The first steps in the development of dicamba tolerant transgenic plants were conducted by Sandoz Crop Protection in Palo Alto, CA and then contractually followed up at the University of Nebraska. The subsequent development by Monsanto of soybean and cotton varieties that would tolerate post-emergent application of dicamba substantially changed the use patterns of dicamba in the United States. Transgenic dicamba-tolerant (DT) seeds were first approved in 2016 in the United States, although the post-emergent use of dicamba was not legal that year. In 2017 and 2018, there was substantial market penetration of DT soybean and cotton seeds into the market and the occurrence of dicamba off-target movement (OTM) was highly variable across the United States. The driving force behind these new seed traits was the widespread failure of glyphosate to control broadleaf weeds effectively, especially those from the Conyza and Amaranthus genera. Herbicide research and development in the United States has historically involved both industry and academic weed scientists usually operating in a symbiotic and mutually respectful relationship, although there may have been disagreements at times about some aspects of herbicides and their development. The relatively recent introduction of DT varieties and legal post-emergent dicamba in the United States was a dynamic time for weed control, and adoption of DT crops and subsequent OTM of dicamba greatly changed the working relationships between academic scientists and representatives from Monsanto and some other private companies. Perhaps the greatest change was the lack of access of research materials that would be available to academic scientists for evaluation prior to the retail sale of those materials. Historically, academic scientists would have the ability to evaluate various new technologies and provide objective, independent comments on their potential utility prior to commercialisation. Monsanto largely restricted access to the DT seeds or new herbicide formulations. There are some states that have long-established policies that they will not recommend a new herbicide technology unless they have examined it under their specific field conditions. For example, University of Arkansas researchers would not recommend the use of post-emergent dicamba on DT crops when it first became legal to use. Monsanto responded by filing legal challenges of various types against the University of Arkansas faculty, including 64 exhibits of various legal aspects. Many other states had varying degrees of restrictions placed upon their research efforts, and most scientists had to sign various forms of confidentiality agreements to obtain access to the research material from Monsanto. There were two major differences in the dicamba labels when first introduced in 2017 and then again two years later. The first major difference was an entire section on herbicide resistance confirmation validation and management that was clearl
{"title":"Changes in Dicamba Use are Ahead","authors":"T. Mueller, L. Steckel","doi":"10.1564/v33_apr_08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_apr_08","url":null,"abstract":"The first steps in the development of dicamba tolerant transgenic plants were conducted by Sandoz Crop Protection in Palo Alto, CA and then contractually followed up at the University of Nebraska. The subsequent development by Monsanto of soybean and cotton varieties that would tolerate\u0000 post-emergent application of dicamba substantially changed the use patterns of dicamba in the United States. Transgenic dicamba-tolerant (DT) seeds were first approved in 2016 in the United States, although the post-emergent use of dicamba was not legal that year. In 2017 and 2018, there was\u0000 substantial market penetration of DT soybean and cotton seeds into the market and the occurrence of dicamba off-target movement (OTM) was highly variable across the United States. The driving force behind these new seed traits was the widespread failure of glyphosate to control broadleaf weeds\u0000 effectively, especially those from the Conyza and Amaranthus genera. Herbicide research and development in the United States has historically involved both industry and academic weed scientists usually operating in a symbiotic and mutually respectful relationship, although there may have been\u0000 disagreements at times about some aspects of herbicides and their development. The relatively recent introduction of DT varieties and legal post-emergent dicamba in the United States was a dynamic time for weed control, and adoption of DT crops and subsequent OTM of dicamba greatly changed\u0000 the working relationships between academic scientists and representatives from Monsanto and some other private companies. Perhaps the greatest change was the lack of access of research materials that would be available to academic scientists for evaluation prior to the retail sale of those\u0000 materials. Historically, academic scientists would have the ability to evaluate various new technologies and provide objective, independent comments on their potential utility prior to commercialisation. Monsanto largely restricted access to the DT seeds or new herbicide formulations. There\u0000 are some states that have long-established policies that they will not recommend a new herbicide technology unless they have examined it under their specific field conditions. For example, University of Arkansas researchers would not recommend the use of post-emergent dicamba on DT crops when\u0000 it first became legal to use. Monsanto responded