PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 280 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 280 EDIBLE...

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 280

EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS

IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

2017

A. Mace, I. Barker, G. Parrish, L. Ridley, R. Macarthur & D. G. Garthwaite

Land Use & Sustainability Team

Fera Science Ltd

Sand Hutton

York

YO41 1LZ

ii

A NATIONAL STATISTICS SURVEY

National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Statistics (https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/). They are free from any political interference. The United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) has a statutory duty to assess National Statistics for compliance with this Code of Practice. Further information is available from the Office for National Statistics website (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html). The statistics undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customers’ needs. The UKSA has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics: • meet identified user needs; • are well explained and readily accessible; • are produced according to sound methods; and • are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest. Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. If you have any enquiries or feedback on the statistics included in this report, they can be directed to the contact given below: Pesticide Usage Survey Team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462 410 Alternatively, please contact: Fera Science Ltd. at: [email protected] DATA USES

The data are used for a number of purposes including:

• Quantifying pesticide usage and changes in the use of active substances over time;

• Policy, including assessing the economic and/or environmental implications of the introduction of new active

substances and the withdrawal/non-authorisation of pesticide products (the data reported to organisations such as

the OECD and EU enabling the UK to honour international agreements); evaluating changes in growing methods

and Integrated Pest Management where this has an impact on pesticide usage;

• Informing the pesticide risk assessment (authorisation) process;

• Informing the targeting of monitoring programmes for residues in food and the environment;

• Contributing to assessing the impact of pesticide use, principally as part of the Pesticides Forum’s Annual

Report;

• Responding to enquiries (for example, Parliamentary Questions, correspondence, queries under the Freedom of

Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations, etc.);

• Providing information to assist research projects which can support all the above activities;

• Training/teaching programmes which are designed to improve practice in the use of pesticides by the

farming/training industries;

• Informing the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) programme to help identify potential misuse of pesticides.

REVISIONS POLICY This report presents a comprehensive summary of data for edible protected crops grown and taken to harvest in 2017. We will provide information on any revisions we make to the report or the datasets if any inaccuracies or errors occur. Details of any revisions, including the date upon which they were changed, will appear on the following website:

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html

mailto:[email protected]


iii

CONTENTS Page

Overview of main findings 1

Introduction 2

Edible protected crops – an overview 3

Explanatory notes for the 2017 report 4

Trends 6

Crops 8

Pesticide usage 9

Pesticide usage on tomatoes 10

Pesticide usage on cucumbers 14

Pesticide usage on peppers 17

Pesticide usage on lettuce 20

Pesticide usage on other vegetables 23

Pesticide usage on edible plants for propagation 27

Pesticide usage on strawberries 31

Pesticide usage on other fruit 35

Appendix 1 Applications and areas grown 38

Comparisons 48

Appendix 2 Other compounds 54

Appendix 3 Biopesticide usage on edible protected crops 55

Appendix 4 Definitions 56

Appendix 5 Methodology 57

Appendix 6 Standard error calculations 61

Appendix 7 First raising factor – edible protected crops 68

Acknowledgements 69

References 69

1

OVERVIEW OF MAIN FINDINGS

This was the fourth survey of usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom. Previous surveys were conducted in 2015, 2013 and 2011. Previous reports can be found at: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm

Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from

247 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 2,562 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops. The

survey included glasshouse and permanent polythene structures but excluded French or Spanish Tunnels which are

temporary structures. Crops included in the survey were tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other vegetables; edible

plants in propagation; strawberries; and other fruit. The sample accounted for 39% of the total area of edible protected

crops grown in the United Kingdom during the 2016/17 season.

The area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2,377 hectares, had increased by 9% since 2015 and by 20% since 2013. Other vegetable crops accounted for 42% of the total area of edible protected crops grown: lettuce 18%, edible plants in propagation 13%, tomatoes 9%, strawberries 7%, cucumbers 6%, peppers 4% and other fruit 1%. Approximately 26% of the total area of edible protected crops was grown in Yorkshire & the Humber, 22% in the Eastern region, 21% in the West Midlands, 12% in London & the South East, 11% in the North West, 3% in the East Midlands, 2% in the South West and 1% or less in each of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North East.

Approximately 27% of the area treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents) was cropped with strawberries, 18% with other vegetables, 18% with lettuce, 17% with tomatoes, 11% with edible plants in propagation, 4% with cucumbers and 2% with other fruit and peppers.

The protected and enclosed environment is particularly suitable for the use of living biological control agents and pollinators and this has been widely exploited by growers with biological control agents (see definitions) accounting for 51% of the total pesticide-treated area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom in 2017, fungicides 25%, insecticides 13%, disinfectants 5%, herbicides 2%, acaricides 2%, physical control agents 1%, sulphur 1%, molluscicides 1%, and soil sterilants, growth regulators and tar oil/acid all 1% or less each.

By contrast, disinfectants accounted for 40% of the total weight of pesticide active substances applied, soil sterilants 28%, fungicides 20%, physical control agents 6%, insecticides 3%, sulphur 2%, herbicides 1% and acaricides, molluscicides, tar oil/acids and growth regulators all less than 1% each. For many crops, including peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers, biological control agents were the main applications, exceeding the number of conventional insecticide applications. Biological control agents are not normally associated with a weight as they are mainly living organisms – see definitions.

The registered pesticide-treated area in 2017, 16,016 hectares, had increased by 16% since 2011but decreased by 5% since 2015. The weight of pesticides applied in 2017, 24,182 kg, has decreased by 31% since 2011 and by 51% since 2015. Since 2015, the reduction in weight of pesticide applied is primarily due to the reduction in weight of sulphur (80%), insecticides (75%), fungicides (60%) and soil sterilants (39%) used.

Between 2015 and 2017 the insecticide treated area has increased by 16% but the weight of insecticides used has reduced by 75% over the same period. The withdrawal of most uses of chlorpyrifos and its substitution by other insecticides using lower rates of active substance is a significant factor in this change.

The fungicide treated area has remained relatively unchanged (-1%) since 2015, however the weight of fungicide applied has decreased by 60% over the same period. The weight of food grade potassium hydrogen carbonate applied has reduced by 81% since 2015. The tomato crop is the primary reason for this reduction in usage with 96% less applied since 2015. However it is worth noting the weight of potassium hydrogen carbonate applied to strawberries has almost doubled since 2015.

The use of soil sterilants decreased in 2017, a 32% fall in treated area and a reduction of 39% in weight applied since 2015. There was a return to the use of steam for soil sterilisation on 5 hectares, and the first encountered use of a Caliente mustard crop (methyl isothiocyanate) as a soil biofumigant.

The area treated with biopesticides increased by 19% between 2015 and 2017. Coniothyrium minitans and Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki were the main active substances showing an increase in usage.

Important active substances encountered for the first time in 2017 included the fungicide isopyrazam, used primarily on tomatoes and cucumbers. Fluopyram and trifloxystrobin as a co-formulation were recorded for the first time on strawberries, lettuce and edible plants in propagation. A new strain of the bioinsecticide Beauveria bassiana GHA was recorded on tomatoes, cucumbers and strawberries.


2

INTRODUCTION

This survey helps inform the work of the Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) which advises government on all aspects of pesticide use. In order to discharge this function, the Committee must regularly monitor the usage of all pesticides. It needs accurate data on the usage of individual pesticides. Pesticide usage data are now also required under the EU Statistics Regulation (1185/2009/EC).

As part of the on-going process for obtaining data, the Pesticide Usage Survey Teams of Fera, a joint venture between Capita PLC and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra); Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), a division of the Scottish Government’s Agriculture and Rural Economy Directorate and the Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI), a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland (DARD) conducted surveys of pesticide usage in edible protected crops in 2016/17 by visiting holdings throughout the United Kingdom during the winter of 2017/18.

Since 2010, all surveys of pesticide usage in agriculture and horticulture have been fully co-ordinated by the survey teams of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The methodology used for sample selection and the collection of data from sample holdings is identical in each region. However, since 2013, protected fruit crops from Scotland and Northern Ireland have been excluded from the protected crops survey but included in the surveys of soft fruit crops undertaken by all teams.

Reports are produced of pesticide usage throughout the United Kingdom. All teams have undertaken recent United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) audits and the data are accredited as National Statistics.

Additional data on crop agronomy are collected for all surveys but may not be presented within the report. For additional

data relating to the surveys please refer to the contacts below.

Information on all aspects of pesticide usage in the United Kingdom as a whole, or for Wales or the Defra regions of England, may be obtained from the Pesticide Usage Survey Team at Fera, Sand Hutton, York, UK YO41 1LZ.

For further information please contact:

The survey team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462 410

Or visit the website: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm

Alternatively, please contact: Fera at: [email protected]

Further data relating specifically to Scotland may be obtained from the Pesticide Usage Survey Team at Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture, Edinburgh. Also available at:

http://www.sasa.gov.uk/pesticides/pesticide-usage/pesticide-usage-survey-reports

Copies of reports on pesticide usage in Northern Ireland may be obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Offices. Also available at:

https://www.afbini.gov.uk/articles/pesticide-usage-monitoring-reports

Recently-published reports for the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England & Wales and Northern Ireland can also be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at:


Alternatively, pesticide data for the UK can be extracted using the search tool – PUSSTATS:

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/




http://www.sasa.gov.uk/pesticides/pesticide-usage/pesticide-usage-survey-reports

https://www.afbini.gov.uk/articles/pesticide-usage-monitoring-reports


https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/

3

OVERVIEW OF EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS

This report contains information on the application of pesticides to edible protected crops planted throughout 2017 and

harvested during 2017 or in early 2018. However, some strawberry crops would have been planted in autumn 2016. The

survey covered a 12-month cropping period for each holding during the 2016/2017 growing season. This 12-month

cropping period is predefined according to the growing seasons of the individual edible protected crops encountered on

each holding.

Whilst data are presented in eight major crop groupings throughout the report they include information from 202 separate

crops.

This survey includes glasshouse and permanent polythene structures only. It does not include temporary polythene

structures such as French or Spanish poly-tunnels.

Growing edible protected crops commercially is a specialist operation with many of the larger growers having to ensure a

continuity of supply for major retailers. In some cases, and to ensure continuity from the larger growers, supply from the

United Kingdom is augmented with edible protected crops, such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, lettuce and baby-leaf

vegetables, imported from abroad.

The benefits in growing crops in a protected environment, permanent glasshouse structures or polythene tunnels, are that

the conditions within the structure can be closely monitored and maintained. It also means that use of biological control

agents and pollinators can be maximised within the enclosed environment. The disadvantages include increased energy

costs and the incidence of pests such as leaf miner and glasshouse whitefly that reproduce rapidly under these conditions.

The sample selected for the survey covers five separate holding size groups (please see the Methodology section on page

57) which ensure that all types of management are represented within the survey. Within the United Kingdom there is a

marked difference of behaviours between the smaller and the larger holdings. Smaller holdings are often growing a

diverse range of crops used to supply a retail or local market, whilst the larger holdings, who regularly supply the major

retailers directly, are more specialised and grow one or possibly two crops (e.g. tomatoes & peppers) or crop groups such

as herbs or baby leaf vegetables. Larger holdings propagating edible plants, normally for outdoor production, will grow a

vast range of crops but the way in which they are grown, normally in module trays or rockwool cubes, is consistent.

Most farms sampled, 60%, were members of one or more crop assurance schemes. The aim of the crop assurance

schemes is to provide consumers and retailers with confidence about product quality including food safety and

environmental protection. Of relevance are the assurance scheme requirements to follow strict protocols in the approved

use and recording of pesticide applications, these records are used widely by members of the survey team in the collection

of accurate data sets.

The demands from major retailers, in terms of the quality of edible protected crops purchased, are extremely high and,

consequently, the use of biological control agents, insecticides, fungicides and disinfectants needs to match these

requirements. As this is a specialist area, many of the staff involved on the nursery are well trained and have a high level

of expertise in monitoring pest and disease incidence around the site. Pesticide recommendations from qualified

agronomists are made in discussion with the trained staff on site.

Both tomatoes and peppers are single cropped, normally being planted in December or January and being pulled out in

the following October or November. Strawberries are normally planted in July or August with the first harvest taking

place in the autumn, a second harvest from the same crop occurs in the spring with the plants being pulled out in June and

July. Occasionally a single cucumber crop will be grown but normally there will be two or three crops grown during the

year. Multiple cropping, particularly for a crop such as lettuce, is widely used, with up to five crops being grown during

the year. Other crops such as baby leaf vegetables and herbs can either have several sequential plantings or a single

planting with multiple cuts during the year.

Although some crops, such as lettuce and baby leaf vegetables, are grown in the soil, others such as tomatoes, cucumbers

and peppers are grown in rockwool or coir blocks. Strawberries are normally grown in bags on a table top system to

make picking more efficient. Raspberries & blackberries are normally grown in pots stood on the ground.

4

EXPLAN/ATORY NOTES FOR THE 2017 REPORT

The range of crops and products used, which include both authorised and non-authorised active substances, the use of

different substrates and multiple cropping all combine to make this report the most complicated of the series of reports

published by the team. This report is based on over 18,000 rows of pesticide data. The following are some explanatory

notes to help the reader.

Authorised/non-authorised pesticides, biopesticides/biological control agents: terminology and classification for

purposes of this report.

Reports prior to 2013 used the term ‘registered’ pesticides, however the requirements of Regulation 1107/2009 mean that

we need to change the terminology used in this report.

• Pesticide products require to be ‘authorised’; their constituent active substances require to be ‘approved’.

• Biopesticides (such as Bacillus subtilis) also require to be ‘authorised’.

• Biological control agents (usually living parasites or predators), the most important group encountered in edible

protected crops, do not require authorisation.

