Agriphoto

News Crop protection

'Making work of agriculture with less chemistry'

27 February 2020 - Jeannet Pennings - 7 comments

An agriculture without chemistry is nice, but we must first work on an agriculture with less chemistry. That was the message that MEP Bas Eickhout of GroenLinks had on Thursday 27 February during the annual Foodlog conference. 'In the past 10 years there has been hardly any improvement in substance use in Europe.'

The comment that Eickhout immediately makes is that there is hardly any reliable data available when it comes to the use of synthetic crop protection products. He has to make do with a graph about the kilos sold in recent years. But one thing is clear: that graph unfortunately does not show a downward trend. “We have to work on that first.”

No hard requirement
An important cause, according to the MEP, is the European agricultural policy (CAP) of recent years. “In this respect, integrated crop protection (IPM) has not been a hard greening requirement.” And so, according to him, there is no improvement in the use of chemicals. “The question is how are we going to improve that? I feel like we all want the same thing, but we can't agree on how to get there.” 

This gave Eickhout a head start on the discussion that will be held later during the congress about whether the European Regulation on Plant Protection Products (1107) should be broken up. This is to achieve an accelerated admission of green resources.

More impulses
For Eickhout, chemistry should be a last resort. Measures such as crop rotation, monitoring and mechanical control must be given priority. “I would like to see IPM really take shape in Europe. And that we thereby reduce the use of chemicals. It would also ensure that the demand for green resources actually increases. Then there will also be more incentives to relax the admission policy.”

According to Eickhout, the new agricultural policy (2020-2027) as it has now been proposed is still too unambitious when it comes to greening. He fears a gap with the ambitions set out in the Green Deal. “There must be clear requirements for applying IPM.”

Do you have a tip, suggestion or comment regarding this article? Let us know

Jeanette Pennings

Jeannet has her roots in the flower bulb sector and she grew up on an agricultural company in the northern part of North Holland. As a generalist she reports for Boerenbusiness across all sectors. She is also exploring the possibilities of sponsored advertising.
Comments
7 comments
Drent 27 February 2020
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/akkerbouw/ artikel/10886010/werk-maken-van-landbouw-met-minder-chemie]'Making agriculture work with less chemistry'[/url]
if they start by abolishing the under-sowing of maize and the obligatory greening after a main crop, there would already be a considerable reduction in chemical agents, but the regulations are often contradictory
Subscriber
northerner 27 February 2020
In the past you had a free information officer who advised what had to be sprayed. through commercialization we now have advisors to the suppliers of crop protection products. These advisors are instructed to sell as much as possible.
If this link remains, then there will never be an advice in which as little chemistry as possible is sprayed.
The solution lies in the past, make the advisor free again and independent of the supplier.
peta 27 February 2020
Yes, dear Northerner, completely agree. At the end of the eighties there was enough food and cutbacks had to be made according to the then government. Everything had to be left to the free market.
The result is clear, the trade makes sales forecasts related to acreage at their customers, buys on them, and what has been purchased must of course be sold, that's what your 'advisors' are for. Since then we believe, for example, that glyphosate should be used everywhere before sowing or planting and we should treat the wheat with fungicides at least 3x as standard, because resistant varieties do not bring in any money for the advisers.
until here and no further 28 February 2020
I get quite a bit of advice from the buyer of my products, is already a lot more independent, in the past this was also disconnected from the cattle with medicines because it was done by someone else who had no interest in it, but also impossible by the government made, what are they doing there in the hague
cagri 28 February 2020
Figures based on kilograms sold, of course you don't see a drop, in the past you sprayed beets clean twice or a disease broke in one go, now with the reduction of the active ingredient in a product or those green products you can keep spraying to to obtain the same result. They should look at the amounts of effective active ingredient.


peer 28 February 2020
I looked in my spray book from 1980 when I injected 3 liters of betanal and 2 tramat at once and then 2 liters of oil plus 2 goltix in one go, which is just as much as I do now to slightly less. now spray my beets against fungi I didn't do that in the 80s
Wim 28 February 2020
Yes Bas that is not so difficult to understand why almost no IPM is possible, no alternative means, insufficient resistance varieties and no financial gain at higher costs. Means will take another 10 years, resistant varieties another 15 if they are not broken again in the meantime, and large-scale gritters with an additional cost will also not be available if everyone wants to be the cheapest.
You can no longer respond.

What do the current
arable listings?

View and compare prices and rates yourself

Opinions Jaap Haanstra

Are we banning glyphosate or Parkinson's?

News Organic

HAK significantly scales back its organic ambitions

News Crop protection

More medium in consumption potatoes than starch potatoes

News Crop protection

Chinese asset sales enter next phase after major growth

Call our customer service +0320(269)528

or mail to support@boerenbusiness.nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Sign up