraying opportunity. Crop
safety was also questioned.
Overall future use was expected to remain static or decrease.
Dimethanamid (with Metazachlor in Springbok and Metazachlor and Quinmerac in Shadow)
47% of agronomists had used dimethanamid in either form since 2006 in crops of winter oilseed rape.
Dose rates varied from 1.5 to 2.5 l/ha although full rates were normally applied. Timing was normally pre
emergence of the crop although occasionally this was delayed to up to
6 leaf of the crop.
Weeds targeted in addition to metazachlor weeds were cranesbill as well as cleavers, poppy, charlock and
blackgrass with efficacy reported from 5 to 8 with a mean of 6.9.
Benefits were regarded as increased spectrum of broad leaved weeds especially cranesbill and poppy as
well as flexibility in timing. However this incurred an increased cost and there was a reported drop in
efficacy in dry conditions.
Future use was expected to remain static.
Imazamox (with Pendimethalin in Nirvana)
71% of agronomists reported using imazamox in peas and beans since 2006.
Dose rates varied from 2.5 – 4.5 l/ha although 4.0 l/ha was the most widely used rate. The product was
mainly used alone pre emergence although other mixer partners included prosulfocarb, carbetamide and
clomazone.
Weeds targeted were general broad leaved weeds especially polygonums, charlock, cleavers and
mayweed as well as some grasses with efficacy ranging from 6.9 with a mean of 7.7.
Benefits of the product were viewed as its reliable broad spectrum control particularly of polygonums
although cost, staining and lower reliability in dry soil conditions were regarded as disadvantages.
Overall future use was expected to remain static or increase.
Nicosulfuron (Samson Extra)
59% of agronomist reported using nicosulfuron in maize since 2003.
Dose varied from 0.5 – 0.75 l/ha and timing was post emergence from between 2 and 8 leaf of the crop. It
was always applied in mix, usually with mesotrione and occasionally with mesotrione/terbuthylazine.
Weeds targeted were a range of grass weeds including blackgrass, ryegrass, annual meadow grass,
barnyard grass, couch and wild oats and efficacy was very high ranging from 6 to 9 with a mean of 8.3.
Key benefits were regarded as reliable grass weed control, however this was achieved at a high price and
fears were expressed over ALS resistance and following crop restrictions.
Future use was expected to remain static or increase.
Mesotrione (Callisto)
65% of agronomists had used mesotrione since 2005 in maize crops and to a limited extent linseed.
Dose rates varied from 0.5 to 1.0 l/ha and the product was applied post emergence from 2 to 8 leaves of
the crop.
The product was occasionally applied alone but usually in mix with nicosulfuron (for grass weeds) and
weeds targeted were a range of broad leaved weeds including polygonums, fat hen, charlock, black
nightshade, mayweed and volunteer oilseed rape. Efficacy was high and varied from 6 to 10 with a mean
score of 8.3.
Key benefits of the product were regarded as reliable and flexible broad spectrum broad leaved weed
control especially of nightshade although resistance and expense were viewed as down sides.
Overall future use was expected to remain static or increase.
Isoxaflutole (and Flufenacet in Cadou Star)
29% of agronomists reported using isoxaflutole in maize (and in game cover) from 2006. Dose rate used
varied from 0.75 to 0.8 kg/ha and the product was always applied alone pre emergence of the crop.
Weeds targeted included annual meadow grass and a range of broad leaved weeds including black
nightshade, fat hen and chickweed but efficacy varied considerably from 2 to 9 with a mean score of 6.0.
Although benefits of the product were regarded as broad spectrum weed control it was clear that this was
very dependent on soil moisture with very poor results in dry springs despite the relatively high cost of the
product.
As a result of this unreliability agronomists felt that use of the product would decline in future.
Metolachlor (Dual Gold)
No agronomists had used this product since its launch in 2010 though comments were made that if it was
effective in dry conditions it could replace usage of isoxaflutole in future.
GRASSLAND
Aminopyralid (Forefront)
71% of agronomists had used aminopyralid in grassland since 2006.
Dose rates varied from 1-2 l/ha although the full rate of 2.0 l/ha was the usual rate applied. It was applied
alone for a range of grassland weeds including docks, nettles, thistles, ragwort and cow parsley and
efficacy was very high varying from 7 to 10 with a mean of 8.9.
However despite being fast, very reliable, broad spectrum, long lasting and cost effective major residue
problems on following crops and on crops fertilised with manure from livestock fed on treated grass led to
the product being withdrawn from the market.
The product has recently returned for use in limited parts of the country with a strict code of practice in
place and its future remains in doubt.
Pyraflufen (with Glyphosate in Thunderbolt)
18% of agronomists had used pyraflufen since 2006 on stubbles and as a desiccant in oilseed rape.
Dose rates varied from 1.5 – 3.0 l/ha depending on use and weed size and spectrum and was used alone or
at low rates topped up with extra glyphosate to reduce the overall cost.
A range of grass and broad leaved weeds were targeted including oilseed rape and bean volunteers and
nettles and efficacy ranged from 6 to 8 with a mean of 6.7. However, despite benefits of a fast speed of
kill on broad leaved weeds, a lack of reliability especially for oilseed rape desiccation and high price has
led to doubts on future usage until application techniques are improved.
Flazasulfuron (Chikara)
53% of agronomists reported use of flazasulfuron since 2008 in a range of non crop situations.
The product is used alone pre emergence of weeds or usually with glyphosate post emergence at the full
rate of 150 l/ha or at the knapsack rate.
Efficacy on all weeds is high varying from 8-10 with a mean of 8.9 and has the benefit of being persistent,
reliable and having a low dose rate and appears not to “creep”. However it does not have post emergence
activity and is expensive.
Overall future use is expected to remain static or increase.
Conclusions
Although there has been a large number of new herbicide active ingredients come to the market since the
last BCPC survey in 2000 (21) very few have come from brand new chemical groups and many (8) are
from Group B (ALS inhibitors) which already has major problems of resistance.
Overall mean efficacy was reasonable varying from 5.7 to 8.9 although some, such as mesosulfuron, are
rapidly decreasing as resistance builds and all products in group B are likely to decrease further in
efficacy.
Active Ingredient
Aminopyralid
Flazasulfuron
Nicosulfuron
Mesotrione
Clomazone
Pyroxulam
Pinoxaden
Picolinafen
Imazamox
Flufenacet
Iodosulfuron
Florasulam
Picloram
Dimethanamid-P
Pyraflufen
Propoxycarbozone
Isoxaflutole
Prosulfocarb
Flumioxazin
Mesosulfuron
Mean Efficacy Score/10
8.9
8.9
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.9
6.7
6.4
6.0
5.7
5.7
decreasing
Resistance Group
O
B
B
F2
F3
B
A
F1
B
K3
B
B
O
K3
E
B
F2
N
E
B
The need for new modes of action, particularly on grass weeds is acute as is the importance of acquiring
new products for use in break crops especially pulses. Resistance and new legislation including revisions
to 91/414 and the Water Framework Directive are reducing the amount of products available for use and
are a cause for concern.
As in 2001 cultural control is becoming ever more essential to reduce pressure on our herbicide portfolio
and to ensure weed control is maintained at a high level to help overall farm profitability. This trend is
likely to continue and future research needs to concentrate on this aspect of weed control.
APPENDIX 1
Active
Ingredient
HRAC mode of
action
Main products available
g ai/l or kg in products
Launch
year of ai
in UK
Crops on label
Label dose
rate
Application timing
Flight/Orient (BASF)
7.5g/l picolinafen
300g/l pendimethalin
2001
W Wheat W Barley
4.0l/ha
before GS30
Picona/PicoMax/ Pico Pro/
Pico Stomp (BASF)
16g/l picolinafen 320g/l
pendimethalin
W Wheat W Barley
2.0l.ha
3.0l/ha
before GS30
Crystal/Ice/Shooter/Trooper
(BASF)
60g/l flufenacet
300g/l pendimethalin
W Wheat W Barley
2.0l/ha
4.0l/ha
before GS23 &
before 31st Dec in
year of planting
Liberator/Regatta (Bayer)
400g/l flufenacet 100g/l
diflufenican
W Wheat W Barley
0.6l/ha
ww - before GS23
wb - before GS24
Firebird (Bayer)
400g/l flufenacet 200g/l
diflufenican
W Wheat, W Barley
0.3l/ha
ww - before GS23
wb - before GS24
Movon (Bayer)
240g/l flufenacet 90g/l
diflufenican 120g/l
flurtamone
0.5l/ha
1.0l/ha
ww - pre em to
beore GS23
wb - pre em to
before GS24
Vigon (Bayer)
240g/l flufenacet 60g/l
diflufenican 120g/l
flurtamone
W Wheat, W Barley
0.5l/ha
1.0l/ha
ww - pre em to
before GS23
wb - pre em to
before GS24
50g/kg iodosulfuron
W Wheat, Rye,
Triticale, S Barley
ww,r,t 200g/ha
sb- 150g/ha
ww,r,t - before
GS33
sb- before GS30
CEREALS
picolinafen
flufenacet
iodosulfuron
Group F1
pyridinecarboxamide
Group K3
oxyacetamide
Group B sulfonylurea
Hussar (Bayer)
2001
W Wheat, W Barley
2002
Active
Ingredient
HRAC mode of
action
propoxycarbozo
ne
florasulam
mesosulfuron
Main products available
g ai/l or kg in products
Group B sulfonyl
aminocarbonyl
triazolinone
Attribute (Bayer/Interfarm)
Group B
triazolopyrimidine
Group B Sulfonylurea
Launch
year of ai
in UK
Crops on label
Label dose
rate
700g/l
propoxycarbozone
2002
W Wheat,
100g/ha
ww - up to 3rd node
detectable
Boxer (Dow)
50g/l florasulam
2002
W wheat, S Wheat,
Barley and Oats
0.15l/ha
0.3l/ha
before flag leaf
sheath extending
Barton WG (Dow)
250g/kg florasulam
W Wheat, S Wheat,
Barley, Oats
30g/ha
before GS39
GF 184/Hunter/Starane XL
2.5g/l florasulam 100g/l
fluroxypyr
W Wheat, W Barley,
W Oats S Wheat, S
Barley, S Oats
1.8l/ha
1.5l/ha
Hiker/Starane Gold/Starane
Vantage
1.0g/l florasulam 100g/l
fluroxypyr
W Wheat, S Wheat,
Barley, Oats
w crops 1.8l/ha
s
crops - 1.5l/ha
ww,wb,before GS45
wo,so before GS31
sw,sb before GS39
ww,wb - before
GS45 wo, so before GS31
sw,sb - before GS39
Atlantis (Bayer)
30g/kg mesosulfuron
6g/kg iodosulfuron
W Wheat
0.4kg/ha
before GS39
Pacifica (Bayer)
30g/kg mesosulfuron
10g/kg iodosulfuron
W Wheat
0.5kg/ha
before GS39
Othello (Bayer)
7.5g/l mesosulfuron
2.5g/l iodosulfuron
50g/l diflufenican
W Wheat
1.0l/ha
before GS32
2003
Application timing
Active
Ingredient
pinoxaden
HRAC mode of
action
Group A
phenylpyrazolinone
Main products available
g ai/l or kg in products
Horus/Hatra (Bayer)
10g/l mesosulfuron 2g/l
iodosulfuron
Axial (Syngenta)
100g/l pinoxaden
Traxos (Syngenta)
100g/l pinoxaden 100g/l
clodinafop
Launch
year of ai
in UK
2006
Crops on label
Label dose
rate
Application timing
W Wheat
0.6l/ha
0.75l/ha
1.0l/ha
from 2 leaf of crop
to flag leaf ligule
visible
W Wheat, W Barley,
S Wheat, S Barley
0.3l/ha
0.45l/ha
(sw,ww)
0.6l/ha (sb,wb)
before GS41
W Wheat
0.15l/ha
0.3l/ha
before GS41
prosulfocarb
Group N
thiocarbamate
Defy (Syngenta)
800g/l prosulfocarb
2007
W Wheat, W Barley,
Potatoes
5.0l/ha
up to and incl GS21
flumioxazin
Group E
phenylphthalamide
Guillotine/Digital/Sumimax
(Interfarm)
300g/l flumioxazin
2008
W Wheat
100ml/ha
before GS15
pyroxsulam
Group B
triazolopyrimidine
Broadway Star (Dow)
70.8g/kg pyroxulam
14.2g/kg florasulam
2009
W Wheat
265g/ha
up to and incl GS32
2001
wosr, sosr, wbeans, s
comb peas, s vining
peas, s field beans
0.25l/ha spring
crops
0.33l/ha winter
crops
pre crop emergence
wosr
3.0l/ha
pre crop emergence
OSR
clomazone
Group F3
isoxazolidinone
Centium/Cirrus (Belchim)
360g/l clomazone
Nimbus (BASF)
250g/l metazachlor
33.3g/l clomazone
Active
Ingredient
HRAC mode of
action
Main products available
g ai/l or kg in products
Launch
year of ai
in UK
Crops on label
Label dose
rate
Application timing
picloram
Group O pyridine
carboxylic acid
Galera (Dow)
67g/l picloram
267g/l clopyralid
2004
wosr
0.35l/ha
from 4lf stage but
before flower buds
visible
dimethanamid P
Group K3
chloroacetamide
Springbok (BASF)
200g/l dimethanamid P
200g/l metazachlor
2006
wosr
2.5l/ha
before GS17
Shadow/Elk/Katamaran Turbo
(BASF)
200g/l dimethanamid P
200g/l metazachlor
100g/l quinmerac
wosr
2.5l/ha
before GS17
Nirvana (BASF)
16.7g/l imazamax
250g/l pendimethalin
Peas & Beans
4.5l/ha
pre em of crop
up to & incl 8 true
leaf stage
PULSES
imazamox
Group B
imidazolinone
2006
MAIZE
nicosulfuron
Group B sulfonylurea
Samson Extra 6% (Syngenta)
60g/l nicosulfuron
2003
Maize
0.5l/ha
0.67l/ha
0.75l/ha
mesotrione
Group F2 triketone
Callisto (Syngenta)
100g/l mesotrione
2005
Maize
0.75l/ha
1.5l/ha
up to and inc 8 lf
stage
isoxaflutole
Group F2 isoxazole
Cadou Star (Bayer)
100g/kg isoxaflutole
480g/kg flufenacet
2006
Maize
0.85kg/ha
before crop
emergence
metolachlor
Group K3
chloroacetanilide
Dual Gold (Syngenta)
960g/l metolachlor
2010
Maize
1.4l/ha
pre emergence of
crop
Group O pyridine
carboxylic acid
Forefront (Dow)
30g/l aminopyralid
100g/l fluroxypyr
2006
grassland for grazing
only
2.0l/ha
7 days before
grazing
GRASSLAND
aminopyralid
Active
Ingredient
HRAC mode of
action
Main products available
g ai/l or kg in products
Launch
year of ai
in UK
Crops on label
Label dose
rate
Application timing
Group E triazolinone
OS 159 (Nihon)
26.5g/l pyraflufen-ethyl
2006
potatoes
0.8l/ha
14 days before
harvest
1.5l/ha
5.0l/ha
1.5l/ha - 3 days
before drilling
5.0l/ha - 5 days
before drilling
150g/ha
pre em of weeds or
post em with
glyphosate
TOTAL
HERBICIDES
pyraflufen-ethyl
Thunderbolt (Nihon)
flazasulfuron
Group B sulfonylurea
Chikara (Belchim)
188g/l pyraflufen-ethyl
263.7g/l glyphosate
all edible and non
edible crops and
green crops on land
not used for crop
production
250g/kg flazasulfuron
land not bearing
vegetation
2008
Enhanced use of cultural annual grass weed management in
arable rotations
Jim Orson
NIAB TAG, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0LE
Abstract
Herbicide resistance in black-grass and product withdrawals are threatening the technical sustainability of
continuous autumn-sown cropping systems. This is particularly so where establishment methods and/or
drilling dates have resulted in heavy reliance on chemical black-grass control. With no new herbicide
modes of action in prospect in winter wheat, at least in the medium term, some farmers have already had to
rely more on cultural control measures. These are notably a return to ploughing and/or spring cropping. It
is expected more will follow as the resistance in black-grass to the mode of action of Atlantis (iodosulfuron
+ mesosulfuron) continues to increase. This is because the remaining herbicides, even if resistance to
them does not increase, will not provide the high levels of control in winter wheat suggested in a model
that many cropping and management systems demand. This paper suggests ways of integrating chemical
and cultural control measures for black-grass control, particularly in winter wheat. It places great emphasis
on reducing black-grass populations to a level where pre-and early post-emergence herbicides provide the
greatest percentage reduction in seed return of black-grass. There is also strong evidence that herbicide
resistance builds more slowly in low rather than high weed infestations. This paper also briefly discusses
integrating chemical and cultural weed control in Italian rye-grass and the brome species, again particularly
in winter wheat.
