General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Research Policy and International DivisionTelephone No. 020 7238 1612

SID 5 Final Project Report

SID 5 (1/04) Page 1 of 38

Proof copy 6

Note 1In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Final Research Report form) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

A SID 5A form will also have to be completed where a project is paid on a monthly basis or against quarterly invoices. No SID 5A is required where payments are made at milestone points. When a SID 5A is required, no SID 5 form will be accepted without the accompanying SID 5A.

DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998The information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. We may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on behalf of Defra. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exceptions under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Information (including personal data) may also be released on request, including requests made under the Environmental Information Regulations, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code PS2526

2. Project title Report on the Agronomic Impact of Directive 91/414/EEC, its proposed replacement and Legislation on Maximum Residue Levels

3. Name and address of contractor

Drew Associates LimitedThe Old RectoryLittleton DrewWiltshire          Postcode SN14 7NA

54. Total Defra project costs £ 26850.00

5. Project: start date........... 01 January 2006

end date............ 31/06/2006

SID 5 (1/04) Page 2 of 38

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.

Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and this section completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.

In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and (prior to January 2005) the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The study shows the status of pesticides the 91/414 EEC Review in June 2006 and the impact on pesticide availability for the crops so far – the situation is changing rapidly and further losses are anticipated. The crops studied were selected by the Pesticide Safety Directorate (PSD) and included five major arable, four horticultural crops, and a forage crop. Specific pesticides/pesticide groups it would be desirable to maintain to avoid major difficulties for crop production are given and prospects for alternatives to fill foreseen gaps are indicated. It is not yet possible to quantify impacts of losses on National yields or quality because some important ‘Essential Uses’ remain until the end of 2007.

Table 1. Area (hectares) of arable crops and forage maize in the United Kingdom 2005 harvest; horticultural crops in the United Kingdom 2004 harvest, potatoes 2005; Gross margins (average) forecasts 2006, maize used on-farm. (Sources: Defra National and Basic Horticultural Statistics, 2006; Nix, 2005)

Wheat Oilseed rape

Maize forage

Sugar beet

Field Beans

Field Peas

Potatoes Vining Peas (2004)

Carrots (2004)

Brassicas** Leaf (2004)

1,869,000 593,000 124,000 148,000 187,000 43,000# 137,000 31,455 9,833 31,048

£285/ha w £235/ha w - £1100/ha £240/ha w £160/ha £1300/ha* £750/ha £1800/ha* £1175/ha

Key: w winter crop; # mainly peas for stockfeed, (includes peas for human consumption 12,685 ha in 2004); * *cabbage, Brussels sprouts, calabrese, GM for cauliflower; * maincrop ware potatoes, maincrop carrots

Crop specialists, Research Organisations, Crop Levy bodies, Crop Protection Companies and the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) were consulted for their views on the impact of 91/414EEC, important pesticides and gaps in the armoury to control pests/weeds/diseases. Their help is gratefully acknowledged. Pesticide Usage Surveys by the Central Science Laboratories

SID 5 (1/04) Page 3 of 38

provided valuable information on the popularity and importance of the pesticides used in the survey year; a list of current authorisations is given for each crop together with the aims of some Companies to re-register in the UK or in another EU Member State in the same climatic zone (Tables given in the main report).

Impact of the 91/414/EEC Review

Of the 967 active substances in the 91/414/EEC Review process, to date (June, 2006) 45% were not supported across the EU. Crop Protection Company decisions to support an existing active substance depends on several factors: size of the EU market and return on the investment; probability of gaining Annex I inclusion; cost of generating data required (e.g. ecotoxicological studies for old active substances) and availability of new actives for replacement. Some ‘existing’ active substances have failed Annex 1 inclusion. We do not yet know whether those remaining will achieve Annex 1 inclusion but there are likely to be further important losses.

The greatest impact of loss of unsupported pesticides in the 91/414/EEC review has been on minor uses, mainly in the horticulture sector.

At product re-registration stage, dose rates and number of applications may be reduced and this could have an impact on efficacy. Some active substances on Annex 1 have water issues (toxicity to aquatic organisms, drinking water quality). Several review reports advise Member States to mitigate for these and other factors when assessing re-registration.

There are approximately 2750 plant protection products (ppps) available in the UK (December 2005) and it was anticipated by the European Crop Protection Assosciation (ECPA), and PSD that company rationalisation would take place at product re-registration stage and not at the time of Annex I inclusion. It is too early to assess the impact of product re-registration after Annex 1 inclusion, but contrary to expectations of UK losses, information from most Companies is that there is the intention of re-registering all UK on-label uses for the crops studied here.

Actions to support Minor Uses

In recognition of the impact on minor uses (crops or situations that are relatively small in area or sporadic) the Horticulture Development Council (HDC), the UK Minor Uses Network (PSD) and the European Commission Technical Group on Minor Uses are supporting minor use initiatives relating to the control of pests, weeds and diseases.

HDC Project FV 287 (2006), by CSL, surveyed Approvals in other EU countries across all horticultural crops.

Off–label Approvals http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/applicant_guide.asp?id=1226 based on recognition of on-label approvals in another Member State in the same climatic zone are possible for UK minor crops of areas less than 50,000 ha. The use of the pesticide on the crop must have an on-label approval in the Member State in which the use is approved. There must be an extant on-label approval for the use of the same product on another edible crop in the UK. This route is useful in the event of other MS finding an answer to the problem. However, the UK regulatory system does not permit recognition of off-label approvals in other MS although this would be helpful for minor crops.

In the US the IR-4 Program co-operates with the crop protection industry to provide new pest control solutions for US growers of speciality crops. The data protection arrangements offer incentive for development and this approach is being investigated. Funding for the IR-4 Program comes from a variety of sources. Two major USDA agencies, CSREES and ARS, provide the

SID 5 (1/04) Page 4 of 38

bulk of the funding as appropriated annually by the US Congress and amounted to $13,409,100 in 2004 (Holm et al., 2005).

Impact of the MRL Regulation (EC) 396/2005

It is too early to assess the impact of the new regulation 396/2005 on the availability of pesticides for the crop sectors, but there is likely to be a considerable impact on horticulture - where no data are available, or where data were generated using old analytical techniques for some SOLAs. The PSD archive study so far, for actives in List 1 of the review, estimates that 10 – 15% of residues data requires updating. This could be greater for actives on List 3. MRL setting may also preclude some important uses and it might not be possible to grow some UK crops. The cost implications for growers through HDC are considerable.

Potential impact of the new proposed draft regulation and revision of 91/414/EEC on UK crops

Mutual Recognition will be helpful where products containing Annex 1 active substances (excluding candidates for substitution) are registered for the crop/use combination in EU Member States in the proposed Central (same climatic zone) but not in the UK.

National Provisional Authorizations have been helpful in the UK (Crop Protection

Companies), but their loss may have a negative impact on availability of pesticides by delaying decisions for new actives pending a decision on Annex I listing (ECPA).

Member States shall not authorise a plant protection product containing a ‘candidate for substitution’ if Comparative Assessment shows that for uses specified in the application there already is an authorised product (or non-chemical control method) which present significantly less risks to health or to the environment. This will take into consideration: that it does not present significant economic or practical disadvantages; that the chemical diversity of the active substance is adequate to minimise occurrence of resistance in the target organism. There could be an impact where older pesticides are used. This is likely to affect horticultural/minor-use crops, where fewer products (several of them old) are approved than for wheat.

ECPA report that there may be a reduction in pesticide development in the future as a

result of cost/patent arrangements in the draft regulation 91/414/EEC and this is likely to affect all UK crops except wheat and maize.

The new regulation will form part of the wider “Thematic Strategy for the sustainable use

of pesticides” which includes the Water Framework Directive. There are concerns regarding water issues with some widely used herbicides (e.g. isoproturon and trifluralin for cereals).

Member States may grant an extension of authorisation for ppps already authorised to a minor use on a crop that is not widely grown in that Member State or on a widely grown crop to meet an exceptional need (Article 49). This will continue to be very useful to the UK minor crop sector and help other Member States that have not had the benefit of a similar system to UK Specific Off-Label Approvals (SOLAs). The MS List of Minor Uses could also help to identify sources of residues data for minor crops and possible potential for data sharing.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 5 of 38

The likely impacts of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability for UK crops studied

Gross margins for horticultural crops are considerably higher than for winter wheat but there is a risk of crop rejection if quality is unacceptable. As a consequence a high standard of weed, pest and disease control is the aim in horticultural crops and there is a greater need (and incentive to pay) for pesticides but fewer tools as a result of the 91/414/EEC Review.

Mechanical weed control is possible in some crops (e.g. maize, leaf brassicas, field beans) but it is expensive and there are also negative environmental impacts.

Impact so far:1. There has been no impact yet from the 91/414/EEC Review on winter wheat production. Active substances approved for cereals for example simazine and cyanazine, were lost in the 91/414 Review but there is a wide range of herbicides available for these crops, so no ‘Essential Uses’ were needed and there was no impact.

2. The greatest impacts of the 91/414/EEC Review on the UK crops in this study are from herbicide losses. Few insecticides and fungicides have been lost so far. ‘Essential Uses’ have allowed time to find alternatives but expire 31 December 2007. These will not be extended and no more derogations will be permitted for actives that fail Annex 1 listing in future. It is too early to assess the effect on product efficacy of reduced rates and timings required at re-registration stage, but impacts could be severe where there are no alternatives.

3. Herbicide losses will affect maize, carrots, vining peas, field peas and field beans. Alternative solutions for weed control may eventually become available but the slow process of the review and decisions on Annex 1 inclusion will result in delays.

UK vining peas will be uneconomic to grow and process, there will be factory closures and frozen and canned peas will be imported from mainland Europe, where different herbicides (active substances supported in the Review) are still available. The UK crop has been dependent on triazines (terbutryn, cyanazine) and fomesafen not supported in the Review. If there is a risk of contamination of produce with toxic weed parts the whole crop is rejected - financial loss £1000/ha After 2007 there will be no broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicide for vining peas unless those containing actives aclonifen or imazamox currently approved in France are available in the UK for 2008.

The impact of poor weed control in field peas resulting from the loss of terbutryn, cyanazine and fomesafen, will be on yield, and quality – there are price deductions for peas contaminated with weed seeds and if crops grown for seed are weedy, they are rejected. There will be more desiccant use to avoid harvesting difficulties and production costs will increase in a crop where gross margins are low £160/ha.

