Exploring Agricultural Practices: Do Farmers Comply with Pesticide Rules?

By Ed Straw

There’s a common perception among environmentalists that farmers are pretty fast and loose when it comes to environmental regulations. Farmers have to follow endless rules on when they can cut the hedges, where can’t they spread slurry and how to apply pesticides. If farmers are drowning in red tape, surely they can’t be following all these rules all of the time?

There’s a particularly large burden of rules when it comes to pesticides. This makes a lot of sense as pesticides are potent chemicals, specifically engineered to be toxic to some kind of life form. When mis-used, pesticides can contaminate food chains, water courses and even cause serious illness in humans. So, if farmers aren’t following the rules on pesticide applications this could have some pretty disastrous consequences for their own health, as well as for biodiversity. We set out to answer this question by surveying Irish farmers and simply asking them if they follow the rules.

The surprising answer we found is that the majority of farmers are following the rules most of the time. When we scored farmers on how well they followed the legally required steps for pesticide applications, the average score was 81 out of 100, which is pretty good! A key question that worried me as a pesticide scientist was whether farmers were spraying their pesticides at the right concentrations, which 96% of respondents said they were. Farmers also reported being very good at disposing of their leftover pesticides i.e., not pouring them down the drain, which is something that worries aquatic ecologists given watercourse pollution is a serious threat to river species.

In fact, in most of the questions we asked, the majority of farmers were following the rules. So, the perception of the average farmer being a rule-breaker and doing whatever they like with pesticides is a myth! That said though, we did see some areas where a sizable chunk of farmers weren’t following the rules properly.

Prior to applying farm pesticides, there’s a mandatory two-day training course covering the basics of how to use the kit and how to stay safe. We found that 1 in 6 farmers who use pesticides professionally admitted to not having taken this course, which both illegal and worrisome.

Beyond training, another key tool in protecting farmers from pesticides is personal protective equipment. Things like gloves, masks and overalls. This is sadly the worst area for compliance with the rules, as around half the farmers in our survey were bad at wearing protective equipment while spraying. This means they are potentially exposing themselves to dangerously high levels of pesticide. Gloves, which are the easiest piece of protective equipment to source and wear were worn by most farmers, but still 1 in 4 ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ wear gloves while mixing and applying pesticides.

Beyond these sizable minorities putting their own health at risk, we also had the odd instance where one or two respondents admitted to some behaviours which could be really bad for the environment. These included reports of dumping of leftover pesticides in ways which would contaminate rivers, or even admitting to buying banned substances like neonicotinoids.

So while the overall picture is that most farmers follow the rules most of the time, there is still some work to be done. Principally in supporting farmers in wearing their protective kit and reaching and educating those few farmers who aren’t following the rules properly.

It’s worth briefly contextualising these results internationally, as the situation in the developing world is very very different. In China, Africa and the middle east, the scale of rule breaking in an order of magnitude greater than among Irish farmers. There are very frequent reports of pesticide overapplication, dumping of pesticides into waterways and little protective equipment being worn. This shows the successes of European and Irish efforts to develop agriculture and to regulate pesticides stringently.

Now having said all that, the obvious response is ‘are you sure the farmers weren’t lying?’. And we can’t directly test this, but there’s actually a wealth of sociology literature which says that if you give people anonymity and a non-judgemental questionnaire, they’ll be surprisingly honest. Among scientists even, if you use a well-designed survey, around 2% will readily admit to making up data (rather scary!). We used an online survey because it allowed us to afford our respondents total anonymity. While our survey is likely to have encouraged honesty, the best evidence for honesty comes from the number of farmers who admitted to breaking some form of rule. If our farmers were all lying through their teeth about not overapplying pesticides or breaking other serious rules, why would they admit to breaking the rules on wearing personal protective equipment?

To conclude, despite popular belief, farmers are good at following pesticide rules. While there are a few rule breakers among them, broadly speaking farmers are using pesticides properly. The main area they struggle in is protecting themselves. Governments should support farmers more in education on why following the rules is important, and should continue to pursue high standards in how they are used.  

If you want to read these results in full, see our free to read paper “Self-reported assessment of compliance with pesticide rules” at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114692. It was as published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, in April 2023.