Background
This paper mainly features the control of black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) in rotations dominated by
autumn-sown crops. This weed was very easily controlled by isoproturon or chlorotoluron in the early
1970’s. This resulted in the adoption of rotations consisting of only autumn-sown crops, particularly on the
clay and light calcareous soils. Autumn drilling dates of winter cereals were also brought forward to a time
when yields could be optimised and soil structure was less likely to be damaged. In addition, throughout
the 1970’s, effective black-grass control enabled the increasing adoption of non-plough tillage.
These rotational and crop and soil management changes inevitably resulted in higher levels of black-grass
control being required. This increased herbicide usage resulted in very high levels of chemical selection.
Herbicide resistance in black-grass was first identified in the early 1980’s. Since then, resistance has
become ubiquitous where black-grass has been controlled on a regular basis with herbicides. This has been
despite the introduction of new herbicide modes of action over that time period.
The impact of herbicide resistance in black-grass on farm decision making and costs has been increasing
significantly, particularly over the last ten years. There have been no new modes of action introduced for
selective grass weed control in broad-acre crops over the last few years and there are none in the pipeline.
It is now clear that chemical weed control alone may not provide sufficient black-grass control in the
rotations and crop management and cultivation systems that most rely on it.
The same rotational and management practices have also increased infestations of the bromes (principally
Anisantha sterilis and Bromus commutatus) and Italian rye-grass (Lolium multiflorum). Herbicide
resistance has been identified in Italian rye-grass with some populations being very difficult to control with
chemicals. Wild-oats (Avena spp.) are less responsive to cultural practices but herbicide resistance has
been recorded but is far less common than that in black-grass in particular.
The increasing problem of black-grass control in autumn-sown crops has been compounded by the
withdrawal of some key herbicides, including trifluralin (the only herbicide that could be used in winter
cereals whose efficacy was not affected by herbicide resistance in black-grass), isoproturon and most
triazines. Furthermore, the continued availability of some other selective grass weed herbicides is
threatened by the new EU pesticide regulations and the EU Water Framework Directive.
Hence there is a need to integrate more fully cultural and chemical black-grass control. An unfortunate
uncertainty is whether herbicide resistance in black-grass will continue to develop in field populations.
Recent experience suggests that it will.
The level of black-grass control required
Stephen Moss of Rothamsted Research has recently updated the annual control required of black-grass
plants (not heads) to maintain populations (Table 1 from Moss et al., 2010). This was done on the
assumption that populations were low and at that level, there is little or no intra-specific competition in
black-grass. Hence, the number of heads/plant (i.e. seed return) is little affected and so the required
percentage of heads closely equates to the percentage control of heads
Table 1. The annual % control of black-grass plants needed within the crop to prevent the weed increasing
in winter cereals
Tine/disc (5cm)
Tine/disc (10cm)
Tine/disc (20cm)
Tine/disc (20cm) + cultural (50% less heads/plant)
Plough
99%
98%
97%
93%
90%
However, at higher plant populations of black-grass, the number of heads/plant is reduced by competition
between black-grass plants as well as the crop. This means that as herbicides control some plants, the
remainder will tiller more and have more heads/plant. Hence, at higher populations, a percentage control
of plants will result in less percentage control of heads. For instance, using the average head
numbers/plant recorded in a number of trials quoted in Moss et al. (2010), 90% control of 50 black-grass
plants/m2 in the autumn will lead to 88% control of heads/m2 whilst 90% control of 500 plants/m2 will lead
to 70% control of heads/m2. This issue may be particularly relevant for crop pre-emergence and early post
emergence applications because the survivors have a long time to compensate, initially at a time when crop
competition may be low. This may be why field data suggest that the trend towards a fall in the percentage
control of heads, as plant numbers in the untreated increase, has been more dramatic in recent trials where
herbicides have been applied only at this timing. However, the field data could be confounded by different
levels of herbicide resistance in individual trials.
It is therefore important to get background black-grass populations down to a level where the percentage
reduction of black-grass heads matches the percentage reduction of plants. In addition, Moss et al. (2010)
provides data to show that herbicide resistance builds more rapidly when weed populations are high.
Can these levels of black-grass control be achieved with herbicides in winter wheat?
Over the last few years, farmers have been reliant on Atlantis (iodosulfuron + mesosulfuron) to achieve
high levels of control. It was predictable that resistance would develop rapidly, given the high selection
pressure that its ‘high resistance risk mode of action’ initially imposed. Now, when used alone, it is
giving very low control of black-grass in some situations. This is increasing the reliance on the remaining
herbicides all of which have to be used pre-emergence or early-post emergence, either because of their
mode of action and/or to minimise the impact of enhanced metabolism, whose influence on herbicide
performance increases with target plant size.
In the absence of assistance from Atlantis, the levels of control required as suggested in the model where
non-plough tillage is adopted annually, in a rotation comprising only autumn-sown crops, are going to be
very difficult or impossible to achieve in winter wheat with herbicides. This is particularly so where
populations are high. The lower level of control required in the model, where the land is ploughed on a
regular basis but the rotation remains the same, may be achievable, provided that populations are already
low and resistance does not continue to increase.
Getting the best out of pre- and early post-emergence herbicides
In the current situation, small differences in herbicide control can be very significant in helping to maintain
a rotation of continuous autumn-sown crops. In addition, as herbicide resistance increases, then
application method and timing and weather and soil conditions at application become more critical. For
instance, at least some pre-emergence winter wheat herbicides give higher levels of black-grass control
when applied in 100 l/ha total volume rather than 200 l/ha. Also, increasing enhanced metabolism in
black-grass to Atlantis now means a greater emphasis on its application at the early growth stages of the
weed. A further example is that the dry autumn of 2009 demonstrated that some pre-weed emergence
herbicides maintained their efficacy more than others when applied to dry soil.
What is the role of cultural control of black-grass?
Cultural control can provide total control of black-grass but this would lead to farmers, who have a
problem with the weed, having a high proportion of their land devoted to lower and more variable yielding
crops which are not suited to their soils or their markets. Hence, there has to be some integration between
chemical and cultural control.
Ploughing has already been mentioned as an important cultural control measure (Table 2). The penalty of
ploughing is not the direct cost/ha but the impact on timeliness of establishing the succeeding autumn-sown
crop. To maintain timeliness when switching from non-inversion tillage, extra labour and machinery is
required or contractors will have to be employed. The quality of ploughing is important, black-grass seed
has to be effectively buried by at least 5 cm of consolidated soil.
Ploughing will not always reduce potential black-grass numbers in the succeeding autumn-sown crop. In
some cases, the number of viable seeds returned to the surface may be higher than the number of viable
freshly shed seed. Hence, it is worth having a record of the extent of seed shed before the land was
previously ploughed, particularly if this was carried out immediately before the crop just harvested. The
issue of the placement of the seedbank in the surface layers is much less important once background blackgrass numbers are consistently low.
Some widely discussed and adopted cultural measures may have little impact on the level of weed control
required. For instance, most farmers who adopt non-inversion tillage say that they use stale seedbeds.
There is no convincing evidence that their approach of cultivating stubbles straight after harvest to a depth
of around 20 cm, using a disc/tine combination, provides a very significant advantage in reducing blackgrass numbers in the succeeding crop (Table 2). If the aim is to reduce viable numbers of freshly shed
seed, then they cultivate too deeply and bury much of it at a depth from which it will not emerge. It is
accepted that the farmers’ main aim with the non-inversion cultivation techniques they have adopted is to
achieve timeliness and optimise yield. However, they should not deceive themselves on the value of this
approach for black-grass control.
Table 2. Overview of the impacts of six cultural practices on the populations of black-grass in winter
wheat (% reduction in plant numbers; from Lutman and Moss, BCPC review 2009)
Cultural practice
Comparison
Mean* % reduction in
plant numbers
Ploughing
Disc/tine cultivation
67%
Stubble cultivations
No cultivation prior to
sowing date
20%
Delayed sowing
September sowing
October 14%
November 73%
December 76%
Increased crop seed rate
Seed rates <150/m2
150-350 20%
350+ 40%
Wheat cultivar choice
Best compared to mean
27%
Spring cropping
Winter crop
80%
* values subject to large variation
Growing more competitive winter wheat crops is also being increasingly discussed. This practice makes a
surprisingly small difference to the chemical control required where non-inversion tillage is adopted, even
where the number of black-grass heads/plant may be reduced by half (Tables 1 and 2). The impact of this
practice on the level of chemical control required is much more significant where annual ploughing is
adopted and may become more necessary with this tillage method where moderate rather than low blackgrass populations exist and/or black-grass resistance continues to rise.
Delayed drilling in the autumn is a risky approach and research data show that it can be a significant
disadvantage where winter wheat is ‘puddled-in’ late. That is not to say that avoiding drilling winter wheat
extremely early and being sensible in the order in which fields are drilled in the autumn is not good
practice. However, block-cropping has compromised this latter relatively simple approach. Theoretically,
measuring the dormancy of the freshly shed black-grass seed should help to guide farmers as to when
slightly delayed sowing in the autumn may prove more successful. This does not apply where the land is
ploughed because the majority of freshly shed seed is buried to a depth from which it will not grow. Any
previously buried seed brought back to the surface layers is assumed to be non-dormant.
Spring cropping, particularly if done for two successive years, can be effective provided that any blackgrass that grows in the crop can be controlled. Widespread target resistance to the ACCase herbicides
means that this may be difficult to achieve in broad-leaved crops. In addition, this is not an attractive
option on very heavy soils where establishing spring crops at the optimum time may be impossible and as a
result, the already lower yield potential can be further compromised. Hence, some farmers are not
cropping problem fields for a year rather than trying to grow a spring crop.
One final cultural control measure is killing patches of black-grass with glyphosate as they emerge above
the wheat canopy in the first week of June. Often the most intense patches are more resistant, although
there are other reasons for patches to form.
Integrated black-grass control in winter wheat
It is important to strive to use herbicides in a way that maximises the level of black-grass control achieved.
This is not only about choosing the most appropriate herbicides but also about preparing good seedbeds
and applying the herbicides correctly in the right weather conditions and at the optimum timing.
Currently, the pre-emergence and early post-emergence herbicides, in the absence of assistance from
Atlantis, may enable the continuation of rotations comprising only autumn-sown crops. This is provided
that herbicide resistance to the pre- and early post-emergence herbicides does not develop significantly.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees that this will not happen. However, for this to be possible, the
model suggests that the land will typically have to be ploughed and it is critically important that
background populations are a maximum of 10-15 plants/m2. Non-inversion tillage may be possible in
years when seed shed is extremely low. Farmers on soils more suited to spring cropping may opt for this
option and continue with non-inversion tillage rather than return to ploughing.
It is already quite clear that in many fields where Atlantis is providing very low levels of control more
cultural control will have to be adopted. This is particularly important where background population levels
need to be reduced to a level where herbicides can maintain populations in a rotation comprising autumnsown crops when the land is ploughed regularly. Initially, this may involve the adoption not only of
ploughing but also spring cropping for year or two or perhaps a year out of cropping altogether and
possibly followed by a spring crop. Due to the high financial implications, an informed strategy needs to
be developed that must take into account costs, potential loss of income and risks of the different cultural
options.
In a large number of fields where populations are currently low to moderate, it is becoming evident that it
will soon be difficult to achieve the very high levels of chemical control required in order to continue with
non-inversion tillage. In this situation, an effective initial step is to plough regularly or, on some soil types,
to adopt spring crops. This may prevent a rapid rise in black-grass numbers and more expensive options
having to be adopted.