by filing legal challenges of various types against the University of Arkansas faculty, including 64 exhibits of various legal aspects. Many other states had varying degrees of restrictions placed upon their research efforts, and most scientists\u0000 had to sign various forms of confidentiality agreements to obtain access to the research material from Monsanto. There were two major differences in the dicamba labels when first introduced in 2017 and then again two years later. The first major difference was an entire section on herbicide\u0000 resistance confirmation validation and management that was clearl","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47530897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Pest Management in Cotton: A Global Perspective (2022) Edited by Graham A. Matthews and Thomas A. Miller","authors":"H. Van Emden","doi":"10.1564/v33_apr_12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_apr_12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49064525","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Studying the presence and movement of insects is important in biological research for practical purposes regarding control of pests and environmental monitoring. Detection of insects by conventional trapping (e.g. the Rothamsted Insect Survey) and tracking technologies (e.g. the Rothamsted Radar Entomology Unit) have been effective for monitoring and forecasting pest migration but often require significant investment in capital costs and/or staff time. Insect detection using imaging of natural fluorescence (without additional fluorescent dyes) has been considered less, and much of the work on natural fluorescence in the animal world has been on marine organisms. Work on terrestrial arthropods has been more limited and restricted primarily to non-insect arthropods. Very early work on the distribution of fluorescent pigments in butterflies was demonstrated using long wave mercury vapour lamps followed by more work in the 1950s on butterflies, arthropods; including beetles, spiders and millipedes, cockroaches and eggs of Orthoptera. These studies often involved qualitative approaches; dissecting the animals and investigating internal organs and fluids for fluorescence as well as whole body studies. More recent studies have included quantitative work on butterflies and pest insects plus fluorescence studies in damselflies, moths, millipedes, bees and spiders. Fluorescence in juvenile stages is a property used for detection of flies and beetles in food stuffs. The vast majority of insects, however, have not been investigated for fluorescence and even in those taxa that have been studied, e.g. butterflies, the dataset is incomplete. The easiest way to observe fluorescence is to illuminate a subject with a known waveband of light in otherwise darkness and view or record an image via a filter that blocks the wavelength of the illuminating light. Any light viewed or captured at a different wavelength to the illumination, must have been produced by fluorescence. In contrast, some living organisms themselves can produce light or luminescence by internal chemical means. This work aimed to look at the potential of using natural fluorescence to detect and identify insects, particularly pests.
{"title":"The Potential of Fluorescence Imaging to Distinguish Insect Pest and Non-pest Species","authors":"S. Perryman, C. Shortall, K. Halsey, J. West","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_05","url":null,"abstract":"Studying the presence and movement of insects is important in biological research for practical purposes regarding control of pests and environmental monitoring. Detection of insects by conventional trapping (e.g. the Rothamsted Insect Survey) and tracking technologies (e.g. the Rothamsted\u0000 Radar Entomology Unit) have been effective for monitoring and forecasting pest migration but often require significant investment in capital costs and/or staff time. Insect detection using imaging of natural fluorescence (without additional fluorescent dyes) has been considered less, and much\u0000 of the work on natural fluorescence in the animal world has been on marine organisms. Work on terrestrial arthropods has been more limited and restricted primarily to non-insect arthropods. Very early work on the distribution of fluorescent pigments in butterflies was demonstrated using long\u0000 wave mercury vapour lamps followed by more work in the 1950s on butterflies, arthropods; including beetles, spiders and millipedes, cockroaches and eggs of Orthoptera. These studies often involved qualitative approaches; dissecting the animals and investigating internal organs and fluids for\u0000 fluorescence as well as whole body studies. More recent studies have included quantitative work on butterflies and pest insects plus fluorescence studies in damselflies, moths, millipedes, bees and spiders. Fluorescence in juvenile stages is a property used for detection of flies and beetles\u0000 in food stuffs. The vast majority of insects, however, have not been investigated for fluorescence and even in those taxa that have been studied, e.g. butterflies, the dataset is incomplete. The easiest way to observe fluorescence is to illuminate a subject with a known waveband of light in\u0000 otherwise darkness and view or record an image via a filter that blocks the wavelength of the illuminating light. Any light viewed or captured at a different wavelength to the illumination, must have been produced by fluorescence. In contrast, some living organisms themselves can produce light\u0000 