‘Pesticides’: For clarity, this report refers to all authorised active substances and pesticides products (including

biopesticides) simply as ‘pesticides’ and ‘active substances’. All biopesticides have been grouped with either insecticides

or fungicides depending on their intended target, be it a fungal pathogen or insect pest. With the exception of Figures 4 &

5 and Table 13 all references to insecticides or fungicides also include biopesticides.

‘Biological control agents’: This category includes macro-biological control agents such as predatory mites and

parasitic wasps. In previous years, biopesticides and biological control agents were grouped together. However, this

report treats biological control agents separately since they do not require authorisation.

‘Other pesticides’: These include a number of products which are classified as either ‘disinfectants’ or ‘physical control

agents’, some require authorisation (such as benzoic acid and maltodextrin) and others do not. See Appendix 4 on page

56 for more details.

Seed Treatments

In line with previous reports and in order to make historical comparisons consistent, no seed treatment data are presented

in the current report. Many of the crops are grown from modules, blocks or other planting material originally grown from

seed by plant propagators. For these crops the seed and seed treatment information is recorded with the data collected

from plant propagators. Crops grown from seed account for half of the total cropping area but account for less than 3% of

the total treated area. Seed treatment data have been collected and these data can be extracted if required.

Volumetric Rates

Because of the range of crops grown and the differing methods of application, the water volumes used vary from crop to

crop and from grower to grower. The range of water volumes used by horticultural growers varies from 150-200 litres

per hectare, up to 2,000 litres per hectare for crops such as peppers and strawberries. Whilst rates per hectare are

generally applicable to broad acre crops, most applications to protected crops are based on volumetric rates where there is

a dilution rate based on the number of grams or millilitres of product used per litre of water. Therefore, as the volume of

water goes up, so does the rate of application. As such, some of the rates in the report may appear high because they are

being compared to data on a product database which may be using a lower volume of water to calculate an application

rate.

Strawberries

Within permanent protected structures the majority of strawberries are grown in bags on raised table tops. Crops are

normally planted late summer (in this case 2016) for cropping in the autumn and spring of the following year. Although

these plants are cropped twice for the purposes of this report they have been dealt with as a single crop as the same plants

are used in both autumn and spring. In addition, and because of changes to the way in which data were collected, there is

no information on strawberries grown in Scotland. Data relating to these crops will be published in the 2018 soft fruit

survey.

5

Standard Errors

The standard errors calculated for this report may appear high, 4.4% for area treated and 14% for weight applied, when

compared to other surveys. However, these figures should not be used to diminish the value or validity of the report

which sampled approximately 39% of the area grown. What the figures reflect is the variability in number of applications

to individual edible protected crops, from no treatment to multiple applications. It is unlikely that even by increasing the

size of the sample that this variability would be reduced and this extreme variability would still be present, and produce

higher standard errors even if all holdings were “sampled”. The greater variability within the standard error for weight is,

in part, due to the relatively high rates of usage of disinfectants, which are often applied at a rate much greater than that

for conventional pesticides.

Usage of Tar oil, Glass cleaners, Detergents and Growth Stimulants

Usage of tar oils/acid in this survey is minor and confined to glasshouse cleaning, or equipment within it, prior to the

planting of crops. Growth stimulants and glass cleaners are reported in Appendix 2. Whilst the usage of glass cleaners is

primarily to increase light penetration through the glass, use of growth stimulants is, in the main, management by growers

to increase plant health, thereby allowing them to build up their own resistance and avoid disease infection.

Please also refer to Definitions, Appendix 4, on page 56.

6

TRENDS

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 1 - Area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (hectares)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 2 - Overall pesticide treated area of edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017

(treated hectares)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 3 - Overall weight of pesticides applied to edible protected crops in the United

Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (kilogrammes)

7

TRENDS (cont.)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Acaricides Insecticides Biopesticides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides

Figure 4 - Changes in the area treated with the major pesticide groups applied to edible

protected crops in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (hectares treated)1

2011

2013

2015

2017

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

Acaricides Insecticides Biopesticides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Soil sterilants

Figure 5 - Changes in the weight of the major pesticide groups applied to edible protected

crops in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (kilogrammes applied)1

2011

2013

2015

2017

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2011 2013 2015 2017

Figure 6 - Changes in the use of biological control agents applied to edible protected crops

in the United Kingdom - 2011 - 2017

Area treated (ha)

Weight applied (kg)

1Whilst figures 4 & 5 separate biopesticides from insecticides and fungicides; these are the only figures in this report to do so.

8

CROPS

Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from

247 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 2,562 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops. Crops

included in the survey were tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, other vegetables, edible plants in propagation,

strawberries, and other fruit. The sample accounted for 39% of the total area of edible protected crops grown in the

United Kingdom during the 2016/17 season. Data for crops such as other vegetables, whilst accounting for a significant

area, are not split because of the lack of availability of June Survey/Horticultural Statistics data.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

EastMidlands

Eastern London &South East

North East North West South West WestMidlands

Yorkshire& the

Humber

Wales Scotland NorthernIreland

Figure 7 - Regional distribution of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom -

2017 (hectares)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other vegetables Edible plants in

propagation

Strawberries Other fruit

Figure 8 - Relative areas of the different edible protected crops grown in the

United Kingdom - 2017 (hectares)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EastMidlands



Yorkshire &the Humber


Pe

rcen

tage o

f to

tal

Figure 9 - Comparison of regional distribution of the area grown and area treated for edible

protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area grown

Area treated

9

PESTICIDE USAGE

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EastMidlands



Yorkshire &the Humber


Pe

rcen

tage o

f to

tal

Figure 10 - Regional distribution of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the

United Kingdom - 2017 (area treated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Insecticides Fungicides Biological control

agents

Soil sterilants Sulphur Physical control

agents

Perc

enta

ge o

f to

tal

Figure 11 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biological control agents Sulphur Physical control agents

Figure 12 - Average number of applications made to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2017 1

1In Figure 12 insecticides and fungicides both contain biopesticides used to control insect and fungal pathogens respectively.

10

PESTICIDE USAGE ON TOMATOES

• 223 hectares of tomatoes grown in the United Kingdom

• 3,088 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)

• 13,276 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)

• 9,496 hectares treated with biological control agents

• 2.1% of tomatoes remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been

applied to the crop

• Where treated, tomatoes received on average 28 biological control agents, 4 fungicides, 3 physical control

agents, 3 insecticides and 3 sulphur sprays during the growing season. Other pesticides used included

disinfectants, acaricides, growth regulators, soil sterilants, herbicides and tar oils/acids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Acaricides Biological

control agents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Sulphur Physical

control agents

Perc

enta

ge o

f to

tal

Figure 13 - Usage of the major pesticides on tomatoes in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 14 - Timing of pesticide applications on tomatoes - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide

Biological controlagents

Acaricide

11

Tomatoes – Fungicides (including biopesticides)

• Area treated: 530 hectares

• Weight of active substances applied: 532 kg

• The five most common formulations by area treated were:

Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Isopyrazam 194 36 0.37 0.53 1.63 0.80

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 96 59 0.18 0.32 1.34 0.99

Penconazole 73 3 0.14 0.09 3.70 0.79

Cyflufenamid 61 1 0.11 0.16 1.75 0.97

Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 25 1 0.05 0.09 1.20 0.50

42%

21%

13%

9%

7%

6%

2%

Figure 15 - Tomatoes - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

botrytis

botrytis/mildew

mildew

Pythium

Phytopthora

Cladosporium

other diseases

Usage of sulphur accounted for 12% of the area treated and 6% of the weight applied. The main usage, 77%, was for

powdery mildew control with a further 23% of applications being made for unspecified mildews.

12

Tomatoes – Insecticides (including biopesticides)



• The five most common formulations were:

Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 283 145 0.30 0.31 4.11 0.99

Pyrethrins 207 21 0.22 0.38 2.41 0.27

Spinosad 167 29 0.18 0.49 1.52 1.00

Beauveria bassiana GHA 106 14 0.11 0.12 3.85 0.65

Indoxacarb 60 2 0.06 0.11 2.41 0.53

46%

12%

6%

5%

5%

5%

4%

17%

Figure 16 - Tomatoes - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)

leaf miner

whitefly

caterpillars

mealy bug

aphids

Tuta

Tuta/other leaf miners

other pests

The control of leaf miners (Liriomyza spp. and Tuta absoluta) was the main reason specified for the use of insecticides in

the tomato crop. A combination of the two species accounted for 55% of all insecticide usage. Usage of the pheromone

mating disruptor, (E,Z)-3,8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/(E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate was encountered on a

small area to reduce the reproduction of Tuta absoluta.

13

Tomatoes – Biological control

• Area treated: 9,496 hectares

• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms

• The five most common biological control agents were:

Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Encarsia formosa 6,848 N/A 0.72 0.86 35.84 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis 896 N/A 0.09 0.33 12.08 N/A

Aphidoletes aphidimyza 804 N/A 0.08 0.32 11.32 N/A

Macrolophus pygmaeus 370 N/A 0.04 0.94 1.77 N/A

Aphidius ervi 284 N/A 0.03 0.18 7.00 N/A

Encarsia formosa and Macrolophus pygmaeus were used primarily to control glasshouse whitefly and tobacco whitefly.

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite and leaf miners, Aphidoletes

aphidimyza and Aphidius ervi were used for control of aphids in the tomato crop.

Bees were important for the pollination of this crop, being used on 96% of the area grown.

Tomatoes – Other pesticides

Use of physical control agents was also important and they were the major “Other pesticide” group used accounting for

8% of the total treated area and 8% of the weight applied (excluding biological control agents). Maltodextrin, for aphid

control, was the most important physical control agent recorded accounting for 97% of the total area treated with physical

control agents.

Disinfectants, including hydrogen peroxide, glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium complex, peroxyacetic acid and

peroxygen compounds comprised 28% of the total treated area (excluding biological control agents).

Spirodiclofen (37%), abamectin (35%) and etoxazole (28%) were the only acaricides encountered, with control of leaf

miner accounting for 51% and two-spotted spider mite for 49% of all acaricide applications. Although acaricides are

primarily used for mite control, some also have insecticidal properties.

Dazomet was the only soil sterilant encountered, comprising less than 1% of the area treated and 2% of the weight

applied.

There was minimal use of herbicides, molluscicides and tar oils/acid on tomatoes.

14

PESTICIDE USAGE ON CUCUMBERS

• 140 hectares of cucumbers grown in the United Kingdom

• 721 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)



• 0.6% of cucumbers remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have

been applied to the crop

• Where treated, cucumbers received on average 10 biological control agents, 3 fungicides, 3 insecticides

and 1 acaricide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, physical control

agents and molluscicides

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Acaricides Biological control

agents

Disinfectants

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tota

l

Figure 17 - Usage of the major pesticides on cucumbers in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 18 - Timing of pesticide applications on cucumbers - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide


15

Cucumbers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Fosetyl-aluminium/

propamocarb hydrochloride 85 195 0.21 0.51 1.19 0.91

Isopyrazam 60 8 0.14 0.25 1.73 0.66

Azoxystrobin 53 14 0.13 0.30 1.27 0.79

Penconazole 42 1 0.10 0.19 1.56 0.72

Myclobutanil 40 2 0.10 0.19 1.49 0.55

50%

23%

8%

7%

6%

2% 2%2%

Figure 19 - Cucumbers - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

powdery mildew

Pythium

botrytis/mildew

botrytis/Mycosphaerella

Mycosphaerella/powdery mildew

Mycosphaerella

downy mildew

other diseases

Control of root diseases, such as Pythium spp. is normally done soon after planting, applying a fungicide such as fosetyl-

aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride through the irrigation lines into the rockwool, coir or foam blocks in which the

cucumber is planted.

Cucumbers are a crop which has shown significant decreases in pesticide, particularly fungicides, inputs over the last

thirty years.

16

Cucumbers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 48 4 0.42 0.07 4.66 0.78

Beauveria bassiana GHA 27 5 0.23 0.07 2.89 0.84

Pymetrozine 25 8 0.22 0.17 1.05 0.60

Spinosad 12 1 0.10 0.08 1.07 0.65

Flonicamid 1 0 0.01 0.01 1.00 1.00

Forty-eight percent of insecticides were used for the control of western flower thrips/two-spotted spider mite, 40% for

two-spotted spider mite control and 9% for aphids and whitefly.

Cucumbers – Biological control




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate


Encarsia formosa 434 N/A 0.29 0.32 9.76 N/A

Neoseiulus cucumeris 187 N/A 0.13 0.72 1.85 N/A

Aphidius colemani 125 N/A 0.08 0.09 9.56 N/A

Amblyseius montdorensis 62 N/A 0.04 0.06 8.00 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite, Encarsia formosa primarily to control

glasshouse whitefly, Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris was used to control western flower thrips and Aphidius

colemani for aphids. Amblyseius montdorensis was used for the control of whitefly and thrips.

Cucumbers – Other pesticides

Abamectin (92%) and spirodiclofen (8%) were the only acaricides recorded with 77% being used for the control of two-

spotted spider mite and the remaining 23% being used for unspecified spider mites.

Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid and peroxygen compounds accounted for 42% of the disinfectant treated area.

There was minimal usage of physical control agents or molluscicides.