To provide farmers with a clearer set of options more research is required in order that the value of models
is strengthened. In addition to the currently commissioned research, more information is needed on seed
movement between surface layers of the soil with different tillage techniques and how best to manage
spring cropping and ‘fallows’. This will help to define when one year or two year breaks from autumnsown crops may become necessary in order to reduce populations to a level where they may be more
‘sustainably’ managed with herbicides in autumn-sown crops.
Integrated control of bromes
The first time that bromes became a real issue in winter wheat was in the late 1970s. They were associated
with non-plough tillage and at that time were very difficult to control with herbicides. This helped to
prompt a return to ploughing, particularly where early drilling was beginning to be adopted. However,
over the last few years, there has been a very significant return to non-plough tillage in order to retain
timeliness with a dwindling labour and machinery input/ha. In addition, there has been the introduction of
herbicides that effectively control soft and meadow brome.
Two ‘types’
The basics of brome biology have not changed over the years. Whilst there are many brome species that
can be found in autumn-sown annual crops, they can be split into two groups.
The first group is barren (always known as sterile) brome (Anisantha (was Bromus) sterilis) and giant
brome (Anisantha (was Bromus) diandrus). They look the same but the giant brome has a larger flowering
head and seeds.
The second group comprises the rest, notably meadow brome (Bromus commutatus) and soft brome
(Bromus hordeacus spp. hordeacus).
The seed of both groups cannot survive between cropping years if they are buried to below 12.5cm of
consolidated soil. There they will germinate and die. Hence, ploughing can provide very effective control
but much depends on the surface layer of the soil being effectively buried. However, even where the land
has been ploughed, there could still be seed shed from bromes in the field margin into the crop edge in the
following spring and summer, thus providing the basis for future field infestations.
Stubble Management
The two groups differ in their response to stubble management between autumn-sown crops. Sterile brome
has little or no innate dormancy and will germinate very quickly after harvest, provided it is moist and the
seed is concealed from light; typically by shallow incorporation into the soil, although a layer of chopped
straw can suffice. Hence, stale seedbeds, particularly where the soil is only cultivated to a maximum of 5
cm depth, will increase the likelihood of this species germinating and emerging prior to drilling a
subsequent winter crop. Repeating this operation can lead to more seeds germinating and emerging.
Naturally, it is important to treat any emerged plants with glyphosate before drilling the next crop.
Moisture is required to promote emergence but trials have shown that, even in dry autumns, stale seedbeds
can reduce sterile brome infestations in the immediately following autumn-sown crop. However, there is
no point in adopting stale seedbeds where the land is to be ploughed and they are less important prior to
autumn-sown broad-leaved crops where the ‘fops’ and ‘dims’ are going to be applied.
Meadow and soft brome react differently to post-harvest cultivation. Much of the seed is dormant when
shed and is more completely broken if it is left on the soil surface where it is fully exposed to the changing
day and night temperatures that seem necessary to break or reduce dormancy. Hence, leaving the seed on
the soil surface for a month or so after harvest will result in its emergence over a smaller time period in the
immediately following autumn-sown crop. This will assist in the timing of herbicides. Obviously, this
delay in cultivation is not necessary where the seed is to be effectively buried by ploughing.
Finally, it is worth stating that it is uncommon to find brome species as problem weeds in spring sown
crops, providing glyphosate is used prior to drilling.
Chemical Control
This all seems straightforward except life is never that simple! Typically, both brome types can infest
winter wheat along with black-grass and perhaps other grass weeds. Where non-plough tillage is adopted,
this poses the question of whether or not to adopt stale seedbeds to control freshly shed seed prior to a
following autumn-sown wheat crop. The dilemma is that stale seedbeds may reduce the number of sterile
brome plants in the immediately following autumn-sown crop but may prolong the period of emergence of
meadow and soft brome.
This dilemma was largely resolved by the introduction in wheat of the ALS inhibitor herbicides
Atlantis/Horus/Pacifica (iodosulfuron + mesosulfuron) and the Broadway series (based on pyroxsulam).
These are more effective on soft or meadow brome than on sterile or giant brome, although pyroxsulam is
more effective than iodosulfuron + mesosulfuron on the bromes but less effective on black-grass.
However, only one of these products can be applied once to an individual winter wheat crop. Delaying
application until the spring will control meadow or soft brome that emerges over a longer time period in the
autumn or early winter, particularly where the seed has not been left for a period on the soil surface after
harvest. In the past, this spring timing also provided good control of black-grass and reasonable control of
sterile or giant brome.
However, the dilemma may have returned where mixed populations of grass weeds are likely to be present
and high levels of black-grass control are a priority. Due to increased enhanced metabolism resistance in
black-grass to the ALS inhibitor mode of action, there is a compelling reason to apply these herbicides in
the autumn when this weed has one-two leaves. Whilst this is also ideal timing for sterile or giant brome,
which emerges as or more rapidly than black-grass, it is less suited for the control of meadow or soft
brome. The full impact of this timing being too early for full meadow or soft brome emergence may be
reduced by the use of tri-allate pre-emergence and/or flufenacet pre- or very early post- crop emergence.
However, only time will tell whether this early application of the ALS inhibitors will result in significantly
more meadow or soft brome escaping chemical control, particularly where the seed has not been left on the
soil surface for a month after harvest in order to reduce dormancy.
Integrated control of Italian rye-grass
Infestations of Italian rye-grass in winter wheat appeared to be on the increase until the introduction of
iodosulfuron + mesosulfuron in 2003. There are field stocks with enhanced metabolism resistance and
there are a few farms where ALS inhibitors do not provide very high levels of control, particularly when
applied in the spring. There are also some stocks where there is target site resistance to the ACCase
inhibitor mode of action. Hence whilst the majority of the infestations are easy to control, there are some
that are more difficult. The former always includes situations where volunteers from an immediately
preceding rye-grass crop need to be controlled and the latter comprises long-term arable infestations.
Hence, in many cases, herbicide control is relatively easy and cheap. However, over-reliance on the high
resistance risk modes of action, the ALS and ACCase inhibitors for control may result in a rapid increase in
herbicide resistance.
Where there is difficulty in control, farmers have resorted to ploughing and spring crops in order to contain
the size of the infestations. It is suspected that stale seedbeds may have a role to play provided that drilling
in the autumn is much delayed, due to a longer peak emergence period in the autumn than in black-grass.
Dormancy is low with significant emergence in the early autumn starting within two weeks of the soil
becoming moist.
Reference
Moss, S R; Hull R; Marshall, R; Tatnell, L V; Clarke J H; Wynn S. (2010). Integrated management of
herbicide resistance. HGCA project report 466. HGCA, Stoneleigh, UK. 113 pages.
Weed control in maize in the United Kingdom
Simon Draper
Maize Growers Association, Town Barton Farm, Sandford, Crediton, Devon EX17 4LS
Maize production in the United Kingdom
In the region of 183000 ha’s of maize is grown in the UK primarily as forage for dairy cows and other
ruminants. Following an initial, dramatic, increase during the early 1990’s the UK maize area reached a
plateau at around 125000 ha. The area has increased again in the last four years.
The area has increased mainly in response to biogas and maize grain production although the main reason
for the production of maize is still for maize silage for the dairy and beef industry.
Year
Maize
area (ha)
1999
106936
2000
97264
2001
119557
2002
111333
2003
108444
2004
107494
2005
118676
2006
124431
2007
132107
2008
146300
2009
156000
2010
183000
The areas growing maize do show that a significant proportion is still grown in the south west – as can be
seen by the chart below:
Production costs of maize
Maize is an expensive crop to grow and production costs are in the region of £1100/ha. This is broken
down as shown below:
Establishment Costs (£/ha)
Ploughing
Cultivations
Sowing
Seed
Lime
42
42
42
135
70
Total
331
Variable Costs (£/ha)
Fertiliser 120/60/180
Sprays
Sheets etc
Total
219
66
4
278
Contractor Costs (£/ha)
Fertiliser Applications
Spray applications
Harvest
Total
Rent (£/ha)
Total cost of production /ha
22
10
182
214
250
1073
Currently forage maize is trading at £30/ton and therefore to break even against these costs, a farmer needs
to achieve 36 t/ha (14t/ac).
Although maize crops have the ability to yield in this country up to 65t/ha, many farmers do not achieve
this and problems with poor soil conditions, weed control, fertilisation of the crop can seriously reduce the
end yields. Therefore maize production has to be taken seriously , poor management will result in low
yields, so that it is not common to see crops only yields 25t/ha.
Clearly at these levels the best option for the farmer would be not to grow the crop and buy feed in, and
this option should be considered by farmers where crop management is not their forte. As the crop is an
expensive one to grow good weed control is of vital importance.
Herbicide timing and the Effect of weed control
Maize is in its early stages a very weak competitor. The MGA carried out a weed free trial where plots
were hand hoed at a different number of weeks from emergence. The weed spectrum at the site shows
relatively low levels of weed and competitive weeds such as orache, fat hen and polygonums absent.
12.06.07 [20 DAE]
Black Nightshade 2.0
Mayweed
7.0
Thistle
0.1
Fumitory
0.3
Sorrel
1.8
Grass
0.7
Nettle
0.2
Orache / Fat Hen
0.0
Chickweed
0.0
Polygnum spp
0.0
The results showed significant yield losses even where the site was left weed free even for two weeks after
emergence. With yield losses of 5t/ha attributable to a 6 weeks delay. This was also in the situation of
relatively low levels of weed numbers.
yield
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
56
55
54
Weed Free All
Time after 2 weeks
after 8 weeks
after 10 weeks
after 4 weeks
after 6 weeks
Therefore herbicide timing is important for the maize crop and should be kept as clean as possible up until
the 10 leaf stage of the maize. Trials carried out in 1997 indicate that the best option for farmers who
cannot achieve ideal timings the correct timings is to use a pre-emergence herbicide followed by a post
emergence one. This used to be Atrazine which formed the basis of good weed control as shown from a
trial carried out in 1997.
Treatment
Leaf Stage
%Control
(July)
% Control (Sept)
Atrazine 3.0
l/ha/ Bromoxynil
1.0 l/ha
Pre-em
97
85
Atrazine 1.0 l/ha +
Bromoxynil 1.0
l/ha
Atrazine 2.0 l/ha
2-4
90
98
Atrazine 2.0 l/ha +
Bromoxynil 1.0
l/ha
Atrazine 1.0 l/ha
2-4
94
97
2-4
4-6
4-6
Excellent weed control could also be achieved through the use of herbicides on a ‘little and often basis’ as
per the FAR system for sugar beet, Timing of the herbicide application was critical for this system to work
and only a very few producers have succeeded with this system.
MGA herbicide trial 1997 – little and often
Product
Rate
% Control
Bromoxynil
2.5
57
Bromoxynil +
Oil
1.0 + 1.0
83
Bromoxynil +
Oil
0.75 + 1.0
73
Bromoxynil /
Bromoxynil
1.0 / 1.0
97
With the withdrawal of Atrazine, the effectivity of the pre-emergence herbicides was reduced as the only
pre-emergence then available was Pendimethalin and results with this herbicide depend upon the amount
of soil moisture present. Since then other pre-emergence herbicides have been introduced with Cadou Star
and Dual Gold now available.
In general we have found that unless the site is relatively weed free insufficient control is achieved with a
single pre-emergence treatment and a second post emergence herbicide is required. Due to the requirement
to keep the maize weed free in the early part of its life it is important to apply the post emergence herbicide
at the cotyledon stage of the weeds. This is generally at the 2-4 leaf stage of the maize where a preemergence herbicide has been applied and at the 1-2 leaf stage where no pre-emergence herbicide has been
used.
We try and advise that a late post emergence spray should only be used where grass weeds need to be
controlled – generally grass weeds emerge later and therefore require a later application.
MGA Trials 2007 –cadou Star fb Samson+ callisto
25
Weeds/m2
20
15
10
5
0
unt
br/S+C
cs0.5/S+Ccs.25/half S+Cbr/halfS+C
S+C
Nantwich
The 2007 trial indicates the best option is pre-emergence followed by a post emergence application – in
this case Cadou star followed by Samson Extra +Callisto.
Maize herbicides and Weed Spectrum
When Atrazine was available the weed spectrum it controlled fitted – with the exception of black
nightshade and fat hen (both of which are well controlled with Bromoxynil) the spectrum found in the
maize crop. Now with its absence, the weed spectrum does not fit so well and we have seen an increase in
some weed species as fields/weeds become adjusted to the lack of Atrazine.
Variation in the weed problems following the cessation of Atrazine
weed
AMG
Blackgrass
Brome
Barnyard grass/cockspur
millet
sorghum
ryegrass
Vol cereals
Wild oats
Black nightshade
Black bindweed
chickweed
charlock
cleavers
Field speedwell
Orache
Creeping thistle
Fat hen
Field bindweed
Problem increasing
x
Problem decreasing
Problem static
x
x
xxx
x
x
xx
x
x
x
xx
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
Field pansy
x
Fumitory
xxx
goundsel
knotgrass
xxx
mayweed
x
Pale persicaria
xx
poppy
redshank
xxx
runch
x
Small nettle
xxx
Sow thistle
Vol OSR
Key *** = rapidly changing * = slow change
xx
x
x
x
Weed spectrum with current herbicides
The MGA has produced a star chart for the spectrum, which is annually updated as weeds start to reinvade. We have over the past 5 years noted a change in the problem weeds for the maize crop. This is seen
in the chart below and the spectrum controlled by the maize herbicides available. Polygonums have seen
the most variation and the new star rating for 2011 and is shown above.
Similar star charts are available for other weed species.
Current MGA herbicide recommendations
We view that for most situations a minimum two spray programme is required to achieve season long weed
control and to this end a pre-emergence followed by an early post emergence spray should be used.
Best cost effective option is to use a pre-emergence at a reduced rate followed by a post emergence spray
which ideally should contain products to target the increasing threat of polygonum species. Trials carried
out in 2007 show a suitable method of achieving this.
MGA Trials – cadou star
20
Weeds/m2
15
10
5
0
Nantwich
The future of maize herbicides - pesticide residues
Due to maize area in Europe, many of the maize herbicides are more frequently assessed then others, and
thus residues in surface and ground waters are being found at increasing levels with many of the maize
herbicides.
