Publication - Progress report

Scottish winter oilseed rape cultivation 2015-2016: impact of the second year of neonicotinoid seed treatment restrictions

Published: 22 February 2017
Directorate: Agriculture and Rural Economy Directorate
Part of: Farming and rural
ISBN: 9781786527981

Survey on the impact of current EU neonicotinoid seed treatment restrictions on Scottish winter oilseed rape cultivation.

Supporting documents

Appendix 1 - Results tables

Table 1 Distribution of census and survey areas of winter oilseed rape in Scotland in 2015/16

Region	Census Area (ha)	Number of growers surveyed	Number of holdings surveyed ⁽¹⁾	Surveyed Area (ha)	Percentage of census area surveyed
Highlands & Islands	3	0	0	0	0
Caithness & Orkney	0	0	0	0	N/A
Moray	2,493	6	7	319	13
Aberdeen	6,952	25	31	1,559	22
Angus	6,603	28	34	1,204	18
East Fife	1,989	9	11	437	22
Lothian	4,143	14	18	803	19
Central Lowlands	1,388	6	7	226	16
Tweed Valley	6,260	16	23	1,004	16
Southern Uplands	207	0	0	0	0
Solway	103	0	0	0	0
Total Scotland	30,141	104	131	5 , 553	18

(1) Some growers cultivated WOSR on more than one holding

N/A = not applicable

Table 2 Drilling date of winter oilseed rape crops in autumn 2015

Drilling Period	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area (ha)	Percentage of sample area
First two weeks of August	2	2	170	3
Last two weeks of August	84	81	4,472	81
End August/early September	8	8	491	9
September	9	9	359	6
Not specified	1	1	60	1

Table 3 Operational changes in crop cultivation in autumn 2015

Operational Change	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area (ha)	Percentage of sample area
Soil cultivation ⁽¹⁾	6	6	350	6
Drilling date	4	4	203	4
Seed rate/spacing	4	4	221	4
Targeted fertiliser use ⁽²⁾	2	2	74	1
Any operational change	16	15	847	15

(1) Includes alterations to seed bed production and soil cultivation such as minimum tillage, strip tillage and direct drilling

(2) Includes use of fertilising seed treatment and targeted fertiliser at drilling

Table 4 Methods of pest population assessment conducted in autumn 2015

	Agronomist advice	Crop walking	Published Information ⁽¹⁾	Thresholds	Traps
No. growers	89	62	36	29	1
Percentage of growers	86	60	35	28	1

(1) Includes SRUC, AHDB and Bayer technical bulletins (used by 24, 21 and 1 per cent respectively) and farming press (used by 10 per cent)

Table 5 Insect pest pressure in autumn 2015

Pest pressure ranking	Aphids		Flea beetles
Pest pressure ranking	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Number of growers	Percentage of growers
low (none seen)	14	13	21	20
low	76	73	64	62
low/moderate	1	1	3	3
moderate	5	5	11	11
Moderate/high	0	0	1	1
high	1	1	1	1
Unknown	7	7	3	3

Table 6 Flea beetle species encountered in autumn 2015

	CSFB ⁽²⁾	*CSFB & Phyllotreta* spp.**	Phyllotreta spp. ⁽³⁾	unknown
No. growers ⁽¹⁾	13	1	1	6
Percentage of growers	62	5	5	29

(1) Twenty one growers encountered and attempted to identify the flea beetle species present

(2) Cabbage stem flea beetle

(3) Phyllotreta spp. flea beetles

Table 7 Insecticidal sprays applied in autumn 2015

Number of sprays ⁽¹⁾	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Basic area (ha) ⁽²⁾	Percentage of sample area	Total treated Area ⁽³⁾
None	58	56	3,090 ⁽⁵⁾	56	N/A
<1 ⁽⁴⁾	5	5	N/A ⁽⁵⁾	N/A	N/A ⁽⁵⁾
One	32	31	1,844 ⁽⁵⁾	33	1,844 ⁽⁵⁾
Two	8	8	601	11	1,202
Three	1	1	18	<1	54
Total	104		5,553		3,100