17

PESTICIDE USAGE ON PEPPERS

• 85 hectares of peppers grown in the United Kingdom




• 1.3% of peppers remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been

applied to the crop

• Where treated, peppers received on average 26 biological control agents and 3 insecticides during the

growing season. Other pesticides used included fungicides, disinfectants, physical control agents, soil

sterilants and herbicides

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides &

nematicides

Biological control

agents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physical control

agents

Perc

enta

ge o

f to

tal

Figure 20 - Usage of the major pesticides on peppers in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 21 - Timing of pesticide applications on peppers - 2017

Insecticide


18

Peppers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)

• Area treated: <1 hectare


• The only formulations encountered by area treated were:

Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 <1 <1 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.63

Coniothyrium minitans <1 1 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.78

There was minimal usage of fungicides during the 2017 season.

Peppers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of full

label rate

Pyrethrins 66 3 0.22 0.28 2.77 0.36

Pymetrozine 63 21 0.21 0.63 1.17 volumetric

Spinosad 46 6 0.15 0.42 1.29 volumetric

Pirimicarb 45 5 0.15 0.42 1.26 0.86


Aphid control was cited for 66% of insecticide usage, caterpillars 29% and leaf-hopper 4%.

19

Peppers – Biological control




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate






Aphidius colemani, Aphidius ervi and Aphidoletes aphidimyza were all used to control aphids within the pepper crop;

Phytoseiulus persimilis for the control of two-spotted spider mites. Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris was used

to control western flower thrips.

There is a great reliance on the use of biological control agents to reduce pest infestations in pepper crops. It is common

practice to introduce 3 or 4 different predators or parasites each week/fortnight throughout the growing season which can

span between 9 or 10 months resulting in an average of 26 applications during the season.

Bees were important for the pollination of some (66%), but not all, crops.

Peppers – Other pesticides

Disinfectants were the main group of other pesticides accounting for 30% of the total pesticide treated area (excluding

biological control agents).

No acaricides were recorded and there was minimal usage of physical control agents and soil sterilants. Soil sterilants

accounted for less than 1% of the area treated but 25% of the weight applied.

20

PESTICIDE USAGE ON LETTUCE

• 420 hectares of lettuce grown in the United Kingdom



• 34 hectares treated with biological control agents

• 3.5% of lettuce remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been

applied to the crop

• Where treated, lettuce received on average 3 fungicides, 3 insecticides and 1 herbicide during the growing

season. Other pesticides used included biological control agents, physical control agents, molluscicides

and disinfectants

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Herbicides Biological control

agents

Soil sterilants

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tota

l

Figure 22 - Usage of the major pesticides on lettuce in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 23 - Timing of pesticide applications on lettuce - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide

Herbicide

21

Lettuce – Fungicides (including biopesticides)


• Weight of active substances applied: 1,965 kg


Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Azoxystrobin 354 89 0.17 0.79 1.06 1.00

Mandipropamid 255 38 0.12 0.61 1.00 1.00

Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 221 250 0.11 0.44 1.19 0.92


Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 171 84 0.08 0.39 1.04 0.98

40%

32%

8%

6%

4%4%

2%

4%

Figure 24 - Lettuce - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

mildew

botrytis

botrytis/mildew

Sclerotinia

downy mildew

Rhizoctonia

Sclerotinia/Rhizoctonia

other diseases

22

Lettuce – Insecticides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Spirotetramat 302 23 0.32 0.56 1.43 1.00

Pymetrozine 207 36 0.22 0.44 1.53 0.88

Indoxacarb 132 3 0.14 0.21 1.46 0.97

Spinosad 122 12 0.13 0.29 1.01 1.00

Pirimicarb 79 18 0.08 0.19 1.00 1.00

Most insecticides, 84%, were used to control aphids, caterpillars accounted for 13% and thrips 4%.

Lettuce – Other pesticides

Herbicide usage has continued to decline as noted in previous surveys. Propyzamide was the only herbicide used

accounting for just 4% of the overall treated area. The use of polythene mulches to prevent basal lettuce leaves coming

into contact with the soil and as mulch for weed control may account for some of the reduction in herbicide usage.

Only minimal molluscicide use was recorded, ferric phosphate was the only molluscicide encountered.

The use of a burner on 19 hectares was the only physical control agent used.

Minimal use of hydrogen peroxide was the only disinfectant encountered.

The major biological control agent encountered was Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita, used for the control of slugs on 33

treated hectares.

The soil sterilant, methyl isothiocyanate, sown as a Caliente brand mustard crop prior to the planting of 1.72 hectares of

lettuce was the only soil sterilant usage encountered.

23

PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER VEGETABLES

• 988 hectares of other vegetables grown in the United Kingdom



• Soil sterilants accounted for less than 1% of the treated area but for 83% of the weight applied


• 18% of other vegetables remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may

have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, other vegetables received on average 10 biological control agents, 2 physical control

agents, 2 fungicides, 2 insecticides, 1 herbicide and 1 molluscicide during the growing season. Other

pesticides used included disinfectants, soil sterilants, acaricides, sulphur and tar oils/acids

• The principal crops in this category, which numbered almost 100 different crops included baby leaf salad;

cress; lamb’s lettuce; herbs (some of which were grown as baby leaf crops); Chinese vegetables; radish;

and spinach

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Herbicides Molluscicides

& repellents

Biological

control agents

Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physical

control agents

Perc

enta

ge o

f to

tal

Figure 25 - Usage of the major pesticides on other vegetables in the United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 26 - Timing of pesticide applications on other vegetables - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide


24

Other vegetables – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Mandipropamid 583 87 0.37 0.59 1.00 1.00




Metalaxyl-M 83 5 0.05 0.08 1.00 1.00

53%

27%

14%

4%

2%

Figure 27 - Other vegetables - Reason for use of fungicides - (where specified)

downy mildew

botrytis

Sclerotinia

Sclerotinia/Rhizoctonia

other diseases

25

Other vegetables – Insecticides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate


Acetamiprid 163 8 0.30 0.16 1.00 1.00

Spinosad 54 5 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00

Pyrethrins 49 6 0.09 0.02 2.08 3.56

Lambda-cyhalothrin 40 <1 0.07 0.03 1.15 0.86

42%

30%

20%

4%

2% 1%1%

Figure 28 - Other vegetables - Reason for use of insecticides - (where specified)

flea beetle

aphids

caterpillars

asparagus beetle

caterpillars/whitefly

potato aphid

whitefly

26

Other vegetables – Biological control




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate


Orius laevigatus 30 N/A 0.18 0.01 4.64 N/A




Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris and Orius Laevigatus were used primarily for western flower thrips control.

Aphidius colemani, Aphidoletes aphidimyza and Aphidius ervi were all used for aphid control.

Bees were important for the pollination of some crops, for example aubergines.

Other vegetables – Other pesticides

The main herbicide recorded on other vegetable crops was diquat (99% of the treated area) and would have been used to

clear the ground prior to planting or for crop destruction after harvest.

Physical control agents comprised 8% of the total area of other vegetables treated and 9% of the weight applied.

Maltodextrin accounted for 97% of the total area treated with physical control agents.

Molluscicides accounted for 5% of the total treated area of other vegetables with ferric phosphate accounting for 71% of

the total and metaldehyde 29%.

The soil sterilant metam-sodium, used prior to planting 2 hectares of soil grown crops, and dazomet used on a further 17

hectares were the most important “other pesticides” used on other vegetables accounting for 1% of the area treated but for

83% of the weight applied. The use of steam was recorded as a soil sterilant on 5 hectares of other vegetables.

Sulphur, acaricides and tar oil/acids each accounted for less than 1% of the total area treated.

27

PESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PLANTS IN PROPAGATION

• 319 hectares of edible plants in propagation grown in the United Kingdom



• Fungicides accounted for 56% of the treated area and 60% of the weight applied


• 5.4% of edible plants in propagation remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol

organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, edible plants in propagation received on average 10 biological control agents, 5 fungicides,

3 acaricides, 3 sulphur applications, 3 molluscicides, 2 insecticides and 2 molluscicides during the growing

season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, physical control agents and herbicides (underneath

greenhouse staging)

• Crops included both vegetable and fruit crops, with lettuce; brassicas; tomatoes; celery; cucumber; leeks;

and strawberries for propagation being the most important crops recorded

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Molluscicides &

repellents

Acaricides Biological control

agents

Disinfectants

Perc

en

tag

e o

f to

tal

Figure 29 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible plants in propagation in the

United Kingdom - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 30 - Timing of pesticide applications on edible plants in propagation - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide

Acaricide

28

Edible plants in propagation – Fungicides




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Fosetyl-aluminium/

propamocarb hydrochloride 129 1,133 0.12 0.40 1.00 0.67



Myclobutanil 93 8 0.09 0.09 3.19 0.92

Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 63 80 0.06 0.20 1.00 1.00

Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride used for controlling damping off and mildew in newly sown seed

accounted for 49% of the weight of fungicides applied.

36%

30%

24%

3%7%

Figure 31 - Edible plants in propagation - Reasons for use of fungicides (where

specified)

downy mildew

botrytis

mildew

leaf spot

other diseases

Sulphur, which accounted for 3% of the total treated area and 4% of the weight applied was used for powdery mildew

control.

29

Edible plants in propagation – Insecticides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Spirotetramat 84 6 0.28 0.26 1.01 1.00

Pymetrozine 36 7 0.12 0.11 1.03 1.00

Pirimicarb 35 9 0.12 0.05 2.07 0.92

Cyantraniliprole 34 4 0.11 0.11 1.00 1.00

Spinosad 31 59 0.10 0.10 1.00 1.00

70%

19%

9%

2%<1%

Figure 32 - Edible plants in propagation - Reasons for use of insecticides

(where specified)

aphids

caterpillars/cabbage root fly

cabbage root fly

aphids/caterpillars

other pests

30

Edible plants in propagation – Biological control




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Aphidius spp. 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A


Dacnusa sibirica 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A

Diglyphus isaea 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A

Hypoaspis spp. 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A

Aphidius spp. and Aphidoletes aphidimyza were all used for aphid control. Dacnusa sibirica and Diglyphus isaea were

used for leaf miner control. Hypoaspis spp. were used for sciarid fly control.

Most biological control applications, 64%, were made in October.

Edible plants in propagation – Acaricides




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

acaricide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Abamectin 61 1 0.48 0.08 2.39 0.94

Tebufenpyrad 22 5 0.17 0.07 1.00 0.71

Etoxazole 20 1 0.16 0.06 1.04 0.78

Bifenazate 19 3 0.15 0.04 1.51 1.00

Clofentezine 6 1 0.05 0.02 1.00 1.00

Almost all (99.99%) acaricide usage was on fruit plants in propagation, rather than vegetable plants.

Edible plants in propagation – Other pesticides

Disinfectants were the most important “other pesticides” used, accounting for 18% of the total by area treated and 30% by

weight applied. Peroxyacetic acid accounted for 47% of the total area and was used mainly as a wash to disinfect trays

and pots prior to the planting of a new crop.

There was minimal usage of physical control agents, molluscicides and herbicides.

There was no use of soil sterilants recorded.

31

PESTICIDE USAGE ON STRAWBERRIES

• 176 hectares of strawberries grown in England & Wales




• 0.2% of strawberries remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, strawberries received on average 14 biological control agents, 13 fungicides, 5 insecticides

and 2 acaricides during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, physical control

agents and sulphur

• Crops are normally planted in late summer and cropped in the autumn and again in the spring. For the

purposes of this report we have treated this as a single crop as the plants for both cropping periods are

the same.

• Because of the way in which data were collected there is no information on strawberries grown in

Scotland or Northern Ireland. Data relating to these crops will be published in the 2018 soft fruit survey

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Acaricides Biological control

agents

Disinfectants Sulphur

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tota

l

Figure 33 - Usage of the major pesticides on strawberries in England & Wales - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 34 - Timing of pesticide applications to strawberries - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide


Acaricide

32

Strawberries – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Myclobutanil 330 28 0.11 0.64 2.10 0.95



Iprodione 239 173 0.08 0.62 1.84 0.96

Azoxystrobin 229 57 0.08 0.61 1.65 1.00

42%

30%

15%

5%

4%4%

Figure 35 - Strawberries - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)

botrytis

powdery mildew

mildew

botrytis/powdery mildew

black spot/botrytis

black spot/mildew

The average number of fungicide applications used on strawberries was 13 which may seem high. However, because of

the way in which the data are presented this relates to a single crop that is cropped twice from planting in late summer of

2016 being pulled out in May and June of 2017. This is an exceptionally long period in which to keep a crop free from

disease, particularly diseases such as powdery mildew and botrytis.

Usage of sulphur was minimal and accounted for <1% of the area treated and of the weight applied.

33

Strawberries – Insecticides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate


Lambda-cyhalothrin 263 2 0.21 0.80 1.93 0.64

Thiacloprid 234 28 0.19 0.68 1.62 0.99

Pymetrozine 93 18 0.08 0.34 1.18 0.99

Spinosad 51 4 0.04 0.17 1.75 0.93

48%

13%

6%

5%

5%

4%

3%

3%13%

Figure 36 - Strawberries - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)

aphids

caterpillars

capsid

whitefly

thrips/whitefly

caterpillars/thrips

aphids/capsid/whitefly

aphids/whitefly

other pests

Strawberries – Acaricides




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

acaricide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Abamectin 90 1 0.28 0.22 2.21 0.92

Bifenazate 84 9 0.26 0.33 1.11 0.72

Clofentezine 68 14 0.21 0.29 1.08 0.96

Tebufenpyrad 43 7 0.13 0.25 1.00 0.48

Etoxazole 24 1 0.07 0.12 1.39 volumetric

Seventy-six percent of acaricide applications were made to control two-spotted spider mite, 16% for tarsonemid/two-

spotted spider mite, 4% for whitefly and the remaining 4% being used for a combination of unspecified spider mites and

other pests.

