P G R O

MAGAZINE SPRING 2019PULSE

THE

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE PGRO

Processors and Growers Research Organisation

PGRO the UK’s centre of excellence for peas and beans

THE PGRO AT YOUR

fingertips

Download the APP from

Apple and Google Stores

Nirvana®Enlightened weed control

Nirvana is a registered trademark of BASF. Nirvana contains pendimethalin and imazamox. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further product information including warning phrases and symbols, you can refer to www.agricentre.basf.co.uk.

A pre-emergence herbicide for use on all varieties of spring and winter field beans, combining and vining peas.

What is Nirvana®

Why you shouldchoose Nirvana®

• The #1 herbicide for peas and beans• Two complementary herbicide modes of action• Long lasting broad spectrum weed control

nivana_a4_v4.indd 1 20/02/2019 09:08

Do only swots sit at the front? I have become increasingly aware of the activities of people at conferences. Not you understand the speakers or workshop leaders, I mean those attending, ostensibly to learn.

Reflecting on my own attendance recently, I wondered why I always seem to sit at the back – at the end of the row too! It’s not because I arrive late - that’s no good – because if you turn up late the back seats will be long gone.

I wondered if it was a hangover from schoolday gibes: “only swots sit at the front”? Then I came up with a number of possibilities: The long-sighted can see better from the back? Positions further away avoid embarrassing interactions with the speaker? If terrible, an unobtrusive escape is offered by being nearer the door? Muttering under your breath will not be heard? Nodding off is less likely to be noticed? Or maybe, remembering a particularly painful incident in my schooltime, you are less likely to suffer a direct hit by the board rubber?

However, after considering all these I concluded that, as I am an incredible fidget who doodles to aid concentration, it is simply that I am very considerate and I don’t want to disturb others.

So, there I was sitting in my lofty perch at the back of the steeply-banked lecture theatre all attentive, when a latecomer hauled in a spare chair from outside, plonked it down beside me, and snivelled a greeting as they sneezed: “I’b a derrible dold”.

Attention disturbed, mind wandering, and now interested in a less germ-laden location, I began appraising the situation in front. As we know, pens and paper are almost history nowadays - the proliferation of iPads, tablets and the like has been terrific. But in my attentive innocence I had always assumed these diligent tappers were capturing notes for electronic filing and further dissemination, efficiently avoiding the need to transcribe later from illegible scribble. Au contraire, believe me, whilst a few were indeed doing this, most were paying no attention at all!

With my elevated view, illusions were shattered. Most were attending emails, checking calendars or surfing the internet for photos, TV schedules and video clips - whilst others were hiding in social media. One even appeared to be booking their dream holiday.

But then I realised I wasn’t listening either and became annoyed with myself. Why go to a conference at all, if you are simply going to play on your computer? Stop disturbing me!

Armed with this new knowledge, and confirmation of a view I have had since schooldays that the swots in front are no better than the rest of us, I have come to a new conclusion for conferences today. Sit near the front, fidget all you like – and don’t be distracted by those sneezing in your ear or the irrelevant screens of those worrying a keyboard - they won’t notice anything you do. And if you decide to sneak out? Well, that’s your business!

For a traditional printed publication like the Pulse Magazine*, we have the reassurance that, as a pulse grower or someone interested in pulses, you have engaged with us and are interested in the topics. We can only hope you are not interrupted and that the contents hold your attention.

In this issue we introduce the concept of IPM for pulse growers, explore findings from intercropping, report final outcomes of our bean row width trials and analyse peas for nutrient stress.

Contents

04 Market ProspectThe World of Pulses

Lewis Cottey, Incoming President of Pulses UK

06 PGRO CommentaryThe writing on the wall …

Roger Vickers, PGRO CEO

07 PGRO Pulse AgronomyIntegrated management of pests and diseases in pulses

Dr Becky Howard, PGRO R&D Manager

12 PGRO Pulse AgronomyIntercropping with pulses

Stephen Belcher, PGRO Principal Technical Officer

14 PGRO Pulse AgronomyA checklist for pea growers and agronomists

Roger VickersChief Executive

03t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

05 Pulse Roadshows2019 PGRO/Syngenta Roadshows

Simon Jackson & Dr Max Newbert, Syngenta

Diary Dates 2019

Cereals 2019   Boothby Graffoe

Lincolnshire

12-13 June 2019

Vining Pea Field Day Nocton, near Lincoln

June 2019

Pulse Crop Field Day Stubton, near Newark

2 July 2019

16 Pulse ResearchPeak Nutritional demand for peas

Ian Robertson, Sustainable Soil Management

Roger Vickers, Chief Executive

18 PGRO Pulse ResearchSpring bean row widths

Stephen Belcher, PGRO Principal Technical Officer

Congratulations to Becky Howard and

Shona Duffy on reaching the 10 year

marker at PGRO. We thank them both for

being stimulating and affable colleagues!

And Becky for returning to us for her

second 10 year stint.

P G R O

*The ‘page turning’ e-copy of this edition

of the magazine can be read at

www.pgro.org

PGRO, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough PE8 6HJ ISSN 1758-3543 Chief Executive: Roger Vickers

R&D Manager: Becky Howard Principal Technical Officers: Stephen Belcher, Jim Scrimshaw Plant Pathologist: Dr Lea Herold

For editorial and advertising contact: Sue Bingham at PGRO Published by Ahead PR aheadpr.eu Design graphicgene.co.uk

Reading The Pulse Magazine in conjunction with other PGRO publications is recognised by BASIS and carries 2 CPD points (CP/70072/1819/g).

10 Pulse AgronomyThe art of Pre-em Application

James Thomas, Syngenta application specialist

Nirvana®Enlightened weed control

Nirvana is a registered trademark of BASF. Nirvana contains pendimethalin and imazamox. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further product information including warning phrases and symbols, you can refer to www.agricentre.basf.co.uk.

A pre-emergence herbicide for use on all varieties of spring and winter field beans, combining and vining peas.

What is Nirvana®

Why you shouldchoose Nirvana®

• The #1 herbicide for peas and beans• Two complementary herbicide modes of action• Long lasting broad spectrum weed control

nivana_a4_v4.indd 1 20/02/2019 09:08

It’s official, February 10th will now be forever known as World Pulses

Day! The UN have taken the decision to officially ordain February

10th to encourage global consumption of pulses. 2019 sees over

25 countries getting together in a world celebration of the event,

with the aim of raising global awareness on how healthy, affordable,

sustainable and nutritious pulses are.

