pesticide usage survey report 280 edible protected … · pesticide usage survey report 280 edible...
TRANSCRIPT
PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY REPORT 280
EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS
IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
2017
A. Mace, I. Barker, G. Parrish, L. Ridley, R. Macarthur & D. G. Garthwaite
Land Use & Sustainability Team
Fera Science Ltd
Sand Hutton
York
YO41 1LZ
ii
A NATIONAL STATISTICS SURVEY
National Statistics are produced to high professional standards set out in the Code of Practice for Statistics (https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/code-of-practice/). They are free from any political interference. The United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) has a statutory duty to assess National Statistics for compliance with this Code of Practice. Further information is available from the Office for National Statistics website (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html). The statistics undergo regular quality assurance reviews to ensure that they meet customers’ needs. The UKSA has designated these statistics as National Statistics, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and signifying compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics. Designation can be broadly interpreted to mean that the statistics: • meet identified user needs; • are well explained and readily accessible; • are produced according to sound methods; and • are managed impartially and objectively in the public interest. Once statistics have been designated as National Statistics it is a statutory requirement that the Code of Practice shall continue to be observed. If you have any enquiries or feedback on the statistics included in this report, they can be directed to the contact given below: Pesticide Usage Survey Team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462 410 Alternatively, please contact: Fera Science Ltd. at: [email protected] DATA USES
The data are used for a number of purposes including:
• Quantifying pesticide usage and changes in the use of active substances over time;
• Policy, including assessing the economic and/or environmental implications of the introduction of new active
substances and the withdrawal/non-authorisation of pesticide products (the data reported to organisations such as
the OECD and EU enabling the UK to honour international agreements); evaluating changes in growing methods
and Integrated Pest Management where this has an impact on pesticide usage;
• Informing the pesticide risk assessment (authorisation) process;
• Informing the targeting of monitoring programmes for residues in food and the environment;
• Contributing to assessing the impact of pesticide use, principally as part of the Pesticides Forum’s Annual
Report;
• Responding to enquiries (for example, Parliamentary Questions, correspondence, queries under the Freedom of
Information Act or Environmental Information Regulations, etc.);
• Providing information to assist research projects which can support all the above activities;
• Training/teaching programmes which are designed to improve practice in the use of pesticides by the
farming/training industries;
• Informing the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) programme to help identify potential misuse of pesticides.
REVISIONS POLICY This report presents a comprehensive summary of data for edible protected crops grown and taken to harvest in 2017. We will provide information on any revisions we make to the report or the datasets if any inaccuracies or errors occur. Details of any revisions, including the date upon which they were changed, will appear on the following website:
https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm
iii
CONTENTS Page
Overview of main findings 1
Introduction 2
Edible protected crops – an overview 3
Explanatory notes for the 2017 report 4
Trends 6
Crops 8
Pesticide usage 9
Pesticide usage on tomatoes 10
Pesticide usage on cucumbers 14
Pesticide usage on peppers 17
Pesticide usage on lettuce 20
Pesticide usage on other vegetables 23
Pesticide usage on edible plants for propagation 27
Pesticide usage on strawberries 31
Pesticide usage on other fruit 35
Appendix 1 Applications and areas grown 38
Comparisons 48
Appendix 2 Other compounds 54
Appendix 3 Biopesticide usage on edible protected crops 55
Appendix 4 Definitions 56
Appendix 5 Methodology 57
Appendix 6 Standard error calculations 61
Appendix 7 First raising factor – edible protected crops 68
Acknowledgements 69
References 69
1
OVERVIEW OF MAIN FINDINGS
This was the fourth survey of usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom. Previous surveys were conducted in 2015, 2013 and 2011. Previous reports can be found at: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm
Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from
247 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 2,562 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops. The
survey included glasshouse and permanent polythene structures but excluded French or Spanish Tunnels which are
temporary structures. Crops included in the survey were tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other vegetables; edible
plants in propagation; strawberries; and other fruit. The sample accounted for 39% of the total area of edible protected
crops grown in the United Kingdom during the 2016/17 season.
The area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2,377 hectares, had increased by 9% since 2015 and by 20% since 2013. Other vegetable crops accounted for 42% of the total area of edible protected crops grown: lettuce 18%, edible plants in propagation 13%, tomatoes 9%, strawberries 7%, cucumbers 6%, peppers 4% and other fruit 1%. Approximately 26% of the total area of edible protected crops was grown in Yorkshire & the Humber, 22% in the Eastern region, 21% in the West Midlands, 12% in London & the South East, 11% in the North West, 3% in the East Midlands, 2% in the South West and 1% or less in each of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North East.
Approximately 27% of the area treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents) was cropped with strawberries, 18% with other vegetables, 18% with lettuce, 17% with tomatoes, 11% with edible plants in propagation, 4% with cucumbers and 2% with other fruit and peppers.
The protected and enclosed environment is particularly suitable for the use of living biological control agents and pollinators and this has been widely exploited by growers with biological control agents (see definitions) accounting for 51% of the total pesticide-treated area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom in 2017, fungicides 25%, insecticides 13%, disinfectants 5%, herbicides 2%, acaricides 2%, physical control agents 1%, sulphur 1%, molluscicides 1%, and soil sterilants, growth regulators and tar oil/acid all 1% or less each.
By contrast, disinfectants accounted for 40% of the total weight of pesticide active substances applied, soil sterilants 28%, fungicides 20%, physical control agents 6%, insecticides 3%, sulphur 2%, herbicides 1% and acaricides, molluscicides, tar oil/acids and growth regulators all less than 1% each. For many crops, including peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers, biological control agents were the main applications, exceeding the number of conventional insecticide applications. Biological control agents are not normally associated with a weight as they are mainly living organisms – see definitions.
The registered pesticide-treated area in 2017, 16,016 hectares, had increased by 16% since 2011but decreased by 5% since 2015. The weight of pesticides applied in 2017, 24,182 kg, has decreased by 31% since 2011 and by 51% since 2015. Since 2015, the reduction in weight of pesticide applied is primarily due to the reduction in weight of sulphur (80%), insecticides (75%), fungicides (60%) and soil sterilants (39%) used.
Between 2015 and 2017 the insecticide treated area has increased by 16% but the weight of insecticides used has reduced by 75% over the same period. The withdrawal of most uses of chlorpyrifos and its substitution by other insecticides using lower rates of active substance is a significant factor in this change.
The fungicide treated area has remained relatively unchanged (-1%) since 2015, however the weight of fungicide applied has decreased by 60% over the same period. The weight of food grade potassium hydrogen carbonate applied has reduced by 81% since 2015. The tomato crop is the primary reason for this reduction in usage with 96% less applied since 2015. However it is worth noting the weight of potassium hydrogen carbonate applied to strawberries has almost doubled since 2015.
The use of soil sterilants decreased in 2017, a 32% fall in treated area and a reduction of 39% in weight applied since 2015. There was a return to the use of steam for soil sterilisation on 5 hectares, and the first encountered use of a Caliente mustard crop (methyl isothiocyanate) as a soil biofumigant.
The area treated with biopesticides increased by 19% between 2015 and 2017. Coniothyrium minitans and Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki were the main active substances showing an increase in usage.
Important active substances encountered for the first time in 2017 included the fungicide isopyrazam, used primarily on tomatoes and cucumbers. Fluopyram and trifloxystrobin as a co-formulation were recorded for the first time on strawberries, lettuce and edible plants in propagation. A new strain of the bioinsecticide Beauveria bassiana GHA was recorded on tomatoes, cucumbers and strawberries.
2
INTRODUCTION
This survey helps inform the work of the Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) which advises government on all aspects of pesticide use. In order to discharge this function, the Committee must regularly monitor the usage of all pesticides. It needs accurate data on the usage of individual pesticides. Pesticide usage data are now also required under the EU Statistics Regulation (1185/2009/EC).
As part of the on-going process for obtaining data, the Pesticide Usage Survey Teams of Fera, a joint venture between Capita PLC and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra); Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), a division of the Scottish Government’s Agriculture and Rural Economy Directorate and the Agri-Food & Biosciences Institute (AFBI), a Non-Departmental Public Body of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland (DARD) conducted surveys of pesticide usage in edible protected crops in 2016/17 by visiting holdings throughout the United Kingdom during the winter of 2017/18.
Since 2010, all surveys of pesticide usage in agriculture and horticulture have been fully co-ordinated by the survey teams of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The methodology used for sample selection and the collection of data from sample holdings is identical in each region. However, since 2013, protected fruit crops from Scotland and Northern Ireland have been excluded from the protected crops survey but included in the surveys of soft fruit crops undertaken by all teams.
Reports are produced of pesticide usage throughout the United Kingdom. All teams have undertaken recent United Kingdom Statistics Authority (UKSA) audits and the data are accredited as National Statistics.
Additional data on crop agronomy are collected for all surveys but may not be presented within the report. For additional
data relating to the surveys please refer to the contacts below.
Information on all aspects of pesticide usage in the United Kingdom as a whole, or for Wales or the Defra regions of England, may be obtained from the Pesticide Usage Survey Team at Fera, Sand Hutton, York, UK YO41 1LZ.
For further information please contact:
The survey team – e-mail: [email protected] Telephone: 01904 462 410
Or visit the website: https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm
Alternatively, please contact: Fera at: [email protected]
Further data relating specifically to Scotland may be obtained from the Pesticide Usage Survey Team at Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture, Edinburgh. Also available at:
http://www.sasa.gov.uk/pesticides/pesticide-usage/pesticide-usage-survey-reports
Copies of reports on pesticide usage in Northern Ireland may be obtained from Her Majesty's Stationery Offices. Also available at:
https://www.afbini.gov.uk/articles/pesticide-usage-monitoring-reports
Recently-published reports for the United Kingdom, Great Britain, England & Wales and Northern Ireland can also be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at:
https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/index.cfm
Alternatively, pesticide data for the UK can be extracted using the search tool – PUSSTATS:
https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/
3
OVERVIEW OF EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS
This report contains information on the application of pesticides to edible protected crops planted throughout 2017 and
harvested during 2017 or in early 2018. However, some strawberry crops would have been planted in autumn 2016. The
survey covered a 12-month cropping period for each holding during the 2016/2017 growing season. This 12-month
cropping period is predefined according to the growing seasons of the individual edible protected crops encountered on
each holding.
Whilst data are presented in eight major crop groupings throughout the report they include information from 202 separate
crops.
This survey includes glasshouse and permanent polythene structures only. It does not include temporary polythene
structures such as French or Spanish poly-tunnels.
Growing edible protected crops commercially is a specialist operation with many of the larger growers having to ensure a
continuity of supply for major retailers. In some cases, and to ensure continuity from the larger growers, supply from the
United Kingdom is augmented with edible protected crops, such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, lettuce and baby-leaf
vegetables, imported from abroad.
The benefits in growing crops in a protected environment, permanent glasshouse structures or polythene tunnels, are that
the conditions within the structure can be closely monitored and maintained. It also means that use of biological control
agents and pollinators can be maximised within the enclosed environment. The disadvantages include increased energy
costs and the incidence of pests such as leaf miner and glasshouse whitefly that reproduce rapidly under these conditions.
The sample selected for the survey covers five separate holding size groups (please see the Methodology section on page
57) which ensure that all types of management are represented within the survey. Within the United Kingdom there is a
marked difference of behaviours between the smaller and the larger holdings. Smaller holdings are often growing a
diverse range of crops used to supply a retail or local market, whilst the larger holdings, who regularly supply the major
retailers directly, are more specialised and grow one or possibly two crops (e.g. tomatoes & peppers) or crop groups such
as herbs or baby leaf vegetables. Larger holdings propagating edible plants, normally for outdoor production, will grow a
vast range of crops but the way in which they are grown, normally in module trays or rockwool cubes, is consistent.
Most farms sampled, 60%, were members of one or more crop assurance schemes. The aim of the crop assurance
schemes is to provide consumers and retailers with confidence about product quality including food safety and
environmental protection. Of relevance are the assurance scheme requirements to follow strict protocols in the approved
use and recording of pesticide applications, these records are used widely by members of the survey team in the collection
of accurate data sets.
The demands from major retailers, in terms of the quality of edible protected crops purchased, are extremely high and,
consequently, the use of biological control agents, insecticides, fungicides and disinfectants needs to match these
requirements. As this is a specialist area, many of the staff involved on the nursery are well trained and have a high level
of expertise in monitoring pest and disease incidence around the site. Pesticide recommendations from qualified
agronomists are made in discussion with the trained staff on site.
Both tomatoes and peppers are single cropped, normally being planted in December or January and being pulled out in
the following October or November. Strawberries are normally planted in July or August with the first harvest taking
place in the autumn, a second harvest from the same crop occurs in the spring with the plants being pulled out in June and
July. Occasionally a single cucumber crop will be grown but normally there will be two or three crops grown during the
year. Multiple cropping, particularly for a crop such as lettuce, is widely used, with up to five crops being grown during
the year. Other crops such as baby leaf vegetables and herbs can either have several sequential plantings or a single
planting with multiple cuts during the year.
Although some crops, such as lettuce and baby leaf vegetables, are grown in the soil, others such as tomatoes, cucumbers
and peppers are grown in rockwool or coir blocks. Strawberries are normally grown in bags on a table top system to
make picking more efficient. Raspberries & blackberries are normally grown in pots stood on the ground.
4
EXPLAN/ATORY NOTES FOR THE 2017 REPORT
The range of crops and products used, which include both authorised and non-authorised active substances, the use of
different substrates and multiple cropping all combine to make this report the most complicated of the series of reports
published by the team. This report is based on over 18,000 rows of pesticide data. The following are some explanatory
notes to help the reader.
Authorised/non-authorised pesticides, biopesticides/biological control agents: terminology and classification for
purposes of this report.
Reports prior to 2013 used the term ‘registered’ pesticides, however the requirements of Regulation 1107/2009 mean that
we need to change the terminology used in this report.
• Pesticide products require to be ‘authorised’; their constituent active substances require to be ‘approved’.
• Biopesticides (such as Bacillus subtilis) also require to be ‘authorised’.
• Biological control agents (usually living parasites or predators), the most important group encountered in edible
protected crops, do not require authorisation.