The Uk has a smaller of proportion of maize herbicides which have been granted approval than the rest of
Europe, these herbicides tend to be older and are more likely to be found in groundwaters and are therefore
more likely to be withdrawn if levels found are too high.
Work from Belgium show the current problems being found in groundwaters, with in particular flufenacet
and metalachlor causing a large amount of concern.
Evolution of the MAC over three years - Belgium
Percentage MAC-overschrijdingen
60
50
40
2006
30
2007
2008
20
10
Fl
uf
Di ena
m ce
et
En
ho t
do
a
D
su ia at
lfa zin
n,
o
s n
Is ulf
op aa
t
r
Di otu
ch ro
lo n
or
vo
Pa
L
ra inu s
th
ro
i
Te o n- n
r b eth
ut
yla yl
P i z in
r
Ca im e
rb icar
e
M nd b
et az
ol
ac im
M hlo
et
o
ox r
ur
on
Ch M
lo CP
or
A
Ch tolu
lo r on
rid
a
G zo
l
M yfo n
et
az saa
a
t
Pr ch
op lo o
ac r
hl
oo
r
-
Thus looking at the current situation in the UK, only three herbicides may be available to the maize crop in
the future if no future development does not take place which would incur more shifts in the weed
spectrum that we have seen already.
Herbicides currently
availablevailable
bromoxynil
Product concerns
lerap
Crop residues
b
Bomoxynil/prosulfuron
withdrawl
none
Bromoxynil/terbuthylazine
Crop/water residues
none
clopyralid
Water residues
none
Flunacet/isoaflutole
Water residues
b
fluroxypyr
Water residues
none
isoxaben
withdrawl
none
mesotrione
b
nicosulfuron
b
pendimethalin
Water residues
b
Pendemethalin/terbuthyalazine
Water residues
none
rimsulfuron
S- metolachlor
none
Water residues
b
Conclusion
Good weed control is vital to protect yields of an expensive to grow such as maize. To achieve this, the
timing of the herbicide application is vital and the MGA would recommend a pre emergence followed by a
post emergence spray programme as the best option.
Currently with accurate and timely applications the herbicides available achieve good weed control, but
in future it does look as more of the herbicides will require future evaluation to ensure that they do not
breech limits in the ground and surface waters. Of the 13 different actives available only 3 do not currently
cause concern, if we were to lose the 10 actives, good weed control would be difficult to achieve and lead
to subsequent yield losses which could not be afforded by the costly maize crop.
WEED CONTROL IN SPORTS AND AMENITY TURF
Ruth L. Mann
Turfgrass Protection Department, STRI, ST Ives Estate, Bingley, West Yorkshire, BD162DZ
Abstract
Sports and amenity turf includes many diverse turfgrass surfaces, such as winter games pitches, fine turf
surfaces, such as golf and bowling greens and turf production at present. This diversity leads to many
different weed problems, such as broadleaved weeds present in many situations like daisy, dandelion and
buttercup to universal weed grass species and even grass species desirable in one sports surface but not
another. Some plants may be considered weeds by, for example, the Golf Course Managers but desirable
by the golfers, such as rhododendron. Therefore, control of weeds in sports and amenity turf can differ
depending on the required turf surface, the landscape in general and the requirements of the sports facility.
This paper reviews the most common weeds and mosses and details their best management practices at
present.
Introduction
The grasses used in sports turf differ depending on the sport surface. Traditionally, golf and
bowling greens were sown with a fine bent/fescue sward (Agrostis tenuis/Festuca rubra (Perris & Evans
1996)). Some golf greens may be sown with a monoculture of creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera).
For soccer and rugby pitches a mixture of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) and smooth-stalked
meadow-grass (Poa pratensis) is recommended, as these can tolerate intensive wear (Newell, 1994).
Tennis courts that are expected to receive intensive use should be sown with 65% perennial ryegrass and
35% slender creeping red fescue (Festuca rubra Subsp. Litoralis) (Newell, 2000). Turf growers will sow
fields with different species depending on the end market for the turf. For example, typical mixtures for
lawn turf may include perennial ryegrass, smooth-stalked meadow-grass, slender creeping red fescue and
bentgrass. The merits of individual cultivars should be considered for each grass species before choosing
the mixture. Characteristics such as shoot density, colour, live ground cover and freedom from disease are
assessed and listed every year to enable users to evaluate cultivars for various amenity uses (Anon, 2004).
One further grass species must be mentioned as it could, although unintentionally, be the most common
species in managed amenity turf areas. Annual meadow-grass (Poa annua L.) is a fairly ubiquitous weed
grass that quickly contaminates newly constructed areas and can eventually dominate the turfgrass sward
(Gibeault, 1965).
The aim of all turfgrass growers, regardless of the end use, is to maintain quality turf throughout
the year. The occurrence of weeds affect the quality of the turf surface leading to various problems
depending on the end use of the turf. For sports where there is a high ball:turf interaction, such as golf or
bowls, weeds can reduce the playing quality as the uniformity, density, smoothness and trueness of the
sward surface is reduced (Beard, 2002). The presence of weeds also reduces the aesthetic quality of sports
turf. In addition, many weeds and particularly mosses have a grater chance of being dislodged from the
surface, which may cause the player to slip. Managed amenity turf also includes turf producers at present.
Turf producers need to be able to supply a saleable commodity free from mosses, broadleaved weeds and
grass weeds.
Broadleaved weeds
In turfgrass the most common weeds are, for example, daisy, dandelion, white clover, greater and ribwort
plantain, yarrow, buttercup, slender speedwell and field woodrush (Mann and Windows, 2006). General
cultural control of these weeds will include ensuring the turfgrass is as competitive as possible with
adequate fertiliser application, avoiding scalping when mowing and controlling pests and diseases (Beard,
2002). Other controls may be included if required; such as improving drainage to reduce buttercup,
scarifying to pull out rosette weeds and hand weeding small broadleaved weeds if found in the most
intensively managed grass swards, such as golf greens (Mann and Windows, 2006). Herbicidal control is
pretty straightforward for the majority of problematic weeds. Many products with varying mixtures of
synthetic auxins such as 2,4-D, MCPA, dicamba, mecoprop-p, fluroxypyr and clopyralid are available that
provide excellent control of the majority of the weeds encountered. There are a few problematic weeds
such as mind-your-own-business (Soleirolia soleirolii) that are not controlled by any available herbicides.
Currently control of these particularly problematic weeds such as mind-your-own-business is to dig out and
remove or control with a total herbicide, such as glyphosate and resow with grass.
More problematic weeds occur in out of play areas of many sports situation, such as golf roughs. These
include ragwort, Japanese knotweed, giant hogweed and Himalayan Balsam. Control of these weeds will
depend on the golf course management plans. For example, ragwort may be maintained in a perennial state
by continuous mowing (such as in golf fairways) and may never be specifically controlled unless other
broadleaved weed control measures are carried out. However, in golf course roughs, ragwort may be handweeded or treated with citronella oil (Barrier H) once it has reached flowering stage, especially if horses
are located close to the golf course. Himalayan Balsam is often not treated until it becomes major stands of
thick weed cover. Control would then involve cutting the weed to prevent flowering and total weed control
with glyphosate. Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed would both be controlled within a programme of
glyphosate application early in the season when the plants are still quite small and continuing until no
evidence of the weed is observed.
Other plants may be considered as weeds in certain sports situations but not in others. For example, quickly
grown trees (such as leylandii) and rosebay willowherb are often present on golf courses. In some cases
they create visual definition of golf holes. On other courses, these would be considered weeds and removed
through cutting and herbicide application and replanted with a species naturally found in the surrounding
landscape, which would differ depending on the type of golf course.
Certain other species, such as rhododendron cause great debate on golf courses as to whether they are
weeds or desirable. Many golfers like rhododendron and they can be visually appealing, especially when in
flower. However, they have the potential to invade ruthlessly due to their ability to spread (Taylor et al.,
2003) and unmanaged plants can become woody and unappealing. It is important to prevent young
seedlings establishing by surveying annually and removing any new plants. Desirable stands should be
managed by cutting to avoid them becoming woody. Various herbicides are also approved for
rhododendron control, such as triclopyr and glyphosate especially with an adjuvant to help penetration
(Palmer, 2007).
Grass weeds
Some grasses are encouraged on certain sports turf but not others. The most common weed in the turfgrass
situation is annual meadow-grass (Poa annua) and is very difficult to control in this situation (Escritt,
1978). However, it is also actively encouraged in many situations, as it may be the only grass species
present. Annual meadow-grass is the most susceptible grass species to the most common and damaging
diseases (Mann, 2004a), such a microdochium patch (caused by Microdochium nivale) and anthracnose
(caused by Colletotrichum cereale). It is shallow rooting and so not particularly tolerant to the heavy wear
associated with sports surfaces. It can produce seedheads at very low heights of cut. These seedheads affect
the smoothness and trueness of the grass surface, affecting ball roll and so can reduce the quality of the
game (Windows and Bechelet, 2010). Annual meadow-grass also tends to be more slowly growing in the
spring compared to the desirable turfgrass species, creating differential growth in the canopy, which will
also affect playability.
If starting from a new fine turfgrass surface, it is very important not to permit ingress of annual meadowgrass. Ingress is discouraged by lean fertiliser application, use of acidifying fertilisers and limiting
phosphorus application (Lawson, 2000). Discouraging the presence of earthworms is also essential to
reduce the ingress of annual meadow-grass. Earthworms move annual meadow-grass seed through the
rootzone and deposit them on the surface in their casts. The cast then provides the perfect seed bed for
germination and establishment of the weed grass. Earthworms are discouraged by grass clipping removal
as the worms use it as a food source, top dressing with sand, which can irritate the earthworm’s body, using
acidifying fertilisers to maintain the rootzone pH below that preferred by earthworms and applications of
carbendazim during weather conditions conducive to earthworm casting (Baker et al., 2000; Mann, 2004b).
Where annual meadow-grass has already ingressed into the turfgrass sward, it may be possible to revert the
sward back to more desirable grass species through intensive management (Windows and Bechelet, 2009).
Annual meadow-grass swards tend to accumulate thick organic matter layers called thatch at the sward
base. This organic matter becomes hard and hydrophobic during the dry summer months and waterlogged
during wet winter months. It may also prevent seed from germinating and establishing in the sward. This
makes the transition from annual meadow-grass to bent/fescue difficult. Therefore, organic matter control
is essential to open up the surface and allow seed-soil contact to encourage establishment of more desirable
grass species. The use of plant growth regulators has also been shown to help regulate the growth of the
annual meadow-grass and allow better germination and establishment of desirable species. Trinexapacethyl (Primo Maxx) applied 5 days before intensive scarification and oversowing allowed significantly
more bentgrass establishment in an annual meadow-grass dominant sward compared to not applying the
growth regulator in trials at STRI. In certain swards, such as fine fescue, annual meadow-grass may be
controlled using the graminicide terpraloxydim (Aramo) off label without any damage to the fescue.
Yorkshire fog is also a weed grass commonly found in many sports turf situations, especially golf green,
tees, fairways and roughs. On golf greens and fairways, Yorkshire fog requires control as it affects the
colour, density, smoothness and trueness of the surface (Escritt, 1978). Cultural control includes plugging
to remove large patches of Yorkshire fog and replacing with desirable grass plugs grown in the golf
nursery. Persistent slashing prior to mowing can also weaken the Yorkshire fog and allow other more
desirable grass species to become more competitive and so slowly allow transition from the Yorkshire fog.
In golf course roughs, stands of Yorkshire fog are common. In some cases, the penalty for losing the golf
ball in large stands of Yorkshire fog is too great and so it may be mown, thinned or removed to allow
golfers to find the ball without to great a penalty. In other cases (especially deep rough), the pink/purple
seedheads can be used to create definition and increase biodiversity on the golf course.
Perennial ryegrass is a desirable grass species on winter sports pitches and cricket pitches and, in many
cases, on golf tees and fairways. However, it has also been a difficult to control weed grass species in fine
turf situations, where it affects the smoothness and trueness of the sward surface as well as being
aesthetically displeasing. Similar to Yorkshire fog, in golf roughs, perennial ryegrass can form very dense
stands creating too high a penalty for landing in the rough as the ball becomes easily lost. Culturally
perennial ryegrass would be thinned or removed by scarifying, hand-weeding or plugging affected areas.
Recently, the approval of Pinoxaden (Rescue) has led to very successful control of perennial ryegrass and
Yorkshire fog from golf greens, tees, fairways and roughs without damaging the desirable grass species
present. However, as Italian ryegrass has shown ACCase resistance in the UK and perennial ryegrass has
shown resistance to pinoxaden in Germany (Anon, 2009), we must be vigilant and ensure correct resistance
management is carried out to prevent further resistance developing in the UK.
Mosses
Moss appears to be becoming more widespread and more severe where they occur in recent years. In 2006,
moss was reported as the most common weed on Scottish golf courses (Mann and Windows, 2006). This
may be due to the trend for reducing fertiliser input and wet summers potentially leaching some of this
applied fertility, reducing the competitiveness of the grass. From October to May, moss may become
dominant on many sports areas affecting the playability due to reduced density and smoothness and safety
of these surfaces due to moss being easily removed creating slippery surfaces. Moss control has also
become more difficult since the revocation of dichlorophen, with a use up date of 31 December 2007
(Anon, 2005). Currently recommended moss control includes ensuring the grass is at its most competitive
by applying sufficient fertiliser; using acidifying fertilisers which discourage moss and applying iron
sulphate, which blackens the aerial parts of the moss and makes it easier to remove by scarification.
Carfentrazone-ethyl (Jewel) is also approved from moss control in managed amenity turf. However, it
appears to be more successful when the temperatures are warm, which may not coincide with the current
periods of moss control in the UK.
References
Anon. (2004) Turfgrass Seed. pp. 24. British Society of Plant Breeders Limited/The Sports Turf Research
Institute, England.
Anon. (2005) Commission Decision 2005/303/EC – Dichlorophen.
https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/ExpiredNotices.asp?productid=8155&pageno=1&origin=pmlist.An
on. (2009) Multiple resistant perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Resistance to herbicides in groups
A/1 and B/2 in Germany.
http://www.weedscience.org/Case/Case.asp?ResistID=5385
Baker S.W.; Firth S.J. & Binns D.J. (2000) The effect of mowing regime and the use of acidifying fertiliser
on rates of earthworm casting on golf fairways. Journal of Turfgrass Science 76, 2-11.