Lewis Cottey President

The World of PulsesMarket Prospect

04 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Pulses UK celebrated the day with the

launch of the second annual British

Dal Festival. It followed our inaugural

celebration of Dal in 2018 – this was

an enormous event that culminated

in a virtually sold-out finale held in the

Paintworks, Bristol.

We built upon the success of 2018 and

this year’s finale was hugely popular.

Held on 16th February, we saw a range

of cooking demos from celebrity chefs,

including Jenny

Chandler and ‘BBC

Cook of the Year’

Jo Ingleby.

Multiple stalls from

a range of diets

produced mouth-

watering dishes from

around the world that

delighted visitors. We

proudly represented our industry with a

pivotal stand explaining to the audience

punters how affordable, sustainable,

healthy and nutritious pulses are.

Well done all!

The B-word

Unfortunately, when asked to discuss

market prospects for pretty much

anything beyond the end of March

2019, it is impossible not to mention

the dreaded Brexit. As I write this, the

information we have is very limited.

As Donald Rumsfeld famously once

said: “ … there are things we know we

know. We also know there are known

unknowns … But there are also unknown

unknowns—the ones we don’t know we

don’t know ...” 

That convoluted but spot-on quote

surely sums up brexit-driven uncertainty

- and this uncertainty has limited forward

sales. Some consumers have pulled

forward their annual requirements to

ensure stocks reach their facilities by the

end of March to avoid potential hiccups.

Others are more relaxed and waiting to

see what happens.

Stocks

Both stock levels of peas and beans in

the UK are diminishing.

Beans have seen a huge

export demand and peas

have been gobbled up by

numerous end-users due

to the reduced area and

lower yield in harvest 2018.

Hand over

My reign as President

starts, coincidentally, as this issue of the

Pulse Magazine reaches you at the end

of March. So I want to thank

our immediate past-President Franek

Smith for his hard work on behalf of

our members over the last two years.

Also I welcome James Maguire of KWS

who will step up as Vice-President elect.

Future

I am proud to be part of the team that

has transformed BEPA into its re-named

and re-energised form as Pulses UK. This

is a time of uncertainty – but we must

instead see it as a time of challenges to

be met and overcome! Pulses UK is most

certainly now in great shape to focus on

our goals as an association that will play

its part in giving our industry a secure

future.

affordable, sustainable, healthy and

nutritious pulses

Lewis Cottey is the incoming

President of Pulses UK, formerly

BEPA (British Edible Pulse

Association). The name and

image change took place in

November 2018 to reflect the

changing nature of the UK

pulse sector and the role of the

processors and users of pulses.

Pulses UK liaises with the UK

Government as well as relevant

national and international

bodies to encourage the

production and consumption

of home-produced pulses. This

is by promoting their value as

healthy, high-protein, high-fibre

and sustainable foods.

Pulse Roadshows

t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org 05

Pulse Roadshows

Weevil warningThe late and slow start to the 2018 growing season, in wet soil conditions, severely increased pressure from Pea and Bean Weevil.

“Leaf notching on emerging crops looked severe, but could quickly be outgrown as soil conditions warmed,” reported Syngenta Insecticide Technical Manager, Dr Max Newbert. “However, the impact on roots and nodules, along with the stress on plants, has far greater effect on yield and the value of legumes in the rotation.”

Max reported trial results had shown well-timed applications of Hallmark Zeon could give high levels of pest control and enable the crop to get away strongly. However, he urged growers and agronomist not to cut the rate from the full 75 ml/ha, to minimise the risk of resistance developing.

2019 PGRO/Syngenta Roadshows brought a positive pulse message to the major growing regions of the UK

Simon Jackson

The Roadshows provided a valuable opportunity to review the agronomy challenges of the 2018 season, and an update of lessons learned for the coming year, with Syngenta’s Simon Jackson and Dr Max Newbert.

Dr Max Newbert

Green protectionPea and bean growers will need to adopt new fungicide strategies in the future, to counter the combination of increasing disease pressures and changes in available options.

Speaking at the Roadshows, Syngenta Field Technical Manager, Simon Jackson, highlighted the 2018 season had reinforced the new approach of an earlier start to bean disease control programmes.

He reported repeated trials had shown an average 0.35 t/ha yield increase from adding in a T0 application at pre-flowering, typically in early May. “After the late and slow start to the season last year, keeping crops green and healthy for even a few extra days as the hot, dry season progressed could have made a significant difference.

“In most seasons and conditions an application of Amistar at 0.5 l/ha alone has proven sufficient,” Simon advocated. “But, where downy mildew infection is easily found in small plants, trials have shown the addition of SL567A can give a significant uplift in yield.” resistance developing.

Bruchid battleThe prolonged hot, dry weather last summer led to almost continuous Syngenta BruchidCast warnings of insect activity.

Dr Max Newbert highlighted the key learn from the long season pressure was the need to, firstly, knockdown adult beetles and reduce the egg laying potential, followed by the systemic action of thiacloprid to target and control larvae moving into the plant.

Max advocated starting the programme with Hallmark Zeon when adult beetles are seen to be active in the crop when pods are forming on the bottom trusses and temperatures are warming up. This will reduce the chance of missing the first egg laying.

Once conditions hit the BruchidCast trigger point, alternating product treatments will improve overall control and be an effective anti-resistance strategy, he added.

Application on targetFor early season applications in pulse crops, Simon Jackson advocated the use of angled nozzles that can increase spray retention on small plants.

“In good spraying conditions the angled Syngenta 3D Nozzle would be the preferred option,” he advised. “If conditions are compromised, however, switching to an angled 90% Drift Reduction Nozzle, such as a Lechler IDTA, could still enable timely treatment.”

As the season progress, angled nozzles can help target insects in the top leaf layers, but Syngenta application trials have shown higher deposition of sprays on the middle and bottom leaves with using an Amistar Nozzle as the first choice, he suggested.

06 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Roger VickersChief Executive

PGRO Commentary The writing on the wall…

Now with a focus on soil health almost

everywhere, it can easily be envisaged that

the environmental concerns will soon start to

turn to the way that soil is managed. Yet this

won’t really be new. Prescriptive measures

are defined within environmental schemes

for which farmers are rewarded, and there

has long been regulation around NVZs.