34

Strawberries – Biological control




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Phytoseiulus persimilis 1,076 N/A 0.29 0.89 7.04 N/A


Amblyseius swirskii 746 N/A 0.20 0.76 5.88 N/A

Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius

colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius

matricariae/Ephedrus

cerasicola/Praon volucre

510 N/A 0.14 0.78 3.88 N/A

Orius laevigatus 236 N/A 0.06 0.33 4.00 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite. Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris

and Orius laevigatus were primarily used to control thrips species (normally western flower thrips). Amblyseius swirskii

was used for whitefly and thrips control. The mix of parasitic wasps (Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius

ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Ephedrus cerasicola/Praon volucre) was used for aphid control.

Bees were important for the pollination of 98% of the area of strawberries grown.

Strawberries – Other pesticides

Usage of physical control agents was minimal.

Disinfectants accounted for 3% of the total treated area (excluding biological control agents), with peroxyacetic acid

comprising 86% of the total area treated with disinfectants.

35

PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER FRUIT

• 25 hectares of other fruit grown in England & Wales


• 111 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)


• 3.2% of other fruit grown remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may

have been applied to the crop

• Where treated, other fruit received on average 9 fungicides, 8 biological control agents, 6 insecticides, 3

herbicides, 2 acaricides and 2 physical control agents during the growing season. Disinfectants were the

only other pesticides recorded

• Raspberries (85% of the total area) and blackberries (14%) were the principal crops encountered

• Because of the way in which data were collected there is no information on other fruit grown in Scotland

or Northern Ireland. Data relating to these crops will be published in the 2018 soft fruit survey

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Insecticides &

nematicides

Fungicides Herbicides Acaricides Biological

control agents

Disinfectants Physical control

agents

Pe

rce

na

tge

of

tota

l

Figure 37 - Usage of the major pesticides on other fruit in England & Wales - 2017

Area treated

Weight applied

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Pe

rcen

tage o

f a

pp

lica

tio

ns

Figure 38 - Timing of pesticide applications on other fruit - 2017

Fungicide

Insecticide

Acaricide

36

Other fruit – Fungicides (including biopesticides)




Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

fungicide-

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate


Azoxystrobin 23 6 0.12 0.79 1.14 0.98


Fenhexamid 16 12 0.08 0.45 1.39 1.00

Pyrimethanil 11 4 0.05 0.42 1.00 volumetric

Other fruit – Insecticides (including biopesticides)



• 99% of growers who provided reasons cited aphids as the reason for use of insecticides on other fruit

crops


Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

insecticide –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate

Pyrethrins 94 7 0.50 0.69 5.43 0.46

Pymetrozine 28 5 0.15 0.67 1.63 0.99

Spinosad 26 2 0.14 0.56 1.80 0.91

Thiacloprid 22 3 0.11 0.46 1.87 0.99

Cyantraniliprole 8 1 0.04 0.15 2.00 0.99

37

Other fruit – Biological control



• The most common biological control agents were:

Formulation

area treated

(ha)

Weight of a.s.

applied (kg)

Proportion of

biological

control –

treated area

Proportion of

area grown

Average

number of

applications

(where

applied)

Average

proportion of

full label rate






31 N/A 0.28 0.34 3.61 N/A

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora 14 N/A 0.12 0.42 1.27 N/A

Neoseiulus californicus 9 N/A 0.08 0.34 1.00 N/A

Feltiella acarisuga 3 N/A 0.03 0.08 1.63 N/A

Phytoseiulus persimilis was used primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite. The mix of parasitic wasps

(Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Ephedrus cerasicola/Praon volucre)

were used for aphid control. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora was used for the control of vine weevil larvae and normally

applied as a drench or through the irrigation lines. Neoseiulus californicus and Feltiella acarisuga were both used mainly

for the control of two-spotted spider mite.

Most biological control applications, 66%, were applied in April.

Bees were important for the pollination of 95% of other fruit crops grown.

Other fruit – Other pesticides

Abamectin and clofentezine were the only acaricides recorded with two-spotted spider mite being the only reason cited

for their use.

Carfentrazone-ethyl, diquat, glyphosate and propyzamide were the only herbicides recorded with usage being confined to

pre-planting applications and the area around pot-grown crops.

Usage of disinfectants was minimal with peroxyacetic acid being the only disinfectant encountered.

38

APPENDIX 1 – APPLICATIONS & AREAS GROWN

Table 1 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 by crop group (treated hectares)

Chemical group Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other

vegetables

Edible plants

in propagation Strawberries Other fruit

All edible

crops

Insecticides & nematicides1 932 116 303 935 544 297 1,237 189 4,551

Fungicides1 530 413 <1 2,063 1,591 1,061 2,992 195 8,845

Herbicides <1 . <1 141 624 <1 . 10 777

Growth regulators 6 . . . . . . . 6

Molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 8 168 25 . . 202

Acaricides 116 41 . . 4 128 326 14 630

Biological control agents 9,496 1,473 2,085 34 166 1,105 3,665 113 18,138

Soil sterilants <1 . 1 2 19 . . . 23

Disinfectants 873 148 130 5 12 346 153 16 1,684

Tar oils/acids <1 . . <1 <1 <1 . . <1

Sulphur 380 . . . <1 51 12 . 443

Physical control agents 251 2 3 . 265 <1 2 8 532

All pesticides 12,584 2,194 2,523 3,188 3,393 3,015 8,387 545 35,830

Area grown (hectares) 223 140 85 420 988 319 176 25 2,377

1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens

Table 2 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 by crop group (kg of active substances)

Chemical group Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other

vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Insecticides & nematicides1 223 20 216 98 102 208 238 21 1,127

Fungicides1 532 293 1 1,965 518 2,291 2,343 54 7,998

Herbicides <1 . <1 142 209 <1 . 8 359

Growth regulators 3 . . . . . . . 3

Molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 2 35 7 . . 43

Acaricides 6 <1 . . <1 10 33 <1 50

Biological control agents . . . . . . . . .

Soil sterilants 254 . 742 14 10,322 . . . 11,332

Disinfectants 10,407 2,540 1,895 <1 94 1,146 99 17 16,198

Tar oils/acids <1 . . <1 <1 8 . . 8

Sulphur 788 . . . <1 159 20 . 967

Physical control agents 1,063 3 69 . 1,132 4 3 11 2,285

All pesticides 13,276 2,857 2,923 2,221 12,413 3,832 2,736 111 40,369

1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens

39

Table 3 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 - percentage area of crops treated with pesticides (excluding seed treatments)

Crop group Insecticides Acaricides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Physical

control agents Soil sterilants Disinfectants

Biocontrol

agents Not treated

Tomatoes 62.8 29.5 63.1 44.1 0.1 0.3 18.7 0.4 75.3 93.1 2.1

Cucumbers 31.9 23 84.5 . . <0.1 0.2 . 41 94.1 0.6

Peppers 83.7 . 0.3 . 0.2 . 3.7 1.6 92.9 96.7 1.3

Lettuce 50.2 . 84.5 . 20 0.4 0.9 . 0.2 2.9 3.5

Other vegetables 25.1 0.6 33.1 <0.1 20.7 15.3 16.5 2.2 2.8 3.7 18.0

Edible plants in

propagation 50.5 12.7 72.2 8.9 0.3 5.4 0.2 . 58.2 19.4 5.4

Strawberries 99 50.3 98.8 0.6 . . 1.2 . 48.8 95.8 0.2

Other fruit 96.8 41.6 79.4 . 19.6 . 20 . 65.1 56.5 3.2

All crops 52.6 15.4 62.1 6.1 8.3 5.2 7.2 0.7 38 45 9.2

Table 4 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 – average number of applications made to crops when treated with individual pesticide groups (excluding seed treatments)1

Crop group Insecticides Acaricides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Physical

control agents Soil sterilants Disinfectants

Biocontrol

agents All pesticides

Tomatoes 3 1.2 3.6 2.6 1 1 2.5 1 2.7 28.1 29.8

Cucumbers 2.8 1.1 3.4 . . 1 1.3 . 2.4 10.1 14.2

Peppers 3.4 . 2 . 1 . 2.4 1 1.6 25.9 21.9

Lettuce 2.7 . 2.9 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 3.3

Other vegetables 1.8 2 1.9 1 1.1 1 2.1 1 1.9 10.1 4.7

Edible plants in

propagation 1.8 3 4.6 2.7 1 2.5 1 . 1.7 10 5.2

Strawberries 4.8 2.3 12.8 2.3 . . 1.3 . 1.6 14.3 27.6

Other fruit 6.1 1.5 8.9 . 3.2 . 1.5 . 1 7.7 16.5

All crops 3.1 1.9 5.5 2.6 1.2 1.5 2 1 1.9 15.1 12.9

1 Indicates number of passes of application machinery. Parts of a crop may be treated more than once, or one crop may have several different parts visited on different occasions. The number of applications relates only to those

crops receiving a treatment with an individual pesticide group. It is important to take into account the percentages presented in Table 3 when considering the number of applications in Table 4.

40

Table 5 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (ha)

Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other

vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Fungicides

Azoxystrobin 17 53 . 354 32 46 229 23 755

Bacillus subtilis strain QST 7131 25 . <1 184 249 2 77 111 649

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin <1 17 . 171 210 110 292 9 809

Bupirimate . 19 . . . 42 183 . 244

Coniothyrium minitans1 . <1 <1 152 6 . . . 158

Cyflufenamid 61 32 . . . 29 50 . 171

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 96 36 . 166 258 122 304 20 1,001

Dimethomorph . . . 113 48 17 151 3 331

Fenhexamid <1 . . 94 . 44 169 16 323

Fluopyram/trifloxystrobin . . . 79 . 7 146 . 232

Fosetyl-aluminium/

propamocarb hydrochloride 21 85 . 140 66 129 . . 441

Gliocladium catenulatum strain J14461 . 16 . 14 . 10 . . 41

Iprodione 15 . . 117 53 62 239 . 486

Isopyrazam 194 60 . . . <1 . . 254

Kresoxim-methyl . . . . . 40 173 . 213

Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M . . . 221 . 63 . . 283

Mandipropamid . . . 255 583 . . . 837

Mepanipyrim . . . . . 6 81 . 88

Meptyldinocap . . . . . . 39 . 39

Metalaxyl-M . 11 . . 83 5 . . 100

Myclobutanil . 40 . . . 93 330 . 463

Penconazole 73 42 . . . 53 166 . 334

Potassium hydrogen carbonate 10 . . . . 57 188 . 255

Pyrimethanil . . . . . 33 42 11 86

Quinoxyfen . . . . . 22 62 . 83

Other fungicides2,3 17 2 3 3 72 71 3 171

All fungicides 528 413 <1 2,063 1,591 1,061 2,992 195 8,845

Sulphur 380 . . . <1 51 12 . 443

1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of fungal pathogens. 2Throughout all tables, “Other” refers to chemicals grouped together because they were applied to less than 0.1% of the total area treated with pesticides. 3Other fungicides include amisulbrom, Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 101, calcium hydroxide, chlorothalonil, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, cyazofamid, cymoxanil/zoxamide, difenoconazole,

difenoconazole/mandipropamid, dimethomorph/mancozeb, fenamidone/fosetyl-aluminium, fenamidone/propamocarb hydrochloride, fenpyrazamine, fluazinam, fluopicolide/propamocarb hydrochloride, mancozeb,

phosphorous acid and salts, prochloraz, propamocarb hydrochloride, proquinazid, tebuconazole, tolclofos-methyl, Trichoderma asperellum strain T341, Trichoderma harzianum1 and unspecified fungicides.

The data presented in tables 5 & 6 are calculated numbers and may give a level of accuracy that is unwarranted – please refer to the Standard Error calculations on page 61 for further clarification.

41

Table 5 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (ha)


vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Disinfectants

Ammonium bifluoride 65 16 <1 . 5 49 . . 136

Benzoic acid . . . . . 37 . . 37

Chlorine dioxide 66 . . . . . 16 . 82

Gluteraldehyde 15 16 16 . . . 3 . 50

Gluteraldehyde/

quaternary ammonium complex 103 . 18 . . 29 . . 149

Hydrogen peroxide 413 10 45 5 3 . . . 475

Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid 10 31 19 . 2 33 . . 96

Peroxyacetic acid 74 12 <1 . <1 162 131 16 395

Peroxygen compounds 63 31 16 . <1 . . . 111

Sodium hypochlorite 41 12 . . . . 2 . 55

Unspecified disinfectants . . <1 . <1 37 . . 37

Other disinfectants1 25 20 15 . 2 . . . 61

All disinfectants 873 148 129 5 11 346 153 16 1,684

Herbicides

Diquat <1 . . . 614 . . 3 617

Propyzamide . . . 141 <1 . . 1 143

Other herbicides2 . . <1 <1 10 1 . 6 17

All herbicides <1 . <1 141 623 1 . 10 777

Molluscicides & repellents

Ferric phosphate <1 . . 9 119 23 . . 151

Metaldehyde <1 <1 . . 49 2 . . 51

All molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 9 168 25 . . 202

Soil sterilants

Other soil sterilants3 <1 . 1 2 19 . . . 23

Growth regulators

Growth regulator4 6 . . . . . . . 6

1Other disinfectants include acetic acid/hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid, cocobenzyl and dimethyl ammonium chloride/glutaraldehyde.

2Other herbicides include carfentrazone-ethyl, glyphosate, ioxynil, isoxaben, lenacil, linuron, mesotrione, metamitron, metribuzin, pendimethalin and propaquizafop. 3Other soil sterilants include dazomet, metam-sodium and methyl isothiocyanate. 4Other growth regulators included 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid.