‘Pesticides’: For clarity, this report refers to all authorised active substances and pesticides products (including
biopesticides) simply as ‘pesticides’ and ‘active substances’. All biopesticides have been grouped with either insecticides
or fungicides depending on their intended target, be it a fungal pathogen or insect pest. With the exception of Figures 4 &
5 and Table 13 all references to insecticides or fungicides also include biopesticides.
‘Biological control agents’: This category includes macro-biological control agents such as predatory mites and
parasitic wasps. In previous years, biopesticides and biological control agents were grouped together. However, this
report treats biological control agents separately since they do not require authorisation.
‘Other pesticides’: These include a number of products which are classified as either ‘disinfectants’ or ‘physical control
agents’, some require authorisation (such as benzoic acid and maltodextrin) and others do not. See Appendix 4 on page
56 for more details.
Seed Treatments
In line with previous reports and in order to make historical comparisons consistent, no seed treatment data are presented
in the current report. Many of the crops are grown from modules, blocks or other planting material originally grown from
seed by plant propagators. For these crops the seed and seed treatment information is recorded with the data collected
from plant propagators. Crops grown from seed account for half of the total cropping area but account for less than 3% of
the total treated area. Seed treatment data have been collected and these data can be extracted if required.
Volumetric Rates
Because of the range of crops grown and the differing methods of application, the water volumes used vary from crop to
crop and from grower to grower. The range of water volumes used by horticultural growers varies from 150-200 litres
per hectare, up to 2,000 litres per hectare for crops such as peppers and strawberries. Whilst rates per hectare are
generally applicable to broad acre crops, most applications to protected crops are based on volumetric rates where there is
a dilution rate based on the number of grams or millilitres of product used per litre of water. Therefore, as the volume of
water goes up, so does the rate of application. As such, some of the rates in the report may appear high because they are
being compared to data on a product database which may be using a lower volume of water to calculate an application
rate.
Strawberries
Within permanent protected structures the majority of strawberries are grown in bags on raised table tops. Crops are
normally planted late summer (in this case 2016) for cropping in the autumn and spring of the following year. Although
these plants are cropped twice for the purposes of this report they have been dealt with as a single crop as the same plants
are used in both autumn and spring. In addition, and because of changes to the way in which data were collected, there is
no information on strawberries grown in Scotland. Data relating to these crops will be published in the 2018 soft fruit
survey.
5
Standard Errors
The standard errors calculated for this report may appear high, 4.4% for area treated and 14% for weight applied, when
compared to other surveys. However, these figures should not be used to diminish the value or validity of the report
which sampled approximately 39% of the area grown. What the figures reflect is the variability in number of applications
to individual edible protected crops, from no treatment to multiple applications. It is unlikely that even by increasing the
size of the sample that this variability would be reduced and this extreme variability would still be present, and produce
higher standard errors even if all holdings were “sampled”. The greater variability within the standard error for weight is,
in part, due to the relatively high rates of usage of disinfectants, which are often applied at a rate much greater than that
for conventional pesticides.
Usage of Tar oil, Glass cleaners, Detergents and Growth Stimulants
Usage of tar oils/acid in this survey is minor and confined to glasshouse cleaning, or equipment within it, prior to the
planting of crops. Growth stimulants and glass cleaners are reported in Appendix 2. Whilst the usage of glass cleaners is
primarily to increase light penetration through the glass, use of growth stimulants is, in the main, management by growers
to increase plant health, thereby allowing them to build up their own resistance and avoid disease infection.
Please also refer to Definitions, Appendix 4, on page 56.
6
TRENDS
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2011 2013 2015 2017
Figure 1 - Area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (hectares)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
2011 2013 2015 2017
Figure 2 - Overall pesticide treated area of edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017
(treated hectares)
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2011 2013 2015 2017
Figure 3 - Overall weight of pesticides applied to edible protected crops in the United
Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (kilogrammes)
7
TRENDS (cont.)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Acaricides Insecticides Biopesticides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides
Figure 4 - Changes in the area treated with the major pesticide groups applied to edible
protected crops in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (hectares treated)1
2011
2013
2015
2017
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Acaricides Insecticides Biopesticides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Soil sterilants
Figure 5 - Changes in the weight of the major pesticide groups applied to edible protected
crops in the United Kingdom 2011 - 2017 (kilogrammes applied)1
2011
2013
2015
2017
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011 2013 2015 2017
Figure 6 - Changes in the use of biological control agents applied to edible protected crops
in the United Kingdom - 2011 - 2017
Area treated (ha)
Weight applied (kg)
1Whilst figures 4 & 5 separate biopesticides from insecticides and fungicides; these are the only figures in this report to do so.
8
CROPS
Information concerning eight main types of edible protected crops and data on pesticide usage were collected from
247 holdings throughout the United Kingdom growing 2,562 individual houses/blocks of edible protected crops. Crops
included in the survey were tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, peppers, other vegetables, edible plants in propagation,
strawberries, and other fruit. The sample accounted for 39% of the total area of edible protected crops grown in the
United Kingdom during the 2016/17 season. Data for crops such as other vegetables, whilst accounting for a significant
area, are not split because of the lack of availability of June Survey/Horticultural Statistics data.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
EastMidlands
Eastern London &South East
North East North West South West WestMidlands
Yorkshire& the
Humber
Wales Scotland NorthernIreland
Figure 7 - Regional distribution of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom -
2017 (hectares)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other vegetables Edible plants in
propagation
Strawberries Other fruit
Figure 8 - Relative areas of the different edible protected crops grown in the
United Kingdom - 2017 (hectares)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
EastMidlands
Eastern London &South East
North East North West South West WestMidlands
Yorkshire &the Humber
Wales Scotland NorthernIreland
Pe
rcen
tage o
f to
tal
Figure 9 - Comparison of regional distribution of the area grown and area treated for edible
protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area grown
Area treated
9
PESTICIDE USAGE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
EastMidlands
Eastern London &South East
North East North West South West WestMidlands
Yorkshire &the Humber
Wales Scotland NorthernIreland
Pe
rcen
tage o
f to
tal
Figure 10 - Regional distribution of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the
United Kingdom - 2017 (area treated)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Insecticides Fungicides Biological control
agents
Soil sterilants Sulphur Physical control
agents
Perc
enta
ge o
f to
tal
Figure 11 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Insecticides Fungicides Acaricides Biological control agents Sulphur Physical control agents
Figure 12 - Average number of applications made to edible protected crops in the United Kingdom - 2017 1
1In Figure 12 insecticides and fungicides both contain biopesticides used to control insect and fungal pathogens respectively.
10
PESTICIDE USAGE ON TOMATOES
• 223 hectares of tomatoes grown in the United Kingdom
• 3,088 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 13,276 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• 9,496 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 2.1% of tomatoes remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been
applied to the crop
• Where treated, tomatoes received on average 28 biological control agents, 4 fungicides, 3 physical control
agents, 3 insecticides and 3 sulphur sprays during the growing season. Other pesticides used included
disinfectants, acaricides, growth regulators, soil sterilants, herbicides and tar oils/acids
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Acaricides Biological
control agents
Soil sterilants Disinfectants Sulphur Physical
control agents
Perc
enta
ge o
f to
tal
Figure 13 - Usage of the major pesticides on tomatoes in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 14 - Timing of pesticide applications on tomatoes - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Biological controlagents
Acaricide
11
Tomatoes – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 530 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 532 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Isopyrazam 194 36 0.37 0.53 1.63 0.80
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 96 59 0.18 0.32 1.34 0.99
Penconazole 73 3 0.14 0.09 3.70 0.79
Cyflufenamid 61 1 0.11 0.16 1.75 0.97
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 25 1 0.05 0.09 1.20 0.50
42%
21%
13%
9%
7%
6%
2%
Figure 15 - Tomatoes - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)
botrytis
botrytis/mildew
mildew
Pythium
Phytopthora
Cladosporium
other diseases
Usage of sulphur accounted for 12% of the area treated and 6% of the weight applied. The main usage, 77%, was for
powdery mildew control with a further 23% of applications being made for unspecified mildews.
12
Tomatoes – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 932 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 223 kg
• The five most common formulations were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 283 145 0.30 0.31 4.11 0.99
Pyrethrins 207 21 0.22 0.38 2.41 0.27
Spinosad 167 29 0.18 0.49 1.52 1.00
Beauveria bassiana GHA 106 14 0.11 0.12 3.85 0.65
Indoxacarb 60 2 0.06 0.11 2.41 0.53
46%
12%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
17%
Figure 16 - Tomatoes - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)
leaf miner
whitefly
caterpillars
mealy bug
aphids
Tuta
Tuta/other leaf miners
other pests
The control of leaf miners (Liriomyza spp. and Tuta absoluta) was the main reason specified for the use of insecticides in
the tomato crop. A combination of the two species accounted for 55% of all insecticide usage. Usage of the pheromone
mating disruptor, (E,Z)-3,8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/(E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate was encountered on a
small area to reduce the reproduction of Tuta absoluta.
13
Tomatoes – Biological control
• Area treated: 9,496 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The five most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Encarsia formosa 6,848 N/A 0.72 0.86 35.84 N/A
Phytoseiulus persimilis 896 N/A 0.09 0.33 12.08 N/A
Aphidoletes aphidimyza 804 N/A 0.08 0.32 11.32 N/A
Macrolophus pygmaeus 370 N/A 0.04 0.94 1.77 N/A
Aphidius ervi 284 N/A 0.03 0.18 7.00 N/A
Encarsia formosa and Macrolophus pygmaeus were used primarily to control glasshouse whitefly and tobacco whitefly.
Phytoseiulus persimilis was used primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite and leaf miners, Aphidoletes
aphidimyza and Aphidius ervi were used for control of aphids in the tomato crop.
Bees were important for the pollination of this crop, being used on 96% of the area grown.
Tomatoes – Other pesticides
Use of physical control agents was also important and they were the major “Other pesticide” group used accounting for
8% of the total treated area and 8% of the weight applied (excluding biological control agents). Maltodextrin, for aphid
control, was the most important physical control agent recorded accounting for 97% of the total area treated with physical
control agents.
Disinfectants, including hydrogen peroxide, glutaraldehyde/quaternary ammonium complex, peroxyacetic acid and
peroxygen compounds comprised 28% of the total treated area (excluding biological control agents).
Spirodiclofen (37%), abamectin (35%) and etoxazole (28%) were the only acaricides encountered, with control of leaf
miner accounting for 51% and two-spotted spider mite for 49% of all acaricide applications. Although acaricides are
primarily used for mite control, some also have insecticidal properties.
Dazomet was the only soil sterilant encountered, comprising less than 1% of the area treated and 2% of the weight
applied.
There was minimal use of herbicides, molluscicides and tar oils/acid on tomatoes.
14
PESTICIDE USAGE ON CUCUMBERS
• 140 hectares of cucumbers grown in the United Kingdom
• 721 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 2,857 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• 1,473 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 0.6% of cucumbers remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have
been applied to the crop
• Where treated, cucumbers received on average 10 biological control agents, 3 fungicides, 3 insecticides
and 1 acaricide during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, physical control
agents and molluscicides
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Acaricides Biological control
agents
Disinfectants
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
tota
l
Figure 17 - Usage of the major pesticides on cucumbers in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 18 - Timing of pesticide applications on cucumbers - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Biological controlagents
15
Cucumbers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 413 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 293 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Fosetyl-aluminium/
propamocarb hydrochloride 85 195 0.21 0.51 1.19 0.91
Isopyrazam 60 8 0.14 0.25 1.73 0.66
Azoxystrobin 53 14 0.13 0.30 1.27 0.79
Penconazole 42 1 0.10 0.19 1.56 0.72
Myclobutanil 40 2 0.10 0.19 1.49 0.55
50%
23%
8%
7%
6%
2% 2%2%
Figure 19 - Cucumbers - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)
powdery mildew
Pythium
botrytis/mildew
botrytis/Mycosphaerella
Mycosphaerella/powdery mildew
Mycosphaerella
downy mildew
other diseases
Control of root diseases, such as Pythium spp. is normally done soon after planting, applying a fungicide such as fosetyl-
aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride through the irrigation lines into the rockwool, coir or foam blocks in which the
cucumber is planted.
Cucumbers are a crop which has shown significant decreases in pesticide, particularly fungicides, inputs over the last
thirty years.
16
Cucumbers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 116 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 20 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 48 4 0.42 0.07 4.66 0.78
Beauveria bassiana GHA 27 5 0.23 0.07 2.89 0.84
Pymetrozine 25 8 0.22 0.17 1.05 0.60
Spinosad 12 1 0.10 0.08 1.07 0.65
Flonicamid 1 0 0.01 0.01 1.00 1.00
Forty-eight percent of insecticides were used for the control of western flower thrips/two-spotted spider mite, 40% for
two-spotted spider mite control and 9% for aphids and whitefly.
Cucumbers – Biological control
• Area treated: 1,473 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The five most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Phytoseiulus persimilis 552 N/A 0.37 0.51 7.80 N/A
Encarsia formosa 434 N/A 0.29 0.32 9.76 N/A
Neoseiulus cucumeris 187 N/A 0.13 0.72 1.85 N/A
Aphidius colemani 125 N/A 0.08 0.09 9.56 N/A
Amblyseius montdorensis 62 N/A 0.04 0.06 8.00 N/A
Phytoseiulus persimilis was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite, Encarsia formosa primarily to control
glasshouse whitefly, Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris was used to control western flower thrips and Aphidius
colemani for aphids. Amblyseius montdorensis was used for the control of whitefly and thrips.
Cucumbers – Other pesticides
Abamectin (92%) and spirodiclofen (8%) were the only acaricides recorded with 77% being used for the control of two-
spotted spider mite and the remaining 23% being used for unspecified spider mites.
Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid and peroxygen compounds accounted for 42% of the disinfectant treated area.
There was minimal usage of physical control agents or molluscicides.
17
PESTICIDE USAGE ON PEPPERS
• 85 hectares of peppers grown in the United Kingdom
• 438 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 2,923 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• 2,085 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 1.3% of peppers remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been
applied to the crop
• Where treated, peppers received on average 26 biological control agents and 3 insecticides during the
growing season. Other pesticides used included fungicides, disinfectants, physical control agents, soil
sterilants and herbicides
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Insecticides &
nematicides
Biological control
agents
Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physical control
agents
Perc
enta
ge o
f to
tal
Figure 20 - Usage of the major pesticides on peppers in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 21 - Timing of pesticide applications on peppers - 2017
Insecticide
Biological controlagents
18
Peppers – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: <1 hectare
• Weight of active substances applied: 1 kg
• The only formulations encountered by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 <1 <1 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.63
Coniothyrium minitans <1 1 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.78
There was minimal usage of fungicides during the 2017 season.