Cross-compliance is made up of ‘Statutory

Management Requirements’ and standards

for ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental

Conditions’. More recently ‘The Reduction

and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse

Pollution (England) Regulations 2018’ directly

control the application of fertilisers and

organic manures and the management of

livestock and soil. What we have yet to see is

the industry-wide prescription of approved

cultivation practices.

The changes driven by environmental

concerns should not be a surprise. The

issues have been mounting up for decades

now. The political leverage of those with

narrow environmental concerns, and their

influence on a population largely distanced

and detached from the origins of their food,

has become enormous and the need for

recognition in agriculture very apparent.

I am increasingly surprised by the number

of farmers who do not seem to recognise

the situation, so regular are conversations

imploring new chemistry: ‘Can we use this?’,

‘What is coming for that?’, ‘How are we

supposed to do without it?’ As restrictions are

imposed and approvals revoked, there are no

easy fixes in trying to adhere to the practices

of old, but I realise it is hard to let go. Change

is tough. For the successful farmers of the

near future, it seems clear that there will be

no relying upon a ‘can of this’, a ‘bottle of

that’ or ‘bags of the other’. It is highly likely

that those days are gone for good and that

the pressures now almost upon us will bring

an untimely end to businesses that have not

already realised the urgent need to change,

and to those without a plan.

I recently heard Professor Mohamed Khan

of North Dakota State University and the

University of Minnesota speaking in relation

to sugar beet and a challenge he posed is

equally valid for all of us in this in this context:

“How do we use science in an ethical,

economical, socially and environmentally

acceptable manner for world food security?

Surely integrated management practices

have to be at the heart of it. And the

following article in this issue of the Pulse

Magazine examines one important part

of the changes to come.

This trend is magnified in part by the increasing ability to detect molecular residues in ever-decreasing concentrations, and a precautionary, hazard-based approach rather than risk-assessment.

Environmental studies that take many seasons to conclude have shown practices continued in good faith and with an assured clean bill of health, have stored up toxic problems for nature and humans alike. These studies have cast doubt on the very desirability and purpose of our agricultural industry itself in the eyes of significant elements of the public.

Ever-rising concerns about the impact of agricultural practices apply pressure to account for their effect on the environment. A lifeless environment is in no one’s interest, and farmers being guardians of our surroundings have more to gain than most from ensuring nature thrives. Their livelihoods depend on it, and for the last 25-30 years the phrase ‘intensive agriculture’, glibly thrown at all questioning of environmental issues in the UK, seems increasingly inappropriate. It fails completely to acknowledge what agriculture is today and that inputs before they reach the market are rightly subject to extreme rigour in testing before being released in a controlled manner for just such reasons.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that Agribusiness has lost the argument and that the regulators and policy makers - in Europe at least - are determined to have food produced with as little chemistry as possible, even if it is not quite organic in its designation.

Of course, there have always been those who have shunned most of the manufactured inputs in crop production and animal welfare, but for the majority they have become just part of the routine of business along with good management practice, the pursuit of productivity, good quality healthy produce, welfare and profit.

For quite some time it has become apparent that the writing is on the wall for the agriculture so many grew up with and pursued over decades.

A baited banker thus desponds,

From his own hand foresees his fall,

They have his soul, who have his bonds;

‘Tis like the writing on the wall.

Source: Jonathan Swift’s Miscellaneous works, 1720.

t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org 07

Dr Becky Howard

PGRO R&D Manager

PGRO Pulse Agronomy Integrated management of pests and diseases in pulses

Preventative practices include careful

consideration of crop husbandry. Soil

structure is known to have significant impact

on pulse performance, compaction being

a key factor leading to yield suppression in

peas and beans. Compaction reduces the

availability of soil moisture and nutrition to

plant roots, and in years where moisture

deficit is high, roots are unable to penetrate

compacted layers to reach moisture and

nutrients. Compaction may also lead to

increased waterlogging during periods of

high rainfall, and although field beans are

more tolerant than most legume species

to waterlogging, prolonged periods of root

submergence can lead to significant damage

to root and plant growth, and yield. Peas are

particularly susceptible to waterlogging and

even short periods can lead to significant

problems. Difficulties with soil structure also

lead to increased plant stress and likelihood

of infection with damaging soil-borne

diseases such as Fusarium, Didymella and

Aphanomyces.

Integrated management of pests, diseases and weeds in pulses

has been the basis of PGRO activities since the organisation was

established in the 1950s. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) includes

the use of a wide range of alternatives such as soil management, crop

rotations, cultivation techniques, seed and farm hygiene, biological

controls, monitoring and forecasting, crop and species diversity

and plant resistance, as well as chemical controls, and forms a core

component of Integrated Farm Management. IPM relies on farm-

specific information such as location, soil type, weather, rotations and

cropping history to help reduce and manage damaging pest, disease

and weed populations below a level that causes economic harm,

whilst reducing the risk to people and the natural environment.

Weevil damage in beans

08 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Ensuring seed quality and hygiene is an important step to

reduce the likelihood of moving pests and diseases onto or

across farms. There are several seed-borne problems that

can affect crop growth that can be easily avoided by seed

testing and good seed and farm hygiene:

Stem and bulb nematodes (Ditylenchus spp.) are found

in between 10 and 20% of field bean seed samples tested

at PGRO each year, and impact in crops is seen in various

ways. Seed quality may be affected due to discolouration

of seed when high numbers of nematodes are present,

and crop yields are affected as the nematodes multiply

in stem tissue, causing plant distortion, stem swelling,

discolouration of plant tissue and broken stems. In severe

cases, and particularly in cold, wet springs, yields can be

reduced by 70%. The free-living nematodes are seed and

soil-borne and once present in soils, can remain for up

to 10 years. They are initially spread to farms by the use

of infested seed and over years, soil populations increase

until yield is significantly impacted. For this pest, the use of

clean seed is of great importance as there are no chemical

means to manage the pest once present in soils.

The leaf and pod spot diseases in peas and beans are

diseases that have been reduced to a large extent by the

widespread use of seed testing. The diseases include

Ascochyta pisi, Didymella pinodella and Didymella pinodes

in peas, and Ascochyta fabae in field beans. Simple tests are

carried out to determine the presence and abundance of

these diseases in pulses and to screen infected seed lots out

of production.

