SELECTED ASPECTS OF CHEMICAL PROTECTION OF ...

Acta Sci. Pol., Agricultura 10(4) 2011, 107-119 SELECTED ASPECTS OF CHEMICAL PROTECTION OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS IN NORTH-EASTERN POLAND

Bożena Łozowicka, Rafał Konecki Experimental Field Station in Białystok1

Abstract. In the years 2008-2010, 64 samples of plant material derived from farms in the north-eastern Poland were tested towards proper application of plant protection products (PPP) and food safety. It was found that 28% of pesticide treatments were carried out against recommendations of pesticide producers. The average consumption of pesticides, calculated in kg of active substance·ha-1, ranged from 0.12-2.57. The costs of conducted treatments based on the prices of PPPs ranged from 67-574 PLN·ha-1. Cultivation of winter rape was characterized by the highest level of pesticide use and the highest price of treatments. In the tested samples no risk of pesticide residues to human and animal health was found.

Key words: active substances, pesticide residues, pesticides, the cost of plant protection, winter rape

INTRODUCTION

The basis of managing cultivation which achieves satisfying production results are proper agrotechnical treatments as well as efficient application of the chemical plant protection. The use of plant protection products (PPP) is one of the key elements stabilizing the height and quality of yield [Pruszyński 2009].

Conducting protection treatments according to directives of the good agricultural practice and good plant protection practice [Pruszyński and Wolny 2009] based on the information obtained from the monitoring program [Walczak et al. 2010] or from the direct evaluation of agrophage density in a particular crop, with the use of binding Recommendations for Plant Protection (of the Institute of Plant Protection- National Research Institute/IOR-PIB) and labels for the use of PPPs [http://www.bip.minrol.gov.pl], eliminates the possibility of potential risk to natural environment and consumer health. Chemical protection conducted according to the above rules and according to the binding regulations enables economically effective control of agrophages, with minimum risk of their immunization against the applied PPPs.

Common application of PPPs in agriculture is connected with the risk of occurrence of their residues in crops. In order to determine quality and safety of the plant food, some Corresponding author – Adres do korespondencji: dr hab. Bożena Łozowicka, prof. nadzw., Experimental Field Station in Bialystok of Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute, Chełmońskiego 22, Białystok 15-195, e-mail: [email protected]

108 B. Łozowicka, R. Konecki

Acta Sci. Pol.

appropriate tools have been created of administrative registration control, turnover and evaluation of pesticide residues in these products and the processed ones. Each active substance used in the food production has an established maximum residue limit (MRL), determined during the evaluation of risk in the process of registration of the product.

The aim of the research was presentation of chosen aspects of chemical protection of agricultural crops in Podlaskie Voivodeship and Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, taking into consideration correctness of PPP application, costs of conducting the treatments and analysis of potential risk to people and animals posed by PPP residues in crops.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Within the framework of conducted (for the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) official control of agricultural crops in the years 2008-2010, altogether 64 samples of the plant material were tested from farms of Podlaskie Voivodeship (23) and Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship (41), conducted in a conventional system. The controlled crops included: spring barley (7), winter barley (2), maize (8), cereal mix (1), spring wheat (1), winter wheat (15), winter triticale (3), winter rape (9) and potatoes (18). Test material was collected according to the standard PN-78/R-04011 [1978] by inspectors from the Main Inspectorate of Plant Health and Seed Inspection (PIORIN) after harvest of the particular crop, directly on the field or in the storage place in the period from July to September every year. Minimum quantity of laboratory samples was determined in the range from 0.5 to 2 kg according to the Regulation of the Minister of Health from 17 October 2007 on collecting food samples in order to determine levels of pesticide residues (Dz. U. from 9 November 2007).

Analyses of PPP residues were carried out at the Experimental Field Station, Pesticide Residue Laboratory of the Institute of Plant Protection – National Research Institute in Bialystok with the use of validated accredited analytical methods with the use of gas chromatography (GC) with selective detectors: electron capture (EC) and nitrogen-phosphorus capture (NP), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with DAD detector, and dithiocarbamate residues (expressed as CS2) – with spectrophotometric method. In the samples 130 active substances (a.s.) of pesticides were searched for, whose values of maximum residue limit are given in Regulation (EC) no 396 [2005] and (EC) no 839 [2008]. Information on the type, dates and rates of the applied PPPs was obtained from the reports on collecting the plant material prepared by inspectors from the Main Inspectorate of Plant Health and Seed Inspection (PIORiN) and attached to each sample. The costs of chemical protection per hectare of a particular crop were estimated on the basis of the purchase price of the applied preparations.