or luminescence by internal chemical means. This work aimed to look at the potential of using natural fluorescence to detect and identify insects, particularly pests.","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45646566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate change challenges and the urgent need to take things seriously were once again thrust into the spotlight in October and November 2021 with the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) held in Glasgow under the presidency of the United Kingdom, in partnership with Italy. COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and the summit was attended by the countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ? a treaty agreed in 1994. Billed by many as the most significant climate event since the 2015 Paris Agreement, COP26 aimed to accelerate action towards the goals of both the UNFCCC treaty and Paris Agreement, such as for every country to work together to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) were central to the Paris Agreement and outlined efforts from each country to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, the commitments laid out in Paris in 2015 did not come close to achieving the 1.5°C target, and with the window for action becoming ever smaller, there was substantial pressure on Glasgow to deliver something meaningful. Following two weeks of intense negotiations, COP26 finally ended with nearly 200 countries agreeing the Glasgow Climate Pact. Crucially this pact keeps the 1.5°C reduction alive and completes the Paris Rulebook, a set of guidelines for how the Paris Agreement will be delivered including a transparency process to hold countries accountable as they deliver on their targets. But what about agriculture? Despite being the second largest driver of climate change behind the energy sector, and therefore central to meeting emissions reductions and achieving the 1.5°C target, the general consensus was that the agriculture sector did not feature prominently enough at COP26, and that reliance on major pledges and pacts disguised a lack of detail on exactly how action would be achieved. Under the UNFCCC there is only one program focussed on agriculture ? the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) which was established at COP23 in 2017 and aims to address agricultural issues through the lens of climate change. It is composed of six interrelated topics, namely soils, nutrient use, water, livestock, methods for assessing adaptation, and the socioeconomic and food security dimensions of climate change across the agricultural sectors. The process was scheduled to finish at COP26; however, by the end of the meeting there were still many areas of disagreement and so these will need to be ironed out in the future. Furthermore, despite pledging action, none of the updated NDCs submitted by the G20 nations prior to COP26 included specific targets on how commitments made for their agricultural sectors would actually be achieved in practice. Many of the current challenges in agriculture are political in nature, whether it is the desire of developed countries to reduce meat and dairy consumption and move towa
{"title":"COP26: What Does It Mean for the Agriculture Sector?","authors":"R. Blake","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_01","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change challenges and the urgent need to take things seriously were once again thrust into the spotlight in October and November 2021 with the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) held in Glasgow under the presidency of the United Kingdom, in partnership with\u0000 Italy. COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and the summit was attended by the countries that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ? a treaty agreed in 1994. Billed by many as the most significant climate event since the 2015 Paris Agreement, COP26\u0000 aimed to accelerate action towards the goals of both the UNFCCC treaty and Paris Agreement, such as for every country to work together to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) were central to the Paris Agreement and outlined efforts from each country\u0000 to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, the commitments laid out in Paris in 2015 did not come close to achieving the 1.5°C target, and with the window for action becoming ever smaller, there was substantial pressure on Glasgow to deliver\u0000 something meaningful. Following two weeks of intense negotiations, COP26 finally ended with nearly 200 countries agreeing the Glasgow Climate Pact. Crucially this pact keeps the 1.5°C reduction alive and completes the Paris Rulebook, a set of guidelines for how the Paris Agreement will\u0000 be delivered including a transparency process to hold countries accountable as they deliver on their targets. But what about agriculture? Despite being the second largest driver of climate change behind the energy sector, and therefore central to meeting emissions reductions and achieving\u0000 the 1.5°C target, the general consensus was that the agriculture sector did not feature prominently enough at COP26, and that reliance on major pledges and pacts disguised a lack of detail on exactly how action would be achieved. Under the UNFCCC there is only one program focussed on agriculture\u0000 ? the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA) which was established at COP23 in 2017 and aims to address agricultural issues through the lens of climate change. It is composed of six