Germination problems caused by physical damage to seed

were discussed in the Winter edition of Pulse Magazine.

The reduction in germination capacity in field beans in

the 2018 harvest season was caused by high levels of

bruchid beetle damage and harvesting of over-dry crops.

Mechanical damage to seed causes seedling abnormalities

and increased infection by soil-borne pathogens such as

damping off (Pythium spp.), lowering germination capacity

and sometimes the vigour of the plant. Issues experienced

in 2018 emphasise the importance of seed testing.

Selecting varieties for local growing conditions and

maintaining healthy crops is an additional line of defence,

and within the PGRO Recommended Lists for Peas and

Beans, all varieties are evaluated for their susceptibility to

downy mildew infection, key yield-impacting diseases in

pulses. In areas where downy mildew has been a problem,

particularly where peas and beans have been grown for

many years, growers can select varieties that are more

resistant to the disease.

Another important component of an integrated approach

to pest and disease management is the use of monitoring

systems to predict risk and aid decision-making for the

application of crop protection products.

Regular crop observation is important at key times of year

and there are several systems available for pulses:

CropMonitor® predicts the risk of downy mildew infection

in spring beans and is available at www.cropmonitor.

co.uk. When risk is forecast to be higher, crops should be

inspected and fungicides applied when disease is observed

in crops, particularly around the flowering period.

Aphid data is gathered by the Rothamsted/SASA suction-

trap network and the FERA yellow water-pan trap network

(https://ahdb.org.uk/aphid-news) and the data indicate first

flights and activity throughout the season. This can provide

an early warning for growers of likely incidence in crops

and help with decisions about better timing of aphicides to

prevent virus transmission and feeding damage in crops,

as well as reducing harm to beneficial insects and lowering

the risk of insecticide resistance by reducing unnecessary or

poorly timed sprays.

A commercial monitoring system is available for the pea

and bean weevil (Sitona lineatus). Traps should be placed

on field margins of the previous year’s pea or bean crops

in mid-February and monitored three times each week.

The traps predict when peak activity occurs as weevils

move from their over-wintering sites, with a threshold of an

average 30 weevils recorded per trap on a single occasion.

When the threshold is reached, insecticides are applied

when the characteristic leaf-edge notching is seen in crops.

The system prevents unnecessary insecticide applications

and may be used to alter drilling date to avoid peak periods

of activity.

Weevil trap

Give peas a chance!

Tel 01223 890777 • Email info@senova.uk.com

@SenovaLtd • www.senova.uk.com

KariokaFIELD PEA

l Blue pea with superb yieldsl Good standing abilityl Excellent disease resistance

KareniFIELD PEA

l Popular white peal High yieldsl Good standing ability

VertixFIELD PEA

l Large blue variety with good yieldsl Good colour retentionl Large seed size

KarpateFIELD PEA

l High yielding white peal Large seed sizel Excellent agronomics

Contact us or your seed merchant for more details on this perfect spring crop option

RecommendedList 2019, P2

RecommendedList 2019, R

RecommendedList 2019, R

RecommendedList 2019, R

Senova Peas Pulse Half Page Ad 1-19.qxp_Layout 1 30/01/2019 10:57 Page 1

Bruchid beetles are a problem in field and broad beans each

year in the UK, particularly southern England, and activity is

related to daily temperature. Egg-laying is triggered when

temperature reaches 20°C, and the BruchidCast forecast,

https://www.syngenta.co.uk/bruchidcast, predicts when this

will be reached. When a temperature threshold is forecast,

growers should inspect crops to determine that first pods have

set on the bottom trusses. If so, insecticide applications should

be made to prevent egg-laying. Two or three applications may

be required throughout the season if weather continues to be

warm. In some regions, where bruchid is not always active,

spray applications may not be necessary, and BruchidCast can

be used to help decision-making in these areas.

The pea moth monitoring system consists of traps that are

placed in crops during May, together with a model that predicts

day degrees required for eggs to hatch. The threshold for

combining peas is 10 moths in either trap on two consecutive

occasions, after which the model will predict a precise spray

date for a particular location. Further information about the

system is available at http://www.pgro.org/pea-moth/ and traps

are available from Oecos.

The use of all options to reduce pest and disease problems in

crops aids the responsible use of pesticides, as they are used

only as required and at the specific time for optimum efficacy,

reducing pressure on existing active substances. Factors such as

the development of resistance and the loss of active substances

highlight the continuing importance of the development and

use of alternative strategies. Stem nematode in seed

Pea moth trap

10 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Pulse crops create some diverse and challenging targets for sprayer operators throughout the growing season. From targeting bare soils with pre-emergence herbicides, to hitting pests and diseases on lower leaves in a metre-high bean crop, each application requires a different approach to balance efficacy, with timeliness and all-important environmental protection.

Trials results have consistently shown that fine tuning application technique for

optimum droplet targeting can make at least 10%, and up to 30%, difference in product

efficacy. But in an on-farm situation, that has to be set against the practicality of

physically covering the required area and the limitations of weather conditions.

Furthermore, operators have to be extremely conscious of potential for environmental

losses during spraying, which is coming under increasing regulatory scrutiny.

With all these elements in play, fine-tuning sprayer set-up and operation for the key

factors of nozzle selection, water volume, pressure and speed could give significant

gains.

The Art of Pre-em ApplicationPulse Agronomy

Application techniques play a

huge role in product efficacy and

environmental protection, says

James Thomas

James Thomas

Bare soil challengeStarting the season with pre-emergence herbicides, for example, Syngenta has been

investigating techniques to achieve more consistent coverage of the soil surface and optimise

results for an extremely difficult target. The lessons learned for blackgrass control in arable

crops, could be equally applied for pulse crop seedbeds.

Syngenta application

specialist, James Thomas,

reviews the latest

research trials and gives

practical guidance to

start the season with

pre-em applications

With no crop to intercept sprays, bare ground is a particularly challenging target for application

Unlike a growing crop, bare soil offers nothing to trap and hold the spray – especially fine

droplets. In some conditions there is risk that a significant proportion of the finest droplets

never have the momentum to reach the target soil surface, particularly if it’s windy or there

is thermal inversion - with rising warm air from the soil on a cool morning carrying away fine

droplets, for example.