RESULTS

Analysis of data included in reports on collecting the samples proved that in 9 types of tested crops (in total 64) 173 treatments were carried out with the use of 120 registered preparations. It was found that 72% of treatments were conducted according to recommendations of PPP producers, whereas in the remaining 28% some failures were detected, whose main cause was a reduced rate (17%) or lack of the required adjuvant (4%) (Fig. 1). The group of chemical preparations which was most frequently

Selected aspects... 109

Agricultura 10(4) 2011

used by farmers were herbicides (39% applications), fungicides (38%) as well as insecticides (17%), and to a slight degree growth regulators (3.4%) and adjuvants (2.5%). The applied substances were mainly characterized by their systemic activity (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Correctness of pesticide application with label instructions in 2008-2010 Rys. 1. Zgodność stosowania ś.o.r. z etykietą-instrukcją w latach 2008-2010

Fig. 2. Characteristics of used pesticides (2008-2010) Rys. 2. Charakterystyka zastosowanych ś.o.r. (2008-2010)

Among PPPs of herbicidal activity the following preparations of systemic activity

(23.5%) were applied repeatedly (6-7 treatments): Granstar 75 WG, Glean 75 WG, Mustang 306 SE, and from the insecticide group: Apacz 50 WG of contact-stomach activity, which has a surface effect on the plant (potato), systemic effect and subsurface effect. Among the commonly applied fungicides, the distinguished ones include Alert


Acta Sci. Pol.

375 SC and Brasifun 250 EC, showing systemic effect and the contact-subsurface preparation Curzate M 72,5 WP (Fig. 2).

Most frequently applied products used in the agrophage control were compounds of herbicidal activity, herbicides containing active substances: glyphosate (10 applications) – from the chemical group of phosphonates, tribenuron methyl (8), which belongs to sulphonylureas as well as 2,4-D (8) – derivative of phenoxy acid. Mentioned above compounds constitute about 9% of the applied active compounds of herbicidal activity, while their proportion in relation to the total number of applications with the use of herbicides is approximately 22%.

The most frequently used active fungicides were tebuconazole (21), belonging to triazoles, mancozeb (11) – from the group of dithiocarbamates, metalaxyl (8) – derivative of phenylamide as well as carbendazim (7) – benzimidazole. Mentioned compounds constituted 11% of all used fungicidal substances, and their proportion in application with this group of pesticides was 36%.

Among insecticides – preparations controlling pests – most treatments (36%) were carried out with the use of two active substances: clothianidin (10) – from the group of neonicotinoids and cypermethrin (8), belonging to pyrethroids. Detailed results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Active substances used in PPPs in 2008-2010 Tabela 1. Substancje aktywne stosowane w ś.o.r. (2008-2010)

Fungicides – Fungicydy (35 s.a.)

Herbicides – Herbicydy (35 s.a.)

Insecticides Insektycydy

(13 s.a.)

Growth regulator Regulatory wzrostu

(5 s.a.) tebuconazole (21), mancozeb (11), metalaxyl-M (8), carbendazim (7), epoxiconazole (6), flusilazole (6), cymoxanil (5), fenpropimorph (5), fludioxonil (5), pencycuron (5), propamocarb hydrochloride (4), dimoxystrobin (4), prochloraz (4), propiconazole (4), boscalid (3), kresoxim-methyl (3), proquinazid (3), chlorothalonil (2), cyproconazole (2), fluopicolide (2), metalaxyl (2), spiroxamine (2), thiophanate methyl (2), thiram (2), triadimenol (2), azoxystrobin (1), dimethomorph (1), fenamidone (1), fenpropidin (1), carboxin (1), metconazole (1), metrafenone (1), propineb (1), triticonazole (1)

glyphosate (10)2,4-D (8), tribenuron methyl (8), chlorsulfuron (7), quizalofop-P-ethyl (6), dicamba (6), florasulam (6), iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium (6), MCPA (4), metazachlor (4), mesosulfuron methyl (4), acetochlor (3), alachlor (3), clomazone (3), clopyralid (3), fenoxaprop-P-ethyl (3), fluroxypyr (3), picloram (3), rimsulfuron (3), terbuthylazine (3), amidosulfuron (2), chinomerak (2), Dimethenamid-P (2), isoproturon (2), nicosulfuron (2), terbuthylazine (2), bromoxynil (1), chlortoluron (1), foramsulfuron (1), metosulam (1), mesotrione (1), propaquizafop (1), S-metolachlor (1), triasulfuron (1), tritosulfuron (1)

clothianidin (10), cypermethrin (8), bifenthrin (5), imidacloprid (5), deltamethrin (4), thiamethoxam (4), acetamiprid (3), chlorpyrifos (3), dimethoate (2), thiacloprid (2), zeta cypermethrin (2), esfenvalerate (1), gamma-cyhalothrin (1)

chlormequat chloride (4)alkoxylated alcohol (1), di-1-p-menthene (1), solution of synthetic latex (1), trinexapac-ethyl (1)

Adjuvants Adiuwanty

(3 s.a.) isodecyl alcohol (2), rapeseed oil methyl ester (2), oil SN (1)

bold pesticides – pesticides detected in the monitoring program in agricultural crops [Nowacka 2009 i 2010] czcionką pogrubioną zapisano związki wykryte w ramach urzędowej kontroli w płodach rolnych [Nowacka 2009 i 2010]



Table 2. Characteristics of used types of pesticides Tabela 2. Charakterystyka zastosowań grup pestycydów

Types of pesticides Rodzaje ś.o.r.