Weeds in forage maize reduce yield and feed quality. Atrazine, which failed Annex 1 inclusion, was the main herbicide used. In 2005 the cost of weed control in maize with atrazine, was c. £15/ha (including application). In 2006 the cost was £51 to £80/ha assuming both grass and broad-leaved species were present. The next generation of herbicides will be even more expensive. Maize can be mechanically weeded but the cost is higher than for weed control with herbicides. Tractor hoeing costs £69 for two passes or £104/ha for three (Nix, 2005). The UK dairy sector is less reliant on forage

SID 5 (1/04) Page 6 of 38

maize than some other major milk producing countries, however it is an essential part of winter rations for many producers. Milk at 18 p/L is being produced at cost – the significant increase in herbicide costs or reduction in yield of maize if weeds are not controlled will compound the severe financial pressure being experienced by the majority of dairy farmers and will give further encouragement to cease milk production which in turn may impact on the sustainability of the dairy supply chain.

If weeds are not controlled in field beans the main impact will be from weed seed return and infestation of the following crop, and on harvesting difficulties. A desiccant will be needed £28/ha where some weeds remain green. Simazine is used on most of the field bean crop, and. and the cost of weed control, excluding application, will increase from £4/ha for simazine to £67/ha for a tank-mix. Winter field beans will be even less profitable. Few alternatives remain because other actives (cyanazine etc.) will also be lost and the future of trifluralin is doubtful.

For carrots there is no alternative to metoxuron, used to suppress volunteer potato foliage and the reservoir for potato blight infection will have an impact on neighbouring potato crops. The other losses (pentanochlor, prometryne), and linuron dose restrictions will limit weed control options and quality and yield will be affected. Alternatives have been identified - aclonifen, approved for carrots in Denmark and submitted for registration in France, is urgently needed.

The loss of cyanazine, and tighter rotations for oilseed rape may result in an increase in infestations of charlock – a contaminant that downgrades quality of produce.

4. The loss of the nematicide aldicarb:

This will probably have little impact on the potato crop for potato cyst nematode control because oxamyl and fosthiazate (both are now on Annex 1) are replacements. There may be an impact for the processing crop in particular if oxamyl and fosthiazate prove less effective for spraing suppression.

In sugar beet (and carrots), oxamyl gives a shorter period of early aphid control. Costs will be increased for some sugar beet growers who previously used aldicarb and did not use the more expensive imidacloprid seed treatment to control aphid. The loss of aldicarb has compromised resistance strategy options for the control of MACE as well as low-level esterase (R1) resistant M. persicae.

5. The revocation of chlorfenvinphos after the UK Review of anticholinesterase compounds was followed by withdrawal of this active in the UK and it was not supported in the EC Review. Retailers also imposed restrictions on the use of organophosphates.

This has had an impact on leaf brassicas (but is more serious for swedes and turnips not studied here) where cabbage root fly is now more difficult to control. In leaf brassicas plant loss from cabbage root fly affects uniformity of size and yield, and sometimes quality in calabrese and Brussels sprouts. Alternatives are chlorpyrifos and spinosad (both on Annex 1). Whether these control measures are adequate, remains to be seen.

In carrots, larvae of carrot fly tunnel into roots, spoiling quality and crops are rejected. Carrot fly was manageable with insecticide seed treatment followed by repeat applications of lambda-cyhalothrin. However, although the 150ml dose remains the same (new SOLA, August 2006) the number of applications permitted has been reduced to four, and total dose reduced to 450ml. It remains to be seen whether carrot fly can be controlled adequately in future. Reliance on pyrethroids is not a good resistance strategy.

6. Triazamate (withdrawn from the EC review), was very effective for cabbage aphid control.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 7 of 38

There is concern that it will now be difficult to maintain quality in leaf brassicas.

7. After 2007 the loss of fumigant 2-aminobutane used on skin spot-susceptible varieties and for gangrene control in stored Scottish seed potatoes will mean reduced control of these diseases that are favoured by cool, wet climates. Widespread use of the alternative imazalil in successive generations of multiplication could result in resistance developing in the UK.

8. Finally, the cost to growers through their levy bodies, in particular the Horticulture Development Council (HDC), of trials to find alternatives will be considerable.

A significant proportion of growers levy through the HDC has been already been spent on projects to identify alternatives. Since 2002, the overall cost of these projects for horticultural crops is £4.714 million and of this £2.7 million is for vegetables (C Harvey, Chairman, HDC, pers. comm.). Where/if alternative herbicides are identified, and no residues data are available, further HDC funds will be needed for residues studies and SOLAs. HDC estimate that, since it began, the Specific Off-Label Approval programme has cost growers £3.5 million for approximately 960 SOLAs.

In the case of maize, funding is very limited indeed and insufficient to fund work.

In future HGCA funding may be required to develop herbicide ppps for oilseed rape – only maize and wheat are considered to be a major EU crops by Crop Protection Companies.

Substantial funds will also be needed for residues studies for alternatives, or to update old data for SOLAs. There was also a cost for conversion of approvals under the extensions of use (LTAEU) to on-label approvals as SOLAs as required by the EC Directive.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 8 of 38

A summary of the impact of 91/414/EEC so far (as of June 2006) on the crops studied is shown in the Table below.

Crop Losses, not supported (June 06)

Losses, failed Annex 1 (June 06)

Re-registration dose-rate restrictions

Impact on production cost, quality, yield etc.

Herbicides & desiccantsWinter wheat Reduced dose

isoproturonToo low for black-grass control. Increase resistance selection pressure on options remaining

Oilseed rape cyanazine - Quality, alternative bifenox? Maize cyanazine atrazine simazine Yield, feed value. Cost weed control increased by

£36-£65/ha, cannot be absorbed by dairy farmerSugar beet - - Reduced dose

metamitron and ethofumesate. Ethofumesate applied once in 3 years

Efficacy Revert to intra-row band spraying/tillage?

3 year may affect horticultural crops onions

Field beans cyanazine fomesafen terbutryn

simazine New alternatives higher cost, desiccant needed

Field peas cyanazine* fomesafen terbutryn

- Yield, cost desiccant needed

Potatoes - - Reduced doses linuron, metribuzin

Scottish seed crops weed control difficult Cost weed control higher

Vining peas cyanazine* fomesafen terbutryn

- Quality; rejection loss to grower £1000/ha; processing costs increase if weed control poor, factory closures

Brassicas, (leaf) cyanazine, sodium monochloroacetate

- Quality, size-grade, maturity, harvestability

Carrots prometryne pentanochlor

metoxuron

- Reduced dose linuron

Yield, quality (size grade), weed contaminant bunching carrots,

potato crop – source blight infectionInsecticides, Molluscicides, NematicidesSugar beet

triazamate

aldicarb Aphid control cost increase seed treatment usedResistance strategy compromised for resistant M. persicaeOther aphicides

Field peas triazamate None, alternative aphicidesPotatoes

nicotine (data lacking)

aldicarb Perhaps on processing crop, otherwise alternative oxamyl and fosthiazate

None, alternative aphicides

Vining peas triazamate None, alternativesBrassicas (leaf) triazamate

(chlorfenvinphos)#

Aphid: Quality, increased use of other insecticides.

(Cabbage root fly: Quality – size grade, yield plant loss)

Carrots (chlorfenvinphos)#

aldicarb

(Aug.2006 SOLA) lambda-cyhalothrin total dose & number applications reduced

Carrot fly: Quality, crop rejectionMay be insufficient.

Quality (fanging), crop rejection but oxamyl alternative; early aphicide needed

FungicidesField beans carbendazim MRL None (resistance a problem)Potatoes 2-aminobutane

peroxyacetic acid

Quality loss skin spot. Capital investment in equipment and stores needed Scottish seed potato exports c. £14 million pa. Reliance on imazalil alternative risks resistance development.

Resistance management neededBrassicas, Leaf quintozene None. tolclofos-methyl alternative

greatest impact bold type; # UK anticholinesterase review; * bentazone/MCPB will not be manufactured when cyanazine goes

SID 5 (1/04) Page 9 of 38

Impact of potential losses: 1. If trifluralin fails Annex 1 listing, or, if included but not re-registered in the UK, there will be a considerable impact on production of several crops:

On grass weed resistance management in winter wheat, especially for black-grass control where there are increasing problems of herbicide resistance and few alternative chemical controls. Loss of trifluralin would increase selection pressure on the remaining herbicides and may lead to inadequate chemical control, reduced yields, require more expensive cultural control methods and have a serious adverse effect on the economics of wheat production.

Herbicide resistant grass-weeds are increasing in oilseed rape and field beans grown on heavy land and management in these crops with propyzamide is more expensive. Trifluralin is cheap £5/ha, used in tank-mixes is also of value for general weed control in oilseed rape and field beans. Production costs will increase.

Trifluralin is used in 60% of leaf brassicas for control of polygonums and fat-hen and for early plantings where tractor hoeing is unsuccessful in wet conditions. The cost of broad-leaved weed control will increase.

2. In June 2006 decisions had not been made on the remaining eight active substances on List 1 including carbendazim, flusilazole or vinclozolin. Commission proposals are that they should be included on Annex 1 for use in some major crops, but some uses will be lost. Decisions will not be made until September 2006. The most important of these is flusilazole a systemic, protective and curative triazole for Light leaf spot control in oilseed rape and it is used in formulation with carbendazim. There are other triazole alternatives. In the crops studied here the loss of carbendazim and vinclozolin would not cause difficulties.

3. There are concerns about the future of the desiccant sulphuric acid, although it is supported in the EC review so far (commodity List 4H). If it is not included in Annex 1 there would be an impact on Scottish seed potato production.

4. Metaldehyde (List 2) for slug control is important in many crops. It had general approval for ‘all edible and non-edible crops’ but it may not be re-registered for some minor crops if more data is required, because of the cost.

Specific pesticide or pesticide groups it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties

There was concern in all crop sectors about increasing development of resistance in pests, diseases and grass weeds and a diminishing range of pesticides. Consequently it is desirable to maintain all pesticide groups currently approved, and those with new modes of action were also sought. Key actives have already been lost for minor crops as a result of the 91/414 review, and it is important to retain those remaining. Reliance on only a few actives for vegetables may risk exceedance of MRLs, in other situations in a few cases, exceedance of the 1µg/L limit in drinking water.

Full lists for individual crops are given in the following crop summaries. A wide range of herbicides is needed to cover the whole weed spectrum, particularly for horticultural crops, where produce quality is important. Without them conventional crop production would not be possible - not all key herbicides are mentioned here.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 10 of 38

Pesticides needed in several crops, or for particularly important uses in a single crop, are:

Herbicides – glyphosate, bipyridyls used before cropping; trifluralin, isoproturon, propyzamide, graminicides (‘fops’ and ‘dims’), nicosulfuron, pinoxaden, tri-allate; flupyrsulfuron-methyl, fluroxypyr/flufenacet, iodosulfuron/mesosulfuron, pendimethalin, clomazone, bentazone, rimsulfuron, bromoxynil, bromoxynil/prosulfuron, metazachlor, isoxaben/terbuthylazine, mesotrione/terbuthylazine, ethofumesate, metamitron, phenmedipham/desmedipham, phenmedipham and mixtures, metribuzin, propachlor, linuron, clopyralid, MCPB/MCPA, mecoprop-P, metsulfuron-methyl, diflufenican, flufenacet and several others.