In an ideal world the angled Syngenta 3D Nozzle can provide the optimum results. However,

where application conditions are compromised, the our research has shown that new designs

of 90% Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) nozzles, such as the Teejet TTI110-05, can perform

better than conventional finer droplet nozzles and with a significant reduction in drift risk.

There’s two elements to drift to consider; the physical loss of product from the field, and the

sideways movement of the spray pattern caused by gusts of wind during application – leading

to inconsistent coverage on the surface that would result in less effective results.

Low Slow CoveredIn all instances, the pre-emergence application mantra of ‘Go Low; Go Slow; Get Covered’ will give

positive results.

Boom height has one of the biggest influences over spray drift. A sprayer operating at one metre

boom height would have 10 times the drift, compared to operation at the recommended 50 cm

boom height – with trials showing a physical 17% better weed control at the lower height (Table 1).

11t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

New designs of 90% DRT nozzles have been shown to give good results with pre-em applications, and a significant reduction in risk of drift

One of the challenges for some bigger sprayers’ design is the

mechanical limitation of adjusting boom height down to 50 cm

above bare ground. In these instances, the 90% DRT nozzles do

appear better able to cope and perform, compared to conventional

flat fans.

Allied to height, faster forward speed immediately creates more

turbulence behind the sprayer that increases risk of drift. Furthermore,

at faster speeds operators tend to work with higher booms to avoid

problems with greater instability. Going slower, typically at 10 – 12

km/hr, has consistently improved results with weed control in the

field, and hugely improves boom stability (Table 2).

New trials have also shown clear advances with new 90% DRT

nozzles operated at water volumes of 200 l/ha, with up to 20%

better results from residual pre-emergence grass weed herbicide

applications, compared to conventional treatment at 80 or 100 l/ha

(Table 3).

The trials have shown no real advantage in further increasing water

volume, to 400 l/ha for example, so 200 l/ha demonstrates a

reasonable compromise between work rate and product efficacy.

Syngenta is investing in new pre-emergence application trials in other

crops for the coming season, to validate the previous trials and test

new 90% DRT nozzle designs that the company has been developing.

For post-emergence herbicides in peas and beans, trials have shown

that the angled 3D Nozzle can prove most effective to reduce the

amount of spray intercepted by crop leaves and ensure more reaches

the target soil surface. In more difficult conditions, however, an Amistar

Nozzle offers the best compromise between efficacy and physically

getting the application on at an appropriate time.

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50 50cm 100cm 50cm FF 100cmFF 90% DR 90% DR

Table 1 - Boom Height - Effect of boom height on weed control

% C

on

tro

l

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50 50 l/ha 100 //ha 200 l/ha 400 l/ha

Table 3 - Water Volume - Effect of water volume on weed control

% C

on

tro

l

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6kph 8kph 12kph 16kph

Table 2 - Forward Speed - Effect of forward speed on weed control

% C

on

tro

l

Water Pressure Speed LERAP DriftNozzel volume (bar) (kph) rating reduction Comments (l/ha) rating

3D 83-06 200 2.1 12 Up to N/A 1.0 bar

3D 83-05 200 2.1 10 N/A N/A

Teejet 200 2.0 10 Up to 90% Up toTTI110-05 7.0 bar 2.0 bar

90% Drift Reducing Nozzle

Syngenta 3D Nozzle

CommentsIdeal spray conditions ONLY. *Alternate

angle to face forward and backward along the spray

boom

Top recommendation for 90% drift reduction and good

efficacy

Syngenta recommendations for pre-emergence herbicide application - Spring 2019

Intercropping with pulsesPGRO Pulse Agronomy

12 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Intercropping means different things to different people, but in its simplest

form it means growing two or more crop species together where at least

one component is taken through to harvest. Pulses are often treated as the

secondary crop in an intercrop, providing a benefit, often in the form of

nitrogen.

Stephen BelcherPGRO Principal Technical Officer

Peas are inherently weak-strawed and are

often lodged at harvest, giving harvesting

difficulties. A stiff-strawed companion crop

grown with peas may provide a scaffold

to improve the standing ability and ease of

harvesting.

From a trial in 2017 it was concluded that

spring barley was not strong enough to

hold peas up, and spring oilseed rape

did not establish with problems from

flea and pollen beetle. Oats did give a

small improvement with standing ability

and allowed the pea oat mix to flow

much more readily on to the combine

header. There was an indication of weed

suppression at harvest time from the oat

mixes.

In 2018, sole crops of peas, spring oats and

spring beans were grown together with

peas + oats and peas + beans. A constant

rate of peas was used and 3 rates of oats

or beans in the mixtures. From the 2017

work it was found that the yields of the mix

components were lower when grown in

the mix compared to sole crops, but the

overall yield of the mix was improved. This

has been found by other researches also. 

Oats did improve the standing ability of

peas a little, but just as important the

presence of oats made for easier harvesting

and improved the flow of the mix on to

the combine header. Beans kept the peas

standing, with highest rate of beans giving

the best standing ability.

The concept of Land Equivalent Ratio

(LER)

A method to assess any potential benefits

of intercropping is to measure productivity

using the Land Equivalent Ratio. LER

compares the yields of the intercrop

mix to the yields of the mix components

when grown as sole crops. LER can

give a measure of positive and negative

interactions between crops.

LER is calculated from the yields of:

Intercrop1 / pure crop1 + Intercrop2 / Pure

crop2

EG: Pea (intercrop) / pea (sole crop) + bean

(intercrop) / Bean (sole crop)

This calculation gives a ratio that indicates

the amount of land needed to grow the

intercrop compared to the amount of land

needed to grow sole crops of each.

An LER of 1.0 means there is no benefit

/ disadvantage to growing the intercrop

compared to the sole crops. An LER of

less than 1.0 means it is disadvantageous.

An LER greater than 1.0 means it is

advantageous to growing the intercrop.

As an example, a LER of 1.18 means that an

area planted as a sole crop would require

18% more land to produce the same yield

as the same area planted as an intercrop

While the pea/oat mixtures give the higher

yields it is the mix of Pea70 and bean50

that gave the highest LER (1.18) – an

18% increase in land use efficiency – a

somewhat surprising result, but a very

positive result.