Beard J.B. (2002) Turf Management for Golf Courses. Ann Arbor Press, Michigan. pp 793.
Escritt J.R. (1978) ABC of Turf Culture. Kaye and Ward Ltd, London, pp.239.
Gibeault V.A. (1965) Annual meadow-grass – A major weed of fine turf? The Journal of the Sports Turf
Research Institute 41, 48-52.
Lawson, D.M. (2000) The effect of nitrogen source, lime application and phosphate application on the
quality of Festuca rubra-Agrostis tenuis turf growing on a sand-dominated rootzone. Journal of
Turfgrass Science 76, 12-23.
Mann R.L. (2004a) A review of the main turfgrass diseases in Europe and their best management
practices at present. Journal of Turfgrass Science 80, 18-30.
Mann R.L. (2004b) A review of the main turfgrass pests in Europe and their best management practices
at present. Journal of Turfgrass Science 80, 1-17.
Mann R.L.; Windows R. (2006). Current control of pests, weeds and diseases and pesticide use on
Scottish golf courses. Final report for the Scottish Golf Environmental Group. pp. 22.
Newell A.J. (1994) Grasses for winter pitches. In Winter Games Pitches, pp. 96-109. Ed R D C Evans. The
Sports Turf Research Institute, England.
Newell A.J. (2000) Choosing grasses for lawn tennis courts. In Grass Tennis Courts, pp 38-45. Ed J Perris.
The Sports Turf Research Institute, England.
Palmer C. (2007). Weed and pest control in trees and amenity sites. Rural Services, Ledbury. pp 111
Perris J.P.; Evans R.D.C. (1996) The Care of the Golf Course. The Sports Turf Research Institute, England.
pp 340.
Taylor B.; Penrose L.; Rotherham I. (2003) Studies in Golf Course Management No. 6. Rhododendron and
its management. STRI, West Yorkshire. pp 56.
Windows R.; Bechelet H. (2009). This way. International Turfgrass Bulletin 245, 9-12.
Windows R. ; Bechelet H. (2010). Perfectly true. USGA Greens Section Record, 24-27.
Pesticides and the Impact of the Water Framework Directive
Jo Kennedy
Environment Agency
This paper has been prepared to support a presentation at the BCPC Weeds Review 2010. Any
views expressed within it are those of the author and should not be interpreted as the Environment
Agency’s position.
Abstract
This paper provides background information on the requirements of the Water Framework Directive in
relation to pesticides. It sets out the current compliance picture, identifying that the greatest compliance
risks relate to meeting objectives for Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs). The paper goes on to
discuss some of the issues that will need to be addressed in relation to non-compliance. These include
being clear on the objectives that must be achieved within different types of water body, understanding the
key pathways for pesticides into water and how this and catchment characteristics inform initial choice of
measures, the need for development of new pesticide measures, and consideration of which mechanism
(advice, incentive, regulation) to use to implement those measures.
Background to the Water Framework Directive
The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)1 is the most substantial piece of water legislation ever
produced by the EC. It will be the major driver for achieving sustainable management of water in the UK
and other EU member states for many years to come. The intended result is a healthy water environment,
achieved by taking due account of environmental, economic and social considerations.
River Basin Management Plans
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) introduces the concept of integrated river basin management and
requires Member States to put in place River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for each “river basin
district” (RBD). England and Wales has eleven RBDs, two of which span the border between Scotland and
England. RBDs are subdivided into catchments or sub-catchments which in turn are divided into surface
water bodies and groundwater bodies. There are over 7000 surface water bodies in England and Wales and
304 groundwater bodies.
The WFD works on the basis of 6 year planning cycles, ending in 2027. The first RBMPs were published
in December 2009 and run until the end of 2015. RBMPs identify those water bodies failing objectives set
out under Directive, the reasons for failure (where known), and the action that will be taken (e.g.
investigations and implementation of cost- effective measures) to achieve compliance within the time
frame required.
WFD objectives
The WFD introduces an over-riding objective to prevent deterioration in the quality of surface and
groundwaters. Additional objectives include:

achievement surface water ‘good status’. Good status applies to all surface water bodies, except
those which are defined as ‘heavily modified’ or ‘artificial’.2 It concerns ecological protection and
includes the requirement that Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) are not breached for
1
The directive is available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html
2
For these water bodies Member States must aim to achieve ‘good ecological potential’ For further information see:
http://www.wfduk.org/UKCLASSPUB/LibraryPublicDocs/gep_hmwb_final



substances which have been designated as Priority Substances and UK Specific Pollutants. Some of
these substances are pesticides;
protection of ‘protected areas’. Of most relevance to pesticides are drinking water protected areas
(DrWPAs). There are around 650 surface water DrWPAs in England and Wales and all 304
groundwaters are DrWPAS. Article 7 of the WFD sets out objectives for DrWPAs. These focus on
reducing the need for purification, and on meeting quality standards set out in the Drinking Water
Directive;
achievement of ‘good status’ in groundwaters. This includes preventing or limiting the entry of
pesticides to groundwater, to meet threshold values. Achievement of groundwater ‘good status’ also
requires that DrWPA objectives are met;
reversing upward trends of pollutants in groundwater.
Pesticides designated as Priority Substances and UK Specific Pollutants are listed in Appendix 1.
Appendix 2 provides further information on Article 7 objectives relating to drinking water protection.
The Directive requires that Member States aim to achieve compliance with objectives by 2015, but
recognises that for some water bodies this will not be possible on the grounds of:

existing natural conditions – for example there are natural background levels of a substance;

technical infeasibility – for example there is no technical solution or there is insufficient information
on the cause of a problem to allow a solution to be identified;

disproportionate costs – the measure will cost too much to implement compared with the benefits it
delivers. The disproportionate costs test is applied after the most cost-effective measures have been
identified. The overall balance between costs and benefits must be considered – taking into account
economic, social and environmental factors – as well as the distribution of costs, in terms of who
pays and who benefits.
Where it can be justified any of these conditions exist ‘alternative objectives’ can be set within RBMPs –
either to extend the deadline for meeting the objective to a subsequent WFD planning cycle (2021, 2027) or
to apply a less stringent objective. Alternative objectives cannot be set for some ‘protected areas’ or against
the objective to reverse rising trends of a pollutant in groundwater. There is also no alternative objective for
‘no deterioration in status’.
The current compliance picture for pesticides
Table 1 shows those pesticides causing non-compliance with:

surface water good status objectives (because Environmental Quality Standards are exceeded);

Article 7 objectives for surface water DrWPAs;

groundwater good status objectives.
The table also shows the number of water bodies affected, with substances ranked in order of those causing
the highest numbers of failures through to those causing the lowest number. The last column in the table
denotes those substances used as herbicides.
Substances no longer in use are shaded in pink. These appear in the table because of one or more of the
following factors;

the compliance assessment methodology included data from 2006-2008 - a period when
some of these substances were still approved for use;

whilst the substances were not in use during this period, they have persisted in the environment and
are still detected in water;

potential illegal use – although we have no evidence to suggest this is the case.
Table 1
Summary of pesticides causing concern in groundwater and surface water
bodies in England and Wales by number of water bodies affected:
Active Substance
Isoproturon
No. of surface
water bodies
failing good
status5
No. of surface
water DrWPAs
at risk of failing
Article 7
objectives4
No. of
groundwater
bodies failing
‘good status’
Total No. of
water bodies not
complying
Is / was this
substance used
as a herbicide?
1
38
√
5
32
Metaldehyde1
MCPA
Atrazine
Cypermethrin3
Chlorotoluron
Diuron
Mecoprop2
Simazine
Carbetamide1
2,4-D
Propyzamide
Asulam1
Diazinon3
Glyphosate
Bentazone
Dalapon
Hexachlorocyclohexane
ND
ND
34
29
20
1
25
11
22
19
16
10
10
10
3
9
5
6
DRINS (aldrin, dieldrin)
Linuron
Metazachlor
Permethrin
Carbendazim
Clopyralid
Terbutryn
MCPB
Dicamba
Methabenzthiazuron
Captan
Dichlobenil
Fluroxypyr
Iprodione
Triclopur
Others4,5
Total Pesticides
1
25
ND
11
ND
3
ND
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
5
ND
5
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7
3
2
2
3
4
5
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
9
1
1
10
34
29
28
26
25
25
24
21
16
13
10
10
8
9
8
6
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
9
11
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
Notes for use with Table 1
ND - No data. These substances do not have WFD EQS limits set for them.
1
Asulam, carbetamide and metaldehyde are subject to re-registration as active substances for use in plant protection products under Article
11e of Regulation 1490/2002. Data have been submitted by manufacturers. Subject to successful re-submission these products will remain
on the market.
2
Mecoprop was originally manufactured as a mixture of isomers but only one isomer had pesticide properties. Since the 1990s manufacturers
changed production so that only the active isomer mecoprop-p is now produced and application rates have therefore been reduced.
Mecoprop-p is still approved for use in England and Wales but is often referred to as mecoprop, as in this paper.
3
Cypermethrin was suspended for sale as a sheep dip in February 2006 and product authorisations permanently revoked in March 2010, but
uses as a plant protection product, and as a biocide are still approved. Conversely, diazinon has not been registered for use as a plant
protection product since 2000 but is approved for use as a sheep-dip
4
Another 9 pesticides were at levels in 1 DrWPA putting Article 7 compliance at risk, namely: cyanazine, cyfluthrin, difenzoquat,
diflufenican, fenpropimorph, flusilazole , picloram,propetamphos and trifluralin.
5
Pesticides monitored for but not found to exceed the EQS were: atrazine, chlorfenvinphos, DDT, dimethoate, linuron, mecoprop, para-paraDDT, simazine and trifluralin
The compliance picture presented in this paper should be considered a snap shot, based on current
monitoring data. During the first round of river basin planning (2009 – 2015) more chemical monitoring
data will become available for surface waters and groundwaters providing a more comprehensive picture
across England and Wales.
Table 1 shows the greatest area of concern for pesticides is in relation to compliance with surface water
Drinking Water Protected Area (DrWPA) objectives. Currently 11% of surface water DrWPAs (71 of
around 650 DrWPAs) in England and Wales are at risk of non-compliance due to pesticides. Across
England and Wales in total, from all pressures as well as pesticides approximately 25% of DrWPAs are at
risk, meaning pesticides are one of the most significant pressures affecting DrWPAs. By comparison
pesticides are responsible for failure of ‘good status’ in 5% of groundwater bodies (16 out of 304 bodies)
and less than 1% surface water bodies (53 out of 7051).
The molluscide metaldehyde impacts on the highest number of DrWPAs, however forty other substances
are also identified. Discounting those no longer approved for use, the remaining substances causing the
greatest non-compliance threat are all herbicides. Chlorotoluron, MCPA and mecoprop are all of concern
in over 20 DrWPAs, and carbetamide, 2,4-D, asulam and propizamide are all of concern in over 10
DrWPAs.
Addressing WFD non-compliance caused by pesticides
Figure 1 conceptualises a non-compliance scenario for pesticides in any given surface or groundwater
water body, and the decision making process to address this.
It identifies that in any given catchment a number of variables will interact to determine the levels of
pesticides reaching surface and groundwater. These include the physio-chemical properties of the
substances in use, their use patterns, the catchment characteristics such as soil type and drainage, and
farmer behaviour.
Depending on the interplay of these variables, and the objectives relevant to a given water body, noncompliance may be identified. In order to tackle this, reasons for failure need to be established. A costeffective solution must then be delivered through identification of appropriate mitigation measures and
implementation of these (via mechanisms).
Figure 1 identifies a range of potential measures which can be used to reduce levels of pesticides entering
water – e.g. ensuring spraying equipment is in good working order, physical measures such as buffer strips,
and changes to the way a product is used in terms of dose, application times, or switching to alternative
products.
Figure 1 High level schematic identifying variables which can contribute to pesticide WFD non-compliance in a water body for any
given substance, and the framework within which non –compliance can be addressed
PESTICIDE
MEASURES*
VARIABLES determining
likelihood of entry / impact of
substance to water body
Using an
alternative
Use pattern within catchment
[dose rate, spatial extent of
use, timing of use]
REGULATION EXTRA
APWNss
Marketing and
Use restrictions
WPZs undertakings
DWI
undertakings
Wetland
creation
Reducing
dose
Restricting
time of use
Substance characteristics
[toxicity, leachability,
persistence]
MECHANISMS*
Integrated Crop
Management
WFD noncompliance in
water body
Catchment characteristics [soil
type, geology, drainage,
slope,] and weather patterns
Improving
application
methods
Sustainable
rural drainage
systems
Farmer behaviour
Changing tillage
practice
INCENTIVE
(FISCAL)
x
ELS,
HLS
Water
Co
schemes
ADVICE
(VOLUNTARY)
WFD
Objectives met
within
timescales
required
MSG
VI
CSF
Farm
Assurance
Buffers
* example measures and mechanisms only, not the
full range
Biobeds
CPMPs
REGULATION BASELINE
Directives
Sprayer testing
User training
Codes of
Practice
Terms: APWN – anti-pollution works notice, CPMPs- crop
protection management plans, CSF – Catchment Sensitive
Farming, DWI – Drinking Water Inspectorate, ELS – Entry
Level Scheme, HLS – High Level Scheme, MSG –
Metaldehyde Stewardship Group, VI – Voluntary Initiative,
WPZ – Water Protection Zones
Measures can be implemented by a range of delivery mechanisms. Figure 1 identifies four categories. At
a base-line all pesticide users are already required to comply with certain pesticides and environmental
legislation, such that normal use of these products does not cause unacceptable environmental risk.
Measures can also be implemented on a voluntary basis as a result of advice provided via mechanisms such
Catchment Sensitive Farming and the Voluntary Initiative. Some fiscal mechanisms also exist whereby
farmers are financially incentivised to implement measures (via for example agri-environment schemes).