Peppers – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 303 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 216 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of full
label rate
Pyrethrins 66 3 0.22 0.28 2.77 0.36
Pymetrozine 63 21 0.21 0.63 1.17 volumetric
Spinosad 46 6 0.15 0.42 1.29 volumetric
Pirimicarb 45 5 0.15 0.42 1.26 0.86
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 30 16 0.10 0.27 1.31 1.00
Aphid control was cited for 66% of insecticide usage, caterpillars 29% and leaf-hopper 4%.
19
Peppers – Biological control
• Area treated: 2,085 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The five most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Aphidius colemani 570 N/A 0.27 0.37 18.14 N/A
Aphidius ervi 481 N/A 0.23 0.43 13.29 N/A
Aphidoletes aphidimyza 426 N/A 0.20 0.31 15.93 N/A
Phytoseiulus persimilis 226 N/A 0.11 0.42 6.30 N/A
Neoseiulus cucumeris 193 N/A 0.09 0.66 3.42 N/A
Aphidius colemani, Aphidius ervi and Aphidoletes aphidimyza were all used to control aphids within the pepper crop;
Phytoseiulus persimilis for the control of two-spotted spider mites. Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris was used
to control western flower thrips.
There is a great reliance on the use of biological control agents to reduce pest infestations in pepper crops. It is common
practice to introduce 3 or 4 different predators or parasites each week/fortnight throughout the growing season which can
span between 9 or 10 months resulting in an average of 26 applications during the season.
Bees were important for the pollination of some (66%), but not all, crops.
Peppers – Other pesticides
Disinfectants were the main group of other pesticides accounting for 30% of the total pesticide treated area (excluding
biological control agents).
No acaricides were recorded and there was minimal usage of physical control agents and soil sterilants. Soil sterilants
accounted for less than 1% of the area treated but 25% of the weight applied.
20
PESTICIDE USAGE ON LETTUCE
• 420 hectares of lettuce grown in the United Kingdom
• 3,154 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 2,221 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• 34 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 3.5% of lettuce remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been
applied to the crop
• Where treated, lettuce received on average 3 fungicides, 3 insecticides and 1 herbicide during the growing
season. Other pesticides used included biological control agents, physical control agents, molluscicides
and disinfectants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Herbicides Biological control
agents
Soil sterilants
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
tota
l
Figure 22 - Usage of the major pesticides on lettuce in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 23 - Timing of pesticide applications on lettuce - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
21
Lettuce – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 2,063 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 1,965 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Azoxystrobin 354 89 0.17 0.79 1.06 1.00
Mandipropamid 255 38 0.12 0.61 1.00 1.00
Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 221 250 0.11 0.44 1.19 0.92
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 184 15 0.09 0.36 1.23 0.81
Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 171 84 0.08 0.39 1.04 0.98
40%
32%
8%
6%
4%4%
2%
4%
Figure 24 - Lettuce - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)
mildew
botrytis
botrytis/mildew
Sclerotinia
downy mildew
Rhizoctonia
Sclerotinia/Rhizoctonia
other diseases
22
Lettuce – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 935 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 98 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Spirotetramat 302 23 0.32 0.56 1.43 1.00
Pymetrozine 207 36 0.22 0.44 1.53 0.88
Indoxacarb 132 3 0.14 0.21 1.46 0.97
Spinosad 122 12 0.13 0.29 1.01 1.00
Pirimicarb 79 18 0.08 0.19 1.00 1.00
Most insecticides, 84%, were used to control aphids, caterpillars accounted for 13% and thrips 4%.
Lettuce – Other pesticides
Herbicide usage has continued to decline as noted in previous surveys. Propyzamide was the only herbicide used
accounting for just 4% of the overall treated area. The use of polythene mulches to prevent basal lettuce leaves coming
into contact with the soil and as mulch for weed control may account for some of the reduction in herbicide usage.
Only minimal molluscicide use was recorded, ferric phosphate was the only molluscicide encountered.
The use of a burner on 19 hectares was the only physical control agent used.
Minimal use of hydrogen peroxide was the only disinfectant encountered.
The major biological control agent encountered was Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita, used for the control of slugs on 33
treated hectares.
The soil sterilant, methyl isothiocyanate, sown as a Caliente brand mustard crop prior to the planting of 1.72 hectares of
lettuce was the only soil sterilant usage encountered.
23
PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER VEGETABLES
• 988 hectares of other vegetables grown in the United Kingdom
• 3,227 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 12,413 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• Soil sterilants accounted for less than 1% of the treated area but for 83% of the weight applied
• 166 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 18% of other vegetables remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may
have been applied to the crop
• Where treated, other vegetables received on average 10 biological control agents, 2 physical control
agents, 2 fungicides, 2 insecticides, 1 herbicide and 1 molluscicide during the growing season. Other
pesticides used included disinfectants, soil sterilants, acaricides, sulphur and tar oils/acids
• The principal crops in this category, which numbered almost 100 different crops included baby leaf salad;
cress; lamb’s lettuce; herbs (some of which were grown as baby leaf crops); Chinese vegetables; radish;
and spinach
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Herbicides Molluscicides
& repellents
Biological
control agents
Soil sterilants Disinfectants Physical
control agents
Perc
enta
ge o
f to
tal
Figure 25 - Usage of the major pesticides on other vegetables in the United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 26 - Timing of pesticide applications on other vegetables - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Biological controlagents
24
Other vegetables – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 1,591 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 518 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Mandipropamid 583 87 0.37 0.59 1.00 1.00
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 258 105 0.16 0.26 1.00 0.84
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 249 18 0.16 0.17 1.88 0.69
Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 210 105 0.13 0.21 1.00 1.00
Metalaxyl-M 83 5 0.05 0.08 1.00 1.00
53%
27%
14%
4%
2%
Figure 27 - Other vegetables - Reason for use of fungicides - (where specified)
downy mildew
botrytis
Sclerotinia
Sclerotinia/Rhizoctonia
other diseases
25
Other vegetables – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 544 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 102 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 164 76 0.30 0.13 1.66 1.00
Acetamiprid 163 8 0.30 0.16 1.00 1.00
Spinosad 54 5 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00
Pyrethrins 49 6 0.09 0.02 2.08 3.56
Lambda-cyhalothrin 40 <1 0.07 0.03 1.15 0.86
42%
30%
20%
4%
2% 1%1%
Figure 28 - Other vegetables - Reason for use of insecticides - (where specified)
flea beetle
aphids
caterpillars
asparagus beetle
caterpillars/whitefly
potato aphid
whitefly
26
Other vegetables – Biological control
• Area treated: 166 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The five most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Neoseiulus cucumeris 48 N/A 0.29 0.01 5.16 N/A
Orius laevigatus 30 N/A 0.18 0.01 4.64 N/A
Aphidius colemani 21 N/A 0.13 0.01 4.22 N/A
Aphidoletes aphidimyza 20 N/A 0.12 0.00 4.14 N/A
Aphidius ervi 10 N/A 0.06 0.00 5.00 N/A
Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris and Orius Laevigatus were used primarily for western flower thrips control.
Aphidius colemani, Aphidoletes aphidimyza and Aphidius ervi were all used for aphid control.
Bees were important for the pollination of some crops, for example aubergines.
Other vegetables – Other pesticides
The main herbicide recorded on other vegetable crops was diquat (99% of the treated area) and would have been used to
clear the ground prior to planting or for crop destruction after harvest.
Physical control agents comprised 8% of the total area of other vegetables treated and 9% of the weight applied.
Maltodextrin accounted for 97% of the total area treated with physical control agents.
Molluscicides accounted for 5% of the total treated area of other vegetables with ferric phosphate accounting for 71% of
the total and metaldehyde 29%.
The soil sterilant metam-sodium, used prior to planting 2 hectares of soil grown crops, and dazomet used on a further 17
hectares were the most important “other pesticides” used on other vegetables accounting for 1% of the area treated but for
83% of the weight applied. The use of steam was recorded as a soil sterilant on 5 hectares of other vegetables.
Sulphur, acaricides and tar oil/acids each accounted for less than 1% of the total area treated.
27
PESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PLANTS IN PROPAGATION
• 319 hectares of edible plants in propagation grown in the United Kingdom
• 1,910 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 3,832 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• Fungicides accounted for 56% of the treated area and 60% of the weight applied
• 1,105 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 5.4% of edible plants in propagation remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol
organisms may have been applied to the crop
• Where treated, edible plants in propagation received on average 10 biological control agents, 5 fungicides,
3 acaricides, 3 sulphur applications, 3 molluscicides, 2 insecticides and 2 molluscicides during the growing
season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, physical control agents and herbicides (underneath
greenhouse staging)
• Crops included both vegetable and fruit crops, with lettuce; brassicas; tomatoes; celery; cucumber; leeks;
and strawberries for propagation being the most important crops recorded
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Molluscicides &
repellents
Acaricides Biological control
agents
Disinfectants
Perc
en
tag
e o
f to
tal
Figure 29 - Usage of the major pesticides on edible plants in propagation in the
United Kingdom - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 30 - Timing of pesticide applications on edible plants in propagation - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
28
Edible plants in propagation – Fungicides
• Area treated: 1,061 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 2,291 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Fosetyl-aluminium/
propamocarb hydrochloride 129 1,133 0.12 0.40 1.00 0.67
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 122 57 0.12 0.32 1.21 1.00
Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 110 55 0.10 0.28 1.37 0.96
Myclobutanil 93 8 0.09 0.09 3.19 0.92
Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M 63 80 0.06 0.20 1.00 1.00
Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb hydrochloride used for controlling damping off and mildew in newly sown seed
accounted for 49% of the weight of fungicides applied.
36%
30%
24%
3%7%
Figure 31 - Edible plants in propagation - Reasons for use of fungicides (where
specified)
downy mildew
botrytis
mildew
leaf spot
other diseases
Sulphur, which accounted for 3% of the total treated area and 4% of the weight applied was used for powdery mildew
control.
29
Edible plants in propagation – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 297 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 208 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Spirotetramat 84 6 0.28 0.26 1.01 1.00
Pymetrozine 36 7 0.12 0.11 1.03 1.00
Pirimicarb 35 9 0.12 0.05 2.07 0.92
Cyantraniliprole 34 4 0.11 0.11 1.00 1.00
Spinosad 31 59 0.10 0.10 1.00 1.00
70%
19%
9%
2%<1%
Figure 32 - Edible plants in propagation - Reasons for use of insecticides
(where specified)
aphids
caterpillars/cabbage root fly
cabbage root fly
aphids/caterpillars
other pests
30
Edible plants in propagation – Biological control
• Area treated: 1,105 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The five most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Aphidius spp. 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A
Aphidoletes aphidimyza 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A
Dacnusa sibirica 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A
Diglyphus isaea 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A
Hypoaspis spp. 208 N/A 0.19 0.11 5.84 N/A
Aphidius spp. and Aphidoletes aphidimyza were all used for aphid control. Dacnusa sibirica and Diglyphus isaea were
used for leaf miner control. Hypoaspis spp. were used for sciarid fly control.
Most biological control applications, 64%, were made in October.
Edible plants in propagation – Acaricides
• Area treated: 128 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 10 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
acaricide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Abamectin 61 1 0.48 0.08 2.39 0.94
Tebufenpyrad 22 5 0.17 0.07 1.00 0.71
Etoxazole 20 1 0.16 0.06 1.04 0.78
Bifenazate 19 3 0.15 0.04 1.51 1.00
Clofentezine 6 1 0.05 0.02 1.00 1.00
Almost all (99.99%) acaricide usage was on fruit plants in propagation, rather than vegetable plants.
Edible plants in propagation – Other pesticides
Disinfectants were the most important “other pesticides” used, accounting for 18% of the total by area treated and 30% by
weight applied. Peroxyacetic acid accounted for 47% of the total area and was used mainly as a wash to disinfect trays
and pots prior to the planting of a new crop.
There was minimal usage of physical control agents, molluscicides and herbicides.
There was no use of soil sterilants recorded.
31
PESTICIDE USAGE ON STRAWBERRIES
• 176 hectares of strawberries grown in England & Wales
• 4,722 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 2,736 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• 3,665 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 0.2% of strawberries remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may have been applied to the crop
• Where treated, strawberries received on average 14 biological control agents, 13 fungicides, 5 insecticides
and 2 acaricides during the growing season. Other pesticides used included disinfectants, physical control
agents and sulphur
• Crops are normally planted in late summer and cropped in the autumn and again in the spring. For the
purposes of this report we have treated this as a single crop as the plants for both cropping periods are
the same.
• Because of the way in which data were collected there is no information on strawberries grown in
Scotland or Northern Ireland. Data relating to these crops will be published in the 2018 soft fruit survey
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Acaricides Biological control
agents
Disinfectants Sulphur
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
tota
l
Figure 33 - Usage of the major pesticides on strawberries in England & Wales - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 34 - Timing of pesticide applications to strawberries - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Biological controlagents
Acaricide
32
Strawberries – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 2,992 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 2,343 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Myclobutanil 330 28 0.11 0.64 2.10 0.95
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 304 190 0.10 0.95 1.71 1.00
Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 292 167 0.10 0.95 1.64 0.95
Iprodione 239 173 0.08 0.62 1.84 0.96
Azoxystrobin 229 57 0.08 0.61 1.65 1.00
42%
30%
15%
5%
4%4%
Figure 35 - Strawberries - Reasons for use of fungicides (where specified)
botrytis
powdery mildew
mildew
botrytis/powdery mildew
black spot/botrytis
black spot/mildew
The average number of fungicide applications used on strawberries was 13 which may seem high. However, because of
the way in which the data are presented this relates to a single crop that is cropped twice from planting in late summer of
2016 being pulled out in May and June of 2017. This is an exceptionally long period in which to keep a crop free from
disease, particularly diseases such as powdery mildew and botrytis.
Usage of sulphur was minimal and accounted for <1% of the area treated and of the weight applied.