42



vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Insecticides & nematicides

Acetamiprid 2 . . 11 163 2 . . 177

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki1 283 . 30 . 164 2 508 7 993

Beauveria bassiana GHA1 106 27 . . . . 13 . 146

Chlorantraniliprole 59 . . . . . . . 59

Cyantraniliprole . . . . . 34 . 8 41

Deltamethrin 5 <1 . 24 22 2 33 1 88

Indoxacarb 60 <1 16 132 . . . 4 212

Lambda-cyhalothrin 7 . <1 13 40 29 263 . 353

Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve61 4 48 . . . . . . 52

Pirimicarb . . 45 79 <1 35 17 . 176

Pymetrozine 24 25 63 207 27 36 93 28 503

Pyrethrins 207 <1 66 . 49 <1 7 94 423

Spinosad 167 12 46 122 54 31 51 26 508

Spirotetramat . . . 302 11 84 . . 397

Thiacloprid <1 . 16 44 2 20 234 22 339

Other insecticides & nematicides2 9 2 21 . 11 22 18 . 84

All insecticides & nematicides 932 114 303 935 544 297 1,237 189 4,551

Acaricides

Abamectin 41 38 . . 4 61 90 10 244

Bifenazate . . . . . 19 84 . 103

Clofentezine . . . . . 6 68 4 78

Etoxazole 33 . . . . 20 24 . 76

Spirodiclofen 43 3 . . . . 17 . 63

Tebufenpyrad . . . . . 22 43 . 66

All acaricides 116 41 . . 4 128 326 14 629

Tar oils/acids

Other tar oils3 <1 . . <1 <1 <1 . . <1

1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of insect pests. 2Other insecticides and nematicides include (E, Z)-3, 8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/(E, Z, Z)-3, 8, 11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate, Beauveria bassiana ATCC-740401, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diatomaceous earth, fatty acids,

flonicamid, spiromesifen and thiamethoxam. 3Other tar oils included tar oil.

43



vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Biological control agents

Amblyseius 2 23 25 . <1 . 6 . 56

Amblyseius montdorensis . 62 . . . . . . 62

Amblyseius swirskii . 44 . . 4 <1 746 . 794





. . . . . <1 510 31 542

Aphidius colemani 7 125 570 . 21 <1 . . 723

Aphidius ervi 284 . 481 . 10 . . . 776

Aphidius spp. . . . . . 208 . . 208

Aphidoletes aphidimyza 804 9 426 . 20 208 13 . 1,481

Dacnusa sibirica 50 . . . . 208 . . 258

Diglyphus isaea 195 . . . . 208 . . 403

Encarsia formosa 6,848 434 42 . 8 11 21 . 7,364

Feltiella acarisuga 38 9 6 . . . 27 3 83

Hypoaspis spp. . . . . . 208 . . 208

Macrolophus pygmaeus 370 <1 33 . 4 . . . 406

Neoseiulus californicus 1 20 . . 5 <1 34 9 69

Neoseiulus cucumeris <1 187 193 . 48 7 972 . 1,407

Orius laevigatus . . . . 30 <1 236 . 266

Orius spp. . 6 67 . <1 . 9 . 82

Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita <1 <1 . 33 7 . . . 40

Phytoseiulus persimilis 896 552 226 . 3 7 1,076 56 2,815

Steinernema feltiae . . . . . 36 2 . 37

Other biological control agents1 1 3 17 2 6 4 13 14 58

All biological control agents 9,496 1,473 2,085 34 165 1,104 3,665 113 18,137

Physical control agents

Maltodextrin2 243 . 3 . 257 . . . 503

Other physical control agents3 8 2 0 . 8 0 2 8 28

All physical control agents 251 2 3 0 265 0 2 8 532 1Other biological control agents include Adalia bipunctata, Amblydromalus limonicus, Amblyseius degenerans, Aphidius matricariae, Atheta coriaria, Chrysoperla carnea, Encarsia formosa/Eretmocerus eremicus,

Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, parasitic wasp, Steinernema kraussei, Stratiolaelaps scimitus, Therodiplosis persicae, Trichogramma brassicae and unspecified nematodes. 2Maltodextrin is an authorised pesticide. 3Other physical control agents included carbonic acid diamide/urea, garlic and natural plant extracts.

44

Table 6 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance)


vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Fungicides

Azoxystrobin 7 14 . 89 8 12 57 6 192

Bacillus subtilis strain QST 7131 1 . <1 15 18 <1 7 11 52

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin <1 8 . 84 105 55 167 4 423

Bupirimate . 6 . . . 15 64 . 84

Coniothyrium minitans1 . <1 1 990 34 . . . 1,025

Cyflufenamid <1 <1 . . . <1 <1 . 3

Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 59 17 . 62 105 57 190 13 502

Dimethomorph . . . 20 9 5 217 4 255

Fenhexamid <1 . . 70 . 33 94 12 210

Fluopyram/trifloxystrobin . . . 4 . 3 58 . 65

Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb

hydrochloride 41 195 . 292 136 1,133 . . 1,797

Gliocladium catenulatum strain J14461 . 39 . 27 . 25 . . 91

Iprodione 8 . . 24 12 46 173 . 263

Isopyrazam 36 8 . . . <1 . . 44

Kresoxim-methyl . . . . . 6 26 . 32

Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M . . . 250 . 80 . . 330

Mandipropamid . . . 38 87 . . . 126

Mepanipyrim . . . . . 2 32 . 34

Meptyldinocap . . . . . . 8 . 8

Metalaxyl-M . 2 . . 5 <1 . . 7

Myclobutanil . 2 . . . 8 28 . 38

Penconazole 3 1 . . . 3 8 . 15

Potassium hydrogen carbonate 356 . . . . 636 1,155 . 2,146

Pyrimethanil . . . . . 27 27 4 57

Quinoxyfen . . . . . 3 8 . 10

Other fungicides2,3 20 <1 . <1 <1 143 24 1 189

All fungicides 531 292 1 1,965 518 2,290 2,342 54 7,998

Sulphur 788 . . . <1 159 20 . 967

1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of fungal pathogens. 2Throughout all tables, “Other” refers to chemicals grouped together because they were applied to less than 0.1% of the total area treated with pesticides. 3Other fungicides include amisulbrom, Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 101, calcium hydroxide, chlorothalonil, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, cyazofamid, cymoxanil/zoxamide, difenoconazole,

difenoconazole/mandipropamid, dimethomorph/mancozeb, fenamidone/fosetyl-aluminium, fenamidone/propamocarb hydrochloride, fenpyrazamine, fluazinam, fluopicolide/propamocarb hydrochloride, mancozeb,

phosphorous acid and salts, prochloraz, propamocarb hydrochloride, proquinazid, tebuconazole, tolclofos-methyl, Trichoderma asperellum strain T341, Trichoderma harzianum1 and unspecified fungicides.

The data presented in tables 5 & 6 are calculated numbers and may give a level of accuracy that is unwarranted – please refer to the Standard Error calculations on page 61 for further clarification

45

Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance)


vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Disinfectants

Ammonium bi fluoride 391 60 1 . 37 36 . . 525

Benzoic acid . . . . . 104 . . 104

Chlorine dioxide . . . . . . . . .

Gluteraldehyde 88 67 38 . . . 28 . 222

Gluteraldehyde/

quaternary ammonium complex 6,305 . 1,289 . . 583 . . 8,177

Hydrogen peroxide 43 1,311 287 <1 28 . . . 1,669

Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid 46 126 205 . 20 55 . . 452

Peroxyacetic acid 505 41 <1 . <1 368 71 17 1,003

Peroxygen compounds 704 763 43 . 4 . . . 1,514

Sodium hypochlorite 10 65 . . . . <1 . 75

Unspecified disinfectants . . <1 . <1 . . . 2

Other disinfectants1 2315 106 30 . 4 . . . 2455

All disinfectants 10,407 2,539 1,894 0 93 1,146 99 17 16,198

Herbicides

Diquat <1 . . . 202 . . 1 203

Propyzamide . . . 142 <1 . . 2 144

Other herbicides2 . . <1 <1 7 <1 . 4 12

All herbicides <1 . <1 142 209 <1 . 8 359

Molluscicides & repellents

Ferric phosphate <1 . . 2 24 5 . . 31

Metaldehyde <1 <1 . . 10 2 . . 13

All molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 2 35 7 . . 43

Soil sterilants

Other soil sterilants3 254 . 742 14 10,322 . . . 11,332

Growth regulators

Other growth regulators4 3 . . . . . . . 3

1Other disinfectants include acetic acid/hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid and cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride/gluteraldehyde.

2Other herbicides include carfentrazone-ethyl, glyphosate, ioxynil, isoxaben, lenacil, linuron, mesotrione, metamitron, metribuzin, pendimethalin and propaquizafop. 3Other soil sterilants include dazomet, metam-sodium and methyl isothiocyanate. 4Other growth regulators included 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid.

46

Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance))


vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Insecticides & nematicides

Acetamiprid <1 . . <1 8 <1 . . 9

Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki1 145 . 16 . 76 <1 77 3 318

Beauveria bassiana GHA1 14 5 . . . . 2 . 21

Chlorantraniliprole 5 . . . . . . . 5

Cyantraniliprole . . . . . 4 . <1 5

Deltamethrin <1 <1 . <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1

Indoxacarb 2 <1 <1 3 . . . <1 6

Lambda-cyhalothrin <1 . <1 <1 <1 <1 2 . 3

Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve61 <1 4 . . . . . . 4

Pirimicarb . . 5 18 <1 9 4 . 37

Pymetrozine 5 8 21 36 5 7 19 6 106

Pyrethrins 21 <1 3 . 6 <1 <1 7 36

Spinosad 29 1 6 12 5 60 4 2 119

Spirotetramat . . . 23 <1 6 . . 30

Thiacloprid <1 . 4 5 <1 2 28 3 42

Other insecticides & nematicides2 2 3 161 . <1 118 102 . 387

All insecticides & nematicides 222 20 216 97 100 207 238 20 1,125

Acaricides

Abamectin <1 <1 . . <1 <1 <1 <1 2

Bifenazate . . . . . 3 9 . 11

Clofentezine . . . . . 1 14 <1 15

Etoxazole 2 . . . . <1 1 . 3

Spirodiclofen 4 <1 . . . . 2 . 6

Tebufenpyrad . . . . . 5 7 . 12

All acaricides 5 <1 . . <1 9 32 <1 50

Tar oils/acids

Other tar oils3 <1 . . <1 <1 8 . . 8

1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of insect pests. 2Other insecticides and nematicides include (E,Z)-3,8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/(E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate, Beauveria bassiana ATCC-740401, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diatomaceous earth, fatty acids,

flonicamid, spiromesifen and thiamethoxam..

3Other tar oils included tar oil.

47

Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance)


vegetables

Edible plants


All edible

crops

Physical control agents

Maltodextrin1 1,047 . 69 . 1,076 . . . 2,191

Other physical control agents2 17 3 <1 . 56 4 3 11 93

All physical control agents 1,063 3 69 0 1,132 4 3 11 2,285

1Maltodextrin is an authorised pesticide.

2Other physical control agents include carbonic acid diamide/urea, garlic and natural plant extracts.

48

Table 7 Estimated area (ha) of application of the fifty most extensively used active substances on all edible protected crops surveyed in 2017 in the

United Kingdom (including edible plants in propagation)

Rank Active substance Area treated in 2017

(ha)

Area treated in 2015

(ha) % change on 2015 Movement

1 Cyprodinil 1,000 679 47 ↑

2 Fludioxonil 1,000 679 47 ↑

3 Bacillus thuringiensis var.

kurstaki 993 545 82 ↑

4 Mandipropamid 839 484 73 ↑

5 Boscalid 809 551 47 ↑

6 Pyraclostrobin 809 551 47 ↑

7 Azoxystrobin 755 780 -3 ↓

8 Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 649 997 -35 ↓

9 Diquat 617 378 63 ↑

10 Hydrogen peroxide 599 124 381 ↑

11 Peroxyacetic acid 519 380 37 ↑

12 Spinosad 508 268 89 ↑

13 Maltodextrin 503 534 -6 ↓

14 Pymetrozine 503 203 148 ↑

15 Iprodione 486 462 5 ↑

16 Myclobutanil 463 777 -40 ↓

17 Fosetyl-aluminium 463 328 41 ↑

18 Propamocarb hydrochloride 449 316 42 ↑

19 Sulphur 443 1,698 -74 ↓

20 Pyrethrins 423 336 26 ↑

21 Spirotetramat 397 106 272 ↑

22 Metalaxyl-M 383 554 -31 ↓

23 Lambda-cyhalothrin 353 161 119 ↑

24 Thiacloprid 339 297 14 ↑

25 Penconazole 334 256 30 ↑

26 Dimethomorph 332 238 39 ↑

27 Fenhexamid 323 545 -41 ↓

28 Mancozeb 289 177 63 ↑

29 Potassium hydrogen carbonate 255 465 -45 ↓

30 Isopyrazam 254 0 Newly encountered ↑

31 Bupirimate 244 408 -40 ↓

32 Abamectin 244 455 -46 ↓

33 Gluteraldehyde 232 152 53 ↑

34 Fluopyram 232 0 Newly encountered ↑

35 Trifloxystrobin 232 0 Newly encountered ↑

36 Kresoxim-methyl 213 194 10 ↑

37 Indoxacarb 212 131 62 ↑

38 Acetamiprid 177 187 -5 ↓

39 Pirimicarb 176 611 -71 ↓

40 Cyflufenamid 171 131 31 ↑

41 Coniothyrium minitans 158 1 23,331 ↑

42 Ferric phosphate 151 125 21 ↑

43 Quaternary ammonium complex 149 20 650 ↑

44 Beauveria bassiana GHA 146 0 Newly encountered ↑

45 Propyzamide 143 117 22 ↑

46 Ammonium bi fluoride 136 97 40 ↑

47 Peroxygen compounds 111 110 1 ↑

48 Bifenazate 103 86 20 ↑

49 Deltamethrin 88 84 5 ↑

50 Mepanipyrim 88 203 -57 ↓

49

Table 8 Estimated amount (kg) of the fifty active substances, used most by weight, on all edible protected crops surveyed in 2017 in the United