(1) The total number of sprays applied by growers was 56 (32 x one spray, eight x two sprays, one x three sprays and five part sprays ⁽⁴⁾)

(2) Basic area is the area of crop treated with an insecticide irrespective of the number of times that area is treated. The total basic area treated with an insecticide was 2,463 ha

(3) Total treated area is the basic area of a crop treated with an insecticide multiplied by the number of treatments that were applied. For example if a field of five hectares gets sprayed with the same insecticide twice, the basic area treated is five hectares, and the total treated area is 10 hectares

(4) These growers sprayed part, but not all, of their crop area with a single spray, therefore the total number of sprays applied by these growers is less than one. These five growers treated 33, 53, 64, 77 and 83 per cent of their crop areas

(5) Crop area for part sprays has been assigned to the appropriate spray categories ( i.e. the area which was not sprayed is assigned to the none category and the sprayed area assigned to the one category)

N/A = not applicable

Table 8 Reasons for insecticide application in autumn 2015

	All growers (n=104)		Growers who sprayed (n=46)		Growers who didn't spray (n=58)
	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
Agronomist advice	84	81	41	89	43	74
Crop walking	42	40	19	41	23	40
Thresholds	18	17	9	20	9	16
Precautionary spray	9	9	9	20	N/A	N/A
Technical Bulletins ⁽¹⁾	2	2	2	4	0	N/A

(1) Includes SRUC and AHDB technical bulletins

N/A = not applicable

Table 9 Target of insecticide sprays in autumn 2015

Target pest(s) ⁽¹⁾	Number of sprays		Basic area ⁽³⁾		Total treated area ⁽⁴⁾
Target pest(s) ⁽¹⁾	Number ⁽²⁾	% of total sprays	ha	% of sample area	ha	% of total treated area
CSFB	31	54	1,542	28	1,920	62
Flea beetle (unspecified species)	2	4	53	1	53	2
Rape winter stem weevil	13	23	440	8	518	17
CSFB and rape winter stem weevil	1	2	60	1	60	2
Aphids	3	5	79	1	160	5
CSFB and aphids	2	4	141	3	141	5
Unknown	4	7	133	2	233	7
Phyllotreta spp. flea beetles	1	2	16	<1	16	1
Total	57		2,463		3,100
Total flea beetle (all species) ⁽⁵⁾⁽⁸⁾	37	65	1,812	33	2,190	71
Total rape stem weevil ⁽⁶⁾⁽⁸⁾	14	25	500	9	578	19
Total aphids ⁽ ⁷⁾⁽⁸⁾	5	9	220	4	301	10

(1) Targets of sprays identified by growers, grouped into common targets

(2) The sprays in this column add up to 57, not 56 as in Table 7, due to one grower spraying two different spray regimes (with different targets) on different areas of his crop i.e. the total number of sprays each composite area received was two, but three different spray regimes were applied overall

(3) Basic area is the area of crop treated with an insecticide irrespective of the number of times that area is treated

(4) Treated area is the basic area of a crop treated with an insecticide multiplied by the number of treatments that were applied. For example if a field of five hectares gets sprayed with the same insecticide twice, the basic area is five hectares, and the treated area is 10 hectares

(5) Collating all sprays with at least one species of flea beetle as a target ( CSFB, flea beetle (unspecified species), CSFB & rape winter stem weevil, CSFB & aphids and Phyllotreta)

(6) Collating all sprays with stem weevil as a target (rape winter stem weevil & CSFB and rape winter stem weevil)

(7) Collating all sprays with aphids as a target (Aphids & CSFB and aphids)

(8) Note that as some sprays had more than one target they have been counted more than once in the collated species data. Therefore when collated targets and unknown sprays are added together they exceed 100% of the total sprays