Finally, regulatory mechanisms can be used to require farmers to take action beyond that which is required
by ‘base-line’ regulation. Examples include potential changes to label conditions to restrict the way
products can be used, Water Protection Zone legislation which can require compulsory uptake of measures
in affected catchments, and anti-pollution works notices which can be used to seek action on a site specific
basis where unacceptable pollution risks are identified (e.g. notices might be used to enforce repairs to a
leaking tank or poor drainage system).
River basin planning provides the framework within which the process described above will take place. As
identified above the majority of pesticide non-compliance issues relate to DrWPAs and failure of Article 7
objectives. In non-compliant DrWPAs the Environment Agency will be developing action plans with
catchment partners. These will cover both the DrWPA and its upstream Safeguard Zone and set out the
non-compliance issue, the objectives that need to be met, and an action plan for investigational work and /
or implementation of cost effective solutions (i.e. necessary measures combined with implementation
mechanisms).
The following sections of this paper discuss some important issues which will merit further attention as
river basin planning progresses and pesticide non-compliance is tackled. Each of these issues are discussed
under a separate heading.
Understanding which WFD objectives are relevant to a water body and how this informs pesticide
management
It is important to note that compliance risk is determined by the combination of variables at play in a
catchment (as shown in the left hand column on Fig 1), but also by the objectives relevant to that
catchment, and that for surface water bodies these are not always the same.
In all surface water bodies we must avoid deterioration, and unless they are ‘heavily modified’ or ‘artifical’
we must aim to achieve good status objectives pertaining to ecological protection. However, the sub-set of
surface water bodies which are used to supply drinking water and are DrWPAs must also achieve Article 7
objectives. Article 7 objectives are also pertinent to surface water bodies within upstream DrWPA
Safeguard Zones (see Appendix 2).
Article 7 objectives are based on different end-points to those relating to good status. They require that
there is no deterioration (upward trend) in pesticide concentrations that would trigger the need for more
drinking water treatment, and that under the treatment regime in place Drinking Water Directive standards
are met (i.e. concentrations at the tap are no greater than 0.1ug/l for any individual pesticide). Good status
objectives on the other hand focus on ensuring pesticides do not breach concentrations in surface water
deemed ‘safe’ for aquatic life - i.e. Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs), and Predicted No Effect
Concentrations (PNECs), and that there is no evidence from biological monitoring that river ecology is
below ‘good’
For any given pesticide the acceptable eco-toxicological concentration may be different (either higher or
lower) from the acceptable concentration for a drinking water abstraction. Two examples illustrating this
point are mecoprop and cypermethrin. Mecoprop is moderately eco-toxic and has an EQS of 18µg/l
(expressed as an annual average). Failure of good status in a surface water body would not be triggered
unless this concentration was breached as an annual average. However, peaks as high as this would almost
certainly cause problems in drinking water intakes and put a DrWPA at risk of non-compliance.
Cypermethrin is highly eco-toxic and has an EQS of 0.001µg/l (expressed as an annual average). For this
substance therefore, the converse situation exists. Good Status objectives are the key driver for keeping
cypermethrin out of water – much lower concentrations of cypermethrin will cause failure of good status
than will cause failure of drinking water protection objectives.
For two nearby catchments with similar land use patterns, and a similar range of pesticide products in use,
different management approaches may be needed for the same and substances, and additional approaches
for other substances, by virtue of the fact one catchment is with a DrWPA or Safeguard Zone, and one is
not.
Rather than taking a blanket approach to addressing pesticide non-compliance, whereby the same set of
mitigation measures are applied across the board, we need to address different catchments in a way which
best reflects the situation in those catchments. This is dependant on the physical variables at play, and the
objectives relevant to the catchment. This targeted approach results in the response being proportionate to
the issue, and ensures extra measures are not applied in catchments where they are not needed.
Understanding Pathways for Pesticide Transfer
For some substances we need a better understanding of the relative importance of different exposure
pathways into water (i.e. which are most significant - overland run-off, spray-drift, drain-flow, or releases
from yards?). Without this knowledge it is difficult to identify the most effective mitigation measures. A
recent study reviewing available European research identified transport of pesticides via sub-surface drains
could contribute significantly to surface water contamination.{1} UK studies in relation both metaldehyde
{2}
and oil seed rape herbicides {3,4} have also identified that, for these substances, drain-flow is an
important exposure route. The Chemicals Regulation Directorate has also recently commissioned research
to review current understanding of exposure pathways for those substances causing WFD noncompliance.{5} This is due to be published later this year. The Environment Agency hopes that where
information gaps are identified further work will be undertaken by pesticide manufacturers and others.
Catchment characteristics and how these can inform initial choice of measures
Figure 1 shows examples of the types of measures that can be used to reduce entry of pesticides into water.
The Environment Agency anticipates that in many instances, with good engagement by farmers and
agronomists, standard measures such as those currently promoted by the Voluntary Initiative will be
sufficient to avoid deterioration and alleviate non-compliance in water bodies. There are however some
situations that could potentially cause deterioration in a water body, for example:
 significant change in land use such as a large increase in a particular crop type with a particular
pesticide regime;
 change in the regulatory regime or market conditions that favour a particular pesticide and hence
significantly increase its use over others.
Also in certain catchments, for certain substances, because of the combination of variables involved more
onerous measures may be needed from the start if compliance is to be achieved. Such scenarios could
include DrWPAs where a large proportion of the catchment is dominated by one crop, with associated
high use of certain pesticides, and where fields are under-drained thus providing a rapid transfer route for
pesticides to watercourses. Catchment modelling can play an important role in identifying such high risk
scenarios and considering alternatives thus informing decision making and guiding the choice of measures.
Such modelling work has recently been undertaken by the Environment Agency in the Cherwell catchment
{6}
to help decision making on how to manage non-compliance issues relating to oil seed rape herbicides.
The industry led Metaldehyde Task Force have also undertaken modelling to inform thinking on the choice
of measures for addressing metaldehyde contamination.{7}
Development and application of new measures
There is scope for the development and testing of new measures. For example, whilst well maintained
buffer strips are an acknowledged way of mitigating the effects of overland run-off, equivalent measures
are not currently in widespread use for addressing contaminated drain-flow . It is known however that for
some substances this is a significant entry route into surface water (see above).
Much work has already been undertaken and is underway on identification of measures to address
agricultural diffuse pollution from sediments and nutrient. There is potential for some of these measures to
also assist with pesticide contamination. For example ‘sustainable drainage systems’ (SUDs) - features
such as ditch barriers, ponds, and wetlands - are being investigated as a means of nutrient and sediment
removal, {8,9} but could potentially also act to smooth out pesticide peaks in watercourses, and aid removal
of sediment bound pesticides.
In developing new measures for pesticides the effect (positive or negative) the measure might have on
other pressures such as nutrients or sediment needs to be considered as part of the development process,
such that ‘pollution swapping’ is avoided. For example certain tillage practices may be found to reduce
release of pesticides, but exacerbate release of sediment.
Defra’s Demonstration Test Catchment {10} project provides a potential platform onto which measures
development work for pesticides work could be bolted and this is currently being explored by the
Environment Agency, the Voluntary Initiative and the Chemicals Regulation Directorate in conjunction
with the research consortium.
Attention must also be paid to the importance of good knowledge transfer, such that existing measures
which have merit but have not previously been fully exploited are brought into use. Examples here may
include integrated crop protection methods, which whilst already developed could be more widely
employed.
Choice of delivery mechanism
In general the Environment Agency supports the implementation of measures via voluntary mechanisms in
the first instance and would only move to regulatory mechanisms (such as use of Water Protection Zones)
where there was clear justification, such as other implementation approaches having been tried
unsuccessfully.
It is recognised the more onerous a measure is for a farmer to implement (in terms of capital outlay or loss
of profit because of reduced crop yields) the less likely
voluntary mechanisms are to succeed. {11} It is also sometimes difficult to secure the level of measuresuptake needed simply because, in larger catchments, it is difficult to identify and engage with all farmers .
If voluntary approaches are to work to maximum effect we may need new ways of engaging with farmers
at a local level, such that they have a greater understanding of the characteristics of their particular
catchment (e.g. the presence of an abstraction point) and the requirements of the WFD.
Not many pesticide measures are currently implemented via incentive (fiscal) mechanisms. The current
agri-environment schemes such as the Entry Level Scheme do not support many measures relevant to
pesticide management, so could possibly be enhanced in this respect. In terms of other fiscal mechanisms,
there are a few examples in some DrWPAs where water companies provide financial assistance to farmers
to manage agricultural land use so as to minimise the risk of contaminating water and / or to meet
biodiversity targets. {12} This could also be an approach worth exploring for the future.
Conclusions
The WFD has changed the regulatory landscape for pesticides, introducing new environmental objectives
which must be met in surface and groundwaters. The above discussion identifies some challenges that we
must address for pesticides if we are to achieve the aims of the Directive. These include better
characterisation of high risk catchments, better information on pathways for some pesticides into water,
development of new pesticide measures, and understanding how we can maximise engagement from the
farming community. Whilst broad-brush national implementation of general measures will ensure we
avoid deterioration in water quality we must also recognise that in some high risk catchments more
bespoke solutions will be needed. We are learning more through work being conducted in individual
catchments such as the Cherwell, and Voluntary Initiative (VI) ‘Pilot’ and VI Catchment Sensitive
Farming catchments, and through the recent research cited in this paper. Defra’s Demonstration Test
Catchment research programme also offers a potential platform for further research. Regulators, pesticide
manufacturers, the crop protection sector, the water industry and farmers must all play an active role in
responding to the challenges identified, so together we can meet the requirements of the WFD in the most
cost effective way.
References
1. Brown, C.D., van Beinum, W. (2009). Pesticide transport via sub-surface drains in Europe.
Environmental Pollution 157 (2009) 3314–3324.
2. Fogg, L. (2009). Catchment study to determine the relative significance of the different pathways
by which metaldehyde may impact on surface water. Report of the Metaldehyde Stewardship
Group by Cambridge Environmental Assessments. Contract No. XWMC002. CEA report number:
CEA.481.
3. Whelan, M.,Tediosi, A. Cranfield University. Understanding herbicide transfers from land to
water. Reported in NRSI eZine April 2010
http://tmm.codecircus.co.uk/assets/1003/5480_CRA01_Pesticide_Transfer_FINAL.pdf
4. Brown, C.D., (2010) Review of pesticide transport studies relevant to the Upper Cherwell. A
report commissioned by the Environment Agency.
5. Review of current knowledge on pesticides with potential for non-compliance under the Water
Framework Directive. Defra project code PS2242. (Ongoing research, University of York)
6. Environment Agency (2010). In-house modelling work to inform potential WPZ measures in the
River Cherwell
7. Brown, C. and Beulke, S. (2010) Higher tier modelling to estimate concentrations of metaldehyde
in three rivers following agricultural use and transport via drainflow. FERA study No T6ZB 1000.
8. Mitigation Options for Sediment and Phosphorus 2 (MOPS 2). Defra project code WQ0127. (Ongoing
research, University of Lancaster, ADAS UK Ltd.)
9. Modular approaches to the control of diffuse agricultural pollution: buffer zones, bioreactors,
ditiches and ponds. Defra project code WQ0126. (Ongoing research, North Wyke Research)
10. Demonstration Test Catchments (DTC) Project. Defra presentation.
http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/bhs2010/Presentations/ICS/Burke.pdf
11. Kennedy, J., Varma, A. Foo, V. (2008) A study to identify cost-effective measures for plant
protection products causing non-compliance with Water Framework Directive objectives. A report
by the Environment Agency and GHK. Report code GEHO0109BPGF-e-e1. Available from:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront?lang=_e
12. Wessex Water catchment management case study
http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/environment/twocol.aspx?id=1296 and United Utilities SCaMP
initiative http://www.unitedutilities.com/scamp.aspx
Appendix 1
Pesticides classified as WFD priority substances, priority hazardous substances and
UK specific pollutants
Note: Substances withdrawn from use in the UK are show in pink
Categories of WFD Substance
Priority Hazardous Substances (PHS) - chemicals
identified at a European level as extremely harmful and
subject to the strictest requirements, where good water
status means ensuring ‘no deterioration’, achieving,
Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) but also
ceasing or phasing out discharges, emissions and losses
by 2020.
Pesticides currently falling into these
categories
endosulphan and hexachlorocyclohexane
(HCH)
These do not pose a problem since all
relevant products have been phased out (for
endosulphan in 2007).
Priority Substances (PS) – chemicals identified at a
European level as particularly hazardous where good
water status means ensuring ‘no deterioration’,
achieving EQSs and progressively reducing losses.
chlorpyrifos,
alachor, atrazine, chlorfenvinphos, diuron,
isoproturon, simazine, trifluralin
Other Dangerous Substances Directive substances required by the WFD to be included in assessment of
good chemical status, using EQS values previously
established under the Dangerous Substances Directive
DRINS (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin) DDT
UK Specific Pollutants (SP) - chemicals identified
nationally as of concern and which are subject to the
same requirements as priority substances.
Substances not currently prioritised - we need to aim
to ensure levels are not present such that biological
monitoring shows ‘good’ ecological status is being
achieved.
2,4-D (ester and non ester), cypermethrin,
diazinon, dimethoate, linuron, mecoprop
Permethrin
Any other pesticide
Further information on the WFD objectives for surface waters can be found in the UK Technical Advisory
Group document ‘Recommendations on Surface Water Classification Schemes for the purposes of the
Water Framework Directive’ (December 2007), available at http://www.wfduk.org/UKCLASSPUB/
Specific information on the designation process for UK Specific Pollutants is available at:
http://www.wfduk.org/stakeholder_reviews/stakeholder_review_12007/LibraryPublicDocs/final_specific_pollutan
Appendix 2 WFD Article 7 objectives - Drinking Water Protected Areas
Article 7 of the WFD requires EU Member States to put measures in place to protect water bodies used for
the abstraction of water intended for human consumption.
Article 7.1 states that Member States should designate Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPAs).
DrWPAs are bodies of surface water or groundwater with totalled abstractions intended for human
consumption of greater than 10 cubic metres per day on average, or serving more than 50 people; and
bodies of surface water or groundwater intended for such future use. In England and Wales approximately
650 surface waters and 304 groundwater bodies (i.e. all groundwater bodies) have been designated as
DrWPAs.
