Spring linseed and tolerance to rolling...

[Wigeon]

Odd-ball one this, but any views on the above?

Basically I have a lot of linseed to go in, and blw control is not great having lost Bromoxonil.

I have a big set of comb harrows, which might do a job once the linseed is big enough to stand it. I also have a lot of flints, which obviously the harrows leave on top. I also have hills, and a 12m front on a contractors combine. Hence harrow it, then couple of days later roll it.

Madness?

 

[Brisel]

Have you asked @Premium Crops?
@Niche-Crop Agronomist
@They see me rolling

 

[alomy75]

Odd-ball one this, but any views on the above?

Basically I have a lot of linseed to go in, and blw control is not great having lost Bromoxonil.

I have a big set of comb harrows, which might do a job once the linseed is big enough to stand it. I also have a lot of flints, which obviously the harrows leave on top. I also have hills, and a 12m front on a contractors combine. Hence harrow it, then couple of days later roll it.

Madness?

Haven’t grown for a few years; can’t you spray eagle any longer? There was something else I used to spray….I want to say chekker or boxer

 

[Wigeon]

Yes eagle but it doesn't do fat hen I think.

 

[Brisel]

Haven’t grown for a few years; can’t you spray eagle any longer? There was something else I used to spray….I want to say chekker or boxer

Chekker used to have an off label approval but not anymore. Eagle isn’t very hot on any weeds. The inclusion of iodosulfuron (as Chekker) broadened the spectrum nicely.

 

[alomy75]

Chekker used to have an off label approval but not anymore. Eagle isn’t very hot on any weeds. The inclusion of iodosulfuron (as Chekker) broadened the spectrum nicely.

So it’s literally just eagle now? I was toying with some linseed for next year…I might have to think again! That or get the weed wiper out! Getting a joke…we will all be organic producers soon at this rate

 

[Flat 10]

You can use straight ally. There are a couple of pre-em options too. Callisto and the osr metazachlor.

 

[Flat 10]

Yes eagle but it doesn't do fat hen I think.

Adding shield helps fat hen control in beet so likely to help SUs here too? Might be harsh on the crop? Mcpa is very good on fat hen but is no longer approved.

 

[Flat 10]

Odd-ball one this, but any views on the above?

Basically I have a lot of linseed to go in, and blw control is not great having lost Bromoxonil.

I have a big set of comb harrows, which might do a job once the linseed is big enough to stand it. I also have a lot of flints, which obviously the harrows leave on top. I also have hills, and a 12m front on a contractors combine. Hence harrow it, then couple of days later roll it.

Madness?

I think so but try some and let us know how you get on.

 

[Brisel]

There was a drive to get an EAMU for MCPA in linseed but nothing is currently on the list.

 

[ollie989898]

There was a drive to get an EAMU for MCPA in linseed but nothing is currently on the list.

Why the heck the industry doesn't get these crops and approvals sorted I will never know. It is costing the industry big.

If a chemical is approved for use it should be simultaneously approved for use on other crops which it won't hurt. The minority crops are getting a massive caning every year because of this and it forces people to grow ever more fudging OSR which just serves as a flea beetle snack.

A bit more variety in cropping would be better for the countryside as a whole, too.

 

[Brisel]

Why the heck the industry doesn't get these crops and approvals sorted I will never know. It is costing the industry big.

If a chemical is approved for use it should be simultaneously approved for use on other crops which it won't hurt. The minority crops are getting a massive caning every year because of this and it forces people to grow ever more fudging OSR which just serves as a flea beetle snack.

A bit more variety in cropping would be better for the countryside as a whole, too.

It's a cost/benefit exercise for the manufacturers to get extra on or off label approvals. The costs of EAMUs have gone up a lot in recent years as CRD want more and more information and data now as the model seems to have shifted from "entirely at growers risk" to extensive demands for residues data and more responsibility put on the manufacturers. Minority crops are more cost than return when the bean counters are looking at this.

 

[ollie989898]

It's a cost/benefit exercise for the manufacturers to get extra on or off label approvals. The costs of EAMUs have gone up a lot in recent years as CRD want more and more information and data now as the model seems to have shifted from "entirely at growers risk" to extensive demands for residues data and more responsibility put on the manufacturers. Minority crops are more cost than return when the bean counters are looking at this.