33
Strawberries – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 1,237 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 238 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 508 77 0.41 0.90 3.52 0.92
Lambda-cyhalothrin 263 2 0.21 0.80 1.93 0.64
Thiacloprid 234 28 0.19 0.68 1.62 0.99
Pymetrozine 93 18 0.08 0.34 1.18 0.99
Spinosad 51 4 0.04 0.17 1.75 0.93
48%
13%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%13%
Figure 36 - Strawberries - Reasons for use of insecticides (where specified)
aphids
caterpillars
capsid
whitefly
thrips/whitefly
caterpillars/thrips
aphids/capsid/whitefly
aphids/whitefly
other pests
Strawberries – Acaricides
• Area treated: 326 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 33 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
acaricide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Abamectin 90 1 0.28 0.22 2.21 0.92
Bifenazate 84 9 0.26 0.33 1.11 0.72
Clofentezine 68 14 0.21 0.29 1.08 0.96
Tebufenpyrad 43 7 0.13 0.25 1.00 0.48
Etoxazole 24 1 0.07 0.12 1.39 volumetric
Seventy-six percent of acaricide applications were made to control two-spotted spider mite, 16% for tarsonemid/two-
spotted spider mite, 4% for whitefly and the remaining 4% being used for a combination of unspecified spider mites and
other pests.
34
Strawberries – Biological control
• Area treated: 3,665 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The five most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Phytoseiulus persimilis 1,076 N/A 0.29 0.89 7.04 N/A
Neoseiulus cucumeris 972 N/A 0.27 0.88 5.95 N/A
Amblyseius swirskii 746 N/A 0.20 0.76 5.88 N/A
Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius
colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius
matricariae/Ephedrus
cerasicola/Praon volucre
510 N/A 0.14 0.78 3.88 N/A
Orius laevigatus 236 N/A 0.06 0.33 4.00 N/A
Phytoseiulus persimilis was used for the control of two-spotted spider mite. Neoseiulus (formerly Amblyseius) cucumeris
and Orius laevigatus were primarily used to control thrips species (normally western flower thrips). Amblyseius swirskii
was used for whitefly and thrips control. The mix of parasitic wasps (Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius
ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Ephedrus cerasicola/Praon volucre) was used for aphid control.
Bees were important for the pollination of 98% of the area of strawberries grown.
Strawberries – Other pesticides
Usage of physical control agents was minimal.
Disinfectants accounted for 3% of the total treated area (excluding biological control agents), with peroxyacetic acid
comprising 86% of the total area treated with disinfectants.
35
PESTICIDE USAGE ON OTHER FRUIT
• 25 hectares of other fruit grown in England & Wales
• 432 hectares treated with pesticides (excluding biological control agents)
• 111 kg of pesticides applied (excluding biological control agents)
• 113 hectares treated with biological control agents
• 3.2% of other fruit grown remained untreated with pesticides although living biocontrol organisms may
have been applied to the crop
• Where treated, other fruit received on average 9 fungicides, 8 biological control agents, 6 insecticides, 3
herbicides, 2 acaricides and 2 physical control agents during the growing season. Disinfectants were the
only other pesticides recorded
• Raspberries (85% of the total area) and blackberries (14%) were the principal crops encountered
• Because of the way in which data were collected there is no information on other fruit grown in Scotland
or Northern Ireland. Data relating to these crops will be published in the 2018 soft fruit survey
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Insecticides &
nematicides
Fungicides Herbicides Acaricides Biological
control agents
Disinfectants Physical control
agents
Pe
rce
na
tge
of
tota
l
Figure 37 - Usage of the major pesticides on other fruit in England & Wales - 2017
Area treated
Weight applied
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pe
rcen
tage o
f a
pp
lica
tio
ns
Figure 38 - Timing of pesticide applications on other fruit - 2017
Fungicide
Insecticide
Acaricide
36
Other fruit – Fungicides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 195 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 54 kg
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
fungicide-
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 111 11 0.57 0.56 7.80 0.99
Azoxystrobin 23 6 0.12 0.79 1.14 0.98
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 20 12 0.10 0.79 1.00 0.99
Fenhexamid 16 12 0.08 0.45 1.39 1.00
Pyrimethanil 11 4 0.05 0.42 1.00 volumetric
Other fruit – Insecticides (including biopesticides)
• Area treated: 189 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: 21 kg
• 99% of growers who provided reasons cited aphids as the reason for use of insecticides on other fruit
crops
• The five most common formulations by area treated were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
insecticide –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Pyrethrins 94 7 0.50 0.69 5.43 0.46
Pymetrozine 28 5 0.15 0.67 1.63 0.99
Spinosad 26 2 0.14 0.56 1.80 0.91
Thiacloprid 22 3 0.11 0.46 1.87 0.99
Cyantraniliprole 8 1 0.04 0.15 2.00 0.99
37
Other fruit – Biological control
• Area treated: 113 hectares
• Weight of active substances applied: Not applicable as these were mainly living organisms
• The most common biological control agents were:
Formulation
area treated
(ha)
Weight of a.s.
applied (kg)
Proportion of
biological
control –
treated area
Proportion of
area grown
Average
number of
applications
(where
applied)
Average
proportion of
full label rate
Phytoseiulus persimilis 56 N/A 0.50 0.53 4.19 N/A
Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius
colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius
matricariae/Ephedrus
cerasicola/Praon volucre
31 N/A 0.28 0.34 3.61 N/A
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora 14 N/A 0.12 0.42 1.27 N/A
Neoseiulus californicus 9 N/A 0.08 0.34 1.00 N/A
Feltiella acarisuga 3 N/A 0.03 0.08 1.63 N/A
Phytoseiulus persimilis was used primarily for the control of two-spotted spider mite. The mix of parasitic wasps
(Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius matricariae/Ephedrus cerasicola/Praon volucre)
were used for aphid control. Heterorhabditis bacteriophora was used for the control of vine weevil larvae and normally
applied as a drench or through the irrigation lines. Neoseiulus californicus and Feltiella acarisuga were both used mainly
for the control of two-spotted spider mite.
Most biological control applications, 66%, were applied in April.
Bees were important for the pollination of 95% of other fruit crops grown.
Other fruit – Other pesticides
Abamectin and clofentezine were the only acaricides recorded with two-spotted spider mite being the only reason cited
for their use.
Carfentrazone-ethyl, diquat, glyphosate and propyzamide were the only herbicides recorded with usage being confined to
pre-planting applications and the area around pot-grown crops.
Usage of disinfectants was minimal with peroxyacetic acid being the only disinfectant encountered.
38
APPENDIX 1 – APPLICATIONS & AREAS GROWN
Table 1 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 by crop group (treated hectares)
Chemical group Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Insecticides & nematicides1 932 116 303 935 544 297 1,237 189 4,551
Fungicides1 530 413 <1 2,063 1,591 1,061 2,992 195 8,845
Herbicides <1 . <1 141 624 <1 . 10 777
Growth regulators 6 . . . . . . . 6
Molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 8 168 25 . . 202
Acaricides 116 41 . . 4 128 326 14 630
Biological control agents 9,496 1,473 2,085 34 166 1,105 3,665 113 18,138
Soil sterilants <1 . 1 2 19 . . . 23
Disinfectants 873 148 130 5 12 346 153 16 1,684
Tar oils/acids <1 . . <1 <1 <1 . . <1
Sulphur 380 . . . <1 51 12 . 443
Physical control agents 251 2 3 . 265 <1 2 8 532
All pesticides 12,584 2,194 2,523 3,188 3,393 3,015 8,387 545 35,830
Area grown (hectares) 223 140 85 420 988 319 176 25 2,377
1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens
Table 2 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 by crop group (kg of active substances)
Chemical group Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Insecticides & nematicides1 223 20 216 98 102 208 238 21 1,127
Fungicides1 532 293 1 1,965 518 2,291 2,343 54 7,998
Herbicides <1 . <1 142 209 <1 . 8 359
Growth regulators 3 . . . . . . . 3
Molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 2 35 7 . . 43
Acaricides 6 <1 . . <1 10 33 <1 50
Biological control agents . . . . . . . . .
Soil sterilants 254 . 742 14 10,322 . . . 11,332
Disinfectants 10,407 2,540 1,895 <1 94 1,146 99 17 16,198
Tar oils/acids <1 . . <1 <1 8 . . 8
Sulphur 788 . . . <1 159 20 . 967
Physical control agents 1,063 3 69 . 1,132 4 3 11 2,285
All pesticides 13,276 2,857 2,923 2,221 12,413 3,832 2,736 111 40,369
1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens
39
Table 3 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 - percentage area of crops treated with pesticides (excluding seed treatments)
Crop group Insecticides Acaricides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Physical
control agents Soil sterilants Disinfectants
Biocontrol
agents Not treated
Tomatoes 62.8 29.5 63.1 44.1 0.1 0.3 18.7 0.4 75.3 93.1 2.1
Cucumbers 31.9 23 84.5 . . <0.1 0.2 . 41 94.1 0.6
Peppers 83.7 . 0.3 . 0.2 . 3.7 1.6 92.9 96.7 1.3
Lettuce 50.2 . 84.5 . 20 0.4 0.9 . 0.2 2.9 3.5
Other vegetables 25.1 0.6 33.1 <0.1 20.7 15.3 16.5 2.2 2.8 3.7 18.0
Edible plants in
propagation 50.5 12.7 72.2 8.9 0.3 5.4 0.2 . 58.2 19.4 5.4
Strawberries 99 50.3 98.8 0.6 . . 1.2 . 48.8 95.8 0.2
Other fruit 96.8 41.6 79.4 . 19.6 . 20 . 65.1 56.5 3.2
All crops 52.6 15.4 62.1 6.1 8.3 5.2 7.2 0.7 38 45 9.2
Table 4 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom 2017 – average number of applications made to crops when treated with individual pesticide groups (excluding seed treatments)1
Crop group Insecticides Acaricides Fungicides Sulphur Herbicides Molluscicides Physical
control agents Soil sterilants Disinfectants
Biocontrol
agents All pesticides
Tomatoes 3 1.2 3.6 2.6 1 1 2.5 1 2.7 28.1 29.8
Cucumbers 2.8 1.1 3.4 . . 1 1.3 . 2.4 10.1 14.2
Peppers 3.4 . 2 . 1 . 2.4 1 1.6 25.9 21.9
Lettuce 2.7 . 2.9 . 1 1 1 . 1 1 3.3
Other vegetables 1.8 2 1.9 1 1.1 1 2.1 1 1.9 10.1 4.7
Edible plants in
propagation 1.8 3 4.6 2.7 1 2.5 1 . 1.7 10 5.2
Strawberries 4.8 2.3 12.8 2.3 . . 1.3 . 1.6 14.3 27.6
Other fruit 6.1 1.5 8.9 . 3.2 . 1.5 . 1 7.7 16.5
All crops 3.1 1.9 5.5 2.6 1.2 1.5 2 1 1.9 15.1 12.9
1 Indicates number of passes of application machinery. Parts of a crop may be treated more than once, or one crop may have several different parts visited on different occasions. The number of applications relates only to those
crops receiving a treatment with an individual pesticide group. It is important to take into account the percentages presented in Table 3 when considering the number of applications in Table 4.
40
Table 5 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (ha)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Fungicides
Azoxystrobin 17 53 . 354 32 46 229 23 755
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 7131 25 . <1 184 249 2 77 111 649
Boscalid/pyraclostrobin <1 17 . 171 210 110 292 9 809
Bupirimate . 19 . . . 42 183 . 244
Coniothyrium minitans1 . <1 <1 152 6 . . . 158
Cyflufenamid 61 32 . . . 29 50 . 171
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 96 36 . 166 258 122 304 20 1,001
Dimethomorph . . . 113 48 17 151 3 331
Fenhexamid <1 . . 94 . 44 169 16 323
Fluopyram/trifloxystrobin . . . 79 . 7 146 . 232
Fosetyl-aluminium/
propamocarb hydrochloride 21 85 . 140 66 129 . . 441
Gliocladium catenulatum strain J14461 . 16 . 14 . 10 . . 41
Iprodione 15 . . 117 53 62 239 . 486
Isopyrazam 194 60 . . . <1 . . 254
Kresoxim-methyl . . . . . 40 173 . 213
Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M . . . 221 . 63 . . 283
Mandipropamid . . . 255 583 . . . 837
Mepanipyrim . . . . . 6 81 . 88
Meptyldinocap . . . . . . 39 . 39
Metalaxyl-M . 11 . . 83 5 . . 100
Myclobutanil . 40 . . . 93 330 . 463
Penconazole 73 42 . . . 53 166 . 334
Potassium hydrogen carbonate 10 . . . . 57 188 . 255
Pyrimethanil . . . . . 33 42 11 86
Quinoxyfen . . . . . 22 62 . 83
Other fungicides2,3 17 2 3 3 72 71 3 171
All fungicides 528 413 <1 2,063 1,591 1,061 2,992 195 8,845
Sulphur 380 . . . <1 51 12 . 443
1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of fungal pathogens. 2Throughout all tables, “Other” refers to chemicals grouped together because they were applied to less than 0.1% of the total area treated with pesticides. 3Other fungicides include amisulbrom, Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 101, calcium hydroxide, chlorothalonil, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, cyazofamid, cymoxanil/zoxamide, difenoconazole,
difenoconazole/mandipropamid, dimethomorph/mancozeb, fenamidone/fosetyl-aluminium, fenamidone/propamocarb hydrochloride, fenpyrazamine, fluazinam, fluopicolide/propamocarb hydrochloride, mancozeb,
phosphorous acid and salts, prochloraz, propamocarb hydrochloride, proquinazid, tebuconazole, tolclofos-methyl, Trichoderma asperellum strain T341, Trichoderma harzianum1 and unspecified fungicides.
The data presented in tables 5 & 6 are calculated numbers and may give a level of accuracy that is unwarranted – please refer to the Standard Error calculations on page 61 for further clarification.