Follow Ed on Twitter @EdStrawBio

Edited by Luke Quill

Restoration of Irish farmland biodiversity: The role of results-based payment schemes

by Fergal Scully

Traditionally, Irish agriculture has been extensively managed; large hedgerows, semi-natural grasslands, wetland habitats, and low-input arable systems supported a complex assemblage of farmland biodiversity. Agricultural intensification on the back of ill-informed government subsidies has resulted in large scale habitat destruction and degradation. Agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss in Ireland. One in five species in Ireland is threatened with extinction, demonstrating the severity of the situation. Solving this issue is critical.

Agri-environment schemes


The interconnectedness of agriculture and nature has been recognized on a European scale. Since 1994 it has been compulsory for all EU member states to provide an agri-environment scheme, in which farmers receive payments to support the restoration and maintenance of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. This led to the introduction of Ireland’s first agri-environment scheme- the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS). Like the majority of agri-environment schemes in Europe, REPS was designed as an action-based scheme. Within such schemes, farmers are paid to complete generic tasks with little importance placed on actual results. This action-based system has continued in subsequent nationwide schemes, including Ireland’s current scheme, GLAS. Despite major investment in action-based schemes within the EU, farmland biodiversity continues to decline, creating questions regarding the suitability of this approach.


An alternative approach to agri-environment schemes is a results-based payment system. This is an output-based system in which farmers are paid for the results they produce. This differs from the input-orientated system of an action-based approach, which focuses on the actions performed. In Ireland, the results-based approach was first implemented through locally-led agri-environment schemes, which have been used to address local problems with context-appropriate solutions. These schemes, such as The BRIDE project in the River Bride catchment and The Burren LIFE Programme in Co. Clare does not conform to the broad-stroke approach of previous nationwide schemes and has been found to be extremely effective in enhancing farmland biodiversity.


The influence of locally-led schemes, coupled with a push from the EU towards results-based agri-environment schemes to provide greater cost-effectiveness, has resulted in the creation of Ireland’s first nationwide results-based agri-environment scheme, aptly named Results-Based Environment-Agri Pilot Project (REAP). REAP will trial the use of a results-based payment in achieving biodiversity outcomes and will directly influence the implementation of this system on a larger scale in the Irish Rural Development Plan 2023. Will results-based schemes prove to be the silver bullet in solving Ireland’s biodiversity loss?

Questioning results-based schemes


Before tearing up the current script and implementing a full-scale results-based payment scheme, the advantages and disadvantages of this system must be understood.
There are advantages of results-based schemes that address some of the problems associated with action-based schemes. A results-based scheme makes a clear link between biodiversity outcomes and payments. Furthermore, it does not specify the action in which this result must be obtained, allowing farmers to integrate the production of the desired outcome into their existing management practices. This freedom facilitates adaptability and allows farmers to draw on their existing wealth of local knowledge and skill, which is essential in integrating the importance of biodiversity into long-term farming practices. A results-based system is cost-effective, as it incentivizes farmers to select only the biodiversity outcomes on the land in which it can be achieved and to strive for improvement year on year.


Although results-based schemes are mostly depicted in a positive light, there are disadvantages that should be made clear. Result-based schemes are limited to circumstances in which the relationship between agricultural practice and biodiversity outcome is established and can be represented by indicators. The freedom of farmers to innovate in these schemes is greatly influenced by advisory support, without which farmers may not have the ability to achieve the desired outcomes. It is important to note that a results-based approach carries a financial risk to farmers, as the desired outcomes can be influenced by factors outside of the control of farmers. In addition, results-based payment schemes carry a high initial cost, requiring an adaption of the management system, advisory support, training, and repeated monitoring of results.

Future of payment schemes


A result-based payment approach cannot be perceived as a silver bullet given its drawbacks. However, the business-as-usual approach is not an option. Instead, a results-based approach would represent a positive step in restoring Irish farmland biodiversity, which is achievable in previous locally-led results-based schemes. To mitigate the financial risk to participants, a hybrid results-based system that incorporates action payments could be implemented. The targeted actions within a hybrid approach can complement the results-based payments. The key to success with any payment scheme, results-based or otherwise, is farmer participation. These schemes are not obligatory for farmers, and so the unwillingness of farmers to properly engage will cause the programme to fail. Creating a results-based agri-environment scheme that works for farmers as well as biodiversity will be the key to success.