Number of pesticides Liczba środków

Number of treatments Liczba zabiegów

Fungicides – Fungicydy 45 76 Herbicides – Herbicydy 47 86 Insecticides – Insektycydy 18 42 Insecticides/Fungicides – Insektycydy/Fungicydy 2 5 Adjuvants – Adiuwanty 3 5 Growth regulator – Regulator wzrostu 4 7

Most intensively chemically protected plant was winter rape. In this cultivation, on

average from 5 (2008) to 6 (2010) treatments were carried out with the use of 45 PPPs. Rape protection was characterized by the highest mean application of a.s. on the level of 2.57 kg·ha-1 (Tab. 3).

Table 3. The outlays of crop protection in 2008-2010 Tabela 3. Nakłady poniesione na ochronę upraw 2008-2010

Crops Uprawy

Number of

sampless Liczba próbek

Total area Powierzchnia

całkowita ha

Mean number of treatments Średnia liczba zabiegów

Mean price of a single treatment

PLN·ha-1 Średnia cena

jednego zabiegu zł·ha-1

a.s. s.a.

kg·ha-1 2008 2009 2010 2008-

-2010

Spring barley Jęczmień jary 7 82.0 1 2 – 2 74.90 0.35

Winter barley Jęczmień ozimy 2 19.7 – 1 – 1 66.84 0.12

Maize Kukurydza 8 519.7 – – 2 2 76.79 1.50

Cereal mix Mieszanka zbożowa 1 4.0 2 – – 2 59.11 1.81

Spring wheat Pszenica jara 1 4.2 2 – – 2 110.72 0.49

Winter wheat Pszenica ozima 15 266.4 2 4 2 3 100.25 1.34

Triticale Pszenżyto 3 7.0 2 – – 2 51.19 0.80

Winter rape Rzepak ozimy 9 361.9 6 – 5 5 107.88 2.57

Potato Ziemniak 18 12.4 2 2 3 2 76.64 1.57

It was proved that in the cultivation, preparation Brasifun 250 EC (5) was used

repeatedly, and it reduces pathogens causing dark leaf-spot of Brassicaceae, dry-rot of cabbage, gray mould and sclerotinia rot. The commonly applied insecticide was Talstar 100 EC (5) controlling, among others, Meligethes aeneus, cabbage stem weevil, silique pests as well as cabbage aphid, while among herbicides most frequently Galera 334 SL preparation (3) was used to control dicotyledonous weeds (Table 4).


Acta Sci. Pol.

Table 4. Trade names of pesticides used in crops (2008-2010) Tabela 4. Nazwy handlowe ś.o.r. wykorzystanych w uprawach (2008-2010)

Fungicides Fungicydy

Herbicides Herbicydy

Insecticides Insektycydy

Others Pozostałe

1 2 3 4 Barley – Jęczmień

Cerelux Plus 535 EC (1), Kinto Duo 080 FS (1), Zaprawa Oxafun T (1)

Chwastox Turbo 340 SL (1), Dicopur Top 464 SL (1), Granstar 75 WG (4), Mustang 306 SE (3), Puma Uniwersal 069 EW (3), Starane 250 EC (1)

Trend 90 EC (1)

Maize – Kukurydza Maxim XL 035 FS (3) Dikamba 480 SL (1),

Guardian Complete Mix 664 SE (3), Innovate 240 SC (1), Lumax 537,5 SE (1), Maister 310 WG (1), Milagro Extra 6 OD (1), Mocarz 75 WG (1), Mustang 306 SE (1), Titus 25 WG (2), Zeagran 340 SE (1)

Actirob 842 EC (1), Trend 90 EC (1)

Cereal mix – Mieszanki zbożowe Alert 375 SC (1) Agroxone 500 SL (1),

Chwastox Turbo 340 SL (1) Wheat – Pszenica

Alert 375 SC (3), Allegro 250 SC (1), Artea 330 EC (2), Bumper Super 490 EC (1), Capalo 337,5 SE (1), Corbel 750 EC (1), Falcon 460 EC (1), Falkon 460 EC (1), Helicur 250 EW (1), Juwel TT 483 SE (2), Maxim 025 FS (1), Mondatak (1), Olympus 480 SC (1), Raxil 060 FS (1), Soprano 125 SC (1), Sparta 250 EC (1), Swing TOP 183 SC (1), Talius 200 EC (3), Tilt Plus 400 EC (1), Topsin M 500 SC (1), Zamir 400 EW (1), Zaprawa Funaben T (1)