Kingdom (including edible plants in propagation)

Rank Active substance Amount used in 2017

(kg)

Amount used in 2015

(kg)

Percentage change on

2015 Movement

1 Dazomet 10,417 11,638 -10 ↓

2 Gluteraldehyde 4,381 1,586 176 ↑

3 Quaternary ammonium complex 4,088 957 327 ↑

4 Hydrogen peroxide 3,661 659 456 ↑

5 Maltodextrin 2,191 3,199 -31 ↓

6 Potassium hydrogen carbonate 2,146 11,017 -81 ↓

7 Peroxygen compounds 1,514 2,377 -36 ↓

8 Peroxyacetic acid 1,475 844 75 ↑

9 Propamocarb hydrochloride 1,142 1,511 -24 ↓

10 Coniothyrium minitans 1,025 4 26,945 ↑

11 Sulphur 967 4,867 -80 ↓

12 Metam-sodium 901 6,322 -86 ↓

13 Fosetyl-aluminium 697 710 -2 ↓

14 Ammonium bi fluoride 525 955 -45 ↓

15 Boscalid 338 209 62 ↑

16 Mancozeb 318 195 63 ↑


kurstaki 318 415 -23 ↓

18 Acetic acid 304 0 64,036 ↑

19 Cyprodinil 301 205 47 ↑

20 Fatty acids 266 558 -52 ↓

21 Iprodione 263 259 1 ↑

22 Dimethomorph 255 187 37 ↑

23 Fenhexamid 210 389 -46 ↓

24 Diquat 203 138 47 ↑

25 Fludioxonil 201 137 47 ↑

26 Azoxystrobin 192 201 -4 ↓

27 Propyzamide 144 137 5 ↑

28 Mandipropamid 126 74 70 ↑

29 Spinosad 119 28 330 ↑

30 Chlorpyrifos 118 2,246 -95 ↓

31 Pymetrozine 106 40 167 ↑

32 Benzoic acid 104 1,068 -90 ↓

33 Gliocladium catenulatum strain

J1446 91 115 -21 ↓

34 Urea 90 123 -27 ↓

35 Tolclofos-methyl 87 611 -86 ↓

36 Pyraclostrobin 85 52 62 ↑

37 Bupirimate 84 139 -39 ↓

38 Sodium hypochlorite 75 25 204 ↑

39 Cocobenzyl dimethyl

ammonium chloride 70 73 -4 ↓

40 Pyrimethanil 57 140 -59 ↓

41 Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 52 97 -47 ↓

42 Isopyrazam 44 0 Newly encountered ↑

43 Thiacloprid 42 35 19 ↑

44 Myclobutanil 38 64 -41 ↓

45 Pirimicarb 37 94 -61 ↓

46 Pyrethrins 36 45 -20 ↓

47 Mepanipyrim 34 81 -58 ↓

48 Fluopyram 32 0 Newly encountered ↑

49 Trifloxystrobin 32 0 Newly encountered ↑

50 Kresoxim-methyl 32 29 11 ↑

50

1This figure excludes protected fruit grown in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Table 9 Comparison of the area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2011 - 2017

Area grown (hectares)

Crop 2011 2013 2015 2017

Tomato 217 239 232 223

Cucumber 234 229 181 140

Pepper 93 105 90 85

Lettuce 387 336 352 420

Other vegetables 605 469 851 988

Fruit1 212 2221 2191 2021

Edible plants in propagation 340 374 248 319

Total - all protected crops 2,094 1,974 2,173 2,377

51

Table 10 New compounds encountered on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom in 2017

Active substance Area treated 2017 (ha) Amount used 2017 (kg)

1 Isopyrazam 254 44

2 Fluopyram 232 32

3 Trifloxystrobin 232 32

4 Beauveria bassiana GHA 146 21

5 Cyantraniliprole 41 5

6 Meptyldinocap 39 8

7 Proquinazid 9 <1

8 Cymoxanil 7 1

9 Zoxamide 7 1

10 (E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate/(E,Z)-3,8-

tetradecadien-1-yl acetate 5 N/A

Table 11 Major increases in the use of individual active substances on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom since 2015 (ha)

Active substance Area treated 2017 (ha) Area treated 2015 (ha) % change on 2015

1 Coniothyrium minitans 158 1 23,331

2 Ampelomyces quisqualis

strain AQ 10 34 2 1,973

3 Prochloraz 23 2 921

4 Acetic acid 29 3 834

5 Quaternary ammonium

complex 149 20 650

6 Hydrogen peroxide 599 124 381

7 Sodium hypochlorite 55 14 284

8 Spirotetramat 397 106 272

9 Chlorine dioxide 82 25 223

10 Metribuzin 2 1 201

11 Pymetrozine 503 203 148

12 Lambda-cyhalothrin 353 161 119

13 Cocobenzyl dimethyl

ammonium chloride 33 15 119

14 Tebufenpyrad 66 31 111

15 Difenoconazole 5 3 105

16 Spinosad 508 268 89


kurstaki 993 545 82

18 Mandipropamid 839 484 73

19 Mancozeb 289 177 63

20 Diquat 617 378 63

Table 12 Major decreases in the use of individual active substances on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom since 2015 (ha)

Active substance Area treated 2017 (ha) Area treated 2015 (ha) % change on 2015

1 Metamitron <1 37 -99

2 Garlic 7 493 -99

3 Copper oxychloride 1 19 -97

4 Pendimethalin 1 37 -97

5 Spiromesifen 4 112 -96

6 Glyphosate 5 71 -93

7 Tebuconazole 3 31 -91

8 Fluazinam 2 24 -90

9 Chlorpyrifos 18 181 -90

10 Chlorothalonil 0 3 -88

11 Tolclofos-methyl 9 70 -88

12 Metam-sodium 2 14 -86

13 Beauveria bassiana ATCC-

74040 6 33 -83

14 Fluopicolide 4 17 -76

15 Sulphur 443 1,698 -74

16 Flonicamid 4 16 -73

17 Trichoderma spp. 2 7 -73

18 Pirimicarb 176 611 -71

19 Quinoxyfen 83 261 -68

20 Clofentezine 78 233 -66

52

Table 13 Comparison of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom, 2011 - 2017 area treated (ha) and amount used (kg)

Chemical 2011 2013 2015 2017

ha kg ha kg ha kg ha kg

Acaricides 705 45 967 85 1,005 80 630 50

Insecticides 2,979 3,709 2,922 8,430 2,897 3,093 3,350 783

Biopesticides1 1,529 154 1,026 232 1,690 672 2,084 1,514

Fungicides 6,377 19,849 8,531 17,551 8,041 16,895 7,962 6,828

Sulphur 1,387 3,486 965 2,899 1,700 4,863 443 967

Herbicides 381 251 110 117 667 593 777 359

Molluscicides 102 17 90 21 183 45 202 43

Soil sterilants 7 4,240 3 1,953 34 18,482 23 11,332

Tar oil/acids 1 36 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 8

Authorised disinfectants 65 248 21 122 32 1,068 37 104

Authorised physical control

agents 247 3,234 297 1,907 533 3,186 503 2,191

Growth regulators 3 2 . . 11 5 6 3

Total - all pesticides 13,783 35,271 14,932 33,317 16,794 48,982 16,016 24,182

Biological controls 27,560 357 22,410 9 20,325 . 18,137 .

Area grown 2,094 1,974 2,173 2,377

1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens.

53

Table 14 Biological and physical control agents encountered in the survey - comparison with usage in 2015

Rank Active substance Amount used in 2017

(ha)

Amount used in 2015

(ha)

Percentage change on

2015 Movement

1 Encarsia formosa 7,372 6,727 10 ↑

2 Phytoseiulus persimilis 2,815 2,060 37 ↑

3 Aphidoletes aphidimyza 1,481 1,480 0 ↑

4 Neoseiulus cucumeris 1,407 1,335 5 ↑

5 Aphidius ervi 1,318 1,340 -2 ↓

6 Aphidius colemani 1,265 2,907 -56 ↓

7 Amblyseius swirskii 784 102 667 ↑

8 Aphidius matricariae 542 118 358 ↑

9 Aphelinus abdominalis 542 438 24 ↑

10 Ephedrus cerasicola 542 30 1,690 ↑

11 Praon volucre 542 112 383 ↑

12 Maltodextrin 503 534 -6 ↓

13 Macrolophus pygmaeus 406 442 -8 ↓

14 Diglyphus isaea 403 342 18 ↑

15 Orius laevigatus 266 398 -33 ↓

16 Dacnusa sibirica 258 250 3 ↑

17 Aphidius spp. 208 112 86 ↑

18 Hypoaspis spp. 208 296 -30 ↓

19 Feltiella acarisuga 83 50 66 ↑

20 Orius spp. 82 145 -43 ↓

21 Neoseiulus californicus 69 111 -38 ↓

22 Amblyseius montdorensis 62 0 Newly encountered ↑

23 Amblyseius 56 974 -94 ↓

24 Phasmarhabditis

hermaphrodita 40 100 -60 ↓

25 Steinernema feltiae 37 129 -71 ↓

26 Urea 21 43 -51 ↓

27 Amblyseius degenerans 16 33 -50 ↓

28 Heterorhabditis

bacteriophora 16 116 -87 ↓

29 Amblyseius swirskii 10 0 Newly encountered ↑

30 Eretmocerus eremicus 8 173 -95 ↓

31 Garlic 7 493 -99 ↓

32 Trichogramma brassicae 6 10 -46 ↓

33 Unspecified nematodes 4 0 Newly encountered ↑

34 Therodiplosis persicae 3 0 Newly encountered ↑

35 Chrysoperla carnea 3 410 -99 ↓

36 Steinernema kraussei 2 5 -67 ↓

37 Adalia bipunctata 0 48 -100 ↓

38 Parasitic wasp 0 0 Newly encountered ↑

39 Stratiolaelaps scimitus 0 24 -100 ↓

40 Atheta coriaria 0 0 Newly encountered ↑

41 Amblydromalus limonicus 0 0 Newly encountered ↑

42 Natural plant extracts 0 0 20 ↑

54

APPENDIX 2 – OTHER COMPOUNDS ENCOUNTERED IN THE SURVEY BUT NOT PRESENTED ELSEWHERE IN THE REPORT

Area Treated (ha) Weight applied (kg)

Detergents

Unspecified detergents 9 3

Glass cleaners

Hydrofluoric acid 88 740

Ammonium hydrogen difluoride 79 382

Nitric acid 76 3,900

Unspecified glass cleaners 23 1,436

Growth stimulants

Harpin protein 6 <1

Physical control

Propane burner 19 N/A

Soil sterilants

Steam 5 N/A

55

APPENDIX 3 – BIOPESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS IN 2017

Crop treated Biopesticide Area treated (ha) Weight applied (kg) Proportion of area

grown

Average number of applications

(where applied)

Average proportion of

full label rate

Tomatoes (E,Z)-3,8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/

(E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl

acetate

4.80 <0.01 0.02 1.00 N/A

Strawberries Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 10 33.59 1.36 0.05 3.67 1.00

Edible plants in propagation Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 1.50 0.20 0.00 1.00 volumetric

Lettuce Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 184.36 15.14 0.36 1.23 volumetric

Other fruit Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 111.20 11.18 0.56 7.80 volumetric

Other vegetables Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 249.41 17.55 0.17 1.46 volumetric

Peppers Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 0.23 0.01 0.00 1.00 volumetric

Strawberries Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 76.67 6.61 0.20 2.16 volumetric

Tomatoes Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 25.28 1.28 0.09 1.20 volumetric

Edible plants in propagation Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 1.52 0.82 0.00 1.00 volumetric

Other fruit Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 7.23 2.90 0.17 1.65 volumetric

Other vegetables Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 163.61 75.61 0.13 1.28 volumetric

Peppers Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 30.02 16.21 0.27 1.31 volumetric

Strawberries Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 507.70 77.26 0.90 3.20 volumetric

Tomatoes Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 282.90 144.73 0.31 4.11 volumetric

Other vegetables Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 0.54 0.12 0.00 2.00 1.00

Strawberries Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 5.11 1.10 0.03 1.00 1.00

Cucumbers Beauveria bassiana GHA 26.85 4.66 0.07 2.89 0.84

Strawberries Beauveria bassiana GHA 13.14 2.02 0.02 3.00 0.93

Tomatoes Beauveria bassiana GHA 105.59 14.29 0.12 3.85 0.65

Cucumbers Coniothyrium minitans 0.08 0.49 0.00 1.00 0.78

Lettuce Coniothyrium minitans 151.64 989.82 0.36 1.00 0.82

Other vegetables Coniothyrium minitans 5.60 33.68 0.01 1.00 0.75

Peppers Coniothyrium minitans 0.23 1.43 0.00 1.00 0.78

Cucumbers Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 16.25 39.00 0.12 1.00 0.88

Edible plants in propagation Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 10.44 24.54 0.03 1.00 1.00

Lettuce Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 14.20 27.27 0.03 1.00 1.00

Cucumbers Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 48.25 3.63 0.07 4.66 0.78

Tomatoes Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 3.56 0.20 0.01 1.54 0.58

Edible plants in propagation Trichoderma asperellum strain T34 0.05 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.53

Tomatoes Trichoderma asperellum strain T34 0.05 0.07 0.00 1.00 0.75

Cucumbers Trichoderma harzianum 1.99 0.30 0.01 1.00 1.00

Lettuce Trichoderma harzianum 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.00 volumetric

