1 / 32

Smart Plant Protection

Smart Plant Protection. Jens Erik Jensen, DAAS Lise Nistrup Jørgensen, FAS Per Kudsk, FAS Ghita Cordsen Nielsen, DAAS Poul Henning Petersen, DAAS. University of Aarhus The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Institute of Integrated Pest Management. Outline.

fausta
Download Presentation

Smart Plant Protection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart Plant Protection Jens Erik Jensen, DAAS Lise Nistrup Jørgensen, FAS Per Kudsk, FAS Ghita Cordsen Nielsen, DAAS Poul Henning Petersen, DAAS University of Aarhus The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Institute of Integrated Pest Management

  2. Outline • Background – what is special in Denmark? • Examples of low dose strategies • Crop Protection Online • Increasing pesticide use • Outlook for the future

  3. 6 5 4 3 Kg a.i. per ha 2 1 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2003 2002 1990 1991 1992 1993 2000 2001 NL UK Germany France Finland Sweden Denmark Pesticide use in Denmarkand other countries

  4. Strong collaboration andswift communication International Research International Advisory Services and other information sources Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Danish Agricultural Advisory Service End users - Danish farmers

  5. Pesticide taxes • Value added taxes - Danish levels • Insecticides – 54% • Herbicides, fungicides, growth regulators – 33% • Tax proceeds are used to • Support the registration procedure • Funding of agricultural research and development • Partially compensate farmers • etc.

  6. National Pesticide Action Plans • Pesticide Action Plan I from 1987 • Pesticide Action Plan II from 2000 • Pesticide Plan 2004-2009 • As low a pesticide use as possible • A treatment frequency index (TFI) below 1,7 in 2009 TFI: The number of times the agricultural area may be treated with standard doses of pesticides – based on either the official gross sales or the actual amount used on the farm during the production year

  7. Weed control in general • Herbicides • Should be chosen according to the present weed flora • Timing • Optimum effect when weeds are small and weather conditions favourable When herbicide choice and timing are optimal, low dosages will suffice!

  8. Weed control in cereals Reduced dosages • Labelled dose of tribenuron-methyl is 7,5 g/ha • Commonly used dosages range from 1 to 4 g/ha • Mixtures • Broaden weed spectrum • Delay herbicide resistance development • Exploit potential synergy

  9. 54 53 52 Yield, dt per ha 51 50 49 48 Weed control in spring barley130 National Field Trials 150 125 100 Dicot weeds per m2 75 50 25 0 0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 Herbicide TFI

  10. Fungal diseases in cereals • More difficult to assess the needs at the time of spraying • Subsequent weather conditions unknown • Danish monitoring network gives a general view • Helps avoid unnecessary early sprayings • Ear protection (Septoria control) in winter wheat is almost always profitable

  11. Fungicide TFI and dosage in winter wheat Source: Farmstat/Kleffmann/Pesticide statistics

  12. 0,8 0,6 0,4 normal septoria severe septoria 0,2 tonnes per ha 0 0 12.5 25 50 75 100 -0,2 -0,4 % of normal dose Margin over fungicide cost for different fungicide dosages applied at GS 51-55 Data from FAS experiments

  13. Low dosages = higher uncertainty?(figure 2 on page 3 in Abstracts) • Are low dosages equivalent to higher economic risks? • The short answer: No! • Results from 73 National Field Trials • Reduced dosages (TFI 0.375-0.5) gave best expected net yields and smallest variation

  14. Crop Protection Online (CPO) • Web-based decision support system integrating available knowledge • Dose-response curves • Thresholds / expected effects • Solutions rated according to price or TFI • Developed in collaboration • FAS and DAAS • Several tools regarding • Weeds • Pests and diseases

  15. Crop Protection Online - Weeds

  16. 26 DKK =3.57 EUR Crop Protection Online - Weeds Trade name Actual dose Max. dose Cost, DKK TFI

  17. The potential of using CPOTable 1, page 4 in Abstracts • Comparison of annual sales statistics with results from CPO testing in National Field Trials • Fungicides in cereals • No or little potential for further reduction • Herbicides in winter wheat • 36% reduction possible • Herbicides in spring barley • 41% reduction possible

  18. System oriented • has a plan • thinks ahead • rational • safe solutions • high TFI • Experience based • knows his fields • good at timing • experimenting • follows up • lower TFI • Outsourcing • focus in stable • tolerant • advisers give solutions • low TFI Three decision making strategies May use CPO for planning May use CPO for learning Adviser uses CPO

  19. Why is pesticide use increasing? • Large structural changes – farms grow bigger • Less time for focusing on each hectare • One filling of sprayer covers several fields • Despite pesticide taxes, it is cheap to take insurance • Makes time for other farm operations • Labour bottlenecks in growing season • Allows for having summer holidays

  20. Smart crop protection - The future • Increased taxes, quotas or other economic incentives – not yet decided!! • Maintain openness regarding field trial results and low dose strategies • Use the strong engine of CPO with alternative interfaces • User-driven development of DSS’s • Research and development regarding cheap monitoring technology and robotics

More Related