interrelated topics, namely soils, nutrient use, water, livestock, methods for assessing adaptation, and\u0000 the socioeconomic and food security dimensions of climate change across the agricultural sectors. The process was scheduled to finish at COP26; however, by the end of the meeting there were still many areas of disagreement and so these will need to be ironed out in the future. Furthermore,\u0000 despite pledging action, none of the updated NDCs submitted by the G20 nations prior to COP26 included specific targets on how commitments made for their agricultural sectors would actually be achieved in practice. Many of the current challenges in agriculture are political in nature, whether\u0000 it is the desire of developed countries to reduce meat and dairy consumption and move towa","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49233532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Contradictory EU policies first encouraged and then undermined the farming of a major biofuel in Europe, according to a new analysis. Climate change polices initially rewarded the widespread planting of oilseed rape – the world's most important vegetable oil after soybean – but subsequent pesticide laws have ultimately led to very large yield losses across the continent in recent years. This collapse of oilseed rape farming in the UK and Europe had led to a reliance on imported oils – including palm oil, the growing of which is often responsible for tropical deforestation, and oilseed rape from countries still using pesticides banned by the EU. The findings of the report were presented at a meeting of the British Crop Protection Council by lead author, Dr Patricia Ortega-Ramos from Rothamsted Research. Speaking ahead of the meeting, she said the series of EU policy decisions essentially 'created a serious crop pest. It is a great example of how a better understanding of pests and joined up decision making are going to be vital if we are to reform farming. Contradictory EU policies first encouraged and then undermined the farming of a major biofuel in Europe, according to this new analysis. Climate change polices initially rewarded the widespread planting of oilseed rape – the world's most important vegetable oil after soybean – but subsequent pesticide laws have ultimately led to very large yield losses across the continent in recent years. This collapse of oilseed rape farming in the UK and Europe had led to a reliance on imported oils – including palm oil, the growing of which is often responsible for tropical deforestation, and oilseed rape from countries still using pesticides banned by the EU. The EU'S 2009 Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive was not well implemented, and as a result of that and subsequent decisions, the cabbage stem flea beetle has now become a serious pest. The area of oilseed rape being grown is now falling sharply, with huge financial consequences for farmers and major environmental consequences for all of us.
{"title":"EU Policies Led to Collapse of Major Biofuel Crop in UK and Europe, Says Report","authors":"Patricia A. Ortega-Ramos","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_04","url":null,"abstract":"Contradictory EU policies first encouraged and then undermined the farming of a major biofuel in Europe, according to a new analysis. Climate change polices initially rewarded the widespread planting of oilseed rape – the world's most important vegetable oil after soybean –\u0000 but subsequent pesticide laws have ultimately led to very large yield losses across the continent in recent years. This collapse of oilseed rape farming in the UK and Europe had led to a reliance on imported oils – including palm oil, the growing of which is often responsible for tropical\u0000 deforestation, and oilseed rape from countries still using pesticides banned by the EU. The findings of the report were presented at a meeting of the British Crop Protection Council by lead author, Dr Patricia Ortega-Ramos from Rothamsted Research. Speaking ahead of the meeting, she said the\u0000 series of EU policy decisions essentially 'created a serious crop pest. It is a great example of how a better understanding of pests and joined up decision making are going to be vital if we are to reform farming. Contradictory EU policies first encouraged and then undermined the farming of\u0000 a major biofuel in Europe, according to this new analysis. Climate change polices initially rewarded the widespread planting of oilseed rape – the world's most important vegetable oil after soybean – but subsequent pesticide laws have ultimately led to very large yield losses across\u0000 the continent in recent years. This collapse of oilseed rape farming in the UK and Europe had led to a reliance on imported oils – including palm oil, the growing of which is often responsible for tropical deforestation, and oilseed rape from countries still using pesticides banned by\u0000 the EU. The EU'S 2009 Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive was not well implemented, and as a result of that and subsequent decisions, the cabbage stem flea beetle has now become a serious pest. The area of oilseed rape being grown is now falling sharply, with huge financial consequences\u0000 for farmers and major environmental consequences for all of us.","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43087579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