There is a lot to learn about intercropping

and many pitfalls, one of them being

maturity differences at harvest. While

differences were negligible in 2018, in

2017 the oats for example were still a little

green when the peas were ready (despite

desiccation). Pea bean mixes offer the

bonus of very similar crop protection

options.

Work on similar mixes will continue in 2019.

Species/plants/m2

1 P 70

2 SO 250

3 SB 50

4 P 70 SO 70

5 P 70 SO 35

6 P 70 SO 18

7 P 70 SB 50

8 P 70 SB 25

9 P 70 SB 13

P=Pea, SB=Spring Bean, SO=Spring Oats

Call 01526 396 000 Visit www.omex.co.uk

A nutrient formulation of zinc and copper complementing the fungicidal and bactericidal activity of agrochemicals.

Zynergy® is an effective foliar fertiliser with useful synergy in IPM programmes against a range of diseases including downy mildew and peas.

*Trials prove Zynergy® used as part of an IPM programme outperforms standard disease control from chemical sprays alone and can deliver higher yields in a range of crops.

Zynergy®

/OMEXCompanies @OMEXCompanies

*2016 test on vining peas by PGRO, and multiple independent and field trials on a range of other crops. Contact us for more details of trials results.

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 1. P70 2. SO 3. SB 50 4. P70 5. P70 6. P70 7. P70 8. P70 9. P70 250 SO70 SO85 SO18 SB50 SB25 SB13

Pea Oat

LER Intercropping trials 2018

Bean

LER

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 1. P70 2. SO 3. SB 50 4. P70 5. P70 6. P70 7. P70 8. P70 9. P70 250 SO70 SO85 SO18 SB50 SB25 SB13

Pea Oat

Yield Intercropping trials 2018

Bean

Yie

ld t

/ha@

15%

MC

14 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

A checklist for pea growers and agronomists

PGRO Pulse Agronomy

In striving for a perfect crop and year on year consistency, a number

of factors in protein pea agronomy need to be addressed before crop

maturity is reached.

Peas are perhaps not as forgiving as other crops. They need attention. Critically throughout

the season, ask yourself if you are checking the crop sufficiently to be able to intervene at

the optimum time if necessary.

Whilst factors such as the weather throughout a growing season cannot be influenced,

the following is a check list of key pea agronomy decisions where you can influence the

outcome:

Location: Consider the timing of potential sowing and harvest.

Soil Type: Is it suitable? Deep loamy soils are ideal. Minimise compaction.

Crop rotation: How long? Aim for a 1:6 rotation or longer if possible.

Soil Test: Nutrient status and soil type? Always test the soil ahead

of the crop.

Foot rot test: Foot rot risk? – Always check soil, preferably in the autumn

before planting.

Variety selection: Market suitability and variety performance?

Seed rate: Seed quality? Desired plant stand establishment and cost v

return?

Seed treatment: Choose according to cropping history, varietal choice and

sowing date.

Establishment: How can maximum establishment be achieved?

An absolute priority.

Cultivations: Plough or minimal cultivation?

Fertiliser and foliar feeds: Timing and application?

Seed bed preparation: What is the minimum to create a good seedbed?

Sowing date: When is the right time / opportunity?

Rolling: Pre or post emergence?

Plant count: Did you achieve the optimum?

Herbicide choice: Pre or post emergence?

Grass weeds: What are the threats ahead of the crop?

Insecticide choices: Look out for major pests – see Key insect pests

Fungicides: Check for major disease threats – see Key plant diseases

Micronutrients: Crop growth stage, symptoms of deficiencies

Key insect pests:

Pea and bean weevil

Pea moth – trap for threshold levels in

early May

APHIDS:

Pea aphid (Achrthosiphon pisum)

Peach potato aphid (especially early

winged aphids) (Myzus persicae)

Aphid and virus vector management were features in

Pulse Magazine in Spring and Summer editions 2018.

Key plant diseases:Leaf spot (Didymella pinodes, Aschochyta pisi) a seed-borne pathogen

Downy mildew (Peronospora viciae)

Foot rots (Aphanomyces eutiches, Didymella pinodella, Fusarium oxysporum)

Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea)

Sclerotinia (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)

Powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi)

Working with ADAS, sponsoring partners and experienced agronomists, PGRO has been coordinating a pilot Yield Enhancement Network for Peas. 

After two years of intensive crop monitoring to gain critical understanding of key issues, the opportunity is now presented to a wider grower base to benchmark their own pea growing with other growers.

The network is to be expanded in a manageable fashion and interested growers are welcomed on a first come basis for up to 30 growers in 2019.

If you are interested in taking part contact info@pgro.org for more information and details of the broad protocol that is to be followed in crop monitoring.

Assistance in answering these questions and decision-making can be found in the following resources:

Your Farm’s Agronomist

PGRO web site (www.pgro.org) growers guides, technical updates, crop updates, laboratory services, Recommended List varieties, previous Pulse Magazine editions, PGRO agronomy guide 2017.

PGRO Pea and Bean APP - technical advice in your pocket with built in alert services and reporting features for agronomy queries. (available free on Google Play and Apple App stores)

PGRO crop updates - sign up for the free email alert service www.pgro.org/ contact-us/

PGRO staff - technical answers can be addressed with a phone call to PGRO staff at 01780 782585, option 2 or email info@pgro.org

Sponsors

The truth is, there isn’t any. For well over a decade, UK growers have been protecting their pea and bean crops with Signum® and getting the same consistent resultsof improved yield, greater fl exibility in application timing, and protection across a broad range of diseases.

Visit agricentre.basf.co.uk/Signum for more details.

Signum is a registered Trade Mark of BASF. Signum contains boscalid and pyraclostrobin. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further information with regard to the warning phrases and symbols for this product please refer to the product label.

Spot the difference

2005 2019

0834490 BASF_Caryx_difference_press 297x210 V3.indd 1 25/02/2019 15:49

Peak Nutritional demand for peasPulse Research

16 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Ian Robertson

Working with the PGRO over the

growing season of 2018, we were

trying to see what nutrients were

required and in what volumes to

grow a decent crop of peas. One

of the key things learned over the

last couple of years is that just

because the soil has good indices

of nutrients, it does not always

mean that the plant can access

them.