41
Table 5 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (ha)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Disinfectants
Ammonium bifluoride 65 16 <1 . 5 49 . . 136
Benzoic acid . . . . . 37 . . 37
Chlorine dioxide 66 . . . . . 16 . 82
Gluteraldehyde 15 16 16 . . . 3 . 50
Gluteraldehyde/
quaternary ammonium complex 103 . 18 . . 29 . . 149
Hydrogen peroxide 413 10 45 5 3 . . . 475
Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid 10 31 19 . 2 33 . . 96
Peroxyacetic acid 74 12 <1 . <1 162 131 16 395
Peroxygen compounds 63 31 16 . <1 . . . 111
Sodium hypochlorite 41 12 . . . . 2 . 55
Unspecified disinfectants . . <1 . <1 37 . . 37
Other disinfectants1 25 20 15 . 2 . . . 61
All disinfectants 873 148 129 5 11 346 153 16 1,684
Herbicides
Diquat <1 . . . 614 . . 3 617
Propyzamide . . . 141 <1 . . 1 143
Other herbicides2 . . <1 <1 10 1 . 6 17
All herbicides <1 . <1 141 623 1 . 10 777
Molluscicides & repellents
Ferric phosphate <1 . . 9 119 23 . . 151
Metaldehyde <1 <1 . . 49 2 . . 51
All molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 9 168 25 . . 202
Soil sterilants
Other soil sterilants3 <1 . 1 2 19 . . . 23
Growth regulators
Growth regulator4 6 . . . . . . . 6
1Other disinfectants include acetic acid/hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid, cocobenzyl and dimethyl ammonium chloride/glutaraldehyde.
2Other herbicides include carfentrazone-ethyl, glyphosate, ioxynil, isoxaben, lenacil, linuron, mesotrione, metamitron, metribuzin, pendimethalin and propaquizafop. 3Other soil sterilants include dazomet, metam-sodium and methyl isothiocyanate. 4Other growth regulators included 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid.
42
Table 5 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (ha)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Insecticides & nematicides
Acetamiprid 2 . . 11 163 2 . . 177
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki1 283 . 30 . 164 2 508 7 993
Beauveria bassiana GHA1 106 27 . . . . 13 . 146
Chlorantraniliprole 59 . . . . . . . 59
Cyantraniliprole . . . . . 34 . 8 41
Deltamethrin 5 <1 . 24 22 2 33 1 88
Indoxacarb 60 <1 16 132 . . . 4 212
Lambda-cyhalothrin 7 . <1 13 40 29 263 . 353
Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve61 4 48 . . . . . . 52
Pirimicarb . . 45 79 <1 35 17 . 176
Pymetrozine 24 25 63 207 27 36 93 28 503
Pyrethrins 207 <1 66 . 49 <1 7 94 423
Spinosad 167 12 46 122 54 31 51 26 508
Spirotetramat . . . 302 11 84 . . 397
Thiacloprid <1 . 16 44 2 20 234 22 339
Other insecticides & nematicides2 9 2 21 . 11 22 18 . 84
All insecticides & nematicides 932 114 303 935 544 297 1,237 189 4,551
Acaricides
Abamectin 41 38 . . 4 61 90 10 244
Bifenazate . . . . . 19 84 . 103
Clofentezine . . . . . 6 68 4 78
Etoxazole 33 . . . . 20 24 . 76
Spirodiclofen 43 3 . . . . 17 . 63
Tebufenpyrad . . . . . 22 43 . 66
All acaricides 116 41 . . 4 128 326 14 629
Tar oils/acids
Other tar oils3 <1 . . <1 <1 <1 . . <1
1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of insect pests. 2Other insecticides and nematicides include (E, Z)-3, 8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/(E, Z, Z)-3, 8, 11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate, Beauveria bassiana ATCC-740401, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diatomaceous earth, fatty acids,
flonicamid, spiromesifen and thiamethoxam. 3Other tar oils included tar oil.
43
Table 5 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (ha)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Biological control agents
Amblyseius 2 23 25 . <1 . 6 . 56
Amblyseius montdorensis . 62 . . . . . . 62
Amblyseius swirskii . 44 . . 4 <1 746 . 794
Aphelinus abdominalis/Aphidius
colemani/Aphidius ervi/Aphidius
matricariae/Ephedrus
cerasicola/Praon volucre
. . . . . <1 510 31 542
Aphidius colemani 7 125 570 . 21 <1 . . 723
Aphidius ervi 284 . 481 . 10 . . . 776
Aphidius spp. . . . . . 208 . . 208
Aphidoletes aphidimyza 804 9 426 . 20 208 13 . 1,481
Dacnusa sibirica 50 . . . . 208 . . 258
Diglyphus isaea 195 . . . . 208 . . 403
Encarsia formosa 6,848 434 42 . 8 11 21 . 7,364
Feltiella acarisuga 38 9 6 . . . 27 3 83
Hypoaspis spp. . . . . . 208 . . 208
Macrolophus pygmaeus 370 <1 33 . 4 . . . 406
Neoseiulus californicus 1 20 . . 5 <1 34 9 69
Neoseiulus cucumeris <1 187 193 . 48 7 972 . 1,407
Orius laevigatus . . . . 30 <1 236 . 266
Orius spp. . 6 67 . <1 . 9 . 82
Phasmarhabditis hermaphrodita <1 <1 . 33 7 . . . 40
Phytoseiulus persimilis 896 552 226 . 3 7 1,076 56 2,815
Steinernema feltiae . . . . . 36 2 . 37
Other biological control agents1 1 3 17 2 6 4 13 14 58
All biological control agents 9,496 1,473 2,085 34 165 1,104 3,665 113 18,137
Physical control agents
Maltodextrin2 243 . 3 . 257 . . . 503
Other physical control agents3 8 2 0 . 8 0 2 8 28
All physical control agents 251 2 3 0 265 0 2 8 532 1Other biological control agents include Adalia bipunctata, Amblydromalus limonicus, Amblyseius degenerans, Aphidius matricariae, Atheta coriaria, Chrysoperla carnea, Encarsia formosa/Eretmocerus eremicus,
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, parasitic wasp, Steinernema kraussei, Stratiolaelaps scimitus, Therodiplosis persicae, Trichogramma brassicae and unspecified nematodes. 2Maltodextrin is an authorised pesticide. 3Other physical control agents included carbonic acid diamide/urea, garlic and natural plant extracts.
44
Table 6 Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Fungicides
Azoxystrobin 7 14 . 89 8 12 57 6 192
Bacillus subtilis strain QST 7131 1 . <1 15 18 <1 7 11 52
Boscalid/pyraclostrobin <1 8 . 84 105 55 167 4 423
Bupirimate . 6 . . . 15 64 . 84
Coniothyrium minitans1 . <1 1 990 34 . . . 1,025
Cyflufenamid <1 <1 . . . <1 <1 . 3
Cyprodinil/fludioxonil 59 17 . 62 105 57 190 13 502
Dimethomorph . . . 20 9 5 217 4 255
Fenhexamid <1 . . 70 . 33 94 12 210
Fluopyram/trifloxystrobin . . . 4 . 3 58 . 65
Fosetyl-aluminium/propamocarb
hydrochloride 41 195 . 292 136 1,133 . . 1,797
Gliocladium catenulatum strain J14461 . 39 . 27 . 25 . . 91
Iprodione 8 . . 24 12 46 173 . 263
Isopyrazam 36 8 . . . <1 . . 44
Kresoxim-methyl . . . . . 6 26 . 32
Mancozeb/metalaxyl-M . . . 250 . 80 . . 330
Mandipropamid . . . 38 87 . . . 126
Mepanipyrim . . . . . 2 32 . 34
Meptyldinocap . . . . . . 8 . 8
Metalaxyl-M . 2 . . 5 <1 . . 7
Myclobutanil . 2 . . . 8 28 . 38
Penconazole 3 1 . . . 3 8 . 15
Potassium hydrogen carbonate 356 . . . . 636 1,155 . 2,146
Pyrimethanil . . . . . 27 27 4 57
Quinoxyfen . . . . . 3 8 . 10
Other fungicides2,3 20 <1 . <1 <1 143 24 1 189
All fungicides 531 292 1 1,965 518 2,290 2,342 54 7,998
Sulphur 788 . . . <1 159 20 . 967
1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of fungal pathogens. 2Throughout all tables, “Other” refers to chemicals grouped together because they were applied to less than 0.1% of the total area treated with pesticides. 3Other fungicides include amisulbrom, Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 101, calcium hydroxide, chlorothalonil, copper oxychloride, copper sulphate, cyazofamid, cymoxanil/zoxamide, difenoconazole,
difenoconazole/mandipropamid, dimethomorph/mancozeb, fenamidone/fosetyl-aluminium, fenamidone/propamocarb hydrochloride, fenpyrazamine, fluazinam, fluopicolide/propamocarb hydrochloride, mancozeb,
phosphorous acid and salts, prochloraz, propamocarb hydrochloride, proquinazid, tebuconazole, tolclofos-methyl, Trichoderma asperellum strain T341, Trichoderma harzianum1 and unspecified fungicides.
The data presented in tables 5 & 6 are calculated numbers and may give a level of accuracy that is unwarranted – please refer to the Standard Error calculations on page 61 for further clarification
45
Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Disinfectants
Ammonium bi fluoride 391 60 1 . 37 36 . . 525
Benzoic acid . . . . . 104 . . 104
Chlorine dioxide . . . . . . . . .
Gluteraldehyde 88 67 38 . . . 28 . 222
Gluteraldehyde/
quaternary ammonium complex 6,305 . 1,289 . . 583 . . 8,177
Hydrogen peroxide 43 1,311 287 <1 28 . . . 1,669
Hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid 46 126 205 . 20 55 . . 452
Peroxyacetic acid 505 41 <1 . <1 368 71 17 1,003
Peroxygen compounds 704 763 43 . 4 . . . 1,514
Sodium hypochlorite 10 65 . . . . <1 . 75
Unspecified disinfectants . . <1 . <1 . . . 2
Other disinfectants1 2315 106 30 . 4 . . . 2455
All disinfectants 10,407 2,539 1,894 0 93 1,146 99 17 16,198
Herbicides
Diquat <1 . . . 202 . . 1 203
Propyzamide . . . 142 <1 . . 2 144
Other herbicides2 . . <1 <1 7 <1 . 4 12
All herbicides <1 . <1 142 209 <1 . 8 359
Molluscicides & repellents
Ferric phosphate <1 . . 2 24 5 . . 31
Metaldehyde <1 <1 . . 10 2 . . 13
All molluscicides & repellents <1 <1 . 2 35 7 . . 43
Soil sterilants
Other soil sterilants3 254 . 742 14 10,322 . . . 11,332
Growth regulators
Other growth regulators4 3 . . . . . . . 3
1Other disinfectants include acetic acid/hydrogen peroxide/peroxyacetic acid and cocobenzyl dimethyl ammonium chloride/gluteraldehyde.
2Other herbicides include carfentrazone-ethyl, glyphosate, ioxynil, isoxaben, lenacil, linuron, mesotrione, metamitron, metribuzin, pendimethalin and propaquizafop. 3Other soil sterilants include dazomet, metam-sodium and methyl isothiocyanate. 4Other growth regulators included 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid.
46
Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance))
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Insecticides & nematicides
Acetamiprid <1 . . <1 8 <1 . . 9
Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki1 145 . 16 . 76 <1 77 3 318
Beauveria bassiana GHA1 14 5 . . . . 2 . 21
Chlorantraniliprole 5 . . . . . . . 5
Cyantraniliprole . . . . . 4 . <1 5
Deltamethrin <1 <1 . <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Indoxacarb 2 <1 <1 3 . . . <1 6
Lambda-cyhalothrin <1 . <1 <1 <1 <1 2 . 3
Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve61 <1 4 . . . . . . 4
Pirimicarb . . 5 18 <1 9 4 . 37
Pymetrozine 5 8 21 36 5 7 19 6 106
Pyrethrins 21 <1 3 . 6 <1 <1 7 36
Spinosad 29 1 6 12 5 60 4 2 119
Spirotetramat . . . 23 <1 6 . . 30
Thiacloprid <1 . 4 5 <1 2 28 3 42
Other insecticides & nematicides2 2 3 161 . <1 118 102 . 387
All insecticides & nematicides 222 20 216 97 100 207 238 20 1,125
Acaricides
Abamectin <1 <1 . . <1 <1 <1 <1 2
Bifenazate . . . . . 3 9 . 11
Clofentezine . . . . . 1 14 <1 15
Etoxazole 2 . . . . <1 1 . 3
Spirodiclofen 4 <1 . . . . 2 . 6
Tebufenpyrad . . . . . 5 7 . 12
All acaricides 5 <1 . . <1 9 32 <1 50
Tar oils/acids
Other tar oils3 <1 . . <1 <1 8 . . 8
1Formulated biopesticide used for the control of insect pests. 2Other insecticides and nematicides include (E,Z)-3,8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/(E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate, Beauveria bassiana ATCC-740401, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diatomaceous earth, fatty acids,
flonicamid, spiromesifen and thiamethoxam..
3Other tar oils included tar oil.
47
Table 6 (cont.) Estimated usage of pesticides on edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2017 (kg active substance)
Tomatoes Cucumbers Peppers Lettuce Other
vegetables
Edible plants
in propagation Strawberries Other fruit
All edible
crops
Physical control agents
Maltodextrin1 1,047 . 69 . 1,076 . . . 2,191
Other physical control agents2 17 3 <1 . 56 4 3 11 93
All physical control agents 1,063 3 69 0 1,132 4 3 11 2,285
1Maltodextrin is an authorised pesticide.
2Other physical control agents include carbonic acid diamide/urea, garlic and natural plant extracts.
