TY - JOUR
T1 - Integrated pest management portfolios in UK arable farming
T2 - Results of a farmer survey
AU - Bailey, Alastair S.
AU - Bertaglia, Marco
AU - Fraser, Iain M.
AU - Sharma, Abhijit
AU - Douarin, Elodie
PY - 2009/9/1
Y1 - 2009/9/1
N2 - BACKGROUND: Farmers are faced with a wide range of pest management (PM) options that can be adopted in isolation or alongside complementary or substitute strategies. This paper presents the results of a survey of UK cereal producers, focusing on the character and diversity of PM strategies currently used by, or available to, farmers. In addition, the survey asked various questions pertaining to agricultural policy participation, attitude towards environmental issues, sources of PM advice and information and the important characteristics of PM technologies. RESULTS: The results indicate that many farmers do make use of a suite of PM techniques, and that their choice of integrated PM (IPM) portfolio appears to be jointly dictated by farm characteristics and government policy. Results also indicate that portfolio choice does affect the number of subsequent insecticide applications per crop. CONCLUSIONS: These results help to identify the type of IPM portfolios considered to be adoptable by farmers and highlight the importance of substitution in IPM portfolios. As such, these results will help to direct R&D effort towards the realisation of more sustainable PM approaches and aid the identification of potential portfolio adopters. These findings highlight the opportunity that a revised agri-environmental policy design could generate in terms of enhancing coherent IPM portfolio adoption.
AB - BACKGROUND: Farmers are faced with a wide range of pest management (PM) options that can be adopted in isolation or alongside complementary or substitute strategies. This paper presents the results of a survey of UK cereal producers, focusing on the character and diversity of PM strategies currently used by, or available to, farmers. In addition, the survey asked various questions pertaining to agricultural policy participation, attitude towards environmental issues, sources of PM advice and information and the important characteristics of PM technologies. RESULTS: The results indicate that many farmers do make use of a suite of PM techniques, and that their choice of integrated PM (IPM) portfolio appears to be jointly dictated by farm characteristics and government policy. Results also indicate that portfolio choice does affect the number of subsequent insecticide applications per crop. CONCLUSIONS: These results help to identify the type of IPM portfolios considered to be adoptable by farmers and highlight the importance of substitution in IPM portfolios. As such, these results will help to direct R&D effort towards the realisation of more sustainable PM approaches and aid the identification of potential portfolio adopters. These findings highlight the opportunity that a revised agri-environmental policy design could generate in terms of enhancing coherent IPM portfolio adoption.
KW - Pest management
KW - Pesticide alternatives
KW - Technology and portfolio approaches
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70149096622&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/ps.1790
DO - 10.1002/ps.1790
M3 - Article
C2 - 19479948
AN - SCOPUS:70149096622
VL - 65
SP - 1030
EP - 1039
JO - Pest Management Science
JF - Pest Management Science
SN - 1526-498X
IS - 9
ER -