With peas one of the biggest

constraining factors is poor soil structure

limiting rooting and therefore water and

nutrient access, resulting in soil structure

induced deficiencies. The peas had no

nutritional products applied to either

the soil or the foliage over the course

of the growing season. An SSM Gold

soil test highlighted that the soil and

the following crop would be potentially

short of Mg, S, Mn, B and Mo. The test

indicated that if adequate rooting and

early plant vigour were achieved then

there should be sufficient other nutrients

to grow a decent 4T/Ha harvested crop.

Following a simple plan, pea plants

were cut from a known area over the

growing season weighed, and analysed

for nutrition and DM. Tissue testing the

whole plant, we aimed to see what the

plant needed not just the new growing

parts. Sampling every week we could see

how much of any one nutrient was in the

crop at any growing period.

The aim was to find out how many

nutrients were required to grow the

plant architecture to allow the pea plant

to yield 4T peas. This is very different to

offtake figure, which is the amount of

nutrients you remove in the harvested

fraction of the crop, in this instance

the crop removal in peas is 8.8Kg P205

and 10Kg K20/T combining peas, so 4T

would remove 35Kg P205 and 40Kg K20.

Normal procedure at index 2 P&K would

be to apply this to meet the crop offtake.

However, when you look at the peak

demand of the crop the requirements are

greater than the offtake. The other factor

when looking at peak demand is that a

pea plant requires more elements than

NPK albeit in smaller volumes.

Figure 1: Dry weight plotted against the volume of nutrients over time.

Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Dry Weight T/Ha

Dry Weight against Elements Over time

Nitogen Phosphorus Potassium Calcium

Magnesium Sulphur Boron(ppm) Copper Iron

Manganese(ppm) Manganese(ppm) Zinc

Elem

ents

17t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

The plant tissue analysis guidelines (from LanCrop) enable us

to see at each sampling point what is in the crop and what

should be in the crop (peak demand). Key to the sampling is

to ensure the fresh weight from a known area is recorded and

to ask the lab for dry matter analysis of the sample.

This shows that in growing weeks 3,4,5 and 6 the plants are

putting on 10T/Ha of fresh weight and that a massive nutrient

requirement must come from the soil. The dry matter in week

5 will vary but is equivalent to only 1T of Dm/Ha. In week 7

there is nearly 10T DM/Ha; another massive increase. This dry

matter is made up of key nutrients. The guidelines are:

Graph showing dry weight and fresh weight growth over time.

Working with these figures it can be seen that the three

largest mineral elements in the pea plant are Nitrogen,

Potassium and Calcium with Phosphorus and Magnesium

being fourth, followed closely by Sulphur. These figures

are interesting, but become more meaningful when you

multiply them in to kg/ha. In the table below the demand

for nitrogen goes from 9Kg/Ha up to 317Kg/Ha. You can

see that in the early growth stages most elements keep up

with demand, however when the crops is growing rapidly

up to 40T fresh weight/Ha the plants struggle to keep up

with the demand. The reason for this could be twofold,

soils are deficient or the crops root system is compromised

via soil structure or the lack of water is reducing soil

nutrient availability.

Another element that I think we should consider more for

peas is Sulphur. The peak demand in week 8 is 21Kg S (52Kg

SO3/Ha). With decreasing sulphur depositions from the

atmosphere and lower soil levels the pea crops needs to

feed some of this 52Kg SO3 requirement (30Kg SO

3/Ha).

The same can be said for the micronutrients. At week 8

there are some very big deficiencies occurring. However,

unlike the major nutrient deficiencies these micronutrients

are measured in grams and could possibly be applied via a

sprayer to meet these peak demand requirements. In the

later growth stages, the crop ran out of nitrogen, however,

if this is because the plant ran out of Iron and Mo earlier,

the nodules may not have functioned efficiently and

therefore not translocated the N from the nodule to plant?

When the dried peas were analysed they were found to

contain far higher levels of Zinc, N, P, Mag and Mo in their

dry matter compared to the haulm and leaves. It may then

be too simple to say that K, Ca, B, Fe and Mn are needed to

maintain the architecture? The building blocks of the pea

are perhaps N, P, Mag, Zn and Mo?

More work will be carried out this year (2019) with key

nutrients being applied at key stages at the right amounts

to meet peak demand. This will hopefully highlight that

if the soils are short, or if there are structure inducing

deficiencies, then a nutrient application strategy could be

followed to maximise yield.

Nutrient Requirement

Nitrogen % DM 3.0

Phosphorus % DM 0.3

Potassium % DM 2.2

Calcium % DM 0.5

Magnesium % DM 0.3

Sulphur % DM 0.2

Micro Nutrients

Boron (ppm) 30.0

Copper(ppm) 7.0

Iron (ppm) 150.0

Manganese (ppm) 35.0

Molybdenum (ppm) 2.0

Zinc (ppm) 25.0

Week1 Week 5 Week 8

9 12 3 118 152 34 317 252 -65

0.9 0.6 -0.3 12 15 3 32 20 -12

6.9 10 3.1 86 131 45 233 155 -78

0.63 0.4 -0.23 8 10 2 21 12 -9

N

P

K

S

Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference

4 example elements (elemental form) all in Kg/Ha

Week1 Week 5 Week 8

9.5 6.1 -3.4 72 72 0 318 257 -61

47 68 21 364 554 190 1590 667 -923

11 7.3 -3.7 85 83 -2 371 153 -218

7.9 8.1 0.2 60 85 25 265 174 -91

B

Fe

Mn

Zn

Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference

4 example elements (elemental form) all in grams/Ha

Source Lancrop 2018

Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10 Harvest Peas

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Fresh Weight & Dry Weight Over Time

Fresh Weight T/Ha Dry Weight T/Ha

Key areas for

nutrition and water

(rooting)

Spring bean row widthsPGRO Pulse Research

18 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

Stephen Belcher,

PGRO Principal Technical Officer

Where beans are grown in higher rainfall

areas or fertile conditions or where

vigorous growth is expected, plant

populations should remain around the

40-45 plants/m². Increasing the plant

population means drilling more seed,

which means the plants will be more

closely associated within the rows,

giving possible intra-row competition.

Direct drills often have a row spacing

much greater than 20cm and these are

becoming increasingly popular.

We reported in spring 2017 on the first

year of investigating row width in spring

beans. After three years of trials, this work

is now complete and the outputs are

given below.