Desiccants/harvest aids – diquat, glyphosate, carfentrazone-ethyl, sulphuric acid.

Nematicides – oxamyl, fosthiazate, ethoprophos and carbosulfan.

Insecticides – chlorpyrifos; dimethoate; neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiacloprid); pyrethroids (tefluthrin, beta-cyfluthrin, lambda-cyhalothrin and others); carbamate (pirimicarb alone and in formulation with lambda-cyhalothrin); spinosad; pymetrozine; flonicamid.

Molluscicides – metaldehyde, methiocarb.

Fungicides – seed or tuber treatments hymexazol, cymoxanil/fludioxonil/metalaxyl-M, thiram, imazalil, thiabendazole, bitertanol/fuberidazole, carboxin, fludioxynil, the guanidines, prothiaconazole, silthiofam. Foliar sprays metalaxyl-M, triazoles (prothioconazole, epoxiconazole, tebuconazole, flusilazole etc.), chlorothalonil, boscalid, strobilurins (azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin), morpholines (iprodione and fenpropimorph), proquinazid, quinoxyfen, mancozeb mixtures, fluazinam, cymoxanil, cyazofamid, propamocarb hydrochloride and zoxamide formulations.

Plant Growth Regulators – chlormequat, 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid, mepiquat and formulations, trinexapac-ethyl, chloropropham and ethylene.

Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

There were 69 ‘new’ (i.e. registered after 1993) substances on Annex 1 (1 June 2006) – including 28 herbicides, 21 fungicides, 11 insecticides, 1 nematicide and 1 molluscicide. Some are isomers of old actives. There were more with dossiers prepared.

Globally, pesticide development has slowed down compared with the period 1990-1999. A report by Phillips McDougall, given at the ECPA conference in November 2005 showed that for fruit and vegetables, no new herbicide active substances had been introduced over the period 2000-2004, and none were in R & D. There are a few for wheat but broad-leaved herbicides for wheat are usually damaging to broad-leaved crops. A few fungicides are still being developed for cereals but no insecticides. There are several fungicides and insecticides for fruit and vegetables – probably those developed earlier for the larger cereal markets.

Crop Protection Companies are finding it more difficult to gain approvals for broad-spectrum insecticides. In the US ‘reduced risk/OP alternatives’ are given preference. In addition, registration of residual herbicides that are very persistent in the soil may be difficult. Thus, instead of one broad-spectrum herbicide that lasts for the duration of a crop, a programme of several herbicides will be needed to remove weeds and maintain quality standards.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 11 of 38

In future: Inadequate data protection under 91/414 is an issue for Crop Protection Companies and

may restrict development. The USA IR 4 project has a useful solution for minor uses.

We can expect few new pesticides for the EU, particularly herbicides for broad-leaved weeds, which, for reasons of safety, are more crop-specific.

There is more optimism for new fungicides, insecticides and graminicides because they can be used on a wide range of crop species. There are opportunities for development of new molluscicides and of plant growth regulators for the large cereal market.

Crop Protection Companies now consider all EU crops except wheat and maize are of minor importance, thus pesticide development in the EU will focus on these.

Crop Protection Companies are investing in new biotechnology traits in crops. It is likely that some of this investment is being re-directed away from traditional agrochemical development. This may mean fewer pesticides are developed in future.

Non-chemical methodsIn most crops the cost of alternative non-chemical methods are often more expensive than chemical control and can themselves have negative environmental impacts. They may not be an option in some systems of vegetable production, for example baby carrots grown on at high population on close rows. The increasing occurrence of grass weed resistance and limited availability of active substances may mean ploughing and delayed drilling, (or increased area of ‘set-aside’) will be used more, as part of an integrated herbicide resistance management strategy for winter wheat.

Alternative herbicidesAlternative herbicides will be available for most crops, some of them through Mutual Recognition, for maize, field beans, brassicas, peas and carrots but they will be more costly. There may also be a delay because of the slow process of the EC Review.

There is no replacement yet for: metoxuron for volunteer potato suppression in carrots or for cyanazine + MCPB/MCPA to prevent formation of toxic volunteer potato berries.

Alternative insecticides and nematicidesA complete solution to cabbage root and carrot fly control is still required, and in addition a different class of chemistry is needed for pest resistance strategy. There may be an answer, but not for at least 5 years.

Novel insecticides for wheat with different modes of action are needed especially for wheat bulb fly and aphid control.

Alternative fungicidesIt is unlikely that there will be any new products with novel chemistry for the major cereal foliar diseases available for commercial use within the next five years. Septoria tritici control in wheat is a challenge. Many crops are reliant on triazoles and fungicides with new modes of action are needed.

Geoffrey Hollis, Team LeaderCathy Knott, Malcolm Ogilvy

for Drew Associates LimitedJune 2006

SID 5 (1/04) Page 12 of 38

Scientific Report8. The Scientific Report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4 and include:

the scientific objectives as set out in the SID 3 (original application form); the extent to which the objectives set out in the SID 3 have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

Published papers, or details of any other outputs (e.g. presentations), should also be annexed to the SID 5, together with other relevant information which cannot be accommodated within the recommended maximum of 20 pages.

WINTER WHEAT Summary

The total area of winter and spring sown wheat grown in the UK for the 2005 harvest year was 1,869,000 ha, 42% of the total cropped area. The area of spring-sown wheat is normally only 1% or 2% of the total. Recommendations for the wheat crop are based mostly on information from research funded by farmers through the Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) statutory levy and/or work commissioned by Defra. To date, none of the projects result from any impact of 91/414/EEC. The HGCA R & D budget is £2.4 million/annum.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesThere have been no significant agronomic impacts as a result of the review process so far. Some minor outclassed herbicides have been lost, but nearly all the currently approved active substances have received Annex I listing. Decisions are still to be made on trifluralin (List 2); fenoxaprop-P-ethyl and diflufenican (both on List 3A).

Trifluralin is the herbicide considered to be the most threatened by the on-going review process. It is particularly valued in wheat production because of its low cost (c. £5/ha), in the context of low profitability margins for wheat production, and as a tool in the management of herbicide resistant grass weeds where its loss would increase resistance selection pressure on other herbicides. This could be particularly serious in the case of black-grass where there are increasing problems of herbicide resistance to key selective herbicides and very few alternatives. Inadequate chemical control would reduce yields, require more expensive cultural alternatives and could have a profound effect on the economics of winter wheat production. Reductions in the maximum rate of isoproturon will reduce weed control efficacy especially for black-grass and may exacerbate the problem.

There is widespread grass weed resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl, indicating a minimal impact of potential loss.

Diflufenican is a key component of broad-leaved weed control programmes in wheat, and it will be supported for re-registration.

Insecticides and molluscicidesThere have been no losses of any agronomic significance for insecticides and molluscicides in the

SID 5 (1/04) Page 13 of 38

review process to date and the majority, including the critically important chlorpyrifos and major pyrethroids are now on Annex 1. The uncertainty on future availability of dimethoate would be of particular concern for the control of established wheat bulb fly infestations, although the cost effectiveness of dimethoate sprays is inconsistent.

FungicidesThe review process has had no significant impact on fungicide availability for wheat so far. However in June 2006, none of the conazole fungicides had been Annex I listed. These are critically important, for a range of wheat diseases, especially epoxiconazole and prothioconazole for Septoria tritici control. There is likely to be some rationalisation at the re-registration stage, but this should have little impact, providing key substances (see below) are retained.

Plant growth regulatorsThere have been no losses of PGR active substances in the review process, although to date only trinexapac-ethyl and prohexadione-calcium are included on Annex I.

2. Specific pesticides or pesticide groups it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties

It would be desirable to maintain the pesticides/plant protection products listed as follows. Those substances considered especially important are given in bold type.

Herbicides Annex I listed: glyphosate, bipyridyls, clodinofop-propargyl, iodosulfuron/mesosulfuron, isoproturon, chlorotoluron, fluroxypyr/flufenacet, pendimethalin, flupyrsulfuron-methyl, mecoprop-P, metsulfuron-methyl, tri-allate and ioxynil/bromoxynil.Annex I pending: trifluralin, diflufenican, flufenacet, amidosulfuron, pinoxaden, tri-allate and prosulfocarb.

Insecticides and molluscicidesIt would be highly undesirable to lose any of the very limited range of insecticide and molluscicide active substances approved for winter wheat.Annex I: pirimicarb, chlorpyrifos, clothianidin seed treatment and the pyrethroids, especially lambda-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin and esfenvalerate. Annex I pending: the molluscicides, metaldehyde and methiocarb; dimethoate, tau-fluvalinate, zeta-cypermethrin, plus tefluthrin and imidacloprid seed treatments.

FungicidesSeed treatments:Only thiram has achieved Annex I status to date. Annex I pending: bitertanol/fuberidazole, carboxin, fludioxynil, the guanidines, prothiaconazole, fluquinconazole and silthiofam.Foliar diseases:Annex I: The strobilurins, chlorothalonil, dithiocarbamates, proquinazid and quinoxyfen.Annex I pending: The conazoles, particularly epoxiconazole and prothioconazole for their high efficacy in controlling Septoria tritici; and tebuconazole for rusts and ear diseases, prochloraz, boscalid and the morpholines (particularly fenpropimorph).

Plant growth regulatorsAnnex 1: trinexapac-ethyl.Annex 1 pending: chlormequat, chlormequat/imazaquin, 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid (alone and in mixture with mepiquat chloride).

SID 5 (1/04) Page 14 of 38

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

Herbicides and desiccantsNo foreseen major gaps have been identified as a result of the review process so far. There is a need for new active substances with novel modes of action to counter increasing herbicides resistance, particularly for grass weeds, but it appears unlikely any will be available in the medium term. Potential loss of trifluralin would leave a gap for a substitute herbicide with a comparable low price and lack of any known weed resistance, especially for black-grass control. Cultural control alternatives for grass weed control are available but can be unreliable and relatively expensive.

Insecticides and molluscicidesThere are no foreseen major gaps in insecticide or molluscicides as a result of the review process so far and none expected. There is a need for new insecticides with novel modes of action as alternatives to the current restricted range. Improvement in integrated and cultural control techniques and options are developing rapidly for some pests, particularly Orange Wheat Blossom midge.

FungicidesNo predictable major gaps likely to develop from the ongoing review process were identified. New cereal fungicides offering novel modes of action are unlikely to be become available in the near future. Levels of genetic resistance with recommended wheat cultivars to major diseases such as Septoria leaf blotch are generally inadequate without the use of fungicides. Lack of alternatives is of considerable concern with the increasing problems of disease resistance to current fungicides.