Atlantis 04 WG (3), Butisan Duo 400 SC (1), FACTOR 365 SC (1), Glean 75 WG (5), Glyfos 360 SL (1), Granstar 75 WG (2), Granstar Strong (1), Grodyl 75 WG (2), Huzar 05 WG (1), Lentipur Flo 500 SC (1), Lintur 70 WG (1), Maczuga 75 WG (1), Mustang 306 SE (2), Protugan 500 SC (2), Starane 250 EC (1)

Danadim Progres 400 EC (1), Minuet 100 EW (1), Sumi-Alpha 050 EC (1)

Moddus 250 EC (1), Stabilan 750 SL (3)

Triticale – Pszenżyto Horizon 250 EW (1) Atlantis 04 WG (1),

Dicoherb 750 SL (1), Glean 75 WG (1), Granstar 75 WG (1)

Actirob 842 EC (1), Stabilan 750 SL (1)



Table 4 continued – cd. tabeli 4

1 2 3 4 Winter rape – Rzepak ozimy

Alert 375 SC (1), Brasifun 250 EC (5), Caramba 60 SL (1), Helicur 250 EW (1), Pictor 400 SC (3), Sarfun 500 SC (1), Sparta 250 EW (3), Tarcza Łan 250 EW (3), Tebu 250 EW (2), Topsin M 500 SC (1)

Agil 100 EC (1), Alanex 480 EC (1), Brasiherb 400 CS (1), Butisan Duo 400 SC (1), Butisan Star 416 SC (2), Command 480 EC (1), Dominator 360 SL (1), Elegant 05 EC (1), Galera 334 SL (3), Glyfos 360 SL (1), Graman 050 EC (1), Kalif 480 EC (1), Klinik 360 SL (1), Lasso 480 EC (2), Leopard 0,5 EC (1), Rofosat 360 SL (1), Roundup 360 SL (3), Roundup Energy (450 SL) (1), Targa Super 05 EC (3)

Cyperkill Super 25 EC (2), Danadim Progres 400 EC (1), Fury 100 EW (1), Mospilan 20 SP (3), Nurelle D 550 EC (2), Patriot 100 EC (3), Proteus 110 OD (1), Pyrinex 480 EC (1), Rapid (060 CS) (1), Sherpa 100 EC (3), Talstar 100 EC (5)

Atpolan 80 EC (1), Cruiser OSR 322 FS (1), Elastiq 550 EC (1), Nu-Film 96 EC (1), Insol B (1)

Potato – Ziemniak Acrobat MZ 69 WG (1), Antracol 70 WG (1), Armetil M 72 WP (2), Curzate M 72,5 WP (5), Infinito 687,5 SC (2), Monceren 250 FS (1), Pencozeb 80 WP (1), Pyton Consento 450 SC (1), Ridomil Gold Mz 67,8 WG (2), Ridomil Gold MZ 68 WG (2), Tattoo C 750 SC (1)

Roundup Transenergy 450 SL (1), Titus 25 WG (1)

Actara 25 WG (3), Apacz 50 WG (10), Calypso 480 SC (1), Cyperkil Super 25 EC (1), Pro Agro 100 SL (1)

Prestige 290 FS (4)

pesticides in bold were used despite the lack of registration in a given crop – środki zapisane boldem zostały użyte pomimo braku rejestracji w danej uprawie

In barley cultivation, only 10 preparations were used with the lowest number of

treatments (1-2). In other crops on average two treatments were applied (Tables 3, 4). Among chemically protected crops, the highest percentage of incorrectness

including increased or decreased rate of the preparation, the use of an unregistered mixture of pesticides, lack of adjuvants as well as application of an unregistered PPP in the cultivation, was found in winter triticale (60%), winter wheat (44%) as well as in winter rape (37%) (Fig. 3).


Acta Sci. Pol.

