Impact of Neonicotinoid ban

[Lillian Sears]

I am an A Level student taking an Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) as part of my studies on the proposed ban on Neonicotinoids on all arable crops. As part of my research I am hoping to gather the views of farmers whom this would affect.
I would be grateful if any forum members would be willing to answer the following questions:
1) What impact would this ban have on your business?
2) If Neonicotinoids were banned, what measures would you take instead to protect your crops?
3) Do you think there is any merit in the proposal for a complete ban?

Thank you for your help, Lillian.

 

[neilo]

The biggest impact will be the need to replace those seed dressings with broad spectrum insecticide sprays, needlessly killing more beneficial insects at the same time. Of course, that's also another job to do, but product cost is broadly similar to that of the neonic dressings (at the moment).

More research is needed on the true impact of neonic dressings, but the unintended consequences of a complete ban are the more widespread use of insecticides.

 

[Adeptandy]

Another angle to look at would be, what time scale would it take with no insecticide use to have beneficials up to the level that a suitable natural control would be effective ?

 

[Lillian Sears]

Another angle to look at would be, what time scale would it take with no insecticide use to have beneficials up to the level that a suitable natural control would be effective ?

Thank you for replying; please will you elaborate on what a suitable natural control might be? I'm not sure I understand how improving the levels of beneficials will enable natural control.

 

[Tim Howard]

Another angle to look at would be, what time scale would it take with no insecticide use to have beneficials up to the level that a suitable natural control would be effective ?

If everyone stopped using insecticide then I would expect complete crop failures at least one in every three to five years. If most still use insecticides then the few will be protected by there neighbours.

 

[Adeptandy]

Thank you for replying; please will you elaborate on what a suitable natural control might be? I'm not sure I understand how improving the levels of beneficials will enable natural control.

Beneficials are the natural predators of the pest we use insecticides to kill, or at least try to kill.

 

[Punch]

As well as more broad spectrum insecticide allow for lower crop yields!
May drill cereals later so only 1 spray required in autumn to help reduce resistance = lower yield potential.

 

[Yale]

Thank you for replying; please will you elaborate on what a suitable natural control might be? I'm not sure I understand how improving the levels of beneficials will enable natural control.

 

[two-cylinder]

If everyone stopped using insecticide then I would expect complete crop failures at least one in every three to five years. If most still use insecticides then the few will be protected by there neighbours.

We've never used treated sugar beet seed- because everyone else does!

 

[fudge]

In itself this ban can be mitigated. However it will increase the use of other insecticides. I believe this will accelerate the rate at which pests become resistant to the available pesticides. Ultimately this process could lead to substantially reduced production levels. Organic rotations produce much less than conventional farming, if UK farmers found themselves without effective approved products production levels would fall to organic levels. This would effectively in courage imports from countries where pesticides were more widely available eg Russia and South America as well as the USA.

 

[martian]

I am an A Level student taking an Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) as part of my studies on the proposed ban on Neonicotinoids on all arable crops. As part of my research I am hoping to gather the views of farmers whom this would affect.
I would be grateful if any forum members would be willing to answer the following questions:
1) What impact would this ban have on your business?
2) If Neonicotinoids were banned, what measures would you take instead to protect your crops?
3) Do you think there is any merit in the proposal for a complete ban?

Thank you for your help, Lillian.

1) None. We don't use them
2) Crop rotation, timing of drilling, encouraging of beneficial insects
3) Yes. Neonics are very persistant and toxic and, on a precautionary principle, I support the ban. Our soils rely on a fantastically complex ecosystem of invertebrates to enable them to function at their best and I don't understand why farmers are so keen to poison them indiscriminately.

 

[Brisel]

I am an A Level student taking an Extended Project Qualification (EPQ) as part of my studies on the proposed ban on Neonicotinoids on all arable crops. As part of my research I am hoping to gather the views of farmers whom this would affect.
I would be grateful if any forum members would be willing to answer the following questions:
1) What impact would this ban have on your business?
2) If Neonicotinoids were banned, what measures would you take instead to protect your crops?
3) Do you think there is any merit in the proposal for a complete ban?

Thank you for your help, Lillian.

1. An average of a 20% crop loss for winter wheat sown in September bue to aphid spread Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus (BYDV), assuming we don't treat with anything else. The BYDV risk varies across the country - in the East, aphid pressure is lower than the wetter milder West. Thus the impact of BYDV would be far higher in the West. Consequence - wheat sowing would have to be later to mitigate this risk which also lowers yields.
   
2. I'd use synthetic pyrethroids instead which are broad spectrum non selective insecticides that kill natural predators as well as most (but not all) aphids. Consequence - continued build up of resistance to insecticides. The French want to ban neonics yet have just approved a new foliar spray from the nicotine family of chemicals...
   
3. Any merit? Possibly. There are studies that show the accumulation of neonics in the soil which doesn't sound good to me even though the levels are lower than they need to be for a longer term pest prevention. Quite what their effect is on non target species like bees is highly contentious.

I'd like to see impact assessments done before banning substances. Sometimes the alternative is worse than the banned chemical! A ban will cost my business money.