But it's pointless- if a chemical is approved for use it is surely approved for use on any crop a grower might elect to use it on. This need for ever more scrutiny on chemicals that have been used for decades in some cases is a nonsense. All it is doing is restricting chemical options, putting more pressure on those that remain and discouraging growers from growing the minority crops. It's a sad state of affairs.

 

[Brisel]

But it's pointless- if a chemical is approved for use it is surely approved for use on any crop a grower might elect to use it on. This need for ever more scrutiny on chemicals that have been used for decades in some cases is a nonsense. All it is doing is restricting chemical options, putting more pressure on those that remain and discouraging growers from growing the minority crops. It's a sad state of affairs.

You should look up your BASIS notes on how pesticides get approved

Different plant species metabolise pesticides differently, so one approval will not suit all species. Residues is one of the main concern areas for CRD, plus manufacturers have to prove that it actually does what it says on the tin and does not kill the crop you are trying to protect.

 

[ollie989898]

You should look up your BASIS notes on how pesticides get approved

Different plant species metabolise pesticides differently, so one approval will not suit all species. Residues is one of the main concern areas for CRD, plus manufacturers have to prove that it actually does what it says on the tin and does not kill the crop you are trying to protect.

Whether or not a chemical hurts one crop or another should be of zero concern to the CRD. People are hardly going to use chemicals that wipe out the crops they are intending to keep and these actives aren't exactly new- MCPA is either safe to use in the environment or it isn't. I accept that CRD should be keen for manufacturers to prove the stuff works and isn't going to poison the consumer of the foodstuffs involved but their present stance is nonsensical. All they are doing is regulating the industry into the ground and forcing growers to use more and more of a smaller basket of actives- this is not clever in the long term and it is clearly forcing people to avoid growing a greater variety of crops because the chemistry for them no longer exists. That hurts bees and wild fauna as much as anything else.

 

[They see me rolling]

Why the heck the industry doesn't get these crops and approvals sorted I will never know. It is costing the industry big.

If a chemical is approved for use it should be simultaneously approved for use on other crops which it won't hurt. The minority crops are getting a massive caning every year because of this and it forces people to grow ever more fudging OSR which just serves as a flea beetle snack.

A bit more variety in cropping would be better for the countryside as a whole, too.

That is a legislative problem, not an industry problem, and therefore would need DEFRA to lobby for change in parliament. You should be asking your local MP why they want diversity and sustainability of the country side and yet pesticide rules for EAMUs are prohibitively strict. The old chemistry e.g. Maya, Chekker, MCPA etc were allowed under more relaxed rules before the early 2000s when the EU grouped crops into categories, such as oilseeds.

It would be much easier if the chemicals were automatically approved but there are strict rules with EAMUs. E.g. Mesotrione is the active for Callisto has been re-registered at half rate of previous one. EAMUs are linked to MAPP numbers, not actives, and therefore every time a product is re-registered a new EAMU at costs of c.£1800 has to be submitted. An EAMU takes 1 year to complete which leaves you with gaps. If a product is just re-registered at the same rate under a new MAPP number then you can re-register an EAMU, but because the rate was altered a full new EAMU application is needed. Then there are Emergency Approvals (EA)- in the absence of seed residue for an oilseed crop like linseed CRD are requiring very strict stewardship and tracking of every L of spotlight sold vs area. They want the applicant for the EA to be the BBRO of Linseed which isn't possible under competition law or GDPR and they expect assurance and evidence none of it has entered the food chain. Previously the AHDB horticulture sector was helping us with EAMUs as they had a wealth of experience and could've helped with complying with stewardship conditions but this has also been removed.

As stated previously an EAMU for an oilseed crop like Linseed can only be got from an on-label approval of an Oilseed crop e.g. OSR. Chekker & MCPA are only approved on Cereals and therefore without huge amounts of money to generate seed residue data this is not possible to get. It is frustrating for the industry to deal with pesticide problems, and they cannot just be 'sorted' unfortunately when they are part of law. Premium Crops invest significant time and effort into applications each year - which include monitoring when a pesticide & EAMUS are going to expire, filling out lengthy forms and case of needs and providing any extra information CRD require. There are at this time 4 applications in with minor crops just for Linseed and that is all we can achieve with the current law in place.