Fig. 3. Correctness of pesticide application with label instructions in crops (2008-2010) Rys. 3. Zgodność stosowania ś.o.r. z etykietą-instrukcją w uprawach (2008-2010)

Costs of PPP application per hectare, estimated on the basis of prices of the applied

preparations, were higher for spring wheat (on average 110 PLN), winter rape (107 PLN) as well as winter wheat (100 PLN), with reference to one treatment, while with a complex protection, the most expensive crop was winter rape (574 PLN) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. The average estimated costs of pesticide treatments on the area of 1 ha of crops in 2008- -2010

Rys. 4. Średnie szacowane koszty zabiegów ś.o.r. na powierzchni 1 ha uprawy (2008-2010) The 130 tested a.s. included compounds with a wide range of values of the

maximum residue limit (MRL); e.g. MRL for fenitrothion was 0.01 mg·kg-1 in rape, and in cereals 10 mg·kg-1. The range of studied substances was diversified and dependent on the analyzed plant material. An example may be chlorothalonil, whose presence was checked only in potato samples (Table 5), with regard to high probability of occurrence of its residues in this crop.



Table 5. Tested compounds Tabela 5. Badane związki

Compounds-Związki

Fungicides Fungicydy

azoxystrobin (NDP - MRL: 0,02–1 mg·kg-1), benalaxyl (0,05), bitertanol (0,05–0,1), boscalid (0,2–3), bromoconazole (0,01–0,2), bupirimate (0,01–0,05), captan (0,05), carbendazim (0,01–2), chlorothalonil (0,01), cyproconazole (0,01–0,05), cyprodinil (0,01–3), dichlofluanid (0,01–5), dichloran (0,01–0,1), difenoconazole (0,01–0,5), difenylamine (0,05), dimethomorph (0,05–0,5), dithiocarbamate (0,3), epoxiconazole (0,05–0,2), fenarimol (0,02), fenbuconazole (0,05–0,2), fenhexamid (0,05), fenpropimorph (0,05–0,5), fludioxonil (0,01–1), fluquinconazole (0,05–0,1), flusilazole (0,01–0,2), folpet (0,1), HCB (0,01–0,02), iprodione (0,02–0,5), kresoxim–methyl (0,05–0,1), mepanipyrim (0,01–0,05), metalaxyl (0,02–0,1), myclobutanil (0,02–0,05), oxadixyl (0,1), penconazole (0,05), picoxystrobin (0,05), prochloraz (0,05), procymidone (0,02–1), propiconazole (0,05–0,2), pyrimethanil (0,01–0,1), quintozene (0,02), tebuconazole (0,01–2), tecnazene (0,05), tetraconazole (0,01–0,1), tolclofos-methyl (0,01–0,2), tolilfluanid (0,05–0,1), triadimefon (0,1–0,2), triadimenol (0,1–0,2), trifloxystrobin (0,02–0,5), vinclozolin (0,05–1)

Herbicides Herbicydy

atrazine (0,05), chlorpropham (10), lenacil (0,1), linuron (0,05), metribuzin (0,1), napropamide (0,05–0,1), nitrofen (0,01–0,05), pendimethalin (0,05–0,1), prometryn (0,01–0,1), propachlor (0,1), propham (0,05), propyzamide (0,02), simazine (0,01–0,05), trifluralin (0,1)

Insecticides and acaricides Insektycydy i akarycydy

acrinathrin (0,01–0,05), aldrin (0,01–0,02), alpha-cypermethrin (0,05–2), azinphos-ethyl (0,02–0,2), azinphos–methyl (0,05), beta–cyfluthrin (0,02–0,05), bifenthrine (0,05–0,5), bromopropylate (0,05–0,1), buprofezin (0,01–0,5), carbaryl (0,05–0,5), carbofuran (0,02–0,2), carbofuran (0,02–0,1), chlorfenvinphos (0,02–0,2), chlorpyrifos (0,05–0,2), chlorpyrifos metyl (0,01–3), cyfluthrin (0,02–0,05), cypermethrin (0,05–2), DDT (0,05), deltamethrin (0,05–2), diazinon (0,01–0,02), dichlorvos (0,01), dicofol (0,02), dieldrine (0,01–0,02), dimethoate (0,02–0,3), endosulfan (α-endosulfan+β-endosulfan+sulfate-endosulfan) (0,05–0,1), endrine (0,01), esfenvalerate (0,02–0,2), ethion (0,01–0,02), ethoprophos (0,5), fenazaquin (0,01), fenitrothion (0,01–10), fenpropathrin (0,01–0,3), fenvalerate (0,02–0,2), fipronil (0,01–0,02), formothion (0,02–0,05), heptachlor (0,01), heptachlor exo epoxide (0,01), heptenophos (0,01–0,1), hexachlorobenzene (3), hexythiazox (0,05–0,5), isofenphos (0,01–0,1), isofenphos–methyl (0,01), lambda–cyhalothrin (0,02–0,2), malathion (0,01–8), mecarbam (0,05), methacrifos (0,05), methidathion (0,02–0,1), methoxychlor (0,01), parathion ethyl (0,01–0,05), parathion methyl (0,02–0,05), permethrin (0,05), phosalone (0,01–1), phosmet (0,05), pirimicarb (0,1–0,5), pirimiphos–methyl (0,05–5), profenofos (0,05), propoxur (0,05), pyridaben (0,05), pyriproxyfen (0,05), quinalphos (0,05), tebufenpyrad (0,01–0,05), tetradifon (0,02–1), triazophos (0,01–0,02), zeta-cypermethrin (0,05–2), α-HCH (0,01–0,02), β-HCH (0,01–0,02), γ-HCH (0,01–0,2)