Endophytes for Heavy Metal Bioremediation

Human activity has affected every part of the biosphere – the soil is no exception. Agricultural and industrial practices have deteriorated soil health, impacting ecosystem function as well as food security. For the past two years, I have been working with the e-Seed Start-up to develop an innovative technique called endophytic inoculation, which uses naturally occurring endophytes (microorganisms that live in plant tissues) to improve plants’ resistance to stresses. Endophytic inoculation has a broad range of application, from maintaining and stimulating soil health to improving crop production and reducing the need for pesticides. In our most recent paper, we explored the possibility of using endophytes to enhance plants’ resistance to heavy metal-contaminated soil, paving the way for using endophytic inoculation to help detoxify soils polluted with heavy metals.

Cover image credit: http://modernfarmer.com/2014/04/microbes-will-feed-world-real-farmers-grow-soil-crops/

Continue reading “Endophytes for Heavy Metal Bioremediation”

Endophytes for Sustainable Agriculture

Food security is crucial to society. Today, the challenge is not just producing enough food globally (and distributing it), but to produce it sustainably and ensure long-term food security for society. Our work in the Trinity Botany Department (in collaboration with UCD) is all about developing more sustainable agricultural practices using endophytes.

An introduction in the secret world of the endophytes and their application in agriculture

A fungal endophyte culture (Penicillium species)

Endophytes are a class of plant-associated microorganisms that have shown particular promise in agriculture. Endophytes (bacteria, fungi and unicellular eukaryotes) live at least part of their life cycle inter- or intracellularly inside plants, usually without inducing pathogenic symptoms. Endophytes can have several effects on plants and may change function during their life-cycle. Many bacterial and fungal endophytes are known to enhance abiotic and biotic plant stress tolerance and show real promise as crop inoculants.

We have been working with endophytes for over eight years and continue to discover new aspects of their relationships with plants. We focus mainly on barley as this is the largest crop in Ireland, but we have also investigated endophyte relationships with other crops such as strawberry, lettuce, wheat, oat, tomato, and forage grasses. Our research has revealed several beneficial aspects of endophytes that have potential to improve agricultural sustainability: we have discovered endophyte that can help to reduce chemical inputs to crops (i.e. reduce the need for pesticides), enhance crop yields, and even contribute to pathogen resistance! [1–4]

A field of experimental barley plots, some of which are treated with endophytes

Making Research a Reality

Results from our research have been very encouraging and we have published extensively on the topic. However, we are also keen to see the fruits of our work (so to speak) in action. Funding for our research has come from Science Foundation Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, and this has resulted in two patent filings (through TCD and UCD) related to our discoveries. We are now in the process of commercialising our endophyte technology with the support of Enterprise Ireland, who have fast-tracked us into their High-Performance Start-Up (HPSU) programme to develop a technology to make agriculture more sustainable and profitable. We have also recently partnered with UCD, NUIG, and Teagasc in a new multi-disciplinary research programme, funded by DAFM, which will continue our discovery pipeline for beneficial endophytes for barley.

Current and planned restrictions on chemical crop inputs mean that alternative methods of crop treatment are needed and this will present difficulties for farmers. We believe that the bio-based technology we have developed will form part of the solution. Agriculture is facing many problems due to unsustainable practices and the effects of global warming, but we think that restoring the natural endophyte partners to agricultural crops will enable a more sustainable future for farming.

Continue reading “Endophytes for Sustainable Agriculture”

A Field Season in New Zealand: One Mesocosm Experiment to Rule them All

Being on lockdown has me dreaming of our recent field season in New Zealand. The home of “Middle Earth” is a paradise for outdoor enthusiasts and going through the photographs from my own unexpected(/meticulously planned) journey is making my imagination run wild. Unique wildlife, towering mountains, endless waves, campsites with a view…

A picture containing photo, showing, show, different

Description automatically generated
Hard at work in New Zealand
Continue reading “A Field Season in New Zealand: One Mesocosm Experiment to Rule them All”

Systematic Reviews

ploughed

Before I came to TCD, I spent my last six months at Lancaster University working with Dr Georgina Key on a systematic review of methods to make agricultural soils more resilient to threats like climate change, and erosion. What is a systematic review I hear you cry? Allow me to elaborate, and share some of our experiences from doing something slightly different.