You do not get natural predators of a pest without that pest being present first to feed the predators, encouraging them to breed up. Whilst this has been successful in summer in autumn the flying aphids can land and infect the crop long before the predators get a chance to control them. Can we have research into an alternative non chemical strategy please?

 

[Danllan]

As someone entirely ignorant of the subject, are the estimates for crop failure given above realistic, or catastrophic for the sake of argument? On face value the argument seems to me to be very similar to that about fossil fuels, i.e.:

1) they work really well
2) we are utterly reliant upon what they can do for us
3) a 'cleaner / greener' alternative would be very welcome
4) but there is no way an alternative will be able to work as well soon
5) we are utterly reliant on the current system

We live in an oil-reliant economy, it will end and that will be good, but to stop oil use in say 2022, would mean our entire infrastructure and economy collapsing. I want my children to go to school, and hospitals etc. to be working, so until there is a like-for-like replacement for oil, I want us to keep on using it to 'keep the lights on'.

I am certain the same can be said regarding food production - crops - and neonicitinoids. We have to have the food, end of story, so to remove a key production factor overnight and without a like-for-like replacement is bordering on madness.

This isn't right wing / capitalist, stick-in-the-mud farming dogma, nobody in their right mind will argue for the continued use of either oil or neonicitnoids when there are 'ethical' alternatives that work just as well, even if - initially - they are a little more costly.

 

[Hindsight]

If everyone stopped using insecticide then I would expect complete crop failures at least one in every three to five years. If most still use insecticides then the few will be protected by there neighbours.

An interesting somewhat doom laden view. You say insecticides so I am uncertain if you refer to neonics alone or insecticides in general in which case that would include pyrethroids.

As I say somewhat doom laden but possibly understandable. Next point is we would need to define what you mean by a crop failure - total loss, marginal loss?? Quite important to have that definition as may I suggest the loss of neonics will not lead necessarily to total crop failure but to variable losses in yield - which will vary between years and sites. These losses may well be significantly economic to the affected farmer. And may affect supply on a UK basis or the competitiveness of the UK against world supplies. (emphasis on the word may)

My thought process for main stream arable crops is as follows.

In cereals the use of clothinadin seed treatment is for prevention of BYDV spread in autumn by migrating aphids - the cultural control measure is delay sowing so crops emerge after aphid flight ceases - thus crop would not fail totally but yield may be impacted by some virus and also the delay in sowing. This would have more effect in the south west and at lower altitude. The alternative is reliance on pyrethroids although there are resistance issues with this group of insecticides for grain aphid. Newer actives are coming along so that may 'save the day'. Thiocloprid is approved as a foliar spray for use against Orange Wheat Blossom Midge - but several varieties resistant to midge are available - thus there is a cultural control measure. BYDV in my part of the world varies between years so the impact would be variable.

In sugar beet neonics have been fantastic at reducing / almost eliminating virus in crops leading to significant improvement in crop performance. Without the seed treatment farmers / agronomists will apply more foliar insecticide. Current approved foliar insecticides are not as effective as the neonic seed treatment thus control of virus will likely reduce regardless of those foliar insecticides leading to variable yields - lower yes, but not necessarily lower every year or in every location as aphids are not evenly spread and we know from the past that the level of virus in crops is linked to overwinter temperatures / aphid mortality. So I doubt a total crop failure but some impact on yield.

In oilseed rape we have already seen as the seed treatment has been banned since 2013 that rape can be grown (successfully) without neonics, although it has probably led to greater use of autumn pyrethroid treatments and in some areas maybe flea beetle has meant rape cannot be grown as establishment is impossible. But for the UK overall rape has continued to be grown. There is possibly more variable yield. The success of rape production since the neonic ban is probably the trogan horse that allows many non farmers to say we are crying wolf (I leave that thought with us all)

I think it disappointing if neonics are banned. Glyphosate is a more troubling potential loss.

 

[Brisel]

What are the alternatives? Eliminate, manage or substitute.

1. Nothing. Take the risk and hope your natural predators minimise the impact of any small BYDV focii. Years like 2015 saw whole blocks of crops written off around here where no treatments were used at all. In other years with early frosts & October sowing no treatment was necessary.
   
2. Alter sowing dates. Sow wheat in late October so it emerges as the aphids stop flying in early November assuming there's a frost around then to slow them down. A side benefit would be improved grass weed control but gorwers witha lot of heavy land will struggle to get it sown at all if the weather is wet then.
3. Stop planting autumn cereals. I'm not going to get into a long debate about the economics of this but you won't have many cereal growers left - winter wheat is the most profitable crop on most farms & a 20-40% drop in yields will make current crop rotations unsustainable.
4. Treat/breed autumn cereals to be unattractive to aphids with repellents or antifeedant (sp) sprays
   
5. Manage your field environment to encourage natural predators. No till so you're not damaging ground beetles etc with cultivations
   
6. Use the currently available alternatives to neonic seed treatments, treating crops every 3 weeks from emergence to the end of aphid flight. Maybe Biscaya (thiacloprid, a neonic!) will gain approval for post em application in cereals?!

Edit to point one; When was the last bad BYDV year? Autumn 2011 here. That puts it as a 1 in 4 year event based on that one piece of time. Can you afford to take that risk?