Plant growth regulatorsThere are no foreseen major gaps so far and no new cereal PGRs known to be in late stage development trials. There is a wide range of cultural methods and integrated control techniques thatcan be employed to supplement, or minimise, the need for PGRs. Lodging-resistant varieties are particularly valuable.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 15 of 38

OILSEED RAPE Summary

The oilseed rape area (including non set-aside and set-aside) reached a 5-year high of 593,000 ha in 2005. Most recommendations for the crop are based on information from research funded by farmers through the Home Grown Cereals Authority HGCA statutory levy and/or commissioned by Defra. The HGCA annual R & D budget is £2.4 million (excluding variety trials) and so far no work has been undertaken as a result of any impact of 91/414/EEC. It seems likely that active substances will be supported with acceptable data packages and be re-registered for oilseed rape in N Europe and the UK, and that new pesticides will be developed because oilseed rape is becoming an important EU crop for biofuel as well as for feed.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesCyanazine was not supported in the 91/414 EEC review but there was a derogation for use in winter oilseed rape until 31 December 2007. It is not approved for spring rape. Cyanazine applied post-emergence, controls charlock, which is not controlled by other rape herbicides.

There is a risk of processors/crushers rejecting or reducing the price of crops infested with seeds of rape volunteers, cruciferous species (charlock and wild radish) because the quality for oil production or crushing is affected. If the crop is rejected the financial loss for average yields would be £470/ha (winter rape) or £290/ha (spring rape). The area of winter rape currently affected by charlock is c. 20,000 ha, this equates to £9,400,000 per annum. Close rotations of oilseed rape crops are becoming common. If charlock is not controlled, it sets seed to infest the next crop – it is likely to become a widespread problem, affecting quality.

Bifenox (List 3A) controls charlock and has a SOLA for use, at grower’s risk, in winter and spring rape but it can be damaging. A new product ‘Springbok’ (dimethenamid-p/metazachlor) covers a broad-spectrum and improves control of charlock, but may still be inadequate.

Trifluralin (List 2) inclusion on Annex 1 is doubtful and there is a potential impact if it is lost. If it is included on Annex 1, regulatory authorities in some Northern EU Member States may not permit re-registration because of water issues.

Trifluralin products are cheap c. £5/ha, and are used on more than 30% of oilseed rape crops, often in combination with lower than recommended dose-rates of metazachlor to extend the weed spectrum, including black-grass and to improve control of poppy (cost c. £38/ha). There is little herbicide choice for spring rape – trifluralin is approved for both winter and spring crops. In spring rape trifluralin is often all that is required, or a sequence of trifluralin pre-sowing followed by metazachlor pre-emergence is used.

Loss of trifluralin at £5/ha, would lead to increased costs and reliance on metazachlor (broad spectrum) ½ dose + clomazone, cost £64, or £55/ha full dose of metazachlor alone.

If trifluralin were not available, there would be no control of spring-emerging resistant black-grass, knotgrass, black bindweed, fat-hen, fumitory in spring rape, or pansy, fumitory in poorly established winter rape.

There is no evidence of grass weed resistance to trifluralin. The loss of trifluralin would exacerbate the current resistance management problems of grass weeds and production costs would increase by £37/ha - an alternative, propyzamide is more expensive.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 16 of 38

The decision on Annex 1 inclusion for most of the important herbicide active substances for oilseed rape has still to be made. New UK statutory restrictions on ACCase inhibitors for management of herbicide resistance in grass weeds mean that a range of different ‘fops’ or ‘dims’ will be needed. So far only tepraloxydim is on Annex 1, the rest are on List 3. Propyzamide is on Annex 1 and re-registration in the UK will be sought for oilseed rape (winter).

Insecticides and nematicidesAll insecticides were supported in the 91/414/EEC review, and most are included on Annex 1. Insecticidal seed treatment beta-cyfluthrin/imidacloprid is important and very widely used but the decision on imidacloprid (List 3A) has not been made. Thiodicarb failed Annex 1 inclusion but other molluscicides were more important for rape. At re-registration stage data may be required for each crop use of metaldehyde (List 3A) and this will be generated for oilseed rape - an important market.

FungicidesCommission proposals are that carbendazim, flusilazole or vinclozolin remaining on List 1 should be included on Annex 1 for use in oilseed rape but decisions will not be made until September 2006. The most important of these for oilseed rape is flusilazole a systemic, protective and curative triazole used alone or in formulation with carbendazim (or famoxadone)

There is no decision yet on Annex 1 inclusion for some triazoles: prothioconazole (‘new’ active), tebuconazole (List 3B) and cyproconazole (List 3B)

Triazole fungicides offer the main defence against Light leaf spot and Phoma. If not controlled, average yield loss is 1–1.5t/ha from Light leaf spot, 0.5–0.7t/ha can result from Phoma infections.Light leaf spot severity differs between seasons and it is more prevalent in Scotland, where strains less sensitive to triazoles make control more difficult. In high-risk areas, robust rates of flusilazole/carbendazim are currently advised. The new prothioconazole/tebuconazole may be the best alternative if flusilazole is lost.

2.Specific pesticides it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties (unless specified, active substances are on Annex 1)

HerbicidesGraminicides ‘fops’ and ‘dims’ (all on List 3B except tepraloxydim Annex 1) important for volunteer cereal control but there will be restrictions; propyzamide for winter rape – for resistant grass weeds.Trifluralin (List 2) it is cheap and is used with metazachlor to extend the weed spectrum, and for resistant black-grass; metazachlor (List 3A) for broad-leaved weed control, and quinmerac (List 3B), which gives additional cleavers control; dimethenamid-p used in formulation with metazachlor increases the spectrum; clomazone (List 3A) for control of cleavers pre-emergence and a few other species; bifenox (List 3A) may be a suitable alternative to cyanazine for control of charlock; clopyralid for mayweeds and thistle control.Glyphosate is the most widely used cheap herbicide to clean up stubbles and for desiccation; diquat has already been re-registered for desiccant use in oilseed rape.

Insecticides and molluscicidesMetaldehyde (List 3 A) and methiocarb (List 2) molluscicides. Neonicotinoid seed treatment, beta-cyfluthrin/imidacloprid (Annex 1/List 3A), is extremely important for Cabbage stem flea-beetle control and it currently controls all resistant forms of peach potato aphid for several weeks following emergence.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 17 of 38

Pirimicarb for brassica aphid; pyrethroids are essential for control of other pests (cabbage-stem flea beetle, pollen beetle, cabbage seed weevil and pod midge).Thiacloprid for pollen beetle control, to avoid resistance to pyrethroids.

FungicidesSeed treatments: thiram, iprodione.The status of fungicide resistance in the UK is under review but the use of anti-resistance strategies are very important in prolonging the useful life of fungicides, even once resistance in the pathogen has started to develop. It is important to reduce the risk of it developing by using fungicide mixtures and fungicides with different modes of action.Foliar sprays: It is important to keep triazoles, particularly prothioconazole (‘new’ pending Annex 1)/tebuconazole (List 3B) for Light leaf spot control and flusilazole (List 1). Sclerotinia protectants strobilurins and boscalid; prothioconazole, also offers control and is a significant addition to fungicides for Sclerotinia. Iprodione/thiophanate-methyl is less important but could be needed if resistance develops.(Tebuconazole is also used as a plant growth regulator).

3.Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

HerbicidesThere is little herbicide development for oilseed rape because it is competitive and has a lower requirement for broad-leaved weed control. The introduction of Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant rape would simplify weed control, but seems unlikely in the near future in the UK because of concerns about seed longevity and consumer opposition. Ethametsulfuron, registered for use in oilseed rape in Canada, but not the EU, controls charlock. Dimethachlor (List 3B) is approved for broad-leaved weed control for oilseed rape in Germany. Resistant black-grass: no other class of compound has so far been developed.

Insecticides and molluscicides Insecticides approved are adequate for control of the main pests but new ones with different modes of action would be useful for resistance strategies.

No seed treatment is yet approved for slugs but seed treatments incur cost ahead of knowing whether there is a problem. However, forecasting could be used to determine instances in which treated seed is justified. Future possibilities could perhaps include beta-cyfluthrin/clothianidin seed treatment.

FungicidesFungicides for the main diseases of oilseed rape are adequate but strains of Light leaf spot less sensitive to triazoles are developing. It is important that growers adopt strategies to avoid resistance and that new fungicides with a different mode of action are sought.

A new fungicide, cyprodinil/fludioxonil, will be approved for control of Sclerotinia in some higher value crops, but there are no plans for introduction into oilseed rape.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 18 of 38

SUGAR BEET Summary

The area of sugar beet has declined to approximately 148,000 ha in 2005. British Beet Research Organisation (BBRO) is owned jointly by the processors, British Sugar plc and the National Farmers Union and funded by a contractual levy paid 50/50 by the growers and British Sugar. Broom's Barn Research Station is the centre of expertise. Approximately £1.2 - £1.3 million p.a. of levy is spent on sugar beet research. Some funding has been spent on mitigation of the loss of aldicarb in the 91/414/EEC Review.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesThere have been no losses so far and the majority of the most important herbicides are now on Annex I. It appears unlikely there will be any future losses giving a major impact on weed control in this crop although probable future restrictions on the dose rates of ethofumesate and metamitron could compromise herbicide efficacy to some extent.

Insecticides, nematicides and molluscicidesThe nematicide aldicarb failed Annex 1 inclusion and the specific aphicide, triazamate are the two pesticides, which have already been lost (aldicarb) or will not be available after 2006 (triazamate). The immediate impact of aldicarb loss has been very minor due to the availability of alternative products and the same will apply to triazamate. However the future impact could be greater in the case of aldicarb because its loss has compromised resistance strategies for the control of insecticide resistant Myzus persicae. Sugar beet is highly vulnerable to the likely future development of aphid resistance to neonicotinoid seed treatments. There is a potential risk of heavy yield losses from an inability to control aphid borne virus diseases.

FungicidesThere have been no fungicide losses of any significance and none are expected, although the important conazole foliar fungicides and the essential hymexazol seed treatments have yet to obtain Annex I listing (June 2006).

2. Specific pesticides or groups it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties

It would be desirable to retain the pesticides listed as follows. Those substances considered especially important are given in bold type.

HerbicidesAnnex I listed: bipyridyls, glyphosate, tepraloxydim, clopyralid, ethofumesate, phenmedipham and desmedipham.Annex I pending: cycloxydim, fluazifop-p-butyl, propaquizafop, chloridazon, lenacil, metamitron, trifluralin and triflusulfuron-methyl.

Insecticides, nematicides and molluscicides.Annex I listed: chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, pirimicarb, oxamyl, clothianidin and beta-cyfluthrin.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 19 of 38

Annex I pending: dimethoate, imidacloprid, tefluthrin, benfuracarb, carbosulfan and methiocarb.

FungicidesAnnex I listed: thiram, propiconazole, quinoxyfen and pyraclostrobin.Annex I pending: hymexazol, cyproconazole, flusilazole, carbendazim, sulphur, epoxiconazole and fenpropidin.