48
Table 7 Estimated area (ha) of application of the fifty most extensively used active substances on all edible protected crops surveyed in 2017 in the
United Kingdom (including edible plants in propagation)
Rank Active substance Area treated in 2017
(ha)
Area treated in 2015
(ha) % change on 2015 Movement
1 Cyprodinil 1,000 679 47 ↑
2 Fludioxonil 1,000 679 47 ↑
3 Bacillus thuringiensis var.
kurstaki 993 545 82 ↑
4 Mandipropamid 839 484 73 ↑
5 Boscalid 809 551 47 ↑
6 Pyraclostrobin 809 551 47 ↑
7 Azoxystrobin 755 780 -3 ↓
8 Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 649 997 -35 ↓
9 Diquat 617 378 63 ↑
10 Hydrogen peroxide 599 124 381 ↑
11 Peroxyacetic acid 519 380 37 ↑
12 Spinosad 508 268 89 ↑
13 Maltodextrin 503 534 -6 ↓
14 Pymetrozine 503 203 148 ↑
15 Iprodione 486 462 5 ↑
16 Myclobutanil 463 777 -40 ↓
17 Fosetyl-aluminium 463 328 41 ↑
18 Propamocarb hydrochloride 449 316 42 ↑
19 Sulphur 443 1,698 -74 ↓
20 Pyrethrins 423 336 26 ↑
21 Spirotetramat 397 106 272 ↑
22 Metalaxyl-M 383 554 -31 ↓
23 Lambda-cyhalothrin 353 161 119 ↑
24 Thiacloprid 339 297 14 ↑
25 Penconazole 334 256 30 ↑
26 Dimethomorph 332 238 39 ↑
27 Fenhexamid 323 545 -41 ↓
28 Mancozeb 289 177 63 ↑
29 Potassium hydrogen carbonate 255 465 -45 ↓
30 Isopyrazam 254 0 Newly encountered ↑
31 Bupirimate 244 408 -40 ↓
32 Abamectin 244 455 -46 ↓
33 Gluteraldehyde 232 152 53 ↑
34 Fluopyram 232 0 Newly encountered ↑
35 Trifloxystrobin 232 0 Newly encountered ↑
36 Kresoxim-methyl 213 194 10 ↑
37 Indoxacarb 212 131 62 ↑
38 Acetamiprid 177 187 -5 ↓
39 Pirimicarb 176 611 -71 ↓
40 Cyflufenamid 171 131 31 ↑
41 Coniothyrium minitans 158 1 23,331 ↑
42 Ferric phosphate 151 125 21 ↑
43 Quaternary ammonium complex 149 20 650 ↑
44 Beauveria bassiana GHA 146 0 Newly encountered ↑
45 Propyzamide 143 117 22 ↑
46 Ammonium bi fluoride 136 97 40 ↑
47 Peroxygen compounds 111 110 1 ↑
48 Bifenazate 103 86 20 ↑
49 Deltamethrin 88 84 5 ↑
50 Mepanipyrim 88 203 -57 ↓
49
Table 8 Estimated amount (kg) of the fifty active substances, used most by weight, on all edible protected crops surveyed in 2017 in the United
Kingdom (including edible plants in propagation)
Rank Active substance Amount used in 2017
(kg)
Amount used in 2015
(kg)
Percentage change on
2015 Movement
1 Dazomet 10,417 11,638 -10 ↓
2 Gluteraldehyde 4,381 1,586 176 ↑
3 Quaternary ammonium complex 4,088 957 327 ↑
4 Hydrogen peroxide 3,661 659 456 ↑
5 Maltodextrin 2,191 3,199 -31 ↓
6 Potassium hydrogen carbonate 2,146 11,017 -81 ↓
7 Peroxygen compounds 1,514 2,377 -36 ↓
8 Peroxyacetic acid 1,475 844 75 ↑
9 Propamocarb hydrochloride 1,142 1,511 -24 ↓
10 Coniothyrium minitans 1,025 4 26,945 ↑
11 Sulphur 967 4,867 -80 ↓
12 Metam-sodium 901 6,322 -86 ↓
13 Fosetyl-aluminium 697 710 -2 ↓
14 Ammonium bi fluoride 525 955 -45 ↓
15 Boscalid 338 209 62 ↑
16 Mancozeb 318 195 63 ↑
17 Bacillus thuringiensis var.
kurstaki 318 415 -23 ↓
18 Acetic acid 304 0 64,036 ↑
19 Cyprodinil 301 205 47 ↑
20 Fatty acids 266 558 -52 ↓
21 Iprodione 263 259 1 ↑
22 Dimethomorph 255 187 37 ↑
23 Fenhexamid 210 389 -46 ↓
24 Diquat 203 138 47 ↑
25 Fludioxonil 201 137 47 ↑
26 Azoxystrobin 192 201 -4 ↓
27 Propyzamide 144 137 5 ↑
28 Mandipropamid 126 74 70 ↑
29 Spinosad 119 28 330 ↑
30 Chlorpyrifos 118 2,246 -95 ↓
31 Pymetrozine 106 40 167 ↑
32 Benzoic acid 104 1,068 -90 ↓
33 Gliocladium catenulatum strain
J1446 91 115 -21 ↓
34 Urea 90 123 -27 ↓
35 Tolclofos-methyl 87 611 -86 ↓
36 Pyraclostrobin 85 52 62 ↑
37 Bupirimate 84 139 -39 ↓
38 Sodium hypochlorite 75 25 204 ↑
39 Cocobenzyl dimethyl
ammonium chloride 70 73 -4 ↓
40 Pyrimethanil 57 140 -59 ↓
41 Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 52 97 -47 ↓
42 Isopyrazam 44 0 Newly encountered ↑
43 Thiacloprid 42 35 19 ↑
44 Myclobutanil 38 64 -41 ↓
45 Pirimicarb 37 94 -61 ↓
46 Pyrethrins 36 45 -20 ↓
47 Mepanipyrim 34 81 -58 ↓
48 Fluopyram 32 0 Newly encountered ↑
49 Trifloxystrobin 32 0 Newly encountered ↑
50 Kresoxim-methyl 32 29 11 ↑
50
1This figure excludes protected fruit grown in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Table 9 Comparison of the area of edible protected crops grown in the United Kingdom, 2011 - 2017
Area grown (hectares)
Crop 2011 2013 2015 2017
Tomato 217 239 232 223
Cucumber 234 229 181 140
Pepper 93 105 90 85
Lettuce 387 336 352 420
Other vegetables 605 469 851 988
Fruit1 212 2221 2191 2021
Edible plants in propagation 340 374 248 319
Total - all protected crops 2,094 1,974 2,173 2,377
51
Table 10 New compounds encountered on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom in 2017
Active substance Area treated 2017 (ha) Amount used 2017 (kg)
1 Isopyrazam 254 44
2 Fluopyram 232 32
3 Trifloxystrobin 232 32
4 Beauveria bassiana GHA 146 21
5 Cyantraniliprole 41 5
6 Meptyldinocap 39 8
7 Proquinazid 9 <1
8 Cymoxanil 7 1
9 Zoxamide 7 1
10 (E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl acetate/(E,Z)-3,8-
tetradecadien-1-yl acetate 5 N/A
Table 11 Major increases in the use of individual active substances on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom since 2015 (ha)
Active substance Area treated 2017 (ha) Area treated 2015 (ha) % change on 2015
1 Coniothyrium minitans 158 1 23,331
2 Ampelomyces quisqualis
strain AQ 10 34 2 1,973
3 Prochloraz 23 2 921
4 Acetic acid 29 3 834
5 Quaternary ammonium
complex 149 20 650
6 Hydrogen peroxide 599 124 381
7 Sodium hypochlorite 55 14 284
8 Spirotetramat 397 106 272
9 Chlorine dioxide 82 25 223
10 Metribuzin 2 1 201
11 Pymetrozine 503 203 148
12 Lambda-cyhalothrin 353 161 119
13 Cocobenzyl dimethyl
ammonium chloride 33 15 119
14 Tebufenpyrad 66 31 111
15 Difenoconazole 5 3 105
16 Spinosad 508 268 89
17 Bacillus thuringiensis var.
kurstaki 993 545 82
18 Mandipropamid 839 484 73
19 Mancozeb 289 177 63
20 Diquat 617 378 63
Table 12 Major decreases in the use of individual active substances on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom since 2015 (ha)
Active substance Area treated 2017 (ha) Area treated 2015 (ha) % change on 2015
1 Metamitron <1 37 -99
2 Garlic 7 493 -99
3 Copper oxychloride 1 19 -97
4 Pendimethalin 1 37 -97
5 Spiromesifen 4 112 -96
6 Glyphosate 5 71 -93
7 Tebuconazole 3 31 -91
8 Fluazinam 2 24 -90
9 Chlorpyrifos 18 181 -90
10 Chlorothalonil 0 3 -88
11 Tolclofos-methyl 9 70 -88
12 Metam-sodium 2 14 -86
13 Beauveria bassiana ATCC-
74040 6 33 -83
14 Fluopicolide 4 17 -76
15 Sulphur 443 1,698 -74
16 Flonicamid 4 16 -73
17 Trichoderma spp. 2 7 -73
18 Pirimicarb 176 611 -71
19 Quinoxyfen 83 261 -68
20 Clofentezine 78 233 -66
52
Table 13 Comparison of pesticide usage on edible protected crops in the United Kingdom, 2011 - 2017 area treated (ha) and amount used (kg)
Chemical 2011 2013 2015 2017
ha kg ha kg ha kg ha kg
Acaricides 705 45 967 85 1,005 80 630 50
Insecticides 2,979 3,709 2,922 8,430 2,897 3,093 3,350 783
Biopesticides1 1,529 154 1,026 232 1,690 672 2,084 1,514
Fungicides 6,377 19,849 8,531 17,551 8,041 16,895 7,962 6,828
Sulphur 1,387 3,486 965 2,899 1,700 4,863 443 967
Herbicides 381 251 110 117 667 593 777 359
Molluscicides 102 17 90 21 183 45 202 43
Soil sterilants 7 4,240 3 1,953 34 18,482 23 11,332
Tar oil/acids 1 36 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 8
Authorised disinfectants 65 248 21 122 32 1,068 37 104
Authorised physical control
agents 247 3,234 297 1,907 533 3,186 503 2,191
Growth regulators 3 2 . . 11 5 6 3
Total - all pesticides 13,783 35,271 14,932 33,317 16,794 48,982 16,016 24,182
Biological controls 27,560 357 22,410 9 20,325 . 18,137 .
Area grown 2,094 1,974 2,173 2,377
1Includes biopesticides for the control of insect pests and fungal pathogens.
53
Table 14 Biological and physical control agents encountered in the survey - comparison with usage in 2015
Rank Active substance Amount used in 2017
(ha)
Amount used in 2015
(ha)
Percentage change on
2015 Movement
1 Encarsia formosa 7,372 6,727 10 ↑
2 Phytoseiulus persimilis 2,815 2,060 37 ↑
3 Aphidoletes aphidimyza 1,481 1,480 0 ↑
4 Neoseiulus cucumeris 1,407 1,335 5 ↑
5 Aphidius ervi 1,318 1,340 -2 ↓
6 Aphidius colemani 1,265 2,907 -56 ↓
7 Amblyseius swirskii 784 102 667 ↑
8 Aphidius matricariae 542 118 358 ↑
9 Aphelinus abdominalis 542 438 24 ↑
10 Ephedrus cerasicola 542 30 1,690 ↑
11 Praon volucre 542 112 383 ↑
12 Maltodextrin 503 534 -6 ↓
13 Macrolophus pygmaeus 406 442 -8 ↓
14 Diglyphus isaea 403 342 18 ↑
15 Orius laevigatus 266 398 -33 ↓
16 Dacnusa sibirica 258 250 3 ↑
17 Aphidius spp. 208 112 86 ↑
18 Hypoaspis spp. 208 296 -30 ↓
19 Feltiella acarisuga 83 50 66 ↑
20 Orius spp. 82 145 -43 ↓
21 Neoseiulus californicus 69 111 -38 ↓
22 Amblyseius montdorensis 62 0 Newly encountered ↑
23 Amblyseius 56 974 -94 ↓
24 Phasmarhabditis
hermaphrodita 40 100 -60 ↓
25 Steinernema feltiae 37 129 -71 ↓
26 Urea 21 43 -51 ↓
27 Amblyseius degenerans 16 33 -50 ↓
28 Heterorhabditis
bacteriophora 16 116 -87 ↓
29 Amblyseius swirskii 10 0 Newly encountered ↑
30 Eretmocerus eremicus 8 173 -95 ↓
31 Garlic 7 493 -99 ↓
32 Trichogramma brassicae 6 10 -46 ↓
33 Unspecified nematodes 4 0 Newly encountered ↑
34 Therodiplosis persicae 3 0 Newly encountered ↑
35 Chrysoperla carnea 3 410 -99 ↓
36 Steinernema kraussei 2 5 -67 ↓
37 Adalia bipunctata 0 48 -100 ↓
38 Parasitic wasp 0 0 Newly encountered ↑
39 Stratiolaelaps scimitus 0 24 -100 ↓
40 Atheta coriaria 0 0 Newly encountered ↑
41 Amblydromalus limonicus 0 0 Newly encountered ↑
42 Natural plant extracts 0 0 20 ↑
54
APPENDIX 2 – OTHER COMPOUNDS ENCOUNTERED IN THE SURVEY BUT NOT PRESENTED ELSEWHERE IN THE REPORT
Area Treated (ha) Weight applied (kg)
Detergents
Unspecified detergents 9 3
Glass cleaners
Hydrofluoric acid 88 740
Ammonium hydrogen difluoride 79 382
Nitric acid 76 3,900
Unspecified glass cleaners 23 1,436
Growth stimulants
Harpin protein 6 <1
Physical control
Propane burner 19 N/A
Soil sterilants
Steam 5 N/A
55
APPENDIX 3 – BIOPESTICIDE USAGE ON EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS IN 2017
Crop treated Biopesticide Area treated (ha) Weight applied (kg) Proportion of area
grown
Average number of applications
(where applied)
Average proportion of
full label rate
Tomatoes (E,Z)-3,8-tetradecadien-1-yl acetate/
(E,Z,Z)-3,8,11-tetradecatrien-1-yl
acetate
4.80 <0.01 0.02 1.00 N/A
Strawberries Ampelomyces quisqualis strain AQ 10 33.59 1.36 0.05 3.67 1.00
Edible plants in propagation Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 1.50 0.20 0.00 1.00 volumetric
Lettuce Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 184.36 15.14 0.36 1.23 volumetric
Other fruit Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 111.20 11.18 0.56 7.80 volumetric
Other vegetables Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 249.41 17.55 0.17 1.46 volumetric
Peppers Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 0.23 0.01 0.00 1.00 volumetric
Strawberries Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 76.67 6.61 0.20 2.16 volumetric
Tomatoes Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 25.28 1.28 0.09 1.20 volumetric
Edible plants in propagation Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 1.52 0.82 0.00 1.00 volumetric
Other fruit Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 7.23 2.90 0.17 1.65 volumetric
Other vegetables Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 163.61 75.61 0.13 1.28 volumetric
Peppers Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 30.02 16.21 0.27 1.31 volumetric
Strawberries Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 507.70 77.26 0.90 3.20 volumetric
Tomatoes Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki 282.90 144.73 0.31 4.11 volumetric
Other vegetables Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 0.54 0.12 0.00 2.00 1.00
Strawberries Beauveria bassiana ATCC-74040 5.11 1.10 0.03 1.00 1.00
Cucumbers Beauveria bassiana GHA 26.85 4.66 0.07 2.89 0.84
Strawberries Beauveria bassiana GHA 13.14 2.02 0.02 3.00 0.93
Tomatoes Beauveria bassiana GHA 105.59 14.29 0.12 3.85 0.65
Cucumbers Coniothyrium minitans 0.08 0.49 0.00 1.00 0.78
Lettuce Coniothyrium minitans 151.64 989.82 0.36 1.00 0.82
Other vegetables Coniothyrium minitans 5.60 33.68 0.01 1.00 0.75
Peppers Coniothyrium minitans 0.23 1.43 0.00 1.00 0.78
Cucumbers Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 16.25 39.00 0.12 1.00 0.88
Edible plants in propagation Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 10.44 24.54 0.03 1.00 1.00
Lettuce Gliocladium catenulatum strain J1446 14.20 27.27 0.03 1.00 1.00
Cucumbers Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 48.25 3.63 0.07 4.66 0.78
Tomatoes Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 3.56 0.20 0.01 1.54 0.58
Edible plants in propagation Trichoderma asperellum strain T34 0.05 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.53
Tomatoes Trichoderma asperellum strain T34 0.05 0.07 0.00 1.00 0.75
Cucumbers Trichoderma harzianum 1.99 0.30 0.01 1.00 1.00
Lettuce Trichoderma harzianum 0.67 0.00 0.00 1.00 volumetric
56
APPENDIX 4 – DEFINITIONS
a) 'Pesticide' is used throughout this report to include commercial formulations containing active substances of insecticides, acaricides, molluscicides, fungicides, herbicides, desiccants, soil sterilants, nematicides, and growth regulators.