Article 7.2 states: “under the water treatment regime applied.... and in accordance with Community legislation the
resulting water will meet the requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC… “ This Directive is the Drinking Water
Directive. It requires that for those pesticides used in plant protection products no individual substance must be
present in tap water above 0.1 µg/l, and total pesticides must not present above 0.5µg/l. The Drinking Water
Inspectorate are responsible for enforcement of this Directive in the UK.
Article 7.3 states that there should be: “necessary protection for the bodies of water identified with the aim of
avoiding deterioration in their quality in order to reduce the level of purification required in the production of
drinking water.” The Environment Agency will undertake compliance assessment for Article 7.3.
Article 7.3 also identifies that Member States can establish Safeguard Zones for the purposes of avoiding
deterioration if they wish. The Environment Agency may delineate Safeguard Zones around failing
DrWPAs. Safeguard Zones will be voluntary not statutory designations and with be used to focus pollution
prevention activity and encourage voluntary action to remove and / or reduce the risks of pollution.
Designation of these zones will normally be done via the river basin planning process, although it may be
necessary to amend them as and when the evidence base improves.
It is important to note that for surface waters, Article 7 DrWPA objectives and WFD ‘good status’
objectives are two separate areas of compliance - they are not related to each other and are treated
separately. In principle, a surface water body may be at ‘good status’ (i.e. compliance assessment shows it
meets good chemical and good ecological status) but fail to achieve its DrWPA objective, or vice versa.
The impact of the Water Framework Directive at farm level
Harry Johnson
Red House Farm, Campion Hills, Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV32 7UA
Abstract
The Water Framework Directive is wide ranging and seeks to achieve good chemical and ecological status
within all inland and costal waters. Given agriculture’s interaction with the environment generally and
water in particular, the pressure on the industry to meet the Directive’s objectives is significant. The main
issue is diffuse pollution, but there are also issues with water abstraction and hydromorhpology (land
drainage). Key to meeting the objectives is an understanding of the current agricultural contributions to
perceived problems, including current and future trends. Measures should begin with current voluntary and
existing regulatory schemes; if anything further is needed, there should be full stakeholder consultation
with complete transparency and scrutiny of the methodology employed. Desired outcomes should be
balanced and practical, not ideological or of disproportionate cost, and where appropriate derogation
should be used. Farming will always have some environmental impact, but a farmer’s job is to produce
food, and the task is to achieve a good balance between the two.
What is the Water Framework Directive (WFD)?
The WFD is a comprehensive piece of EU regulation which, for the first time, integrates the approach to
water management; it brings together both existing and new regulation and legislation, but with a singular
focus: to establish “good ecological and chemical status” in our rivers, lakes, ground waters and costal
waters, in the first instance by 2015.
To reach that “good status”, the WFD objectives are to:
 prevent deterioration of, protect, and improve aquatic ecosystems
 achieve at least “good status” for all waters
 promote sustainable use of water
 conserve habitats and species which depend on water
 progressively reduce or phase out pollutants that pose a significant threat to the water environment
 progressively reduce groundwater pollution
 contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts
Thus the WFD introduces the concept of “River Basins”, which effectively are very large catchments; there
are 110 across Europe, and within England and Wales we have 10. Each River Basin is subdivided into
individual water bodies – rivers, lakes, groundwaters, etc. – which can number up to 8000, and the WFD
requires the objectives to be achieved for each water body. So the magnitude of the task starts to become
apparent….
Each Member State’s government has to appoint a “competent authority” to implement the WFD, and in
England and Wales DEFRA has appointed the Environment Agency to that task. Within each River Basin,
using historic information, monitoring or modelling, the EA has to formulate a River Basin Management
Plan (RBMP), which is a six-year cycle of planning, action and review, with 2015 being the end of the first
of three cycles. However, in England and Wales this six-year cycle is completely out of step with the
Water Companies Price Review (five years) and the four-year NVZ cycle. Important? Potentially so, since,
for example, in setting their prices Water Companies have to plan for expenditure for measures to comply
with WFD; how can they do this when they aren’t sure what (according to the RBMP) needs fixing?
In England and Wales the WFD timetable is as follows:
 2000
Entered into force at European level
 2003
Transposed into national legislation
 2003-2009
Characterisation of water bodies etc






Dec 2009
to Dec 2012
2013-2015
2015
2016-2021
2022-2027
First River Basin Management Plans published
Carry out first plan activities
Review of first plan and development of second plan
End of first plan and first six-year cycle
Second six-year cycle
Third six-year cycle
As the RBMP’s take form, the proposed actions are discussed with River Basin District Liaison Panels,
which effectively consist of representatives of stakeholder groups, and generally number 20 to 30
members; however, agriculture rarely gets more than one seat at the table, which seems odd given the
importance of agriculture in relation to the environment. The published RBMP’s are weighty documents –
the one for the Anglian Region runs to over 2500 pages for example - and they contain the Programme of
Measures (PoM’s) which, following consultation, is the action plan necessary (in the opinion of the EA) to
achieve the “good status”.
So what does this mean for agriculture?
With about three-quarters of the land area in the UK used for agriculture, the implications of the WFD for
farmers are significant. The EA reports that currently 80% of rivers and 75% of groundwaters are under
pressure from diffuse pollution, and for farming, whilst it is not solely responsible, it is clearly a significant
issue. Point-source pollution is mainly a problem for other sectors (e.g. the water industry) and their
responsibilities for their emissions are equally covered by the WFD. However, the water industry is
empowered to pass on the additional costs of compliance unlike farming; in sectors of low profitability
(e.g. dairying) large amounts have already been spent on NVZ compliance and there is little left in the pot.
Another issue for agriculture is maintaining water resources for abstraction. Although agriculture accounts
for less than 2% of total abstractions, it generally occurs at times of low rainfall and low river flows and
therefore can exacerbate the low flow situation. In groundwaters we have seen that abstractions can
remove water faster from underground aquifers faster than those aquifers can recharge, leading to drops in
water tables and, in extremes, failures of boreholes, and ground desiccation. Fortunately agricultural
abstraction in any quantity from groundwaters is not widespread, and therefore the focus of concern is
surface water abstraction.
A third issue for agriculture is hydromorphology (which is the physical characteristics of the shape,
boundaries and content of a water body) in relation to land drainage. Land drainage on both small and
large scales has been a feature of farming since man first picked up a spade and dug a ditch to improve his
land. Indeed in areas such as the Fens or Holland farming would not be possible without land drainage.
However, the EA suggests that land drainage on a widespread scale is linked to loss of wildlife habitats.
Some questions here are i) is the habitat of a drained area any less environmentally valid that the habitat of
an undrained area, ii) where does the balance lie between food production and environment, and iii)
consequently what is the appropriate WDF objective?
Water Quality and agriculture: diffuse agricultural pollution
It is apparent that many farmers have little idea of what diffuse pollution is, where it comes from, and how
it gets into water. In simple terms it is pollution that results from our day-to-day farming activities, and
because the quantities of pollutant are generally so small and so widespread across the catchment, it is
termed “diffuse”. Think of it as many micro point-sources. However, across a catchment the sum of the
micro amounts becomes significant and measurable. It can get into water from air (e.g. spray drift to a
river), through surface run-off (e.g. sedimentation following intense rainfall), through field drainage (e.g.
metaldehyde) and through yard drainage (e.g. livestock faecal matter). The scale of the problem largely
depends on the type of water body concerned (provided environmental quality standard limits haven’t been
breached). If it is a reasonably fast-flowing river, the problem can be diluted to a degree and flushed away.
If it is groundwater, or a reservoir or lake, the problem remains and only reduces slowly over time.
So initially a key step towards WFD compliance is farmer education, which begins with three questions:
 Did you know there was a problem?
 Did you know you are part of the problem?
 Did you know you are part of the solution?
Rather than accusing farmers of causing pollution, this approach engages with farmers by explaining what
is going on in language which is familiar to them. Also, the evidence must be there to substantiate the
claims. It is completely unproductive to suggest that the problems are caused wilfully or for the EA to be
heavy-handed. “Carrot and stick” is a phrase that is often mentioned, and the task must be to seek
solutions which can be translated into workable revised best practice which does not unduly penalise
farmers financially.
The substances of agricultural origin that are causing everyone concern are nitrates, phosphates, pesticides,
veterinary medicines, pathogens and sediment. Emissions of all of these are regulated in some way or
other already, but the WFD generally, and Article 7 in particular, introduce fundamental changes and
specifically target pesticides.
Article 7 and Drinking Water Protected Areas (DrWPA’s)
The WFD, whilst aiming for “good status”, also states that there shall be no deterioration from the current
situation and no reversal of any improving trends either. Going a step further is Article 7, which
specifically requires identification and protection of sources of drinking water.
Across England and Wales, 604 surface water bodies and all groundwaters have been designated as
DrWPA’s. The WFD states that the designation is “necessary to protect the bodies of water identified with
the aim of avoiding deterioration in their quality in order to reduce the level of purification required in the
production of drinking water”. The consequence is that measures applied in DrWPA’s may exceed those
applied elsewhere in the catchment.
Going further still within DrWPA’s are Surface Water Safeguard Zones. These are areas the EA believe
are at particular risk of not achieving WFD objectives in relation to drinking water (i.e. chemical status
only) and in which, therefore, even greater compliance measures or further action might be needed.
The standards applied to DrWPA’s are the same as those for the Drinking Water Directive (DWD) (0.1
ug/li for any individual pesticide and 0.5 ug/li total pesticides) and hence the standards now apply to raw
water (start-of-pipe) rather than treated water (end-of-pipe). As a reminder, 0.1 ug/li is the equivalent of
one drop in an Olympic-sized swimming pool – it is fractional.
Water Resources and agriculture
The water resources issue is fundamentally about surface water abstraction. The 2005 Survey of Irrigation
of Outdoor Crops showed that potatoes and vegetables accounted for 83% of the total volume of water
abstracted, with the balance going to crops such as fruit. Further, the Midland and Anglian Regions
together account for the majority of those crops. The crops them selves are high value, and make a
substantial contribution to the local economy through employment, food processing, packaging, transport
and all aspects of rural life as well as farming. Irrigation is increasingly necessary to meet the demands of
retailers to achieve quality, consistency of product, and to maintain supply. It has a valuable role in
reducing imports: UK growers account for half of the marketed tonnage of vegetables.
Security of water supply for irrigation is becoming a major issue for farmers, not just as a consequence of
WFD but also as a consequence of climate change. Construction of reservoirs, whilst a practical solution,
has often not been possible due to lack of security of long-term abstraction licences: around 20 years is
needed to make financial sense. Further, there can be substantial planning hurdles, plus (depending on the
size of your reservoir) further regulation surrounding maintenance and inspection once it is built.
Anecdotally, farmers also have concerns that as water availability diminishes through climate change
and/or pressures from WFD on wildlife habitats, agricultural water use may be subordinated to public
supply. This could be addressed first by water companies reducing leakage, and second by giving water
for agriculture a higher priority to counter concerns over food security and domestic food production.
Across England the EA introduced the Catchment Management Abstraction Strategy (CAMS) to ascertain
water availability within each catchment, and then allocate it to environment and habitats, public
consumption, and industrial use (including agriculture). Anecdotally again, farmers (including this one)
felt that the environmental allocation could be “exaggerated” because the requirement was unclear and so
the “precautionary principle” was applied. Since the CAMS process is also cyclical, greater clarity is
needed as to whether the process is independent of, subservient to, or indeed made obsolete by the WFD.
Further, as review takes place, the evidence for the basis of environmental allocation (and hence what’s left
for public supply and industry) should be sound and transparent. It is regrettable that stakeholder
participation in the process has been lost and with it the opportunity to challenge EA assumptions made
during the process.
Hydromorphology and agriculture
Historically, significant areas of land have been drained to enable the land to be managed for agricultural
production, and the most obvious examples are in the low-lying areas of East Anglia, Somerset, Shropshire
and the Severn and Avon Vales. Maintenance of these systems is of vital importance to agriculture, and
these systems themselves are often important landscape, environmental and cultural features.
If water levels were not maintained there would be adverse effects on crop production, livestock
production, local land drainage and flood protection. Therefore it is important that water levels are
maintained, and perhaps management of the status quo should be the WFD objective. Also, there is
currently a lack of detailed evidence on how hydromorphological pressures influence ecology. Until there
is some certainty in the evidence, the perceived benefits of change cannot be set against the investments in
the drainage infrastructure, and the costs of the loss of benefits derived from land drainage, and hence it
will be impossible to apply the test of cost/benefit disproportionality.
Water Quality – the issues for farmers
Clearly the WFD will have far-reaching implications for farming practices and land management as well as
water management; equally, farmers are seen as a key sector for improving the water environment and
delivering what is required. But in terms of the WFD effects on water quality, water resources, and
hydromorphology on farm businesses, it is clear that the issues surrounding water quality are going to have
the greatest impact at farm level.
So what is the actual picture behind these issues?
Nitrates
The EA reports that a high percentage of surface waters are “at risk” from nitrate, and in reaching this
conclusion they appear to be using the Drinking Water Directive (DWD) standard, which is an
environmental standard of 50 mg/li. However, this is not the test specified in the WFD for dealing with
DrWPA’s and so it could be considered to be gold-plating. There are no ecological standards for nitrate in
freshwaters. The EA reports groundwaters at risk too of failing environmental objectives; however,
groundwater is affected by long time lags and the EA is failing to take account of recent (falling) trends in
agricultural nitrogen use.
Use of inorganic nitrogen fertiliser has fallen by 30% over the 10 years to 2007 (40% over 20 years) and
livestock numbers have fallen significantly over the same period, therefore reducing total manure produced
and hence organic nitrogen used. Nitrogen used in animal feeds has also fallen by over 15% since 1999
(and I would forecast further falls in livestock numbers by 2015). The consequence is that in 2008 DEFRA
were able to report to the European Commission that over half of the surface water and groundwater
monitoring sites were below 25 mg/li (half the DWD standard), adding that most nitrate levels were stable
or decreasing.
Farmers are using nitrogen more efficiently. In the 10 years to 2007, the amount of nitrogen used to
produce a tonne of combinable arable crops fell by about 17% and by up to 50% for root crops; total
nitrogen use on grass fell by 43% over the same period. Together with this picture of reducing use is the
picture of better “best practice”, and both are contributing to the reduction of nitrogen lost to the
environment.