Table 10 Insecticidal active substances applied in autumn 2015

Active substance ⁽¹⁾	Number of sprays ⁽²⁾		Basic area ⁽³⁾		Total treated area ⁽⁵⁾
Active substance ⁽¹⁾	No.	% of total sprays	ha	% of sample area ⁽⁴⁾	ha	% of total treated area ⁽⁶⁾
All active substances	57		2,463	44	3,100
Lambda cyhalothrin	31	54	1,495	27	1,700	55
Zeta cypermethrin	17	30	550	10	779	25
Alpha cypermethrin	5	9	203	4	224	7
Cypermethrin	3	5	195	4	377	12
Pymetrozine	1	2	20	<1	20	<1
Total pyrethroids	56	98	2 , 443	44	3 , 080	99
Total non-pyrethroids	1	2	20	<1	20	<1

(1) All products applied contained only one active substance; all of the compounds listed are pyrethroid insecticides with the exception of pymetrozine which is a pyridine insecticide

(2) The total number of sprays is 57, not 56 as in Table 7, due to one grower spraying two different spray regimes (with different active substances) on different areas of his crop i.e. the total number of sprays each composite area received was two, but three different sprays were applied overall

(3) Basic area is the area of crop treated with an insecticide irrespective of the number of times that area is treated

(4) The percentage of sample area is the basic area of each active substance divided by the sample area

(5) Treated area is the basic area of a crop treated with an insecticide multiplied by the number of treatments that were applied. For example if a field of five hectares gets sprayed with the same insecticide twice, the basic area is five hectares, and the treated area is 10 hectares

(6) The percentage of total treated area is the treated area of each active substance divided by the total treated area

Table 11 Efficacy of pest control regime in autumn 2015

	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
	Growers who sprayed (n=46)		Growers who didn't spray (n=58)
High pest numbers made control difficult	3	7	0	0
Weather prevented spraying	2	4	6	10
Insufficient insecticide efficacy	1	2	N/A	N/A
Encountered problems	6	13	6	10
Did not encounter problems	40	87	52	90

N/A = not applicable

Table 12 Insect damage in autumn 2015

	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area (ha)	Percentage of sample area
None	16	15	902	16
Low	70	67	3,696	67
Low/moderate	3	3	199	4
Moderate	12	12	594	11
High	1	1	57	1
Unknown	2	2	104	2

Table 13 Insect pests causing crop damage in autumn 2015

Pest	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area grown ⁽¹⁾ (ha)	Percentage of sample area
CSFB ⁽²⁾	63	61	3,649	66
CSFB/rape winter stem weevil ⁽³⁾	2	2	101	2
Phyllotreta spp. flea beetles ⁽⁴⁾	2	2	26	<1
Rape winter stem weevil ⁽⁵⁾	1	1	30	1
Unknown insect pest ⁽⁶⁾	18	17	740	13
No insect damage reported	16	15	902	16
Insect damage levels unknown	2	2	104	2

(1) It should be noted that this is the total crop area grown by those who reported damage, not necessarily the crop area affected by that pest

(2) For CSFB damage, levels were ranked as low by 79% of these growers, low/moderate or moderate by 19% and high by 2%

(3) For CSFB/rape winter stem weevil, levels were ranked as low by one grower and moderate by the other

(4) For Phyllotreta spp. flea beetle, both growers reported damage to be low

(5) Rape winter stem weevil damage was reported to be low by the single grower who reported this pest

(6) Where the insect pest causing damage was unknown, damage was reported to be low by 94% of growers and moderate by 6%

Table 14 Grower perception of autumn 2015 insect damage in relation to pre-restriction levels

Did the lack of an insecticidal seed treatment result in greater crop damage?	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area (ha)	Percentage of sample area
Yes	40	38	2,638	48
No	56	54	2,615	47
Don't know	8	8	300	5

Table 15 Non-insect pests causing crop damage in autumn 2015

Pest	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area grown ⁽¹⁾ (ha)	Percentage of sample area
Slugs ⁽²⁾	86	83	4,652	84
Pigeons ⁽³⁾	30	29	1,585	29
Rabbits ⁽⁴⁾	2	2	54	1
Geese ⁽⁵⁾	1	1	38	1
Deer ⁽⁶⁾	1	1	30	1
Non-insect pest damage reported ⁽⁷⁾	98	94	5,272	95
No non-insect pest damage reported	5	5	256	5
Unknown	1	1	24	<1