b) 'Treated area' is the gross area treated with a pesticide, including all repeat applications, some of which may have been applied to the land in preparation for planting and thus may appear as an inappropriate use on that crop.
c) 'Reason for application' indicated in the text is the grower's stated reason for use of that particular pesticide on that crop and may not always seem entirely appropriate.
d) Where individual pesticides are mentioned in the text, they are listed in descending order of use by hectares treated.
e) The term ‘formulation(s)’ used within the text is used here to describe either single active substances or mixtures of active substances contained within an individual product. It does not refer to any of the solvents, pH modifiers or adjuvants also contained within a product that contribute to its efficacy.
f) For the purposes of this survey the total area of edible protected crops was taken as the sum of the areas of the following crops: tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other veg; other fruit; strawberries: vegetables for propagation & fruit for propagation.
g) Where referred to as a pesticide group, “other pesticides” includes urea, physical control agents, growth stimulants and disinfectants (see also k and l below).
h) Volumetric rates – some products are applied using a standard dilution rate in a set volume of water. As growers’ water volume rates/hectare vary it is not possible to compare the actual rates with a pre-set maximum product rate.
i) Pesticide applications included those applied prior to planting, or in some cases to glasshouse crops that failed and were subsequently re-planted, and, as these are associated with that crop they may appear as inappropriate uses.
j) Where highlighted in the text the amount of active substance is calculated from the weight of product applied per hectare multiplied by the proportion of each individual active substance within a product. Arthropod biological control agents are applied by number rather than weight, so the weight of biological control agents refers only to preparations of bacterial and fungal origin.
k) Disinfectants are used for general cleansing and disinfection and are subject to the biocidal products regime. Not all disinfectants require authorisation.
l) Physical control agents, such as maltodextrin, which is based on potato starch, work by blocking insect spiracles, causing death by suffocation. Other physical control agents include garlic which repel and prevent insect pests landing on the crop.
m) EAMU – Extension of Authorisation for Minor Use (formerly known as Specific Off-Label Approvals or SOLAs).
n) Full label rate refers to the maximum rate, in litres or kilograms per hectare, indicated on a product label, permitted on
a specific crop. Where the average proportion of full label rate is indicated within the report this is the average product
rate encountered in the survey, compared to the maximum product label rate for each crop.
57
APPENDIX 5 – METHODOLOGY
METHODS
The samples of holdings to be surveyed were selected using data from the June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture,
2016 for England & Wales (Anon., 2017a and 2017b).
Whilst most of the information below relates to England & Wales, further detailed information relating to Scotland &
Northern Ireland can be found on the relevant websites listed on page 2.
The samples were drawn from the June Survey returns so as to represent the area of all edible protected crops grown
throughout England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. For England the sample was selected within each of the eight
Government Office Regions (GOR’s). The Welsh Government provided a further sample, which represented the area
grown in Wales. For Scotland and Northern Ireland, the sample represented the regions in each country.
The samples were stratified according to the total area of protected crop structures (permanent structures such as
glasshouses and polythene tunnels but excluding French and Spanish tunnels which are temporary structures) within each
region and by size group based on the total area of protected crop structures grown on each holding. The area of
protected crop structures sampled in each size group and each region was proportional to the total area of protected crop
structures grown on holdings of each size group in each region. Detailed information on the use of French and Spanish
tunnels can be found in the soft fruit report.
All three survey teams followed the same methodology for data collection and used the same forms and instructions for
their completion. However, for Wales it was not possible to select the sample on the basis of edible protected crops. For
Wales, where the sample provided contained a mixture of edible & ornamental holdings, a factor of 0.5 was applied to the
regional areas of glasshouse & polythene structures. This figure was based on our own experience of the level and
distribution of edible protected and ornamental crop holdings present in Wales.
The size groups, based on the total area of structures (glasshouse & polythene) edible protected crops are as follows:
<0.4ha (Size Group A); >0.4-<=0.8 ha (Size Group B); >0.8-<=1.25 ha (Size Group C); >1.25-<=2.5 ha (Size Group D);
and >2.5 ha (Size Group E).
For the purposes of this survey the total area of edible protected crops was taken as the sum of the areas of the following
crops: tomatoes; cucumbers; lettuce; peppers; other vegetables; other fruit; strawberries; vegetables for propagation &
fruit for propagation.
An introductory letter was sent to the occupiers of the selected holdings explaining the purpose of the survey. In total 247
holdings (208 in England, 17 in Scotland, 11 in Northern Ireland and 11 in Wales) were visited during the winter of
2016/17 and data collected during a personal interview with the grower conducted by an experienced pesticide usage
surveyor. Where a holding listed in the original sample was not able to provide data it was replaced with another from the
same size group and region, held on a reserve list. Within England and Wales a total of 369 nurseries were contacted, of
which 96 (26%) were not growing edible protected crops commercially. Of the 273 nurseries growing edible protected
crops, 15 (5%) were unwilling to help with the survey. A total of 219 nurseries (80%) in England and Wales provided
data for the survey, with the remaining 39 growers (14%) being either willing to provide information at a later date; had
retired; didn’t grow commercially; or had health issues which prevented them from participating.
58
Commercial farm management software and in-house electronic record keeping systems are now used extensively within
many areas of agriculture and horticulture. However, because of the complexity of growing edible protected crops,
multiple cropping, variable growing systems, diversity of crops etc., the use of electronic record systems is more limited
than in field vegetable, field grown fruit or in arable systems. Electronic record keeping was used by 32% of the holdings
contacted in England & Wales, with these records accounting for 50% of the area grown and 62% of the total pesticide-
treated area.
Where possible, and in order to minimise the burden on individual growers, pesticide usage data were emailed or posted
by the growers back to the survey teams. In a few cases, and normally on smaller holdings, information was collected
over the telephone. In total, data from 46% of the holdings in England & Wales were collected using non-visit
methodologies.
One of the requirements placed on growers by their customers is the membership of farm assurance schemes. These
schemes require detailed pesticide records (computer based or hand written) which ensure traceability and can be
examined by crop assurance auditors at any time, but normally at least once each year. These records are used
extensively by members of the survey team. Of the 227 holdings providing responses to this question in Great Britain,
59% were members of one or more crop assurance schemes (89% of the area grown), with 24 of the holdings being
registered organic on all or part of their farm. A number of smaller growers were growing crops without any pesticide
treatments but were not registered organic.
The Questionnaire
The questionnaire for the main part of the survey consisted of two forms, which were completed during an interview with
the grower.
Form 1 summarised the areas of edible protected crops grown on the designated holding during the 2016/2017 season.
Form 2 dealt with all aspects of pesticide usage on the individual crops grown on the holding and harvested in 2017, a
separate form being used for each glasshouse block/crop combination. These included pesticides applied prior to
planting, or in some cases to crops that failed and were subsequently re-planted, as these are associated with that crop
they may appear as inappropriate uses. Certain agronomic details that may have influenced pesticide usage (including
planting methods, growing medium, irrigation systems, planting & harvest times, use of adjuvants and the volume of
spray applied) were also recorded on form 2.
59
Raising factors
The pesticide usage data collected from each holding were raised by a ratio of two factors to give an estimate of regional
usage using a standard ratio raising statistical technique; the first factor being dependent on farm size group and region
(see Appendix 7) and the second dependent on crop area and region. The data were further adjusted by a third factor to
compensate for regions in which specific crops were not sampled and to make estimates of total pesticide usage related to
the national cropping areas in the United Kingdom (Thomas, 1999).
The raising factors were based on the areas of glasshouse and polythene structures, and the area of edible protected crops
grown and harvested in 2017 as recorded in the Defra June Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture for England & Wales
(Anon., 2018a & b) and the Defra Horticultural Statistics (HS) (Anon., 2018c).
The first raising factors from the edible protected crops survey are presented in Appendix 7. It is the first raising factor
which does most of the work and gives an indication of the robustness of the sample with smaller numbers indicating a
larger area sampled within each size group and region. The first raising factor is often largest in the smaller size groups
where there is generally a much larger population. For edible protected crops the first raising factor is based on the area
of glass and polythene structures on holdings that indicated they were growing vegetables, salad and fruit in the 2017 June
Survey.
Some of the first raising factors are less than 1. This could indicate that the June survey data were inaccurate for that
individual size group and region combination. Initially it was thought that changing the first raising factors to 1 where
this occurred would compensate and correct any potential errors. However, discussions with statisticians at Fera
suggested that doing this may bias the sample and that any overestimates in the June Survey data for areas within other
size group and region combinations would not be accounted for.
Whilst we have confidence in the methodologies used for the pesticide usage surveys and the data collected from
individual farmers and growers (see Appendix 5), the raised estimates for individual crops will be subject to higher
standard errors simply because available data on National and Regional areas for individual crops are much more limited.
Where possible, the survey team have used data collected as part of the June Survey to make estimates of national &
regional pesticide usage as this survey is subject to the same strict methodologies as our own. However, where these
estimates are not available then other sources of data such as combinations of June Survey data and our own observations
or the Horticultural Statistics have been used and these data may therefore be associated with a higher standard error.
We have concerns relating to the estimated areas used for strawberries, other fruit and protected lettuce.
Data within this survey report exclude fruit grown in Scotland and Northern Ireland, whilst the Horticultural Statistics
present UK figures. Estimates for protected fruit in 2015 showed 219 hectares grown in England & Wales. Using the
Horticultural Statistics for 2018 this figure has remained unchanged; therefore, it is possible that the 2018 figure of 217
hectares possibly relates only to England & Wales. However, our own estimate of 202 hectares grown in England &
Wales has been used because of the uncertainties surrounding the Horticultural Statistics figures.
It is important to remember that the bulk of the strawberry crop is grown under temporary tunnels; usage on these crops
will be reported in the 2018 soft fruit pesticide usage survey report. The use of temporary tunnels causes complications
with the edible protected crops survey in that many of the holdings that had been selected in the sample, particularly those
in the larger size groups, were growing strawberries and other fruit under French & Spanish tunnels. Whilst these
holdings were rejected for the purposes of this survey, they would have been included within the June Survey data and
will therefore have an influence on this survey’s raising factors.
The area estimated by the Horticultural Statistics for protected lettuce is 420 hectares. From our own sample estimates
the HS figure is possibly an overestimate, with growers either ceasing production or changing to alternative crops.
However, we have no other data available and have used the Horticultural Statistics figures.
Detailed data for other vegetable crops (including herbs and baby leaf salads) and edible plants in propagation were not
available from the Horticultural Statistics and we have used our own estimates, by multiplying the sampled area by the
first raising factor (rf1), for these crops.
60
Error checking
Extensive checks are made on the data before, at the time of and following data entry. Data checking routines are used to
verify the authenticity of the data collected including: the authorisation and approval status of all crop/pesticide
combinations; high and low rates of application; the methods of application used to apply pesticides; crop growth stages
at the time of application; the timing of pesticide applications and consistency within a tank mix.
Further checks are made on the integrity of the relational database used to store the raw data collected ensuring that links
to product databases are in place prior to the production of the report. The product databases used for the pesticide usage
surveys are maintained alongside the commercial product database, LIAISON, which is used extensively by agronomists
and the major farm management software companies.
Where inconsistencies are found, for example where there are high rates of application or non-approved product usage,
these are checked first against the farm records and secondly with the grower and amended if necessary.
Reports are written and checked within the team after which they are sent to reviewers within the Working Party on
Pesticide Usage Surveys for their comments and checking.
The final report is pre-announced and published via the Government release calendar and the Fera website in line with the
Code of Practice for Statistics.
Rounding
Due to rounding of figures, the sum of constituent items in the tables may not agree exactly with the totals shown.
Data limitations and use of data
Our experience (Fera, SASA and AFBI) has shown that the face to face interview and ‘main contact plus reserves
approach’ delivers the highest quality data and minimises non-response bias; no other approach is likely to yield fit for
purpose data to meet the quality requirements of the UKSA Code of Practice for Statistics. Drawing a fresh stratified
random sample each year is clearly an appropriate survey methodology.
As part of this survey Fera has implemented the UK Statistics Authority Code of Practice for Statistics, published in 2009
and revised in 2018. Whilst all three pillars and 14 principles apply, we acknowledge the following:
• Honesty and integrity: people in organisations that release statistics should be truthful, impartial and independent, and
meet consistent standards of behaviour that reflect the wider public good.
• Data governance: organisations should look after people’s information securely and manage data in ways that are
consistent with relevant legislation and serve the public good.
• Efficiency and proportionality: statistics and data should be published in forms that enable their reuse. Producers
should use existing data wherever possible and only ask for more where justified.
• Accessibility: statistics and data should be equally available to all, not given to some people before others. They
should be published at a sufficient level of detail and remain publicly available.