56

APPENDIX 4 – DEFINITIONS

a) 'Pesticide' is used throughout this report to include commercial formulations containing active substances of insecticides, acaricides, molluscicides, fungicides, herbicides, desiccants, soil sterilants, nematicides, and growth regulators.

b) 'Treated area' is the gross area treated with a pesticide, including all repeat applications, some of which may have been applied to the land in preparation for planting and thus may appear as an inappropriate use on that crop.

c) 'Reason for application' indicated in the text is the grower's stated reason for use of that particular pesticide on that crop and may not always seem entirely appropriate.

d) Where individual pesticides are mentioned in the text, they are listed in descending order of use by hectares treated.

e) The term ‘formulation(s)’ used within the text is used here to describe either single active substances or mixtures of active substances contained within an individual product. It does not refer to any of the solvents, pH modifiers or adjuvants also contained within a product that contribute to its efficacy.

f) For the purposes of this survey the total area of edible protected crops was taken as the sum of the areas of the following crops: tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other veg; other fruit; strawberries: vegetables for propagation & fruit for propagation.

g) Where referred to as a pesticide group, “other pesticides” includes urea, physical control agents, growth stimulants and disinfectants (see also k and l below).

h) Volumetric rates – some products are applied using a standard dilution rate in a set volume of water. As growers’ water volume rates/hectare vary it is not possible to compare the actual rates with a pre-set maximum product rate.

i) Pesticide applications included those applied prior to planting, or in some cases to glasshouse crops that failed and were subsequently re-planted, and, as these are associated with that crop they may appear as inappropriate uses.

j) Where highlighted in the text the amount of active substance is calculated from the weight of product applied per hectare multiplied by the proportion of each individual active substance within a product. Arthropod biological control agents are applied by number rather than weight, so the weight of biological control agents refers only to preparations of bacterial and fungal origin.

k) Disinfectants are used for general cleansing and disinfection and are subject to the biocidal products regime. Not all disinfectants require authorisation.

l) Physical control agents, such as maltodextrin, which is based on potato starch, work by blocking insect spiracles, causing death by suffocation. Other physical control agents include garlic which repel and prevent insect pests landing on the crop.

m) EAMU – Extension of Authorisation for Minor Use (formerly known as Specific Off-Label Approvals or SOLAs).

n) Full label rate refers to the maximum rate, in litres or kilograms per hectare, indicated on a product label, permitted on

a specific crop. Where the average proportion of full label rate is indicated within the report this is the average product

rate encountered in the survey, compared to the maximum product label rate for each crop.

57

APPENDIX 5 – METHODOLOGY

METHODS

The samples of holdings to be surveyed were selected using data from the June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture,

2016 for England & Wales (Anon., 2017a and 2017b).

Whilst most of the information below relates to England & Wales, further detailed information relating to Scotland &

Northern Ireland can be found on the relevant websites listed on page 2.

The samples were drawn from the June Survey returns so as to represent the area of all edible protected crops grown

throughout England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. For England the sample was selected within each of the eight

Government Office Regions (GOR’s). The Welsh Government provided a further sample, which represented the area

grown in Wales. For Scotland and Northern Ireland, the sample represented the regions in each country.

The samples were stratified according to the total area of protected crop structures (permanent structures such as

glasshouses and polythene tunnels but excluding French and Spanish tunnels which are temporary structures) within each

region and by size group based on the total area of protected crop structures grown on each holding. The area of

protected crop structures sampled in each size group and each region was proportional to the total area of protected crop

structures grown on holdings of each size group in each region. Detailed information on the use of French and Spanish

tunnels can be found in the soft fruit report.

All three survey teams followed the same methodology for data collection and used the same forms and instructions for

their completion. However, for Wales it was not possible to select the sample on the basis of edible protected crops. For

Wales, where the sample provided contained a mixture of edible & ornamental holdings, a factor of 0.5 was applied to the

regional areas of glasshouse & polythene structures. This figure was based on our own experience of the level and

distribution of edible protected and ornamental crop holdings present in Wales.

The size groups, based on the total area of structures (glasshouse & polythene) edible protected crops are as follows:

<0.4ha (Size Group A); >0.4-<=0.8 ha (Size Group B); >0.8-<=1.25 ha (Size Group C); >1.25-<=2.5 ha (Size Group D);

and >2.5 ha (Size Group E).

For the purposes of this survey the total area of edible protected crops was taken as the sum of the areas of the following

crops: tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other vegetables; other fruit; strawberries; vegetables for propagation &

fruit for propagation.

An introductory letter was sent to the occupiers of the selected holdings explaining the purpose of the survey. In total 247

holdings (208 in England, 17 in Scotland, 11 in Northern Ireland and 11 in Wales) were visited during the winter of

2016/17 and data collected during a personal interview with the grower conducted by an experienced pesticide usage

surveyor. Where a holding listed in the original sample was not able to provide data it was replaced with another from the

same size group and region, held on a reserve list. Within England and Wales a total of 369 nurseries were contacted, of

which 96 (26%) were not growing edible protected crops commercially. Of the 273 nurseries growing edible protected

crops, 15 (5%) were unwilling to help with the survey. A total of 219 nurseries (80%) in England and Wales provided

data for the survey, with the remaining 39 growers (14%) being either willing to provide information at a later date; had

retired; didn’t grow commercially; or had health issues which prevented them from participating.

58

Commercial farm management software and in-house electronic record keeping systems are now used extensively within

many areas of agriculture and horticulture. However, because of the complexity of growing edible protected crops,

multiple cropping, variable growing systems, diversity of crops etc., the use of electronic record systems is more limited

than in field vegetable, field grown fruit or in arable systems. Electronic record keeping was used by 32% of the holdings

contacted in England & Wales, with these records accounting for 50% of the area grown and 62% of the total pesticide-

treated area.

Where possible, and in order to minimise the burden on individual growers, pesticide usage data were emailed or posted

by the growers back to the survey teams. In a few cases, and normally on smaller holdings, information was collected

over the telephone. In total, data from 46% of the holdings in England & Wales were collected using non-visit

methodologies.

One of the requirements placed on growers by their customers is the membership of farm assurance schemes. These

schemes require detailed pesticide records (computer based or hand written) which ensure traceability and can be

examined by crop assurance auditors at any time, but normally at least once each year. These records are used

extensively by members of the survey team. Of the 227 holdings providing responses to this question in Great Britain,

59% were members of one or more crop assurance schemes (89% of the area grown), with 24 of the holdings being

registered organic on all or part of their farm. A number of smaller growers were growing crops without any pesticide

treatments but were not registered organic.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire for the main part of the survey consisted of two forms, which were completed during an interview with

the grower.

Form 1 summarised the areas of edible protected crops grown on the designated holding during the 2016/2017 season.

Form 2 dealt with all aspects of pesticide usage on the individual crops grown on the holding and harvested in 2017, a

separate form being used for each glasshouse block/crop combination. These included pesticides applied prior to

planting, or in some cases to crops that failed and were subsequently re-planted, as these are associated with that crop

they may appear as inappropriate uses. Certain agronomic details that may have influenced pesticide usage (including

planting methods, growing medium, irrigation systems, planting & harvest times, use of adjuvants and the volume of

spray applied) were also recorded on form 2.

59

Raising factors

The pesticide usage data collected from each holding were raised by a ratio of two factors to give an estimate of regional

usage using a standard ratio raising statistical technique; the first factor being dependent on farm size group and region

(see Appendix 7) and the second dependent on crop area and region. The data were further adjusted by a third factor to

compensate for regions in which specific crops were not sampled and to make estimates of total pesticide usage related to

the national cropping areas in the United Kingdom (Thomas, 1999).

The raising factors were based on the areas of glasshouse and polythene structures, and the area of edible protected crops

grown and harvested in 2017 as recorded in the Defra June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture for England & Wales

(Anon., 2018a & b) and the Defra Horticultural Statistics (HS) (Anon., 2018c).

The first raising factors from the edible protected crops survey are presented in Appendix 7. It is the first raising factor

which does most of the work and gives an indication of the robustness of the sample with smaller numbers indicating a

larger area sampled within each size group and region. The first raising factor is often largest in the smaller size groups

where there is generally a much larger population. For edible protected crops the first raising factor is based on the area

of glass and polythene structures on holdings that indicated they were growing vegetables, salad and fruit in the 2017 June

Survey.

Some of the first raising factors are less than 1. This could indicate that the June survey data were inaccurate for that

individual size group and region combination. Initially it was thought that changing the first raising factors to 1 where

this occurred would compensate and correct any potential errors. However, discussions with statisticians at Fera

suggested that doing this may bias the sample and that any overestimates in the June Survey data for areas within other

size group and region combinations would not be accounted for.

Whilst we have confidence in the methodologies used for the pesticide usage surveys and the data collected from

individual farmers and growers (see Appendix 5), the raised estimates for individual crops will be subject to higher

standard errors simply because available data on National and Regional areas for individual crops are much more limited.

Where possible, the survey team have used data collected as part of the June Survey to make estimates of national &

regional pesticide usage as this survey is subject to the same strict methodologies as our own. However, where these

estimates are not available then other sources of data such as combinations of June Survey data and our own observations

or the Horticultural Statistics have been used and these data may therefore be associated with a higher standard error.

We have concerns relating to the estimated areas used for strawberries, other fruit and protected lettuce.

Data within this survey report exclude fruit grown in Scotland and Northern Ireland, whilst the Horticultural Statistics

present UK figures. Estimates for protected fruit in 2015 showed 219 hectares grown in England & Wales. Using the

Horticultural Statistics for 2018 this figure has remained unchanged; therefore, it is possible that the 2018 figure of 217

hectares possibly relates only to England & Wales. However, our own estimate of 202 hectares grown in England &

Wales has been used because of the uncertainties surrounding the Horticultural Statistics figures.

It is important to remember that the bulk of the strawberry crop is grown under temporary tunnels; usage on these crops

will be reported in the 2018 soft fruit pesticide usage survey report. The use of temporary tunnels causes complications

with the edible protected crops survey in that many of the holdings that had been selected in the sample, particularly those

in the larger size groups, were growing strawberries and other fruit under French & Spanish tunnels. Whilst these

holdings were rejected for the purposes of this survey, they would have been included within the June Survey data and

will therefore have an influence on this survey’s raising factors.

The area estimated by the Horticultural Statistics for protected lettuce is 420 hectares. From our own sample estimates

the HS figure is possibly an overestimate, with growers either ceasing production or changing to alternative crops.

However, we have no other data available and have used the Horticultural Statistics figures.

Detailed data for other vegetable crops (including herbs and baby leaf salads) and edible plants in propagation were not

available from the Horticultural Statistics and we have used our own estimates, by multiplying the sampled area by the

first raising factor (rf1), for these crops.

60

Error checking

Extensive checks are made on the data before, at the time of and following data entry. Data checking routines are used to

verify the authenticity of the data collected including: the authorisation and approval status of all crop/pesticide

combinations; high and low rates of application; the methods of application used to apply pesticides; crop growth stages

at the time of application; the timing of pesticide applications and consistency within a tank mix.

Further checks are made on the integrity of the relational database used to store the raw data collected ensuring that links

to product databases are in place prior to the production of the report. The product databases used for the pesticide usage

surveys are maintained alongside the commercial product database, LIAISON, which is used extensively by agronomists

and the major farm management software companies.

Where inconsistencies are found, for example where there are high rates of application or non-approved product usage,

these are checked first against the farm records and secondly with the grower and amended if necessary.

Reports are written and checked within the team after which they are sent to reviewers within the Working Party on

Pesticide Usage Surveys for their comments and checking.

The final report is pre-announced and published via the Government release calendar and the Fera website in line with the

Code of Practice for Statistics.

Rounding

Due to rounding of figures, the sum of constituent items in the tables may not agree exactly with the totals shown.

Data limitations and use of data

Our experience (Fera, SASA and AFBI) has shown that the face to face interview and ‘main contact plus reserves

approach’ delivers the highest quality data and minimises non-response bias; no other approach is likely to yield fit for

purpose data to meet the quality requirements of the UKSA Code of Practice for Statistics. Drawing a fresh stratified

random sample each year is clearly an appropriate survey methodology.

As part of this survey Fera has implemented the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice for Statistics, published in 2009

and revised in 2018. Whilst all three pillars and 14 principles apply, we acknowledge the following:

• Honesty and integrity: people in organisations that release statistics should be truthful, impartial and independent, and

meet consistent standards of behaviour that reflect the wider public good.

• Data governance: organisations should look after people’s information securely and manage data in ways that are

consistent with relevant legislation and serve the public good.

• Efficiency and proportionality: statistics and data should be published in forms that enable their reuse. Producers

should use existing data wherever possible and only ask for more where justified.

• Accessibility: statistics and data should be equally available to all, not given to some people before others. They

should be published at a sufficient level of detail and remain publicly available.

In accordance with UKSA Code of Practice for Statistics, we work with Defra and HSE statisticians to build on our

existing extensive and effective relationships with users of the surveys to further enhance user engagement. There is a

broad spectrum of users and stakeholders across policy, research, agricultural supply industry (including consultancies),

farming and horticultural businesses, civil society organisations and members of the public. Over the years we have an

excellent record of listening to our users and incorporating their feedback into the way we collect and report our statistics.

61

APPENDIX 6 - ESTIMATES OF STANDARD ERRORS FROM THE EDIBLE PROTECTED CROP

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY

The aim of the analysis of the results was to provide an estimate of the pesticide usage associated with crop type

within each region and nationally.

