Welcome to a world where the tail wags the dog


By Jane Brooks


If glyphosate use is completely banned in the UK, primary producers face significant additional operating costs and a fall in production; 80 – 85% of milling wheat is currently home produced. Increased grain imports will offset shortfalls. However, long term additional import costs may prove unsustainable and lead to grain processing at the point of origin instead in the UK, completely undermining the UK milling industry. Should a glyphosate ban also extend to imported raw materials, including Roundup Ready (GM) crops such as soya, which cannot be grown in the UK, the cost of sourcing these raw materials will escalate.


Back in 2016 Nabim rejected a call by the pro-organic Soil Association for a ban on pre-harvest applications of the agrochemical glyphosate on milling wheat; however, is it time to reassess that decision. First though, a little background information. In today’s world,


chemicals are out and food politics are very much in vogue; the fertilizers and pesticides that helped to feed growing populations in the 20th century are under threat. Mainly this is because a vast army of consumers are vehemently


voicing their concerns about food safety and we live in a world where most politicians put popularity before science. So much so that, just last year, the EU was on the brink of banning glyphosate; in fact, its continued use is still in the balance. It was in the US in 1996 that herbicide tolerant crops were introduced


when glyphosate resistant soybeans hit the market. Known as Roundup Ready, pre and post emergence spraying could take place to prevent weed growth, leaving the crop unharmed and giving farmers a crop-safe herbicide option. The introduction of Roundup Ready (GM) crops in the US enabled the substitution of glyphosate for the far more toxic chemicals that had been used previously. Even then glyphosate was nothing new; originally launched by


Monsanto in 1974, it soon became the best-selling herbicide in the world.


Whilst GM crops are not grown in the UK, glyphosate is a significant


part of a farmer’s armoury against many weeds, particularly grassland weeds in arable crops. The use of glyphosate has also heralded a move to no-till or minimum tillage arable practices, whilst still maintaining satisfactory yields. In general, although considered kind to the soil, minimum tillage


operations tend to use a lot of chemicals: one lot to prepare a seed bed, more to kill any weeds growing amongst the crop and so on, right up to 7 to 14 days before harvest when, in common with several other farming methods, some arable crops destined for human consumption are desiccated using glyphosate. This enables earlier harvesting as it dries and kills the crop, which is a useful but not entirely essential practice; not all crops are desiccated as some end users do impose restriction on chemical use prior to harvest. Last year, following months of deadlock and differing opinions on


PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 FEED COMPOUNDER


the chemical’s future, glyphosate was relicensed for a further five years use in the EU from the 15th December. When it was finally put to the vote of the EU Commission Appeal Committee, the results were 18 in favour, nine against and one abstention (Portugal). The UK, Germany and Poland voted in favour of its continued use


while France and Belgium were two of the states that voted against renewal. However, France plans to ban glyphosate within three years or as French President Emmanuel Macron, in a tweet stated, “as soon as alternatives are found, and within three years at the latest”. Of course three years is a long time in politics, but there is no doubt


that the promised ban is a vote catcher, certainly in France and quite possibly in other parts of the world as well. Should it happen, a glyphosate ban would trigger a reinvention of


agricultural practices unseen since Jethro Tull invented the seed drill. For the farming population it will be imperative to find a way forward without facing immediate and significant yield losses. To this end many agricultural chemical companies are already very involved in biological research. Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont are investing billions into naturally derived pesticide and growth stimulant research. Of course that idea is not really new, organic farmers already use


bacteria based pesticides, such as Dipel, a water dispersible granular biological (Bacillus thuringiensis) insecticide to control caterpillars in vegetables and soft fruit. Further research is taking place on encouraging seed predation


by invertebrates and seed degradation in the soil, together with the use of cover crops. However, it may just be a case of too little too late, and we could be facing a future of lower yields, lower quality and higher production costs. Perhaps the farmers need to save themselves. One way would be


to voluntarily ban the use of desiccation on milling and malting crops. Because one thing is certain, no matter how much the general public are told something is safe, if they don’t want to believe it, nothing on earth is going to convince them otherwise for a very long time. All we need to do is look back to 1988 when Edwina Currie, then a


junior health minister, said, “most of the egg production in this country is affected with salmonella”; she almost destroyed an entire industry overnight. In fact, it took ten years for the industry to recover with the


introduction of the Lion scheme, epitomized by a symbol printed on eggs to show that hens vaccinated against salmonella had produced them. So call it what you will, and some have called it scaremongering, the


threat is very real. In the case of glyphosate, if fear overcomes science, it’s really about knowing when to jump, how soon and in which direction. Because no matter how much we tell the public that pre-harvest


applications of glyphosate on feed wheat are safe: that it has undergone stringent testing; that farmers use it responsibly; if they have no faith in the product sooner or later they will stop buying bread, flour or anything that has been desiccated. Maybe when Nabim next bring the main players in the industry


together they should consider the public’s position on glyphosate in milling wheat, and seriously consider joining the call for a voluntary ban on its use for the desiccation of milling wheat and malting barley. Because a voluntary ban might actually help to keep glyphosate


in the agricultural arsenal, thereby prolonging its usefulness elsewhere within the arable system.


Comment section is sponsored by Compound Feed Engineering Ltd www.cfegroup.com


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