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

HerbicidesThere are no foreseen gaps at present.

Insecticides, nematicides and molluscicidesThere is a high incidence of aphid populations resistant to carbamate, organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides. The industry is dangerously reliant on neonicotinoid seed treatments to combat a virus disease complex transmitted by aphids. Current prospects for alternatives are poor.

FungicidesThere were no foreseen major gaps identified in the study. The epidemiology of foliar diseases in sugar beet indicates minimal risk of resistance development. There is, however, considerable concern that no alternatives to hymexazol seed treatment for blackleg control are available or in development.

FORAGE MAIZE Summary

Forage maize, grown for animal feed, occupied 124,000 ha in 2005. Maize research is funded by farmers’ annual subscription (a non-statutory levy) to the Maize Growers Association (MGA). The R & D budget for the maize crop is £10,000 p.a., considerably lower than that of levy bodies. The cost to the growers of generating residues data for a Specific Off-Label Approvals (SOLAs) is likely to be prohibitive for this sector. UK off-label approvals based on recognition of approvals in other EU (current Northern zone) member states are not possible where a crop area exceeds 50,000 ha and unfortunately are not possible for forage maize.

Only 16 crop protection active substances are now (July 2006) approved for UK forage maize and they include 11 herbicides.

1.The likely impacts of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesIn 2004 atrazine failed to achieve Annex 1 inclusion in the 91/414 EEC Review. UK growers could no longer use atrazine after 10 September 2005. There were no derogations for ‘Essential Use’ of atrazine in maize, thus little time to find alternatives. Ireland, Spain and Portugal have derogations for ‘Essential Use’ in maize until 31 December 2007. Other losses were cyanazine (not supported) and simazine, which failed Annex 1, but these were less important in maize.

Weeds in maize reduce yields and feed value. Atrazine (residual and contact-acting) was the main herbicide used in nearly all of the maize area. It covered a broad-spectrum of grasses and broad-leaved weeds and provided season-long weed control of most species encountered. Alternatives may cover an adequate broad-leaved weed spectrum but so far

SID 5 (1/04) Page 20 of 38

none have been as effective as atrazine on grasses and broad-leaved weeds. Several sprays may be needed post-emergence and there are restrictions on: late timings, the number of sulfonylurea applications and following cropping.

The greatest impact from the loss of atrazine will be on increased costs of weed control. In 2005 weed control cost for Atrazine alone + application cost was £15.50/ha. (Where black nightshade was a problem a programme of atrazine followed by bromoxynil + cost of two applications £46/ha.). In 2006 weed control including application costs will be £51.50 to £80 /ha or more, assuming both grass and broad-leaved species were present. The next generation of herbicides will be even more expensive.Maize is grown on wide rows and can be mechanically weeded but the costs are higher than for weed control with herbicides. Two or three passes with a tractor hoe would be needed – cost £69.50 or £104.25 (Nix, 2005).

The UK dairy sector is less reliant on forage maize than some other major milk producing countries, however, it is an essential part of winter rations for many producers. Milk at 18 p/L is being produced at cost – the significant increase in herbicide costs or reduction in yield of maize if weeds are not controlled will compound the severe financial pressure being experienced by the majority of dairy farmers.  It likely that this will give further encouragement to dairy farmers to cease milk production which in turn may impact on the sustainability of the dairy supply chain.

Insecticides and molluscicidesThere is very little use of insecticides in forage maize. So far no active substances have been lost through failure to achieve Annex 1 listing.

FungicidesNo fungicide is approved in the UK except thiram seed treatment, thus no impact.

2. Specific pesticides it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties (unless specified active substances are on Annex 1)

HerbicidesGlyphosate for use pre-cropping; bromoxynil and bromoxynil/prosulfuron for black nightshade control; mesotrione/terbuthylazine (List 3B) for control of black nightshade and orache, the two major weeds in maize; nicosulfuron (List 3A) will be essential for grass weed control; clopyralid needs to be maintained for mayweed control.

Insecticides and molluscicidesImported seed treatments containing clothianadin or thiometoxam essential to control frit fly, leatherjackets and wireworm, and a molluscicide methiocarb (List 2). Continued availability is dependent on re-registration in other countries. Molluscicide bait metaldehyde (List 3A).Chlorpyrifos soil-applied for control of common pests of maize. The only insecticide currently approved in the UK that could give some control of Diabrotica.

Fungicide

SID 5 (1/04) Page 21 of 38

Seed treatment thiram UK approval (for addition to an insecticide seed treatment available in future.

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

Maize is an important crop worldwide and new pesticides are being developed elsewhere. Mutual Recognition could be very helpful in gaining access to new products for forage maize if the crop/use is on-label in another EU Member State in the same climatic zone. If GM Herbicide-Tolerant maize is widely grown elsewhere in the future there will be little conventional herbicide development.

There are promising herbicides (for annual grass and broad-leaved weeds, including mayweeds) in the pipeline for UK maize: pre-emergence flufenacet/isoxaflutole (not a sulfonylurea); post-emergence sulfonylurea-based foramsulfuron/isoxadifen/iodosulfuron both will be effective but expensive compared with atrazine.

Effective means of control for Diabrotica are urgently needed. Clothianidin seed treatment is being submitted for UK registration at two dose rates: standard for wireworm and a higher premium dose rate for Diabrotica.

Maize eyespot is occasionally found in mild, wet conditions in the UK. Fungicide development and registration in the main EU maize growing areas is therefore unlikely. Fungicides approved for cereals may be appropriate and a SOLA may be possible for this minor use but residues data would be required. No work has yet been done and funding would be needed.

POTATOES Summary

In 2005 the potato area was 137,000 ha. Potatoes are grown as ware for human consumption (fresh or processed) and the smaller, high value seed crop, some of which is exported. R & D is financed by statutory levy collected from growers and trade purchasers through the British Potato Council (BPC). The R & D budget for 2006/2007 is approximately £1.5m. Levy has funded R & D for mitigation against losses or potential losses of pesticides. Minimising the impact of pests and diseases is considered to be of crucial commercial significance by BPC.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticides availability

Herbicides and desiccantsFour minor herbicides were lost in the initial review process and there has been no significant impact on potato production so far. However, any future threat to the retention of linuron (on Annex 1) would exacerbate the earlier withdrawal of monolinuron. Anticipated rate restrictions on linuron and metribuzin will increase treatment costs in some circumstances and create difficulties for seed crop production where there are few alternative approved herbicides.

There have been no losses of desiccants to date. The predominant products are diquat and sulphuric acid. Diquat has Annex I listing and is reasonably assured of re-registration. There is uncertainty for the retention of sulphuric acid, where Annex I listing is still pending. The potential loss of this desiccant would have a major economic impact on the Scottish seed potato industry. Alternative chemicals for this sector are technically less suitable and withdrawal of sulphuric acid would increase the risk of poorer quality with more diseased tubers and less control over critical size requirements. The impact would be much less for the ware crop, where a range of alternative haulm destruction methods is available and retailers already restrict the use of

SID 5 (1/04) Page 22 of 38

sulphuric acid.

Insecticides, molluscicides and nematicidesAldicarb failed Annex I inclusion and the ‘Essential Use’ derogation expires in December 2007. The main uses are for the control of two major pests; potato cyst nematode (PCN) and the free-living nematodes (FLN) which are vectors of Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV), which causes tuber symptoms known as spraing. TRV is particularly damaging to the potato cultivars favoured by the processing industry.The likely impacts of withdrawal are contentious as it is uncertain if alternative nematicides will be as effective as aldicarb, especially for the suppression of spraing in the processing sector. Failure to achieve adequate nematode control would result in major yield reductions and in the case of FLN/ spraing suppression, a very serious impact on the all important tuber quality. Overall, it now appears that substitute nematicides have a reasonable prospect of acceptable performance, especially for PCN control and the demise of aldicarb may have much less impact on crop production and costs than was previously thought.

The loss of chlorpyrifos from September 2006 for cutworm control is unlikely to have much impact. The future retention of nicotine is uncertain and ‘Essential Use’ derogation will be sought. There are only two insecticides approved for wireworm control, ethoprophos (List 2) and fosthiazate (new Annex 1) but they have much larger markets for PCN control and there are reasonable prospects for continued availability.

Molluscicides are widely used in potatoes. Thiodicarb failed Annex 1 inclusion, and there is no decision yet on the alternative molluscicides metaldehyde (List 3A) and methiocarb (List 2).

FungicidesThe two major uses of fungicides are as foliar sprays for the control of late blight and as tuber treatment for control of a range of seed and soil borne diseases. For late blight only the fentin (tin) products have been lost as a result of the review process so far. The impact has been minimal because of the availability of a range of alternatives, including new products, affording a comparable standard of foliar and tuber blight control.

A number of the important blight fungicides do not yet have Annex I listing. Dose rates and numbers of applications may be reduced at the re-registration stage when/if Annex I listing is achieved and this may impact on efficiency. However with a very wide range of substances approved for blight control and the regular introduction of new fungicides it appears unlikely the review process will cause any significant problems.

In the specialist seed/soil borne disease control sector, 2-aminobutane (2AB) for the control of skin spot in seed potatoes cannot be used after 2007, when the ‘Essential Use’ derogation expires. Use is confined to only 2% of the crop treated with fungicides. There are strongly divided views on the impact of 2AB loss, ranging from a negligible effect, to a risk of increasing disease incidence in the ware crop, the need for major capital investment to facilitate integrated control methods and a higher risk of disease resistance to alternative fungicides.

Peroxyacetic acid, used on seed potato tubers pre-planting, has not been supported. It is valued for resistance management and ‘Essential Use’ derogation will be requested.

Plant growth regulatorsIt appears unlikely the review process will adversely affect the availability of the three approved PGRs for use in UK potato production. Both chloropropham and maleic hydrazide have achieved Annex I listing and manufacturers have confirmed intentions to support re-registration of all three chemicals.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 23 of 38

2. Specific pesticide or pesticide groups it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties

It would be particularly desirable to maintain the pesticides/PGRs listed as follows. Those substances considered especially important are given in bold type.

Herbicides and desiccantsAnnex I listed herbicides: bipyridyls, glufosinate-ammonium, glyphosate; bentazone, linuron and pendimethalin.Annex I pending herbicides: cycloxydim, propaquizafop, quizalofop-p-tefuryl, clomazone, metribuzin, metribuzin/flufenacet (flufenacet in Annex I), prosulfocarb and rimsulfuron.Annex I listed desiccants: diquat, carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl.Annex I pending desiccant: sulphuric acid.

Insecticides, molluscicides and nematicidesAnnex I listed: nematicides oxamyl, fosthiazate; insecticides pirimicarb, pymetrozine, thiacloprid, and the pyrethroids, especially cypermethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin.Annex I pending: nematicides 1,3-dichlorpropene, ethoprophos; insecticides flonicamid, nicotine; molluscicides metaldehyde and methiocarb.