Estimates are derived from pesticide usage survey data which are stratified by region and holding size within

each crop type. The survey reports the mass of pesticide applied and the area to which it is applied. The survey

information is combined with the total cultivated area within each stratum to provide an estimate of the total

mass of pesticide used on that crop type by region and nationally, and of the area sprayed. Each estimate (E) is

provided with a standard error (se). In general, we expect, with approximately 95% confidence, that the true

quantity of pesticide used will lie within the interval:

Estimation method

We are provided with information about holdings in J regions. Holdings are assigned one of K size classes. L

holdings are surveyed within each stratum (j,k). In addition, the total area and number of holdings in each

stratum from which samples have been taken is reported.

Hence, we are given:

: the total area of the stratum (in holdings of size class k, in region j)

: the total number of holdings in the stratum

: number of holdings surveyed within the stratum

: area of each holding surveyed within the stratum

: area of each holding sprayed within the surveyed stratum

: mass of pesticide applied to each holding in the surveyed stratum

Then we estimate:

: mean area sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum

: mean mass applied per area surveyed within the stratum

: the between-holding standard deviation of the area sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum

: the between holding standard deviation of the mass sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum

: estimated total area sprayed in a region

: standard error of estimated total area sprayed in a region

: estimated total mass applied in a region

: standard error of estimated total mass applied in a region

: estimated total area sprayed nationally

: standard error of estimated total area sprayed nationally

: estimated total mass applied nationally

: standard error of estimated total mass applied nationally

Estimates are provided using the following formulas:

62

Estimators

Equation 1

Equation 2

Equation 3

Equation 4

Equation 5

Equation 6

Equation 7

Equation 8

Equation 9

Equation 10

Equation 11

Equation 12

63

Equation 13

Equation 14

Standard errors , , and are estimated by a first order Taylor approximation 1 (Equations

9,10,13,14) with a finite population correction 2 (Equations 9 and 10)

95% confidence intervals for estimates , , and as estimated as mean±1.96×standard error.

Estimates of use derived from this survey were based on a stratification by region and size. Some size strata

within regions were combined to maintain at least five observations per stratum. Two holdings were surveyed in

the North East region; North East and North West were combined into a ‘North’ region. Upper and lower

confidence intervals were not reported where the relative standard error was estimated to be larger than 30%. In

addition, in the two cases where the number of holdings in the PUS survey was larger than the number of

holdings in the June Survey, we assumed that this was caused by an error or change in the size classification of

the holdings in that region. Hence, survey returns from the East Midlands and Eastern regions were analysed

without stratification by size.

Estimates of area of application and mass applied by region and size group are provided in Tables SE1 and SE2.

Estimates of the total area of application and mass applied tables SE3 and SE4.

1BIPM, (2008). Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, JCGM 100:2008

2Isserlis, L. (1918). "On the value of a mean as calculated from a sample". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 81 (1): 75–81.

64

Assumptions

1) The survey is unbiased. This means that there is no correlation between the use of pesticides on the

holding and the probability of holdings being included or excluded from a survey. The simplest way of

achieving this is to sample holdings at random from the population of holdings within a stratum.

2) Samples are not correlated between strata. This means that if by chance the holdings sampled from one

stratum have a higher average pesticide use than the population within the stratum, then this provides no

information about the relation between samples and populations in other strata.

3) The values of number of holdings per strata are correct.

4) The size of the potential error in estimates of the total area of holdings [se(H)] within each stratum is

small compared with the standard error of the estimates for the ratios “mean area sprayed per area

surveyed within the stratum” and “mean mass applied per area surveyed within the stratum” [se(R)].

For uncorrelated errors “small” might mean rse(H)<0.3×rse(R)3

5) The error associated with estimates , , , and is assumed to be described by a normal

distribution

3 If given estimates of relative standard errors (rse) rse(R)=1 and rse(H)=0.3 then rse(R.H)=1.04

65

Table SE1: Estimates of area of application by region and size group

Region Size

group Total Area (Ha)

Number of

holdings

Number

surveyed Estimate (Ha) s.e (Ha) RSE (%) 95% Confidence Interval (Ha)

East Midlands ALL 34.22 76 10 337 153 45 N/A1 N/A

Eastern ALL 156.83 143 52 2811 409 15 2010 3612

London & SE A 8.2 109 13 70 33 47 N/A N/A

London & SE B 13.53 24 8 218 80 37 N/A N/A

London & SE C 7.96 8 6 327 31 9.5 266 388

London & SE D 13.02 7 7 533 0 0 533 533

London & SE E 148.06 11 5 11562 784 6.8 10025 13100

North A 7.97 65 9 33 19 58 N/A N/A

North B 10.59 19 6 64 44 69 N/A N/A

North C 7.53 8 6 103 32 31 N/A N/A

North DE 75.15 20 12 2864 439 15 2004 3724

Northern Ireland ALL 22.1 28 11 66 26 40 N/A N/A

Scotland ALL 19.73 503 17 37 26 72 N/A N/A

South West A 11.61 195 14 43 26 60 N/A N/A

South West BCDE 30.78 24 6 976 354 36 N/A N/A

Wales ALL 20.34 174 11 79 50 64 N/A N/A

West Midlands A 7.09 70 9 44 35 79 N/A N/A

West Midlands BC 6.53 11 5 68 48 69 N/A N/A

West Midlands DE 108.45 12 5 3302 695 21 1940 4663

Yorks & Humber A 3.08 43 7 29 17 57 N/A N/A

Yorks & Humber BC 12.17 18 6 185 78 42 N/A N/A

Yorks & Humber D 18.1 9 5 633 117 18 404 862

Yorks & Humber E 84.24 17 17 4863 0 0 4863 4863

1Not applicable

66

Table SE2: Estimates of mass applied by and region size group

Region Size

group

Total Area

(Ha)

Number of

holdings

Number

surveyed

Estimate

(Kg) s.e (Kg) RSE (%) 95% Confidence Interval (Kg)

East Midlands ALL 34.22 76 10 889 279 31 N/A N/A

Eastern ALL 156.83 143 52 2799 651 23 1524 4074

London & SE A 8.2 109 13 96 48 50 N/A N/A

London & SE B 13.53 24 8 166 89 53 N/A N/A

London & SE C 7.96 8 6 353 55 16 245 462

London & SE D 13.02 7 7 480 0 0 480 480

London & SE E 148.06 11 5 5296 827 16 3674 6918

North A 7.97 65 9 507 456 90 N/A N/A

North B 10.59 19 6 597 319 53 N/A N/A

North C 7.53 8 6 1724 904 52 N/A N/A

North DE 75.15 20 12 4704 1838 39 N/A N/A

Northern Ireland ALL 22.1 28 11 434 147 34 N/A N/A

Scotland ALL 19.73 503 17 24 13 55 N/A N/A

South West A 11.61 195 14 317 295 93 N/A N/A

South West BCDE 30.78 24 6 733 343 47 N/A N/A

Wales ALL 20.34 174 11 59 48 81 N/A N/A

West Midlands A 7.09 70 9 21 17 81 N/A N/A

West Midlands BC 6.53 11 5 35 23 65 N/A N/A

West Midlands DE 108.45 12 5 11162 4001 36 N/A N/A

Yorks & Humber A 3.08 43 7 18 11 62 N/A N/A

Yorks & Humber BC 12.17 18 6 177 96 54 N/A N/A

Yorks & Humber D 18.1 9 5 255 64 25 130 381

Yorks & Humber E 84.24 17 17 3245 0 0 3245 3245

67

Table SE3: Estimates of total area of application

Region Estimate (Ha) s.e (Ha) RSE(%) 95% C.I (Ha)

East Midlands 337 153 45 N/A N/A

Eastern 2811 409 15 2010 3612

London & SE 12711 790 6.2 11163 14259

North 3064 443 14 2196 3931

N. Ireland 66 26 40 N/A N/A

Scotland 37 26 72 N/A N/A

South West 1019 355 35 N/A N/A

Wales 79 50 64 N/A N/A

West Midlands 3414 697 20 2048 4781

Yorks & Humber 5711 141 2.5 5433 5988

UK 29247 1283 4.4 26733 31762

Table SE4: Estimates of total mass applied

Region Estimate (Kg) s.e (Kg) RSE(%) 95% C.I (Kg)

East Midlands 889 279 31 N/A N/A

Eastern 2799 651 23 1524 4074

London & SE 6391 835 13 4754 8029

North 7533 2123 28 3372 11693

N. Ireland 434 147 34 N/A N/A

Scotland 24 13 55 N/A N/A

South West 1050 452 43 N/A N/A

Wales 59 48 81 N/A N/A

West Midlands 11219 4002 36 N/A N/A

Yorks & Humber 3695 116 3.1 3467 3922

UK 34093 4686 14 24909 43278

68

APPENDIX 7 – FIRST RAISING FACTORS FOR EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS

Region/Country Farm size group rf1 Regional area (ha) Area surveyed (ha) Number of farms

visited

East Midlands A 9.84 5.43 0.55 *

C 1.68 1.70 1.01 *

D 0.85 2.07 2.43 *

E 0.81 22.80 28.13 *

Eastern A 3.45 7.45 2.16 17 B 4.10 20.81 5.08 9 C 0.96 11.40 11.86 12 D 1.75 17.35 9.90 6 E 1.50 99.82 66.65 8

London & South East A 2.03 8.20 4.04 17

B 6.06 13.53 2.23 *

C 1.16 7.96 6.84 7

D 1.07 13.02 12.20 7

E 3.28 148.06 45.10 *

North East A 11.11 1.25 0.11 *

E 1.00 8.40 8.40 *

North West A 5.40 6.72 1.24 8

B 2.72 10.59 3.89 7

C 1.49 6.71 4.49 *

D 1.57 10.72 6.81 *

E 1.98 56.03 28.28 7

Northern Ireland A 2.25 1.95 0.87 8

B 2.51 1.33 0.53 *

D 1.00 1.42 1.42 *

E 1.21 14.20 11.70 *

Scotland A 6.47 5.58 0.86 14

B 3.67 2.09 0.57 *

C 0.80 0.81 1.01 *

D 3.27 6.61 2.02 *

South West A 8.88 11.61 1.31 14

B 10.40 9.00 0.87 *

C 1.47 2.62 1.78 *

E 2.41 17.03 7.06 *

Wales A 8.40 5.63 0.67 9

C 0.98 1.01 1.03 *

E 1.00 7.20 7.20 *

West Midlands A 4.81 7.09 1.48 9

B 5.02 5.52 1.10 *

C 0.32 1.01 3.15 *

D 0.78 3.40 4.36 *

E 8.21 105.05 12.80 *

Yorkshire & the Humber A 5.00 3.08 0.62 7

B 3.21 7.28 2.27 *

C 1.24 4.89 3.95 *

D 2.04 18.10 8.88 *

E 1.22 84.24 69.22 15

For confidentiality reasons a * has been used where 5 or less holdings have been sampled

The first raising factor (rf1) is the largest of the three raising factors and gives an indication of the robustness of the

sample with smaller numbers indicating a larger area sampled within each size group and region.

Values of rf1 that are less than one indicates that the area recorded on the June Survey was less than the area sampled.

This could either be because of a) an increase in the area of permanent structures on a holding since the most recent June

Survey submission or b) that the area provided by the June Survey was incorrect.

69

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to all growers who willingly participated in this survey, providing invaluable information upon which this

report is based. Many thanks are also due to Adam Hinchliffe from the Fera survey team; Jackie Hughes, Gillian Reay,

Carol Monie and Johan Wardlaw for their role in the collection and provision of data (including estimates of cropping

areas) from Scotland; Stephen Jess, Michael Lavery, Joanna Kirbas, David Matthews and Trudyann Kelly for their role in

the collection and provision of data (including estimates of cropping areas) from Northern Ireland; Yvonne Powell-

Wainwright and Josephine Roberts for their role in maintaining the pesticides database; and Jennie Blackburn and Sarah

Thompson for their help with the cropping areas of edible protected crops. Thanks also go to the members of the ECP

Working Party on Pesticide Usage Surveys for their invaluable comments.

REFERENCES

Anon. (2017a) Agricultural Statistics in England 2016. London: HMSO

Anon. (2017b) Agricultural Statistics in Wales 2016. London: HMSO

Anon. (2018a) Agricultural Statistics in England 2017. London: HMSO

Anon. (2018b) Agricultural Statistics in Wales 2017. London: HMSO

Anon. (2018c) Horticultural Statistics 2017, UK: York: Defra

Garthwaite, D.G., Barker, I., Mace, A., Parrish, G., Frost, S., Hallam, C., Macarthur, R. & Lu, Y. (2016) Pesticide

Usage Survey Report 269 – Edible Protected Crops in the United Kingdom 2015.

https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/documents/edibleProtected2015v1.pdf - (last accessed 08.11.2018)

Thomas, M. R., (1999), Guidelines for the Collection of Pesticide Usage Statistics within Agriculture and Horticulture,

OECD, Eurostat, http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/2078031.pdf - (last accessed 07.10.2018)

OTHER USEFUL REFERENCES

For June Survey Statistics please see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/structure-of-the-agricultural-industry - (last accessed 07.10.2018)

For Horticulture Statistics please see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horticultural-statistics - (last accessed 07.10.2018)

For further information on commodity chemicals please see:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/commodity-substances.htm - (last accessed 07.10.2018)

For further information on biopesticides please see:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/applicant-guide/biopesticides-

home.htm - (last accessed 07.10.2018)

http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/2078031.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/structure-of-the-agricultural-industry

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horticultural-statistics

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/commodity-substances.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/applicant-guide/biopesticides-home.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/applicant-guide/biopesticides-home.htm

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 280 EDIBLE PROTECTED … · PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 280 EDIBLE...

Documents