A systematic review draws together and summarises the available scientific literature surrounding a particular topic or method. The Cochrane Collaboration, which produces systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, defines such reviews as “a systematic, up-to-date summary of reliable evidence”. The aim of a systematic review is to provide the public, policy-makers and practitioners with a clear, unbiased picture of the latest, most reliable science on a certain practice, so that they can make informed decisions on how suitable that method is likely to be for them.

The goal of our systematic review was to produce a list of actions that could be used to improve the resilience of agricultural soils under pressure from a variety of threats. The first steps we took involved coming up with a list of key issues that would be important to manage agricultural soils in order to maintain sustainable food production in the future. We then took to the peer-reviewed literature, searching for experimentally tested solutions to the issues we’d identified, using a combination of journal trawls and keyword searches.

Journal trawls involved identifying relevant journals, like Soil Use and Management and Geoderma, then systematically searching all volumes of each journal for articles involving the issues we’d identified. Our keyword searches took a more targeted approach, using combinations of keywords to whittle down a selection of relevant articles. These approaches produced a large number of articles – far too many to summarise effectively in the time available – so we shortlisted them based on a number of criteria, foremost of which was ‘Has the action (e.g. non-inversion tillage) been tested using a robust, experimental design?’ We also filtered our keyword searches, carried out in ISI Web of Science, to the top 100 results, sorted by relevance.

Having eventually come up with a list of articles that tested the actions we’d identified, we set about summarising them. This was done according to a set template, using a specific style. This was initially restrictive, and difficult to adapt to – each article had to be summarised using specific vocabulary, within 200 words – but it ensured that the summaries would be understandable by people without a science background, and that the key message of the article wouldn’t be obscured by our own prejudices regarding the research.

Writing the summaries was the most time-consuming, but also one of the most rewarding, aspects of the project. By writing lots of summaries, we started to develop more of an understanding of how to write about science in a way that completely avoided jargon. This isn’t as easy as it sounds! But it is a vital skill for scientists to learn, in order to communicate their work to the public, and the people who will eventually turn it into policy. Having read lots of abstracts, those that stood out were the ones that communicated the message of the paper succinctly, in language that a non-expert could understand.

The article summaries and key messages from our short synopsis are now online– you can select an ‘action’, and read through the key messages, definitions, and all the evidence that we found and summarised for the use of that action, and its effects, in agriculture. I think there’s real value of having all this information collated together in one place, and communicated in an understandable way. Our soils synopsis is one of a number of synopses that you can browse through on the NERC Sustainable Food Knowledge Exchange Programme website.

Although it was only a short project, putting the synopsis together was a rewarding experience for both of us, particularly in terms of communication skills developed and networks joined. The synopsis that we produced is by no means the final product, and will need to be updated in the future to keep up with the amount of continual research in this area. The next step is to assess the synopsis, and its implicit recommendations, by asking experts and practitioners in the field how effective they think the research we covered would be, if it was implemented. This step should provide valuable feedback, helping to highlight any gaps in our synopsis, as well as improving future synopses.

Authors: Mike Whitfield and Georgina Key

About the authors

Mike Whitfield has a PhD in peatland carbon cycling from Lancaster University. Last year he helped to design and implement a long-term grassland biodiversity experiment in the Yorkshire Dales and worked with Georgina Key on the soil sustainability synopsis for six months, before moving to Dublin. Mike’s current postdoc at TCD focuses on modelling greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural land, with the aim of producing a map of estimated greenhouse gas emissions from soil for the whole of Ireland.

http://mikewhitfield.co.uk

Twitter: @mgwhitfield

Georgina Key has a PhD in ecosystem service provision, specifically conservation pest control. Having completed her first postdoc at Manchester reviewing literature on maintaining soil fertility, she is currently doing an assessment of the literature in collaboration with Cambridge University and Waitrose. In the future she hopes to work with tea and coffee companies, implementing sustainable growing practices and improving rural livelihoods.

Email:georginakey[at]outlook.com 

Twitter: @KeyGeorgina

 

Image credit: Treehouse1977 on Flickr