FungicidesFor late blight controlAnnex I listed: chlorothalonil, cyazofamid, famoxadone (in cymoxanil/famoxadone), diothiocarbamates (especially mancozeb as a component of mixed formulations), fenamidone (in mixtures), metalaxyl-M (in mixtures) and zoxamide (in mixtures). Annex I pending: copper products, benthiavalicarb-isopropyl, cymoxanil (alone and in mixtures), dimethomorph, propamocarb hydrochloride (in mixtures), and fluazinam.For seed and soil borne diseasesAnnex I listed: azoxystrobin, imazalil, thiabendazole and iprodione.Annex I pending: flutolanil, pencycuron and toclofos-methyl.

Plant growth regulatorsAnnex I listed: chloropropham (CIPC) and maleic hydrazide. Annex I pending: ethylene.

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticides availability

Herbicides and desiccantsThere are no major foreseen gaps for ware potato herbicides. The anticipated rate restriction of linuron may present difficulties in the seed crop where there are few alternative approved herbicides and no indications of new chemistry to supplement linuron activity.The possible loss of sulphuric acid is mainly of concern for the Scottish seed crop industry because existing alternatives are regarded as technically inferior and less flexible in use. No new desiccants in late development have been identified.

Insecticides, molluscicides and nematicidesThere will be major gaps if the alternative nematicides that are now approved for PCN and FLN/spraing suppression fail to perform as well as aldicarb. There are no indications of any new nematicides for the potato crop, but one new biological control system is now available and a number of alternative technologies are in development.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 24 of 38

FungicidesFor late blight controlNo gaps were identified for this sector where there is a very wide range of active substances and new fungicides continue to be introduced.For seed and soil borne diseasesThe only foreseen major gap is for skin spot control in seed potatoes, where alternative fungicides are generally less effective. An integrated control approach involving a range of cultural and improved chemical application techniques offers good prospects. Early screening trials have given promising results with a boscalid/pyraclostrobin treatment.

Plant growth regulatorsNo foreseen major gaps were identified in this study.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 25 of 38

Arable Crops FIELD PEAS and FIELD BEANS Summary

In 2005 the UK area of field peas harvested dry including those for human consumption was 43,000 ha, and field beans 187,000 ha. The area of field beans is increasing, but peas are decreasing. R & D is funded by non-statutory levy from growers, through the Processors and Growers Research Organisation (PGRO). The levy is of the order of £300,000 per annum. 

UK Off–label Approvals based on recognition of on-label approval in another member state and where there is a product on-label approval for the same crop use should be possible for field peas, where the area is now less than 50,000 ha. Mutual Recognition of pesticides for peas could be helpful because they are widely grown in other EU countries in the same climatic zone but there may be fewer opportunities for field beans (particularly winter-sown) because the area in other EU Member States is small.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability for field peas

HerbicidesUnless effective herbicides are available for combining peas the crop will be difficult to grow successfully in the UK, but there will be no impact from herbicide loss in mainland Europe. UK peas have been dependent on triazine herbicides but in other EU Member States, different actives that were supported in the Review are approved. After 2007 there will be no broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicide unless those used in France become available.

Cyanazine, terbutryn and fomesafen were not supported in the 91/414/EEC Review. There is an ‘Essential Use’ derogation for combining peas, which expires 31 December 2007. In addition a decision has been made that bentazone/MCPB (Pulsar) will not be manufactured after 2007 because without cyanazine as a tank-mix partner, weed control would be poor.

Pendimethalin/cyanazine, terbutryn/terbuthylazine and fomesafen/terbutryn are widely used for pre-emergence control of some grasses and broad-leaved weeds, including black-bindweed, which causes lodging. Fomesafen and pendimethalin also control volunteer oilseed rape, which has become a widespread and persistent problem. The loss of cyanazine for post-emergence use will also have a considerable impact. It is used in tank-mixes, mainly with bentazone/MCPB, on c. 60% of the crop, where soil is too dry for residual activity; for species that escape control with residual pre-emergence herbicides and on certain soil types.

Weed competition causes yield loss in field peas (up to 29%). There are losses due to harvesting difficulties unless a desiccant is applied and this

increases production costs. There are price deductions for peas contaminated with weed seeds and if crops grown for

seed are weedy, they are rejected.

A few pre-emergence herbicides may be available after 2007 but they are less effective. Trifluralin/linuron is approved but trifluralin may fail Annex 1 inclusion. Pendimethalin (Annex 1) will be the basis for weed control but it needs a partner and could be tank-mixed with clomazone, which controls cleavers and a few other broad-leaved weeds. Effective early post-emergence herbicides for broad-leaved weeds will be available, but those

SID 5 (1/04) Page 26 of 38

approved for later applications have important weaknesses.

Insecticides There were no insecticide losses in the 91/414/EEC review process, except for withdrawal of triazamate but it was seldom used in peas and there was no impact. The revocation of broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticides after the UK anticholinesterase review, has increased reliance on pyrethroids in peas and beans and increased the risk of developing pest resistance. Fenitrothion (organophosphate) was used to control field thrips in the past. It later failed Annex 1 inclusion.

FungicidesAll fungicides for peas were supported in 91/414/EEC review process and so far there are no significant losses of active substances through failure to achieve Annex 1 listing. The Commission proposal is that vinclozolin should be included on Annex 1 for use in some other crops but not for peas. Usage is greater in field peas than on vining peas but other alternatives are available.

2. Specific pesticides it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties (unless specified, active substances are on Annex 1)

HerbicidesGlyphosate, non-selective herbicide used pre-cropping.It is vital to retain the few remaining herbicides: pendimethalin, pendimethalin + bentazone, bentazone, MCPB, MCPB/MCPA; clomazone, isoxaben/terbuthylazine all on List 3. Graminicides, all List 3 except tepraloxydim. Resistant grass weeds are not yet a problem in pea crops but it would be useful to maintain tri-allate (but some evidence of a low level of resistance).Diquat will be essential – it was used to desiccate 37% of the pea area in 2004 and is likely to become more widely used where weed control is poor after 2007.

Insecticides and molluscicidesA range is limited and the following are essential: pyrethroids, particularly lambda-cyhalothrin; pirimicarb for aphid control, alone or in formulation with lambda-cyhalothrin; molluscicide bait metaldehyde (List 3A).

FungicidesAll the seed treatments: cymoxanil (List 3B)/fludioxonil (List 3A)/metalaxyl-M is widely used. Cymoxanil is particularly important for control of downy mildew because some strains are already resistant to metalaxyl and the disease cannot be controlled with available foliar applied fungicides; fosetyl–aluminium, an alternative for downy mildew control; thiram/thiabendazole for Ascochyta control in some seasons; thiram (cheap), for varieties with good field resistance to downy mildew. Foliar sprays: chlorothalonil and mixtures are the most important; triazoles (cyproconazole on List 3B, metconazole); azoxystrobin for Botrytis, leaf & pod spot; iprodione SOLA, the only fungicide approved for Sclerotinia control.

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

Herbicides

SID 5 (1/04) Page 27 of 38

There is urgent need for new broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicides, such as those registered in France: aclonifen (List 3B) used in tank-mix with pendimethalin; formulated product imazamox/pendimethalin both on Annex 1.

InsecticidesActive substances with different modes of action are needed for resistance strategy. Insecticide resistance in pea aphid has not been found yet, but there are few control options at present. Field thrips: possibilities thiametoxam seed treatment, and lambda-cyhalothrin foliar sprays.

FungicidesGaps identified for were not a result of fungicides lost in the EC Review. A very limited range is available for field peas and new fungicides, particularly with curative and different modes of action are needed. There are prospects for filling gaps for example, several fungicides have an on-label approval for Botrytis, but only offer a reduction in disease. Cyprodonil (new Annex 1) used in France, could offer an improvement for Sclerotinia and Botrytis control. Foliar spray cyprodinil/fludioxynil is approved in France.

1.The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability for field beans

Herbicides Simazine failed Annex 1 listing in the 91/414/EEC Review. There is a derogation for ‘Essential Use’ in field beans until 31 December 2007. Simazine controls a wide spectrum of grass and broad-leaved weeds and is the most widely used herbicide on c. 75% of the field bean crop.

Terbutryn, fomesafen and cyanazine were not supported in the EC Review, but also have derogations for ‘Essential Uses’ until 31 December 2007. Products containing pendimethalin/cyanazine or terbutryn/terbuthylazine are used pre-emergence in spring beans for grasses and broad-leaved weeds, including black-bindweed, which causes lodging.

After 2007 a few pre-emergence alternatives may remain but they are less effective. Pendimethalin on Annex 1, will remain but needs a partner and could be tank-mixed with these, or clomazone, which controls cleavers and a few broad-leaved weeds. The only post-emergence option for beans is bentazone (on Annex 1), which is seldom used because it is expensive and only controls a narrow weed spectrum.

The main impact will be on the cost of weed control - excluding application, simazine at £4/ha compared with a tank-mix £67/ha. In addition a desiccant (£28/ha + application cost) may be needed.

Winter and spring beans are harvested after most weeds have set seeds, which return to infest the following crop. Field beans are regarded as a cleaning break crop in the rotation with winter wheat but this will not be the case after 2007.

Limited data suggest that winter beans will not suffer yield loss, spring beans up to 17% loss depending on weed population and species.

Weeds cause lodging and harvesting difficulties. A desiccant may be needed where weeds remain green thus adding to production costs.

Field beans can be weeded mechanically and the crop is more tolerant of damage than peas. However, it is a more costly method of weed removal – two or three passes are needed.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 28 of 38

Trifluralin (List 2) may not be included on Annex 1. Use in beans has increased because it is cheap c. £5/ha and it is effective on some broad-leaved weeds including fat-hen and polygonums. It is also of value for the management of herbicide resistant grass-weeds and it is an important product for use in field beans grown on heavy land, where black-grass resistance is increasing. If trifluralin is lost there will be more use of propyzamide (Annex 1), increasing production costs by c. £37/ha.

Insecticides and molluscicides So far, the 91/414/EEC review has had no impact on insecticide availability for UK field beans. The most important insecticides achieved Annex 1 inclusion.Slugs are a problem in wet years in beans and peas but metaldehyde is not widely used, therefore a company decision to re-register may depend on whether data is required for each crop/use combination.

FungicidesSo far, the review has had no impact on fungicide availability for UK field beans. The Commission proposal is that vinclozolin should be included on Annex 1 for use in some crops but not for beans (at the time of writing, no decision has been reached). Vinclozolin is seldom used and other alternatives are available. There is no decision yet on Annex 1 inclusion for the triazoles, tebuconazole (List 3B) and cyproconazole (List 3B) or for cymoxanil (List 3B) seed treatment.