MRL – NDP – maximum residue limit of an active substance; range of min–max values depending on the tested crops – najwyższy dopuszczalny poziom substancji aktywnej; zakres wartości min–maks. w zależności od badanych upraw

Among 130 a.s. of plant protection products belonging to different chemical and

biological groups, no pesticide residues were found in the crop material above the limit of detection.

DISCUSSION

Comparing data (from the years 2002-2005) concerning average use of an active substance (a.s.) expressed in kg·ha-1, in potato cultivation in Podlaskie Voivodeship and in the rest of Poland, it was found that the amount of applied a.s. in 2008-2010, 1.57 kg·ha-1, is similar to the one in 2003 in Podlaskie Voivodeship (1.59 kg·ha-1). It is more


Acta Sci. Pol.

than twice lower than in the rest of the country (3.52 kg·ha-1). In wheat, over 1.5-times lower use of a.s. was observed in the analyzed period, while in spring barley twice as low, and in winter barley almost 10-times lower.

In the cultivation of winter rape as well as of maize in the north-eastern Poland in the years 2008-2010, a slight increase in the use of a.s. was proved, compared with the period 2002-2005 for the whole country [Surawska and Kołodziejczyk 2006]. With reference to winter wheat and winter rape an approximate use of PPPs was determined in this part of Poland in previous years (2006-2008), and at the same time an increase in their purchase price was observed [Łozowicka and Bułatowicz 2009]. Management costs of particular crops are diversified and their value with reference to other regions of Poland is lower with regard to both the use of a.s. per hectare and costs.

In the study it was confirmed that rape in north-eastern Poland is intensively protected. It results, among others, from different climatic conditions in this region. Climate in this part of the country is visibly cooler than in other lowland areas, and average temperatures in January are in the range from -4 to -6°C and are the lowest in Poland. Mean annual temperature is approximately +7°C, and the growing period, shorter by ten days than the average one in the country, and lasts 190 days [Gumiński 1948]. These conditions often cause poorer overwintering and greater risk of pests and mycotic diseases. A substantial number of the applied preparations of diversified range of activity testifies to the great susceptibility of this plant to potential risk of decreasing yields by different types of agrophages, and at the same time affects the significant level of actual costs of protection treatments directly connected with the purchase of PPPs. This reflects a high use of a.s. as well as the highest and similar actual cost of treatments independent of the region of the country [Golinowska 2009, GUS 2009]. High use of fungicides and insecticides indicates a high susceptibility of rape to diseases and pests, which may, under favourable conditions, reduce the yield by several dozen per cent, and in extreme cases destroy the plants [Mrówczyński et al. 2006].

In the research, a beneficial tendency was observed of reducing the number of the preparations used against the binding legislation [Ustawa... 2004] from two (2008) to one (2010). Among fungicides, still the most commonly used group of compounds constitute triazole compounds, among herbicides – derivatives of sulfonylurea and of phenoxyacetic acid, and from insecticides – derivatives of pyrethroids and neonicotinoids [Łozowicka and Bułatowicz 2009].

It was found that PPPs were applied contrary to the label instruction, resulting from the decrease in rates of preparation or omission of an adjuvant in the treatment, were caused by an attempt to reduce treatment costs. Under favourable conditions, depending among others on the weather, stand density, development stage of the plant, agrophage species and its susceptibility to a.s., application of decreased rates does not reduce the yield, however it may cause deterioration of its quality (e.g. decrease in the protein content) [Krawczyk 2006, Horoszkiewicz-Janka 2008, Kwiatkowski 2010, Paradowski et al. 2010] or it may lead to immunization of harmful organisms to pesticides [Zamojska and Węgorek 2006, Adamczewski and Kierzek 2007].

In the research carried out in 2008 as part of the official inspection of crops derived from all parts of Poland [Nowacka et al. 2009], samples of barley (23), wheat (46), triticale (7), rape (12) and potatoes (54) were tested with regard to PPP residues. Compounds detected in the plant material included: in barley – alpha cypermethrin (4.3% of samples), dimethoate (4.3%), propiconazole (4.3%), as well as pirimiphos methyl (8.7%), in wheat – alpha cypermethrin (2.2%), chlorpyrifos (2.2%) and



pirimiphos methyl (6.5%), in triticale – carbendazim (14.3%), in rape – alpha cypermethrin (8.3%), and in potatoes – chlorpyrifos (1.9%), DTC (9.3%) and lambda-cyhalothrin (1.9%) [Nowacka et al. 2009]. In a parallel research in 2009, tebuconazole was found in 7.2% of wheat samples as well as chlorpyrifos and dimethomorph in 2.2% of potato samples [Nowacka et al. 2010].

