Pitchcare Classifieds Worm suppressants A cast of thousands...
Not all worms excrete their casts on the surface. Of the twenty- five species found in UK turf, only three are known to deposit surface casts, the remaining species release their casts underground
”
John Handley, Technical Manager at Maxwell Amenity, says that the industry is knowingly using soil conditioners as worm suppressants
As a sector, there was general surprise, and not a little condemnation, at the speed and manner of the withdrawal of chlopyrifos from the marketplace. The subsequent removal of imidacloprid, along with the ever present threat of the removal of carbendazim, has heightened the awareness of turf managers of the need to use alternatives, if only to assess how effective they are.
The European Union has now adopted more than a dozen legal acts which directly or indirectly regulate the use of Plant Protection Products (PPPs). The Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides, the Water Framework Directive and the Soil Thematic Strategy have very specific implications to the use, practices and availability of products that have been in common use within the amenity sector. Everyone welcomes the reduction of undesirable
amounts of certain pesticides that can be found in the environment, in particular in soil and water. Whereas the benefits which derive from the use of pesticides, and the role they play in ensuring that the high standards that the general public have become accustomed to, are seldom communicated, the consensus is that the general public should be better informed on the possible health and environmental risks and short and long- term adverse effects related to their use. The implication of the adoption of the legal acts
is that we will continue to see further reductions in the availability of PPPs. The EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of
Pesticides provides a framework to pesticide use, specifically by “reducing the risks and impacts of pesticide use on human health and the environment, and promoting the use of integrated pest management and of alternative approaches or techniques such as non-chemical alternatives to pesticides”. Earthworms play an important role in the
development and maintenance of soil structures. They consume large quantities of soil and decaying plant material, from which they obtain all of their nutrition. This waste material forms a highly fertile compost, and is excreted in the form of worm casts. Not all worms excrete their casts on the surface. Of the twenty-five species found in UK turf, only
148 I PC DECEMBER/JANUARY 2016
three are known to deposit surface casts, the remaining species release their casts underground. However, the three species that do surface cast can provide a significant challenge to turf managers, particularly if they occur in large numbers, a response to the availability of their foodstuff; un-degraded plant material. Carbendazim is currently used on established
turf to help suppress casting worms. Shortages within the supply line over the last few years has given rise to concerns over carbendazim’s long- term availability. This has seen the introduction of alternative products, termed and marketed as ‘soil conditioners’. I would suggest that none of the products that are sold on this basis are bought as soil conditioners and that they are all bought by turf managers for the specific purpose of controlling worms. This isn’t the first time that this has happened,
and it could be said that we have form. As a sector, products that contain iron are being used to control moss and are sold by many companies without being registered. The cost of bringing a pesticide to the market is clearly prohibitive. In 2000, the Crop Protection Association identified the costs of bringing one product to the market as £140 million over a period of more than nine years and with a success rate of 1:139,000. The expensive and time consuming nature of this process involves synthesising or chemically extracting, from natural sources, new molecules to be tested using a series of increasingly complex screens to see if they have any “biological activity” or potential as a pesticide. This extensive testing provides us with the
reassurance that the product is effective and, if used in accordance with the label, is safe for the operator, the public and the environment. But, because of the cost implications, it clearly also prevents the development of new products that are registered and approved for use. Inevitably, companies
may look to utilise products within their portfolio that may
not historically have been commercially viable within the amenity sector, because of the relatively small demand, but may be increasingly feasible. There is the attraction of utilising technology that is already established, with a relatively low cost barrier. Developments within one sector may also pass directly into the amenity area as there is a recognition that particular opportunities exist. However, there is currently a significant gap in
our ability to provide products that are approved for the use for which they are employed. If we fail to recognise this and continue to fudge our approach, without acknowledging that this is currently our position, we fail in our responsibilities under the voluntary initiative. Whilst it could be said that the approach of selling a product for a described purpose, when we know that it is being solely used for killing the local population of the pest that we don’t want, may not be strictly infringing Section 3 of the Code of Practice for Using Plant Protection Products, it certainly couldn’t be defined as honest or ethical. Successive governments have reduced the risks
of prosecution by reducing the funding of the department responsible for making prosecutions. Penalties for those who have committed an offence are severe, but the likelihood of being prosecuted is minimal; this is increasingly a fact that everybody in the industry is becoming familiar with. Obtaining a response from the authorities responsible for policing the amenity sector, on issues such as pesticide withdrawals and
enforcing infringements, is impossible. (Read Alice Northrop’s article on page 42).
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156