(1) It should be noted that this is the total crop area grown by those who reported damage, not the crop area affected by that pest

(2) For slug damage, levels were ranked as low by 48%, low/moderate or moderate by 33% and moderate/high or high by 20%

(3) For pigeon damage, levels were ranked as low by 30%, moderate by 43%, moderate/high or high by 23% and unknown by 3%

(4) For rabbits, one grower reported damage to be moderate, and one grower as high

(5) Goose damage was reported to be moderate by the single grower who reported this pest

(6) Deer damage level was not reported by the single grower who reported this pest

(7) The total is less than the sum of the pests above as several growers reported more than one pest species

Table 16 WOSR crop loss in autumn 2015

Reason	Number of growers	Percentage of growers	Crop area (ha)	Percentage of sample area
Non-insect pests ⁽¹⁾	4	4	39	0.7
Weather related ⁽²⁾	3	3	59	1.1
Total crop loss	7	7	98	1.8

(1) Slugs (3 growers, 33 ha) and geese (1 grower, 6 ha)

(2) Wet weather and flooding

Table 17 Average WOSR yield in 2016

Region	Number of growers	Area of crop grown	Average 2016 yield (t/ha)
Aberdeen	23	1,460	3.48
Angus	27	1,188	3.47
Central Lowlands	6	226	3.51
East Fife	9	437	3.56
Lothian	14	803	3.09
Moray	5	185	3.00
Tweed	14	871	3.85
Total ⁽¹⁾	98	5,17 0	3.46

(1) 98 of the 104 original survey respondents provided yield data

Table 18 Reasons for change in 2016 yield

Yield Change ⁽¹⁾	Reason	Number of growers	Percentage of growers ⁽²⁾	Crop area (ha)	Percentage of area ⁽²⁾
Decrease (n=82)	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾	54	66	2,731	61
	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾ & late drilling	1	1	29	1
	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾ & disease ⁽⁴⁾	4	5	640	14
	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾ & disease ⁽⁴⁾ & pests ⁽⁵⁾	1	1	26	1
	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾ & pests ⁽⁵⁾	4	5	165	4
	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾ & weeds	1	1	20	<1
	Weather conditions ⁽³⁾ & late drilling & pests ⁽⁵⁾	1	1	30	1
	Disease ⁽⁴⁾	1	1	69	2
	Late drilling	2	2	109	2
	Weeds	1	1	58	1
	Pests ⁽⁵⁾	2	2	36	1
	Poor soil	1	1	30	1
	Not recorded/unknown	9	11	561	12
	Total reporting yield decrease	82		4 , 503
Increase (n=7)	Different variety	2	29	47	20
	Better weather conditions	1	14	57	24
	Better weather conditions & fewer pests	1	14	28	12
	Better cultivation and establishment	1	14	49	21
	Not recorded	2	29	51	22
	Total reporting yield increase	7		233

(1) Reasons are only reported where a change in yield (> 5%) was encountered. No change was reported by nine growers, growing 434 ha

(2) Percentage of growers/area is in relation to total growers with a decrease/increase (3) Weather conditions were cited as a reason for yield decrease by 66 growers in total (80% of those whose yield dropped). 35% of growers reported strong winds immediately prior to harvest causing seed shed, 28% cited a lack of sun in late spring/summer, 23% cited wet conditions in autumn/winter and 6% reported that crop growth had been retarded by the cold spring (4) disease (clubroot) was cited as a reason for yield loss by six growers (7%) (5) Pests were reported as a reason for yield loss by 10 growers (12%), six cited slugs, four pigeons and two CSFB

Contact

Email: Pesticide Survey unit

There is a problem

Thanks for your feedback

Was this helpful?

Yes

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Yes, but

Choose a reason for your feedback

Your comments

Your feedback helps us to improve this website. Do not give any personal information because we cannot reply to you directly.

Information

Appendix 1 - Results tables

Contact

There is a problem