With reference to the above mentioned research, in north-eastern Poland in the years 2008-2009 no treatments were observed conducted with the use of PPPs containing alpha cypermethrin, pirimiphos methyl or lambda-cyhalothrin, however other detected a.s. in national crops were commonly used for crop protection in the studied region, without negative effect in the form of detected residues. This indicates that despite inconsistencies that were found, chemical plant protection had no negative effect on the safety of crops.

CONCLUSIONS

1. On farms of north-eastern Poland, managed in a conventional system, there occurs a significant percentage of incorrect application of PPPs (28%). It results mainly from the trend towards reduction of treatment costs through application of a decreased rate (17%) or lack of proper adjuvants (4%).

2. Mean application of PPPs in the years 2008-2010 (calculated in kg of a.s. per hectare) oscillated within the range 0.12-2.57 and was highest in winter rape cultivation. In case of this crop, the use of PPPs reached the similar level as in other parts of the country (2.15).

3. Costs of PPP application, estimated on the basis of their prices, were in the range 67-574 PLN·ha-1 and were highest in winter rape cultivation.

4. The greatest number of inconsistencies concerning the label instructions as well as uses of preparations were found in crops with highest costs of chemical protection.

5. Despite existing inconsistencies in application of the chemical crop protection, resulting from the use of unregistered PPPs, their mixtures and higher rates, no risk for human and animal health of PPP residues was found.

PIŚMIENNICTWO

Adamczewski K., Kierzek R., 2007.. Występowanie biotypów miotły zbożowej (Apera spica- -venti L.) odpornej na herbicydy sulfonylomocznikowe [Geographical distribution of Apera spica-venti L. resistant to sulfonylurea herbicides]. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 47(3), 333-340 [in Polish]..

Golinowska M., 2009. Nakłady na chemiczną ochronę roślin w gospodarstwach wielkoobszarowych na początku XXI wieku [Chemical plant protection outlays on large-area farms at the beginning of 21st century]. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 2(12), 53-60 [in Polish].

Gumiński R., 1948. Próba wydzielenia dzielnic rolniczo-klimatycznych w Polsce [Attempt at separating agricultural-climatic regions in Poland]. Prz. Meteor. Hydrol. 1, 7-20 [in Polish].

GUS, 2009. Środki produkcji w rolnictwie w roku gospodarczym 2008/2009 [Means of production in agriculture in the crop year 2008/2009] [in Polish].


Acta Sci. Pol.

Horoszkiewicz-Janka J., 2008. Występowanie sprawców chorób w uprawie pszenicy przy zastosowaniu zredukowanych dawek fungicydów [The occurrence of disease causal agents in wheat cultivation with the application of reduced fungicide rates]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 48(2), 463-467 [in Polish].

http://www.bip.minrol.gov.pl/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabOrgId=648&LangId=0 Krawczyk R., 2006. Aspekty stosowania obniżonych dawek herbicydów w zbożach jarych

[Aspects of herbicide application in lowered doses in spring cereals]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 46(1), 223-231 [in Polish].

Kwiatkowski C., 2010. Wpływ adiuwantów oraz zredukowanych dawek środków ochrony roślin na wskaźniki jakości technologicznej ziarna pszenicy ozimej [Effect of adjuvants and reduced rates of plant protection products on parameters of technological quality of winter wheat grain]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 50(2), 994-998 [in Polish].

Łozowicka B, Bułatowicz A., 2009. Wybrane aspekty chemicznej ochrony zbóż i rzepaku w północno-wschodniej Polsce [Selected aspects of chemical protection of cereals and rape in north-eastern Poland]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 49(3), 1547-1552 [in Polish].

Mrówczyński M., Praczyk T., Wachowiak H., Korbas M., Gwiazdowski R., Pruszyński G., 2006. Ochrona rzepaku przed agrofagami w integrowanej produkcji [Plant protection in integrated oilseed rape production]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 46(1), 326-336 [in Polish].

Nowacka A., Gnusowski B., Walorczyk S., Drożdżyński D., Wójcik A., Raczkowski M., Hołodyńska A., Barylska E., Ziółkowski A., Chmielewska E., Rzeszutko U., Giza I., Łozowicka B., Kaczyński P., Rutkowska E., Szpyrka E., Rupar J., Rogozińska K., Machowska A., Słowik-Borowiec M., Kuźmenko A., Szala J., 2009. Pozostałości środków ochrony roślin w płodach rolnych (rok 2008) [Pesticide residues in crops (2008)]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 49 (4), 1903-1917 [in Polish].