In accordance with UKSA Code of Practice for Statistics, we work with Defra and HSE statisticians to build on our
existing extensive and effective relationships with users of the surveys to further enhance user engagement. There is a
broad spectrum of users and stakeholders across policy, research, agricultural supply industry (including consultancies),
farming and horticultural businesses, civil society organisations and members of the public. Over the years we have an
excellent record of listening to our users and incorporating their feedback into the way we collect and report our statistics.
61
APPENDIX 6 - ESTIMATES OF STANDARD ERRORS FROM THE EDIBLE PROTECTED CROP
PESTICIDE USAGE SURVEY
The aim of the analysis of the results was to provide an estimate of the pesticide usage associated with crop type
within each region and nationally.
Estimates are derived from pesticide usage survey data which are stratified by region and holding size within
each crop type. The survey reports the mass of pesticide applied and the area to which it is applied. The survey
information is combined with the total cultivated area within each stratum to provide an estimate of the total
mass of pesticide used on that crop type by region and nationally, and of the area sprayed. Each estimate (E) is
provided with a standard error (se). In general, we expect, with approximately 95% confidence, that the true
quantity of pesticide used will lie within the interval:
Estimation method
We are provided with information about holdings in J regions. Holdings are assigned one of K size classes. L
holdings are surveyed within each stratum (j,k). In addition, the total area and number of holdings in each
stratum from which samples have been taken is reported.
Hence, we are given:
: the total area of the stratum (in holdings of size class k, in region j)
: the total number of holdings in the stratum
: number of holdings surveyed within the stratum
: area of each holding surveyed within the stratum
: area of each holding sprayed within the surveyed stratum
: mass of pesticide applied to each holding in the surveyed stratum
Then we estimate:
: mean area sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum
: mean mass applied per area surveyed within the stratum
: the between-holding standard deviation of the area sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum
: the between holding standard deviation of the mass sprayed per area surveyed within the stratum
: estimated total area sprayed in a region
: standard error of estimated total area sprayed in a region
: estimated total mass applied in a region
: standard error of estimated total mass applied in a region
: estimated total area sprayed nationally
: standard error of estimated total area sprayed nationally
: estimated total mass applied nationally
: standard error of estimated total mass applied nationally
Estimates are provided using the following formulas:
62
Estimators
Equation 1
Equation 2
Equation 3
Equation 4
Equation 5
Equation 6
Equation 7
Equation 8
Equation 9
Equation 10
Equation 11
Equation 12
63
Equation 13
Equation 14
Standard errors , , and are estimated by a first order Taylor approximation 1 (Equations
9,10,13,14) with a finite population correction 2 (Equations 9 and 10)
95% confidence intervals for estimates , , and as estimated as mean±1.96×standard error.
Estimates of use derived from this survey were based on a stratification by region and size. Some size strata
within regions were combined to maintain at least five observations per stratum. Two holdings were surveyed in
the North East region; North East and North West were combined into a ‘North’ region. Upper and lower
confidence intervals were not reported where the relative standard error was estimated to be larger than 30%. In
addition, in the two cases where the number of holdings in the PUS survey was larger than the number of
holdings in the June Survey, we assumed that this was caused by an error or change in the size classification of
the holdings in that region. Hence, survey returns from the East Midlands and Eastern regions were analysed
without stratification by size.
Estimates of area of application and mass applied by region and size group are provided in Tables SE1 and SE2.
Estimates of the total area of application and mass applied tables SE3 and SE4.
1BIPM, (2008). Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, JCGM 100:2008
2Isserlis, L. (1918). "On the value of a mean as calculated from a sample". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 81 (1): 75–81.
64
Assumptions
1) The survey is unbiased. This means that there is no correlation between the use of pesticides on the
holding and the probability of holdings being included or excluded from a survey. The simplest way of
achieving this is to sample holdings at random from the population of holdings within a stratum.
2) Samples are not correlated between strata. This means that if by chance the holdings sampled from one
stratum have a higher average pesticide use than the population within the stratum, then this provides no
information about the relation between samples and populations in other strata.
3) The values of number of holdings per strata are correct.
4) The size of the potential error in estimates of the total area of holdings [se(H)] within each stratum is
small compared with the standard error of the estimates for the ratios “mean area sprayed per area
surveyed within the stratum” and “mean mass applied per area surveyed within the stratum” [se(R)].
For uncorrelated errors “small” might mean rse(H)<0.3×rse(R)3
5) The error associated with estimates , , , and is assumed to be described by a normal
distribution
3 If given estimates of relative standard errors (rse) rse(R)=1 and rse(H)=0.3 then rse(R.H)=1.04
65
Table SE1: Estimates of area of application by region and size group
Region Size
group Total Area (Ha)
Number of
holdings
Number
surveyed Estimate (Ha) s.e (Ha) RSE (%) 95% Confidence Interval (Ha)
East Midlands ALL 34.22 76 10 337 153 45 N/A1 N/A
Eastern ALL 156.83 143 52 2811 409 15 2010 3612
London & SE A 8.2 109 13 70 33 47 N/A N/A
London & SE B 13.53 24 8 218 80 37 N/A N/A
London & SE C 7.96 8 6 327 31 9.5 266 388
London & SE D 13.02 7 7 533 0 0 533 533
London & SE E 148.06 11 5 11562 784 6.8 10025 13100
North A 7.97 65 9 33 19 58 N/A N/A
North B 10.59 19 6 64 44 69 N/A N/A
North C 7.53 8 6 103 32 31 N/A N/A
North DE 75.15 20 12 2864 439 15 2004 3724
Northern Ireland ALL 22.1 28 11 66 26 40 N/A N/A
Scotland ALL 19.73 503 17 37 26 72 N/A N/A
South West A 11.61 195 14 43 26 60 N/A N/A
South West BCDE 30.78 24 6 976 354 36 N/A N/A
Wales ALL 20.34 174 11 79 50 64 N/A N/A
West Midlands A 7.09 70 9 44 35 79 N/A N/A
West Midlands BC 6.53 11 5 68 48 69 N/A N/A
West Midlands DE 108.45 12 5 3302 695 21 1940 4663
Yorks & Humber A 3.08 43 7 29 17 57 N/A N/A
Yorks & Humber BC 12.17 18 6 185 78 42 N/A N/A
Yorks & Humber D 18.1 9 5 633 117 18 404 862
Yorks & Humber E 84.24 17 17 4863 0 0 4863 4863
1Not applicable
66
Table SE2: Estimates of mass applied by and region size group
Region Size
group
Total Area
(Ha)
Number of
holdings
Number
surveyed
Estimate
(Kg) s.e (Kg) RSE (%) 95% Confidence Interval (Kg)
East Midlands ALL 34.22 76 10 889 279 31 N/A N/A
Eastern ALL 156.83 143 52 2799 651 23 1524 4074
London & SE A 8.2 109 13 96 48 50 N/A N/A
London & SE B 13.53 24 8 166 89 53 N/A N/A
London & SE C 7.96 8 6 353 55 16 245 462
London & SE D 13.02 7 7 480 0 0 480 480
London & SE E 148.06 11 5 5296 827 16 3674 6918
North A 7.97 65 9 507 456 90 N/A N/A
North B 10.59 19 6 597 319 53 N/A N/A
North C 7.53 8 6 1724 904 52 N/A N/A
North DE 75.15 20 12 4704 1838 39 N/A N/A
Northern Ireland ALL 22.1 28 11 434 147 34 N/A N/A
Scotland ALL 19.73 503 17 24 13 55 N/A N/A
South West A 11.61 195 14 317 295 93 N/A N/A
South West BCDE 30.78 24 6 733 343 47 N/A N/A
Wales ALL 20.34 174 11 59 48 81 N/A N/A
West Midlands A 7.09 70 9 21 17 81 N/A N/A
West Midlands BC 6.53 11 5 35 23 65 N/A N/A
West Midlands DE 108.45 12 5 11162 4001 36 N/A N/A
Yorks & Humber A 3.08 43 7 18 11 62 N/A N/A
Yorks & Humber BC 12.17 18 6 177 96 54 N/A N/A
Yorks & Humber D 18.1 9 5 255 64 25 130 381
Yorks & Humber E 84.24 17 17 3245 0 0 3245 3245
67
Table SE3: Estimates of total area of application
Region Estimate (Ha) s.e (Ha) RSE(%) 95% C.I (Ha)
East Midlands 337 153 45 N/A N/A
Eastern 2811 409 15 2010 3612
London & SE 12711 790 6.2 11163 14259
North 3064 443 14 2196 3931
N. Ireland 66 26 40 N/A N/A
Scotland 37 26 72 N/A N/A
South West 1019 355 35 N/A N/A
Wales 79 50 64 N/A N/A
West Midlands 3414 697 20 2048 4781
Yorks & Humber 5711 141 2.5 5433 5988
UK 29247 1283 4.4 26733 31762
Table SE4: Estimates of total mass applied
Region Estimate (Kg) s.e (Kg) RSE(%) 95% C.I (Kg)
East Midlands 889 279 31 N/A N/A
Eastern 2799 651 23 1524 4074
London & SE 6391 835 13 4754 8029
North 7533 2123 28 3372 11693
N. Ireland 434 147 34 N/A N/A
Scotland 24 13 55 N/A N/A
South West 1050 452 43 N/A N/A
Wales 59 48 81 N/A N/A
West Midlands 11219 4002 36 N/A N/A
Yorks & Humber 3695 116 3.1 3467 3922
UK 34093 4686 14 24909 43278
68
APPENDIX 7 – FIRST RAISING FACTORS FOR EDIBLE PROTECTED CROPS
Region/Country Farm size group rf1 Regional area (ha) Area surveyed (ha) Number of farms
visited
East Midlands A 9.84 5.43 0.55 *
C 1.68 1.70 1.01 *
D 0.85 2.07 2.43 *
E 0.81 22.80 28.13 *
Eastern A 3.45 7.45 2.16 17 B 4.10 20.81 5.08 9 C 0.96 11.40 11.86 12 D 1.75 17.35 9.90 6 E 1.50 99.82 66.65 8
London & South East A 2.03 8.20 4.04 17
B 6.06 13.53 2.23 *
C 1.16 7.96 6.84 7
D 1.07 13.02 12.20 7
E 3.28 148.06 45.10 *
North East A 11.11 1.25 0.11 *
E 1.00 8.40 8.40 *
North West A 5.40 6.72 1.24 8
B 2.72 10.59 3.89 7
C 1.49 6.71 4.49 *
D 1.57 10.72 6.81 *
E 1.98 56.03 28.28 7
Northern Ireland A 2.25 1.95 0.87 8
B 2.51 1.33 0.53 *
D 1.00 1.42 1.42 *
E 1.21 14.20 11.70 *
Scotland A 6.47 5.58 0.86 14
B 3.67 2.09 0.57 *
C 0.80 0.81 1.01 *
D 3.27 6.61 2.02 *
South West A 8.88 11.61 1.31 14
B 10.40 9.00 0.87 *
C 1.47 2.62 1.78 *
E 2.41 17.03 7.06 *
Wales A 8.40 5.63 0.67 9
C 0.98 1.01 1.03 *
E 1.00 7.20 7.20 *
West Midlands A 4.81 7.09 1.48 9
B 5.02 5.52 1.10 *
C 0.32 1.01 3.15 *
D 0.78 3.40 4.36 *
E 8.21 105.05 12.80 *
Yorkshire & the Humber A 5.00 3.08 0.62 7
B 3.21 7.28 2.27 *
C 1.24 4.89 3.95 *
D 2.04 18.10 8.88 *
E 1.22 84.24 69.22 15
For confidentiality reasons a * has been used where 5 or less holdings have been sampled
The first raising factor (rf1) is the largest of the three raising factors and gives an indication of the robustness of the
sample with smaller numbers indicating a larger area sampled within each size group and region.
Values of rf1 that are less than one indicates that the area recorded on the June Survey was less than the area sampled.
This could either be because of a) an increase in the area of permanent structures on a holding since the most recent June
Survey submission or b) that the area provided by the June Survey was incorrect.
69
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to all growers who willingly participated in this survey, providing invaluable information upon which this
report is based. Many thanks are also due to Adam Hinchliffe from the Fera survey team; Jackie Hughes, Gillian Reay,
Carol Monie and Johan Wardlaw for their role in the collection and provision of data (including estimates of cropping
areas) from Scotland; Stephen Jess, Michael Lavery, Joanna Kirbas, David Matthews and Trudyann Kelly for their role in
the collection and provision of data (including estimates of cropping areas) from Northern Ireland; Yvonne Powell-
Wainwright and Josephine Roberts for their role in maintaining the pesticides database; and Jennie Blackburn and Sarah
Thompson for their help with the cropping areas of edible protected crops. Thanks also go to the members of the ECP
Working Party on Pesticide Usage Surveys for their invaluable comments.
REFERENCES
Anon. (2017a) Agricultural Statistics in England 2016. London: HMSO
Anon. (2017b) Agricultural Statistics in Wales 2016. London: HMSO
Anon. (2018a) Agricultural Statistics in England 2017. London: HMSO
Anon. (2018b) Agricultural Statistics in Wales 2017. London: HMSO
Anon. (2018c) Horticultural Statistics 2017, UK: York: Defra
Garthwaite, D.G., Barker, I., Mace, A., Parrish, G., Frost, S., Hallam, C., Macarthur, R. & Lu, Y. (2016) Pesticide
Usage Survey Report 269 – Edible Protected Crops in the United Kingdom 2015.
https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/pusstats/surveys/documents/edibleProtected2015v1.pdf - (last accessed 08.11.2018)
Thomas, M. R., (1999), Guidelines for the Collection of Pesticide Usage Statistics within Agriculture and Horticulture,
OECD, Eurostat, http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/pesticides-biocides/2078031.pdf - (last accessed 07.10.2018)
OTHER USEFUL REFERENCES
For June Survey Statistics please see:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/structure-of-the-agricultural-industry - (last accessed 07.10.2018)
For Horticulture Statistics please see:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horticultural-statistics - (last accessed 07.10.2018)
For further information on commodity chemicals please see:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/commodity-substances.htm - (last accessed 07.10.2018)
For further information on biopesticides please see:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pesticides/topics/pesticide-approvals/pesticides-registration/applicant-guide/biopesticides-
home.htm - (last accessed 07.10.2018)