Then there is the uncertainty over nitrates in connection with human health. The EA has stated that high
concentrations of nitrate in water used for public supply can adversely affect human health. This is
concerning since it is now accepted that the original 50 mg/li limit was based on a flawed study of “Blue
Baby Syndrome”, and it is now known that babies can themselves synthesise nitrates. This new
understanding of the condition is encouraging since I hope it will eventually allow for an upward revision
of the environmental nitrate levels, and it is important that the political hype attached to nitrates doesn’t
distort the measures required to achieve the WFD objectives.
Phosphates
Recent work for DEFRA to update sources of phosphorus in UK waters found that the amount attributable
to agriculture was much less than previously thought. Non-agricultural sources are still extremely
significant, and phosphate levels from sewage treatment works pose the most significant risk for
eutrophication, even in rural areas.
Phosphorus used as an agricultural fertiliser is continuing to decline, reducing by more than 45% between
1997 and 2007. Further, the very large price increase in phosphorus fertiliser in 2008 is expected to have
resulted in further reduction in use (although the effect of that has probably not been fully seen yet).
However, as a consequence low P status in soils could start emerging as a problem due to the effect and
interaction of phosphorus on crop nitrogen use efficiency.
We have already noted that livestock numbers are in decline, and that will have reduced organic manurial
phosphate loading. Further, phosphate from animal feeds is also in decline due to adoption of the phytase
enzyme; this reduces or negates the need for supplementary dietary phosphorus. For all of the above
reasons it could be argued that phosphates are now more of a problem for industries other than agriculture,
and any remedial measures need to be targeted accordingly.
Sediment
There is no doubt that the increase in intensity of rainfall has increased surface run-off from agricultural
land. The problem here is two-fold: first, rain can carry agricultural products in solution to water courses
and second, the rain – if heavy enough – can move the soil itself. In the latter situation not only is the soil
causing a problem through siltation of water courses and reducing their capacity, but also any agricultural
products (e.g. some pesticides) which are bound to the soil particles contribute to diffuse agricultural
pollution. Additionally the soil can be a problem for fish: apparently it can cause significant damage to
their gills, and can smother spawning grounds.
However, whilst agricultural activity can contribute to loss of soil to water (through soil compaction, poor
timing of operations, or inappropriate cropping), it is a natural process. Soil loss can also be found in urban
areas at drain outfalls, where development and hard paving within the area served reduce surface
infiltration and cause concentrated drain flows, and from the sides of un-kerbed rural roads.
There are no established standards in regard to sediment and much information is anecdotal; as such, it is
difficult to see how any measures can be transparent and targeted fairly.
Pathogens
The main issue here is faeces, measured through Faecal Indicator Organisms(FAOs), and the main problem
is with bathing waters. However, the sources of FAOs in bathing waters are mainly human, arising from
sewage works, storm overflows on combined sewers, unsewered properties, and private systems. Studies
have put agriculture’s contribution at around 30%, and DEFRA considers agriculture to be a contributor for
only a minority of bathing waters. In assessing actions, the majority of illnesses are viral and host-specific,
and therefore the most benefit will accrue from WFD actions targeted at human sources of FAOs.
Water for agricultural irrigation should also be protected. Farmers are subject to food hygiene legislation,
and good quality water is therefore an important issue for farmers, particularly those growing ready-to-eat
crops such as salads for direct human consumption. WFD actions could include raising standards for
combined sewer overflows, and notification to abstractors of any relevant pollution incidents.
Veterinary Medicines
The main issue here is sheep dip, which is used to control sheep scab. Farmers have legal obligations for
animal welfare, also enforced under cross compliance, and sheep scab is a notifiable disease. Further,
infection can place restrictions on farmers being able to move or market their livestock, so it is a very
serious issue.
There is a very limited choice of active ingredients which are effective against sheep scab, with the
alternative to the most environmentally toxic product being potentially harmful to those doing the dipping.
However, since sheep dip is so highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates it is essential that farmers (for whom
there is no alternative) continue to employ best practice in the use and disposal of dip.
The industry led and promoted the “Stop the Drop” campaign of best practice in 2006, and the EA reported
(following a survey a year later) that almost half of the farmers questioned were aware of it. Regarding
disposal of dip, it is possible to detoxify it beforehand, and perhaps a regulatory regime which recognised
that benefit in reduced charges would contribute to uptake of the practice.
Pesticides
Pesticides found in the water environment can derive from a number of sources as well as agriculture, for
example transport, industry, amenity, recreation, conservation, and domestic use. This has been recognised
since before the Voluntary Initiative (VI), but equally agriculture and horticulture are probably the major
contributors.
Identification of the sector origins of pesticide pollution is important to enable correct, accurate, and costeffective targeting of measures. This is especially so where the same active ingredient is used in different
sectors. For example, cypermethrin is used as an insecticide in agriculture and horticulture, forestry, and as
a veterinary medicine (sheep dip). However, under the VI, measures are only applicable to agriculture and
horticulture, not forestry or livestock.
Whilst agricultural pesticides are not a problem for ecological water quality standards, there are issues in
some DrWPA’s for compliance with DWD standards and potentially Article 7 compliance may be at risk.
However, when considering measures to address this, interlinked effects should be considered too. For
example, if certain oilseed rape (OSR) herbicides are restricted, blackgrass control becomes almost
impossible resulting in yield losses of up to 35%. Clearly there is a knock-on effect where OSR is used as
a break crop for cleaning fields with a black grass problem prior to growing cereals. Further, addressing
this through additional cultivations could give rise to “pollution swapping”, e.g. increasing nitrate losses.
The emphasis on measures to mitigate pesticide pollution must be on risk reduction not use reduction,
which is parallel to the Government’s current policy, and it is important that this is recognised in RBMP’s.
It is important to remember that the WFD moves the DWD standards from the point of entry of water to
public supply (i.e. as it leaves the water treatment works) to the point of abstraction for water for public
supply (i.e. as it enters a water treatment works). This raises the bar considerably in terms of farmers’
obligations to reduce or prevent pesticide diffuse pollution.
Also, it is important to understand the issues of water treatment from a water company perspective. In
simple terms, they have to clean out of water what we allow into it, and their ability to do this depends on
the treatment options available at the treatment works concerned, and the ease (or otherwise) with which
the particular active can be removed.
For example, Scottish Water’s works on the Ugie river has virtually no treatment ability, whilst Severn
Trent’s works on the river Leam at Leamington Spa is bristling with technology. The latter, therefore, is
better placed to cope with pesticide levels greater than DWD standards but it can do so because historically
it has needed to do so, and consequently appropriate investment has been made. In terms of ease of
removal of active, given the right treatment, IPU was relatively ease to remove for example, whereas one
of the problems with Metaldehyde is that it is almost impossible to remove.
Pesticides in rivers tend to move as a “plug” in the body of water as it moves downstream. Thus the ability
of a water treatment works depends on whether (in cases of extreme pesticide levels) there is any raw water
storage (on site or bankside) or any ability to blend imported raw water (piped) from another source. For
example, Thames Water’s works on the Cherwell river at Banbury has almost no storage, whereas Severn
Trent’s works on the river Leam has both bankside storage (3 to 4 days supply) and imported raw water
(direct from Draycote Reservoir).
Water treatment works with reservoir-only supply have their own problems too: Severn Trent’s Staunton
Harold works near Melbourne has two reservoirs – one fed directly from surrounding farmland with the
other fed with raw water abstracted from the River Dove. In reservoirs, once they are contaminated the
pesticide levels decline only slowly over time so managing the water intake to the works becomes a major
headache; there is no “plug” to move on by with cleaner water behind.
However, for all treatment works there is a single common problem: whenever pesticides are detected the
magnitude of the active present is crucial in determining it can be removed (and to what degree) or not.
For example, at Banbury IPU at up to 90 times the DWD standard has been detected historically,
overwhelming the treatment process and causing the works to be shut down, prompting reports to the EA
of pollution incidents, and prompting Thames Water to call for a ban on IPU. At Leamington Spa this
April, the combination of Metazachlor at 12 times the DWD standard, Bentazone at 8 times the standard
and Clopryalid at 4 times the standard almost overwhelmed the works. Metaldehyde from the Ugie at
levels up to 4 times the DWD standard actually made it into the public supply, potentially reaching
thousands of consumers in the Peterhead area, and prompting the Scottish Government to issue a statement
that “The Standards are very strict and although some of the samples exceeded the standard, there was no
risk to public health”.
But in spite of a treatment works’ ability to clean up water, there is the question of cost of doing so. Ozone
treatment requires huge amounts of electricity to run the process, and granular activated carbon (GAC) is
very expensive to recycle and regenerate. The less the contamination of the raw water, the less ozone is
required, or the less frequently the GAC has to be regenerated, and so the costs to the water companies is
less, let alone removing some of the headaches of managing a safe, within DWD limits, public water
supply.
There is clearly a partnership to be maintained between farming and water companies and it is important
that each understands the other’s needs, working together to mitigate the effects.
WFD measures at farm level: voluntary actions, or regulation?
There is a wide range of solutions to enable farmers to meet the requirements of the WFD, depending on
how the EA has categorised the water body around them. “Failing” would probably require regulation,
possibly in the form of Water Protection Zones (WPZ’s). “At Risk” would probably require enhanced
delivery of existing schemes and possibly additional voluntary measures (“VI Plus”), but key to success
here will be funding and co-ordination. “Other” would indicate that no particular measures are required
beyond continuation of existing best practice, and this is termed Business as Usual (BAU).
WPZ’s are analogous to Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ’s), except they target all diffuse pollutants
(whether agricultural or not) and thus are concerned with both chemical and ecological status. WPZ
designation could extend over whole catchments (e.g. the River Humber) or small parts of catchments (e.g.
the upper Cherwell). However, the designation of these zones is not necessarily based on physical
monitoring – in many cases designation will be on the basis of modelling, and in some cases the modelling
will be based on statistics from 2000. Farming has changed a lot since then, and designation in this manner
is going beyond what is required: it is gold-plating, which is something the previous government undertook
not to do. But before such designation can be achieved, each WPZ has to receive Ministerial approval
following substantial EA evidence, and following a 3-month consultation, so designation is not a foregone
conclusion.
DEFRA is looking at up to 44 measures on farms within WPZ’s to reduce all the diffuse pollution issues
previously covered in both surface waters and groundwaters. The measures might include establishing
cover crops, adopting minimum cultivation, avoiding tramlines, establishing in-field grass buffer strips, and
allowing field drainage systems to deteriorate. Livestock farmers are included too: proposed measures here
include reduced field stocking rates when soils are wet, increasing the capacity of farm manure stores,
fencing off watercourses, and constructing bridges to cross streams.
The good news is that DEFRA has made it clear that WPZ’s are a power of last resort, to be used where
other measures have not or cannot achieve the necessary outcome. The EA should be required to fully
explore all suitable alternative mechanisms with the local farming community before a WPZ can be
considered. The national WPZ approach should also be subject to detailed discussions with the industry,
and also considered with other measures such as the NVZ Action Programme.
For both “AT Risk” and “Other” categories, many existing schemes are already delivering tangible
improvements and DEFRA is looking to a combination of advice and support to enable this to continue.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) delivers environmental benefit through “cross compliance” and
through Agri-Environment Schemes. Entry Level Schemes (ELS) reward farmers for basic environmental
measures, whereas Higher Level Schemes (HLS) reward farmers for undertaking more costly soil and
water protection measures in higher priority areas.
Voluntary schemes delivering advice such as the VI, National Sprayer Testing Scheme (NSTS), National
Register of Sprayer Operators (NRoSO), the England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative
(ECSFDI), Tried & Tested (for nutrient management), the Metaldehyde Stewardship Group and ongoing
general improvements in farm practice are all making a positive impact. ECSFDI, for example, in addition
to delivering advice, can also offer free soil testing and free nutrient management plans. The Campaign for
the Farmed Environment (CFE) is a new addition to the armoury, and its 3-themed approach will deliver
further benefits still.
Existing regulatory schemes such as Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), NVZ’s, and
Agricultural Waste Regulations have all delivered improvements as well, further reducing the need for
WFD measures.
The EA needs to take account of what the industry is achieving, and project it forward to 2015. If a
problem area is showing a falling trend – e.g. nitrates – then no further measures should be required as the
objectives have been achieved. If the objectives cannot be achieved by 2015, maybe through technical
infeasibility, disproportionate cost/affordability, or prioritisation, then, through derogation, the timescale
can be extended to the end of the second cycle (2021) or even the third (2027).
Conclusion
Farming takes its role in addressing the WFD issues both positively and responsibly, but a first requirement
is for reasonably robust evidence of the problems, then identification of the sources of those problems, and
then the remedies. Without doubt the voluntary approach is best since co-operation with the industry, not
confrontation, will more readily achieve the desired objectives of WFD. However proportionality and
affordability are likely to be key issues since farming cannot pass on the costs.
Looking across Europe, it appears we are not being badly done by in comparison to other countries: France
is aiming for a 50% reduction in pesticide use by 2018, Sweden is designating all 2000 sub-catchments as
Water Protection Areas, and Denmark is reorganising the existing Pesticide Tax as well as legislating for
sprayer operator training, sprayer testing, and container collection.
Farming never has been and never will be a no-impact industry. However, we must never loose sight of
our fundamental role in producing food. Leaving aside the issue of national food security, there will
always be pressures in the future arising out of climate change on both agriculture and the environment.
As the debate moves forward I believe it is important that a balance between the two exists, and that the
pendulum is not allowed to swing unduly far in either direction. To achieve this, dialogue and education
will remain key to the process.
Acknowledgements:
I am indebted to, and most grateful for, the assistance of, Michael Payne (Environment Consultant), Paul
Chambers (NFU Pesticides Advisor), and Sarah Faulkner (NFU Policy Advisor – Environment). Any
errors or omissions are mine alone.
References:
Jarvie et al 2005: Sewage-effluent phosphorus: A greater risk to river eutrophication than agricultural
phosphorus?
White & Hammond 2006: Updating the estimate of the sources of phosphorus in UK waters
Weatherhead & Knox 2006: Climate Change and Horticulture in the Vale of Evesham
Government Response to the revised Bathing Water Directive consultation 2008
HGCA Research Review 70