2. Specific pesticides it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties (unless specified, active substances are on Annex 1)

Herbicides and desiccantsGlyphosate, non-selective herbicide pre-cropping.It is important to maintain the few remaining options: pendimethalin is essential; clomazone (List 3A) for cleavers control; isoxaben/terbuthylazine (both List 3B) (spring beans only); trifluralin(List 2)/linuron; bentazone the only post-emergence herbicide for broad-leaved weeds, needed for charlock control.Trifluralin (List 2) (spring and winter), propyzamide (winter) for resistant black-grass control in beans and as part of the management strategy for the arable rotation as a whole; tri-allate (spring and winter). Graminicides (tepraloxydim, others on List 3) to control grasses and volunteer cereals. Harvest aids diquat and glyphosate are likely to be needed if weeds become a problem after 2007.

Insecticides and molluscicidesPyrethroids, particularly lambda-cyhalothrin; pirimicarb alone or with lambda-cyhalothrin Molluscicide bait metaldehyde (List 3A) in wet years on heavier soil types slugs are a problem.

FungicidesIt is essential to maintain the seed treatment cymoxanil/fludioxonil/metalaxyl-M, cymoxanil (List 3B) is particularly important for downy mildew control because some strains are already resistant to metalaxyl. To avoid disease resistance:Chlorothalonil alone and in formulation; azoxystrobin for control of rust, SOLA for Ascochyta;

SID 5 (1/04) Page 29 of 38

metalaxyl-M (in formulation with chlorothalonil) the only foliar spray for control of downy mildew;boscalid (pending) /pyraclostrobin; triazoles tebuconazole (list 3B), cyproconazole (List 3B), metconazole for rust and chocolate spot; iprodione, a morpholine, alone or in formulation with thiophanate-methyl for chocolate spot.

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

HerbicidesThe 91/414/EEC review has resulted in a serious gap and there is urgent need for new broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicides. The potential alternatives for peas would also be suitable for UK field beans.

Insecticides and molluscicidesA limited range of insecticides is available for field beans. A more persistent insecticide for Bruchid beetle control is required. Bean aphid resistance to pyrethroids or pirimicarb has not been found yet, but active substances with different modes of action are needed for resistance strategy.Slugs and snails: both peas and beans are reliant on metaldehyde bait pellet as the only means of control. An alternative solution is needed but there are no prospects yet.

FungicidesThe gap identified highlights a requirement for new chemistry to avoid disease resistance and was not a result of fungicides lost in the Review. Metalaxyl-M is the only foliar spray approved for downy mildew control but some strains of the disease are now resistant. Fungicides for potatoes and vines may have potential. There is also a need for alternative seed treatments.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 30 of 38

VINING PEAS Summary

The area of vining peas, harvested green for freezing and canning has declined and estimates for 2005 suggest only 31,025 ha were grown. Growers levy through PGRO/HDC, has funded projects to find alternative pesticides.

The main impact of loss of pesticides in vining peas will be on quality, in contrast to field peas grown for animal feed.

Off–label Approvals based on recognition of on-label approvals in other EU Member States in the same climatic zone are possible for UK minor crops of areas less than 50,000 ha. There must be an extant on-label approval for the use of the same product on another edible crop in the UK. There is a wider pesticide choice in France for peas and this route could be used increasingly. Mutual Recognition will also be useful.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesUnless alternative effective herbicides are available for UK vining peas the crop will be uneconomic to grow and process, there will be factory closures and frozen and canned peas will be imported from mainland Europe, where different herbicides (active substances supported in the Review) are still available. The UK crop has been dependent on triazines. After 2007 there will be no broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicide for vining peas unless those used in France, which include actives aclonifen (used in tank-mix with pendimethalin) or imazamox (pendimethalin /imazamox) become available.

Fomesafen, terbutryn and cyanazine were not supported in the 91/414/EEC Review. There are ‘Essential Use’ derogations for vining peas, which expire 31 December 2007. These active substances form the basis for weed control. In addition a decision has been made that bentazone/MCPB (Pulsar) will not be manufactured after 2007 because without cyanazine as a tank-mix partner, weed control would be poor.

In vining peas weed control is based on early removal with pre-emergence herbicides terbutryn/terbuthylazine and fomesafen/terbutryn, which control a wide spectrum of broad-leaved weeds, annual meadow-grass and fomesafen also controls volunteer oilseed rape. Post-emergence cyanazine tank-mixes are needed for species that escape control with residual pre-emergence herbicides if soil conditions are dry and for certain soil types. A tank-mix of cyanazine + MCPB/MCPA is the only means of preventing formation of toxic berries on volunteer potatoes.

Quality is the most important factor for vining peas and there is ‘nil tolerance’ for contaminants. Weed contaminants adversely affect consumer confidence. Where separation is difficult or impossible, and if there is a possibility of contamination of produce with toxic weed parts (berries of black nightshade, briony spp. and volunteer potatoes) that pose a risk to the consumer, the whole crop is rejected - financial loss £1000/ha.

There are price deductions for crops contaminated with weed parts. Produce for processing will require extra cleaning in the factory at £50/tonne and there are crop losses

SID 5 (1/04) Page 31 of 38

of c. 3% associated with the cleaning process. If the level of contamination is too high, cleaning is uneconomic and the peas are rejected.

Weeds can also cause yield loss due to competition of up to 30%. A continuous flow of crop to the factory is needed and any delays caused by slow,

difficult harvesting in weedy crops cannot be tolerated – the field is bypassed.

Very few herbicides will remain after 2007: those for use pre-emergence are not as broad-spectrum as those that will be lost; the post-emergence herbicides for broad-leaved weeds also have important weaknesses.

Insecticides and molluscicidesThere were no insecticide losses in the 91/414/EEC review process. Triazamate was withdrawn, but it was seldom used in peas. Retailers did not permit the use of organophosphate insecticides in UK vining peas for processing and by 2002 they were no longer used. The most important insecticides are included on Annex 1, but dose rates and number of applications and timings may be reduced at re-registration stage and this may have an impact on efficacy. .

FungicidesNo fungicides for vining peas have been lost in the 91/414/EEC review process so far. The Commission proposed that vinclozolin (List 1) should be not be included on Annex 1 for peas but alternatives are available.

2. Specific pesticides it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties (unless specified, active substances are on Annex 1)

HerbicidesGlyphosate, non-selective herbicide pre-cropping.It is vital to retain the few remaining: pendimethalin SOLA, isoxaben/terbuthylazine (both List 3B), clomazone (List 3A), bentazone, MCPB, MCPB/MCPA. Graminicides tepraloxydim; and cycloxydim (List 3A). Resistant grass weeds are not yet a problem but tri-allate (List 3B) could be useful, although there is some evidence of a low level of resistance.

Insecticides and molluscicidesA limited range is available for vining peas: pyrethroids particularly lambda-cyhalothrin; pirimicarb and pirimicarb/lambda-cyhalothrin; metaldehyde (List 3A) - the only means of control of slugs

FungicidesAll the seed treatments: cymoxanil (List 3B)/fludioxonil (List 3A)/metalaxyl-M is widely used, cymoxanil is particularly important for control of downy mildew because some strains are already resistant to metalaxyl and downy mildew cannot be controlled with available foliar-applied fungicides; fosetyl-aluminium (List 2) as an alternative. Thiram/thiabendazole is useful for Ascochyta control in some seasons.Thiram for damping-off disease - the only fungicide approved for application in the UK.

Foliar sprays: azoxystrobin protectant for Botrytis, leaf & pod spot and Sclerotinia; metconazole (List 2) Botrytis, leaf & pod spot, but it is less effective than azoxystrobin; iprodione SOLA for Botrytis and Sclerotinia.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 32 of 38

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

HerbicidesThere is urgent need for a new broad-spectrum pre-emergence herbicides, such as those registered in France: aclonifen (List 3B) used in tank-mix with pendimethalin; imazamox/pendimethalin (both Annex 1). Aclonifen and imazamox are not registered for any UK crop.

There is no herbicide alternative to prevent toxic volunteer potato berry formation, and hand pulling will be costly.

Insecticides and molluscicidesGaps identified were not a result of insecticides lost in the EC Review. There are no control measures at all for bean seed fly or field thrips although thiametoxam seed treatment (new on Annex1) appears promising.Pea aphid resistance to pyrethroids or pirimicarb has not been found yet, but active substances with different modes of action are needed. No neonicotinoid is approved (as of July 2006). Metaldehyde molluscicide bait pellet is the only means of control of slugs and snails – if found in harvested produce, crops may be rejected by the processor, but there is also a risk of crop contamination with the pellets if they are applied late. An alternative solution is needed.

FungicidesGaps identified for were not a result of fungicides lost in the EC Review. A very limited range is available and new fungicides, particularly with curative and different modes of action are needed. Foliar spray cyprodinil/fludioxynil is approved in France, UK registration for vining peas is imminent. Cyprodonil could offer an improvement for Sclerotinia and Botrytis control.

BRASSICAS Summary(Brussels sprouts, cabbage, calabrese/broccoli and cauliflower)

The total area of leaf, head and flower-head brassicas declined to 31,471 ha in 2005. R & D is financed by statutory levy collected from growers through the Horticultural Development Council (HDC) and some from Defra. A significant proportion of HDC levy has been spent on trials to identify alternatives to brassica pesticides lost in the 91/414/EEC Review and the UK anticholinesterase Review.

High standards of pest, disease and weed control are required to maintain quality in vegetable crops.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesThe following herbicides were not supported in the 91/414/EEC review: tebutam, sodium monochloroacetate, cyanazine. The ‘Essential Uses’ for brassicas expire 31 December 2007.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 33 of 38

They are not widely used but are applied post-emergence to remove weeds escaping control with pre-emergence herbicides.

Cyanazine (SOLA) is particularly useful in controlling brassica-related weed species such as charlock. The weed seeds can contaminate heads of cauliflower and calabrese and reduce quality. After 2007 the control of charlock will be difficult because it is not controlled by other herbicides approved for brassicas.

The future of trifluralin (List 2) is under consideration for non-inclusion in Annex 1. Trifluralin, soil-incorporated pre-planting, is the most widely used herbicide on 60% of the leaf brassica area. It is useful for early plantings in wet conditions where efficacy of tractor-hoeing is poor because weeds re-root. It is effective on herbicide-resistant black-grass, although not a current problem in horticultural brassicas it could be in future.

Weed competition in leaf brassicas affects quality (size-grade uniformity) and maturity. Tall species, such as fat-hen, interfere with mechanical harvesting; nettles are unpleasant for hand pickers.

Trifluralin is cheap (£5/ha) and is the basic starting point for control of problem weeds – polygonums, fat-hen and annual meadow-grass. The impact would be on increased cost of weed control c. £17/ha and control of weeds within the row would also be reduced.

If trifluralin is lost, leaf brassicas will still be grown but weed control will be expensive, and there could be an impact on quality and harvestability.