Trials were conducted 2016-2018. Two

plant densities of 40 and 60 plants/m²

were selected. In 2016, three RWs were

used, but this was increased to six in

2017/18. A list of treatments is detailed

below. The trial was semi-randomised

with 8 replications split across 2 blocks.

The 1994 PGRO field bean handbook recommended that narrow

row widths (RW) of 20cm or less were optimum for spring beans.

The target plant density at that time was 40 plants/m². Through the

Optibean project higher plant populations were recommended, up

to 60 to 65 plants/m² for maximum yield and 50 to 55 plants/m² as

an economic optimum, taking into account sowing date, likely

yield, produce value and cost of the seed.

Number of rows Row width cm Plant density (plants/m²)

10 15 40 & 60

6 15&30* 40 & 60

8 18.75* 40 & 60

6 25 40 & 60

5 30* 40 & 60

4 37.5 40 & 60

Plant density

The number of plants established was

generally higher than the target plant

density (few field losses).

• At 40 plants/m² density there was

little influence of RW with respect to

the number of plants established, but

there was a slight

trend of lower plant

numbers at wider

RWs.

• At 60 plants/m²

density there was

a clear trend of

decreasing plant

establishment with

increasing RW.

Yield

The 15&30cm RW was a double row

at 15cm with a 30cm gap between

the double rows. This was attempting

to simulate some types of direct drill

which drill a double row and a wider

gap, but the drill used was not a

direct drill.

• The 15&30 treatment did not

perform either as a 15 or 30cm

RW. Nor did it perform the same

as the 25cm RW (in both cases

there were 6 rows across the

drilled plot).

• Over years and RWs, 60 plants/m²

gave significantly higher yields

than 40 plants/m² by 6.0%.

*2017 & 2018 only

t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: info@pgro.org

• Over years and densities, a RW of

25cm gave the highest yields. RWs

15&30, 15cm and 37.5cm gave the

lowest yields.

• At 40 plants/m² there was a small

influence of RW on yield, with the

highest yields at 25-30cm RW.

• At 60 plants/m², yields increased

with increasing RW up to 25cm

after which yields were lower.

Other characters

• Branch counts, % brackling, standing

ability and maturity were little

influenced by either density or RW.

• There was no influence of either

density or RW on plant height, with

the average range only 3cm across

the treatments.

• TSW was not assessed in 2018 as there

appeared little difference in the two

previous years. In 2016 there was no

difference in TSW for the treatments.

In 2017 TSW increased from 40 to 60

plants/m² density, but only by 9g/1000

seeds. Other studies have shown TSW

to decrease as density increases.

How wide is too wide?At plant densities of 50-65 plants/m² the higher yields came from a 25cm RW. Both wider and narrower row widths gave lower yields.

There is more leeway at 40-45 plants/m² and RW had less influence on yield up to the 37.5 cm RW tested.

EVOLVED FORMULATIONS OPTIMISED WEED CONTROLMohawk contains clomazone.Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use.

For further product information and guidance refer to www.sipcamuk.co.uk

110.0

105.0

100.0

95.0

90.0

Yie

ld %

Tri

al M

ean

40 plants/m2

15 18.75 15/30 25 30 37.5

60 plants/m2

Row width & Density Vs Yield 2016-18

Row width cm

Processors and Growers Research OrganisationThe Research Station, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough, PE8 6HJ

Tel: +44(0) 1780 782585 Fax: +44(0) 1780 783993

www.pgro.org email: info@pgro.org twitter: @pgroresearch

Roger - 01780 781344 Becky - 01780 781351 Jim - 01780 781346 Stephen - 01780 781347 Lea - 01780 781340

PGRO the UK’s centre of excellence for peas and beansGrowers of peas and beans qualify for membership of the PGRO by virtue of the small voluntary

levy on produce sold through the merchant trade. Grower membership of the PGRO means that

advice from the PGRO team is only a phone call away. There are also these other benefits:

P G R O

Full access to the PGRO website (www.pgro.org) and to all the updates, technical information and

associated services provided there. Telephone and farm visit support is also available.

The PGRO is accessible for two-way communication via social media on twitter@pgroresearch, and PGRO Crop Updates are emailed throughout the growing season to highlight topical issues.

Pulse Market Updates are published and circulated on a monthly basis to registered members along with the Pulse Magazine in spring, summer and winter.

PGRO Agronomy APP tool

• By using the APP you will be able to access Recommended List variety information for combining peas and field beans and the Descriptive List data for vining peas – all adapted for viewing on a small screen.

• A Pests, Diseases and Deficiencies section shows images of common issues arising in the field together with a written description to aid identification, notes on potential impact, and control strategies.

• A useful growth stage guide is included together with commonly requested tools for seed rates and weight loss in drying calculations.

• Brief notes and guidance to sources of information for other pulses and legumes are also provided – and will be expanded in the future.

• The most innovative feature is the ability to generate your own crop reports. Accessed via the Pests, Diseases and Deficiencies section, the user can take images and write a short report, sending them from the APP by email to others. The report

will automatically be sent to the PGRO Plant Clinic where a request for advice can be lodged. Anonymised, the incidence/report will appear marked on a map of the UK on the PGRO web site enabling others to be aware of crop developments around the country.

• Another significant advantage is that the APP can be updated at any time enabling real-time notifications of updates and changes. This is particularly valuable for services such as the Pea Moth Alert.

• All of the content will also be available on the PGRO web site www.pgro.org in the form of Technical Updates and other publications - including downloadable print ready

Recommended Lists of varieties if required.

Download the APP from

Apple and Google Stores -

search for PGRO Pea and Bean

Guide

PGRO Plant ClinicThe PGRO operates a plant clinic for pea and bean growers for the diagnosis of crop disorders, pest and disease problems.

Basic diagnosis of most issues and any remedial recommendations are free of

charge to levy payers.

The plant clinic diagnosis request form and instructions to ensure samples arrive in the best possible condition can be downloaded from the PGRO web site.

www.pgro.org

The PGRO Pea & Bean APP is the worthy successor to the Agronomy Guide. It provides up to date technical backup as well as the RL variety guides and an interactive pest and disease reporting tool via your smartphone or tablet.

P G R O

THE PGRO AT YOUR

fingertips