According to Statista, the global date market was valued at about $13.4 billion in 2019 and is forecast to reach $16.25 billion by 2025. However, this valuable crop is threatened by numerous pests. In fact, the date palm is associated with 132 species of insect and mite pests, which feed on the leaves, roots, trunk, and fruits on the palm, as well as stored dates. The most economically important pests include the red palm weevil, (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus), old world date mite (Oligonychus afrasiaticus), lesser date moth (Batrachedra amydraula), Dubas date bug (Ommatissus lybicus), green pit scale (Palmaspis phoenicis), carob moth (Ectomyelois ceratoniae), date palm longhorn beetle (Jebusaea hammerschmidti) and almond moth (Cadra castellan). It has been estimated that effective curative approaches for red palm weevil infestations alone could result in savings as high as $104 million. Several research groups are working to find effective solutions to control these pests, but as yet no commercial biocontrol products are registered or available for curative control of the palm beetle and larvae. Therefore, a more robust Integrated Pest Management(IPM) system is needed to reduce the pest damage. Commercial formulations include root treatments, insecticide-based capsules that are injected into the trunk, or foliage/fruit sprays. However, chemical insecticides should not be the only solution to the management of date palm pests, especially those concealed inside the trunk or beneath palm tissues, making them difficult to target. This is primarily because chemical insecticides frequently just kill the target pest's natural enemies, while the pests themselves remain protected within the date palm. Several approaches are used but it has also been shown that resistance against a range of commonly used chemical insecticides (profenophos, imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, spinosad, lambda-cyhalothrin, phosphine) develops after extensive use. Resistance ratios as high as 79-fold have been reported, compared with susceptible control pests. Researchers have reported significantly improved populations of natural enemies of target pests in date palm plantations when chemical insecticide use is reduced. Around 90 species of beneficial predators and parasitoids have so far been reported, suggesting that biological control with microbials could be incorporated into a synchronised IPM programme.
{"title":"Management of Date Palm Pests: Lack of Commercial Input","authors":"M. Ansari, Sarah Harding","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_02","url":null,"abstract":"According to Statista, the global date market was valued at about $13.4 billion in 2019 and is forecast to reach $16.25 billion by 2025. However, this valuable crop is threatened by numerous pests. In fact, the date palm is associated with 132 species of insect and mite\u0000 pests, which feed on the leaves, roots, trunk, and fruits on the palm, as well as stored dates. The most economically important pests include the red palm weevil, (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus), old world date mite (Oligonychus afrasiaticus), lesser date moth (Batrachedra amydraula),\u0000 Dubas date bug (Ommatissus lybicus), green pit scale (Palmaspis phoenicis), carob moth (Ectomyelois ceratoniae), date palm longhorn beetle (Jebusaea hammerschmidti) and almond moth (Cadra castellan). It has been estimated that effective curative approaches\u0000 for red palm weevil infestations alone could result in savings as high as $104 million. Several research groups are working to find effective solutions to control these pests, but as yet no commercial biocontrol products are registered or available for curative control of the palm beetle\u0000 and larvae. Therefore, a more robust Integrated Pest Management(IPM) system is needed to reduce the pest damage. Commercial formulations include root treatments, insecticide-based capsules that are injected into the trunk, or foliage/fruit sprays. However, chemical insecticides should not\u0000 be the only solution to the management of date palm pests, especially those concealed inside the trunk or beneath palm tissues, making them difficult to target. This is primarily because chemical insecticides frequently just kill the target pest's natural enemies, while the pests themselves\u0000 remain protected within the date palm. Several approaches are used but it has also been shown that resistance against a range of commonly used chemical insecticides (profenophos, imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, spinosad, lambda-cyhalothrin, phosphine) develops after\u0000 extensive use. Resistance ratios as high as 79-fold have been reported, compared with susceptible control pests. Researchers have reported significantly improved populations of natural enemies of target pests in date palm plantations when chemical insecticide use is reduced. Around 90 species\u0000 of beneficial predators and parasitoids have so far been reported, suggesting that biological control with microbials could be incorporated into a synchronised IPM programme.","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44272046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following Brexit, the four countries that make up the UK will each treat basic payments to farmers differently. For farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland payments will remain the same – at least for now. For farmers in England, change is coming faster. Bad news can hit you with a bang or it can creep up on you. The changes at Britain's borders had an immediate impact, but for many farmers in England the consequences of losing income from the