 

[They see me rolling]

Odd-ball one this, but any views on the above?

Basically I have a lot of linseed to go in, and blw control is not great having lost Bromoxonil.

I have a big set of comb harrows, which might do a job once the linseed is big enough to stand it. I also have a lot of flints, which obviously the harrows leave on top. I also have hills, and a 12m front on a contractors combine. Hence harrow it, then couple of days later roll it.

Madness?

What are you main weeds?

 

[Wigeon]

Cleavers, fat hen, bromes (typically meadow), wild oats. Eagle and centurion max would be normal course, but no fat hen control and costs £50/ha. Thanks.

 

[They see me rolling]

Cleavers, fat hen, bromes (typically meadow), wild oats. Eagle and centurion max would be normal course, but no fat hen control and costs £50/ha. Thanks.

In our experience you can roll a crop of Linseed post-emergence using the boot test. If the soil is sticky you will pull the Linseed plants up from the soil. The same will happen if you roll across the hill rather than up and down the slope. Linseed can be rolled once the crop is 4-5cm tall, but the crop should be allowed to recover before any herbicide are put onto the crop.

Harrowing we have not had this tested on-farm before. Theoretically there shouldn’t be an issue doing this but would strongly recommend a trial first. Although the comb harrows will remove some smaller weeds, the weeding/soil movement then subsequent rolling of the soil can encourage another flush of weeds which would still likely germinate and get big enough to be an issue at harvest.

In our personal experience rolling the seed-bed twice to get a really fine seed-bed followed up by a robust pre-emergence herbicide would do as good or better a job. As any cultivations will invariably encourage a germination of weeds.

 

[ollie989898]

That is a legislative problem, not an industry problem, and therefore would need DEFRA to lobby for change in parliament. You should be asking your local MP why they want diversity and sustainability of the country side and yet pesticide rules for EAMUs are prohibitively strict. The old chemistry e.g. Maya, Chekker, MCPA etc were allowed under more relaxed rules before the early 2000s when the EU grouped crops into categories, such as oilseeds.

It would be much easier if the chemicals were automatically approved but there are strict rules with EAMUs. E.g. Mesotrione is the active for Callisto has been re-registered at half rate of previous one. EAMUs are linked to MAPP numbers, not actives, and therefore every time a product is re-registered a new EAMU at costs of c.£1800 has to be submitted. An EAMU takes 1 year to complete which leaves you with gaps. If a product is just re-registered at the same rate under a new MAPP number then you can re-register an EAMU, but because the rate was altered a full new EAMU application is needed. Then there are Emergency Approvals (EA)- in the absence of seed residue for an oilseed crop like linseed CRD are requiring very strict stewardship and tracking of every L of spotlight sold vs area. They want the applicant for the EA to be the BBRO of Linseed which isn't possible under competition law or GDPR and they expect assurance and evidence none of it has entered the food chain. Previously the AHDB horticulture sector was helping us with EAMUs as they had a wealth of experience and could've helped with complying with stewardship conditions but this has also been removed.

As stated previously an EAMU for an oilseed crop like Linseed can only be got from an on-label approval of an Oilseed crop e.g. OSR. Chekker & MCPA are only approved on Cereals and therefore without huge amounts of money to generate seed residue data this is not possible to get. It is frustrating for the industry to deal with pesticide problems, and they cannot just be 'sorted' unfortunately when they are part of law. Premium Crops invest significant time and effort into applications each year - which include monitoring when a pesticide & EAMUS are going to expire, filling out lengthy forms and case of needs and providing any extra information CRD require. There are at this time 4 applications in with minor crops just for Linseed and that is all we can achieve with the current law in place.

This situation is a nonsense and it is putting the industry at a disadvantage and also harms the long term sustainability of both actives and crops. It would be better for the UK livestock industry to consume a lot more home-sourced peas and beans and better for the industry to have wider rotations. An active should be licensed for use or not, why they insist on this ridiculous system as it stands with different approvals for different crops makes no sense, particularly when many of the actives have been around for decades now.

Until the other crops become grown on a more serious area and basis then farmers will be forever stuck in a chicken and egg scenario as little chemistry exists to legally use on them which only serves to discourage their cultivation.