The decisions on Annex 1 inclusion for other important actives metazachlor (List 3A), propachlor (List 3B) have not been made.

Insecticides and molluscicidesChlorfenvinphos was revoked in 2002 as a result of the UK review of anticholinesterase compounds. The usage of organophosphates had already declined in some crops because of restrictions imposed by retailers, but it remained important for control of cabbage root fly, the most serious pest of UK brassica crops. Chlorfenvinphos was not supported in the 91/414/EEC review. ‘Essential Uses’ were permitted in other EU member states, but not in the UK.

Cabbage root fly larvae cause plant death in leaf brassicas, affecting uniformity of size of produce and maturity. In dry soil conditions larvae tunnel into the aerial parts of calabrese and Brussels sprouts, reducing quality and crops are rejected.

Without control, it is estimated that about 24% of the plants in leaf brassica crops would be lost or rendered unmarketable by the cabbage root fly – financial loss £44 million.

Control measures have now been found. Chlorpyrifos and spinosad control cabbage root fly in most seasons: chlorpyrifos as a seed/module treatment; spinosad has new SOLA (February 2006) for cabbage root fly control in Brussels sprouts, cabbage and cauliflower (SOLA submitted for calabrese) as a module drench pre-transplanting or as a foliar spray 3 days after transplanting. Spinosad can be applied before the 1 April (unlike chlorpyrifos). Sometimes a subsequent treatment with chlorpyrifos granules is necessary. Control of the third generation is difficult and occurs more frequently in warm autumns. Control of aerial attacks is also difficult.

Whether these control measures are adequate, remains to be seen. The problem has not been solved and new insecticides are needed particularly for root brassicas (not studied here).

Triazamate was withdrawn by the approval holder and is not supported in the 91/414/EEC review. Triazamate was considered the best systemic insecticide for control of mealy grey aphid and the number of insecticide applications could be reduced. Other aphicides are not as effective as triazamate on mealy grey aphid.

Now, early identification and treatment with other aphicides is essential - once colonies

SID 5 (1/04) Page 34 of 38

become established control is much more difficult and spoilage is inevitable. The aphid checks the growth of young plants, causing some plant death. Quality is spoilt

where leaves curl up, and where produce is contaminated with aphid colonies.

Thiodicarb failed Annex 1 inclusion but there is no decision yet on other molluscicides.

FungicidesQuintozene, a protectant, soil-applied fungicide was widely used by Plant Propagators. It was on List 1 of the 91/414 Review of existing actives but not supported and was revoked in 2002. No ‘Essential Use’ requests were granted. Toclofos-methyl (Annex 1) approved for damping off and wirestem in brassicas remains.

Flusilazole (List 1) is approved for oilseed rape, and an application has been made for a UK SOLA for brassicas for control of Light leaf spot. However, the Commission proposed that flusilazole should be included on Annex 1 for use in some crops including oilseed rape, but not for others and a decision has not been made. There are also decisions to be made on Annex 1 inclusion of important triazoles approved for brassicas (on List 3B). It is very important for resistance management that as many active substances with alternative modes of action as possible are retained.

2. Specific pesticides it would be desirable to maintain from the agronomic perspective to avoid major difficulties (unless specified, active substances are on Annex 1)

HerbicidesGlyphosate non-selective herbicide pre-cropping.Trifluralin (List 2), applied pre-planting and incorporated;propachlor, metazachlor, clomazone (all on List 3) are also important for residual weed control; pendimethalin not widely used because soil disturbance at planting reduces efficacy within the row, but it is effective on Polygonums and will be very important if trifluralin is lost; clopyralid post-emergence important for thistle and mayweed controlThere is little use of graminicides in leaf brassicas, but options of tepraloxydim and cycloxydim will be needed for control of grass weeds or volunteer cereals; carbetamide (List 3A) (cabbage only) only needed if trifluralin goes and grass weed resistance increases;

Insecticides and molluscicidesInsecticides with alternative modes of action are important for resistance strategies It is vital that active substances for cabbage root fly control in brassicas remain: chlorpyrifos and the new spinosad; chlorpyrifos on imported seed.

MACE Resistance in UK peach potato aphids (Myzus persicae) populations is an important issue for brassica growers. So far no current resistance mechanisms exist with regard to nicotine, neonicotinoids or pymetrozine. To avoid resistance, the use of neonicotinoids will be limited to 2 applications/crop this includes imidacloprid seed treatments. All the current options are needed for aphid control: imidacloprid seed treatment; pyrethroids (lambda-cyhalothrin, deltamethrin etc.); pirimicarb alone or in formulation with a pyrethroid; pymetrozine; new thiacloprid, and nicotine. So are dimethoate (List 2) (cabbage only) and chlorpyrifos. Rotenone is not widely used but may be useful as another tool for aphid resistance management.

Pyrethroids are used for cheap caterpillar control; spinosad controls diamond back moth caterpillars - a serious problem in 2006.Molluscicides: Metaldehyde (List 3A) should be maintained, and possibly methiocarb (List 2) for

SID 5 (1/04) Page 35 of 38

slugs.

FungicidesSeed treatment: thiram for damping-off diseasesPropagation: toclofos-methyl for wirestem control; fosetyl-aluminium is important for downy mildew; propamocarb hydrochloride (List 2) is occasionally used for control of Pythium spp.; azoxystrobin for black rot; copper oxychloride (List 3A) field and propagation for reduction of spear rot and Xanthomonas.Field: Strobilurins and formulation (azoxystrobin, boscalid (pending)/pyraclostrobin); triazoles (e.g. tebuconazole, difenconazole both List 3B); chlorothalonil are all important for a range of foliar diseases and needed for an resistance strategy: Metalaxyl-M formulations essential for downy mildew, white blister. Post-harvest: cabbage metalaxyl-M for Phytopthora and iprodione for Botrytis control are the only approved fungicides.

3. Prospects for alternatives for any foreseen major gaps in pesticide availability

The area of oilseed rape has increased dramatically in recent years and there is a risk of pests and diseases spreading from neighbouring rape crops. However, brassicas may benefit from pesticides developed for rape in future.

HerbicidesHerbicides developed for oilseed rape are likely to be suitable for brassicas and some could replace cyanazine. None are soil-incorporated and would not replace trifluralin in some respects. Active substances that appear promising in HDC trials: oxadiargyl (on Annex 1), prosulfocarb (List 3A), oxyfluorfen (List 3B) used in Spain, dimethachlor (List 3B); dimethenamid-p (new Annex 1) formulation; post-weed-emergence bifenox (List 3A). In most cases residues data would need to be generated.

Insecticides and molluscicidesMore insecticides are in global development for fruit and vegetables than for other crop sectors. New ones with different modes of action are needed for resistance strategies.

Aphid: Flonicamid could be useful. Insecticides for control of mealy grey cabbage aphid, MACE resistant peach potato aphid and cabbage root fly are evaluated at Warwick HRI, Wellesbourne in HDC projects.Caterpillars: Indoxacarb (new Annex 1) approval for control in brassicas is sought for the UK through Mutual Recognition. It is benign to beneficials but kills all caterpillars including those of diamond back moth (not controlled by pyrethroids) and silver Y moth. For the future, rynoxapyr another new active (new chemistry anthranilimide), classed in the US as ‘Reduced Risk/OP Alternative’. Cabbage root fly, aphid and other pests: New broad spectrum active (new chemistry) is in development but not available for a few years. Slugs: New more effective measures are needed.

FungicidesNew fungicides with different modes of action for resistance management and with curative activity are needed. Global fungicide development for the vegetable sector has increased. There are several brassica diseases where there are no means of control (club-root) or potential gaps where control measures are inadequate or limited. There are HDC projects to find alternatives. The following may offer potential solutions for some diseases: cyazofamid, flusulfamide (USA),

SID 5 (1/04) Page 36 of 38

fluazinam, cyprodinil/fludioxynil, cyazofamid, mancozeb/zoxamide, fluoxystrobin/tebuconazole to be registered for brassicas for Dark leaf spot; flutolanil and pencycuron, triflumizole, fluopicolide and a new generation of spinosad.

CARROTS Summary

The area of carrots grown in the UK in 2005 was 9,500 ha. Most recommendations for the crop are based on information from research funded by growers through the Horticultural Development Council (HDC) statutory Levy and Defra/LINK. A significant proportion of growers levy through HDC has been spent on trials to identify alternatives to carrot pesticides lost in the 91/414/EEC Review and the UK anticholinesterase Review.

Carrots are high value compared with wheat and high standards of pest, disease and weed control are needed to maintain quality.

1. The likely impact of the 91/414/EEC review process on pesticide availability

HerbicidesThree key herbicides for carrots metoxuron, prometryn and pentanochlor were not supported in the 91/414/EEC Review. The derogations for the ‘Essential Use’ of expire December 2007.

No single herbicide controls the whole weed spectrum encountered and programmes with low doses of different herbicides are used. Metoxuron applied post-emergence provides good suppression of volunteer potatoes. It controls a wide range of weeds including mayweeds and is used in most post-emergence programmes. Prometryn has both contact and residual action and is the only herbicide effective on fumitory and useful for small nettle. Pentanochlor provides the only post-emergence option for control of knotgrass. It is particularly effective against cleavers and redshank.

Linuron applied pre- and post-emergence forms the basis for weed control in carrots. It is on the Annex 1 positive list, but when it is re-registered in the UK the maximum dose-rate per annum will be limited to 950 g a.i. /ha. This could occur before alternative aclonifen is available in the UK. Fast access to alternative herbicide aclonifen used for carrots in Denmark is needed. Growers will have to revise their weed control strategy.

Weeds affect quality in terms of size grade and uniformity of crop (a standard specified by the retailer or processor). Failure to meet specifications results in crop rejection or no sales.

Yield loss of up to 100% can occur but depends on the numbers and species of weeds. Weeds reduce harvest work rate, cause harvest losses and increase costs. So far there is no potential replacement for metoxuron for volunteer potato suppression.

Volunteer potatoes uncontrolled in carrots can be a reservoir of potato blight infection - this causes concern to potato growers. If no herbicidal control was available (needed for 8% of the crop in the 2003 survey), then if the crop was not harvestable, losses could amount to more than £10 million per annum. Far more costly methods for control of volunteer potatoes will be used: hand-pulling or selective application of glyphosate.

Although mechanical weed control with hoe, tine and brush weeders is possible in carrots grown in wide rows, weeds within the row are not controlled, and it is not an option for baby carrots grown at high densities on a close-row bed system. All methods are considerably more expensive than with herbicides - the cost of weeding once with a brush weeder is £63 /ha and three are usually needed.

Decisions on Annex 1 inclusion for other important herbicides metribuzin (List 2) or clomazone

SID 5 (1/04) Page 37 of 38

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or

references to other published material relating to or generated by this project.

SID 5 (1/04) Page 38 of 38