EU Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) are only now sinking in. For farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland payments will remain the same – at least for now. In July, Farmers Weekly (30th July, 2021, p.30) published a farmer survey which found that 95% of farmers received annual basic payment. A little over half get up to £30,000, and for larger farms the sums are considerably higher as the payment depends on the acres farmed. Now that Britain has left the EU, payments for English farmers will be phased out gradually with the last one to be made in 2027. Instead, they can apply for money through the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme (SFI), one of three programmes under the Government's Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs). If that sounds complicated that is because it is. ‘Public money for public goods' is Defra's catchy slogan, but at present it is still unclear how much money farmers will eventually be paid and for what – the four-year trial phase of the scheme only began this summer, the general SFI rollout is planned for the middle of next year. So far, only one thing is absolutely clear: ELMs will not be a full substitute for the EU Basic Payment Scheme. At best, farmers will be able to make up about a third of BPS through ELMs. The Farmers Weekly poll reflects what that means: three-quarters of farmers have no idea how their business will survive without BPS. Some 53% said it would be difficult to replace the lost income, with a further 26% unsure if they could. So, what can farmers do to make up for the loss?
{"title":"Things Will Only Get Worse: Post-brexit Reality is Hitting Farmers Hard","authors":"","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_12","url":null,"abstract":"Following Brexit, the four countries that make up the UK will each treat basic payments to farmers differently. For farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland payments will remain the same – at least for now. For farmers in England, change is coming faster. Bad news can hit\u0000 you with a bang or it can creep up on you. The changes at Britain's borders had an immediate impact, but for many farmers in England the consequences of losing income from the EU Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) are only now sinking in. For farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland payments\u0000 will remain the same – at least for now. In July, Farmers Weekly (30th July, 2021, p.30) published a farmer survey which found that 95% of farmers received annual basic payment. A little over half get up to £30,000, and for larger farms the sums are considerably higher as\u0000 the payment depends on the acres farmed. Now that Britain has left the EU, payments for English farmers will be phased out gradually with the last one to be made in 2027. Instead, they can apply for money through the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme (SFI), one of three programmes under\u0000 the Government's Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs). If that sounds complicated that is because it is. ‘Public money for public goods' is Defra's catchy slogan, but at present it is still unclear how much money farmers will eventually be paid and for what – the\u0000 four-year trial phase of the scheme only began this summer, the general SFI rollout is planned for the middle of next year. So far, only one thing is absolutely clear: ELMs will not be a full substitute for the EU Basic Payment Scheme. At best, farmers will be able to make up about a third\u0000 of BPS through ELMs. The Farmers Weekly poll reflects what that means: three-quarters of farmers have no idea how their business will survive without BPS. Some 53% said it would be difficult to replace the lost income, with a further 26% unsure if they could. So, what can farmers do\u0000 to make up for the loss?","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48580976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A review of the loss of bees in the USA – the reasons; the results; and strategies to eliminate the problem.
美国蜜蜂数量的减少及其原因结果;以及解决这个问题的策略。
{"title":"ARS Honey Bee Health – Colony Collapse Disorder","authors":"","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_11","url":null,"abstract":"A review of the loss of bees in the USA – the reasons; the results; and strategies to eliminate the problem.","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44997319","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A review of the procedures adopted by the EU and the USA highlighting the different procedures used.
对欧盟和美国采用的程序进行审查，重点介绍所使用的不同程序。
{"title":"Procedures for the Safe Registration of Pesticides – North America and Europe","authors":"","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_07","url":null,"abstract":"A review of the procedures adopted by the EU and the USA highlighting the different procedures used.","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41925918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An investigation into IPM implementation its strengths and its weaknesses.
对IPM实施的调查，它的优点和缺点。
{"title":"USDA Data Strategy","authors":"","doi":"10.1564/v33_feb_08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1564/v33_feb_08","url":null,"abstract":"An investigation into IPM implementation its strengths and its weaknesses.","PeriodicalId":19602,"journal":{"name":"Outlooks on Pest Management","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44157365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：