Nowacka A., Gnusowski B., Walorczyk S., Drożdżyński D., Wójcik A., Raczkowski M., Hołodyńska A., Barylska E., Ziółkowski A., Chmielewska E., Rzeszutko U., Giza I., Jurys J., Łozowicka B., Kaczyński P., Rutkowska E., Jankowska M., Szpyrka E., Rupar J., Rogozińska K., Kurdziel A., Słowik-Borowiec M., Kuźmenko A., Szala J., Sadło S., 2010. Pozostałości środków ochrony roślin w płodach rolnych (rok 2009) [Pesticide residues in crops (2009)]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 50(4), 1947-1962 [in Polish].

Paradowski A., Pietryga J., Matysiak K., 2010. Optymalizacja dawek herbicydów w pszenicy jarej i jęczmieniu jarym [Optimization of herbicide rates in spring wheat and spring barley]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 50(4), 1859-1868 [in Polish].

PN-78/R-04011, 1978. Materiał roślinny i gleba. Pobieranie próbek do ilościowego oznaczania pozostałości pestycydów [Plant material and soil. Collecting samples for quantitative determination of pesticide residues] [in Polish].

Pruszyński S., 2009. Profesor dr hab. Wanda Mierzejewska – twórczyni ekonomiki ochrony roślin w Polsce [Professor Wanda Mierzejewska: the founder of plant protection economics in Poland]. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development 3(13), 261-267 [in Polish].

Pruszyński S., Wolny S. 2009. Przewodnik Dobrej Praktyki Ochrony Roślin [Guidebook to good plant protection practice]. Inst. Ochr. Roślin – PIB Poznań [in Polish].

Rozporządzenia Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 17 października 2007 r. w sprawie pobierania próbek żywności w celu oznaczania poziomów pozostałości pestycydów [Regulation of the Minister of Health from 17 October 2007 concerning collection of food samples in order to determine levels of pesticide residues] (Dz. U. z dnia 9 listopada 2007 r.) [in Polish].

Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 839/2008 z dnia 31 lipca 2008 r. zmieniające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 396/2005 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w odniesieniu do załączników II, III, IV dotyczących najwyższych dopuszczalnych poziomów pozostałości pestycydów w określo-nych produktach oraz na ich powierzchni [Regulation (EC) no 839/2008 concerning highest acceptable levels of pesticide residues in particular products and on their surface] [in Polish].



Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 396/2005 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 23 lutego 2005 r. w sprawie najwyższych dopuszczalnych poziomów pozostałości pestycydów w żywności i paszy pochodzenia roślinnego i zwierzęcego oraz na ich powierzchni, zmieniające dyrektywę Rady 91/414/EWG [Regulation (EC) no 396/2005 on the highest acceptable levels of pesticide residues in food and feed of plant and animal origin] [in Polish].

Surawska M., Kołodziejczyk R., 2006. Zużycie środków ochrony roślin w Polsce [The usage of plant protection products in Poland]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin, 46(1), 470- -483 [in Polish].

Ustawa z dnia 18 grudnia 2003 r. o ochronie roślin [Act on plant protection from 18 December 2003] (Dz. U. z 2004 r. Nr 11, poz. 94, ze zmian.) [in Polish].

Walczak F., Tratwa A., Krasiński T., 2010. Kierunki rozwoju prognozowania i sygnalizacji agrofagów w ochronie roślin rolniczych [Directions of the development of pest forecasting and warning systems in plant protection]. Prog. Plant Protection/ Post. Ochr. Roślin 50(1), 81- -86 [in Polish].

Zamojska J., Węgorek P., 2006. Działanie wybranych substancji aktywnych insektycydów na odporną na pyretroidy populację słodyszka rzepakowego (Meligethes aeneus F.) [Activity of chosen active substances on insecticide-resistant population of Meligethes aeneus F.]. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 46(2), 491-494 [in Polish].

WYBRANE ASPEKTY CHEMICZNEJ OCHRONY UPRAW ROLNYCH W PÓŁNOCNO-WSCHODNIEJ POLSCE

Streszczenie. W latach 2008-2010 przebadano, pod względem poprawności aplikacji środków ochrony roślin (ś.o.r.) i bezpieczeństwa żywności, 64 próbki materiału roś-linnego, pochodzącego z gospodarstw rolnych północno-wschodniej Polski. Stwierdzono, że 28% chemicznych zabiegów ochronnych wykonano niezgodnie z zaleceniami producentów ś.o.r. Średnie zużycie preparatów, liczone w kg substancji aktywnej na ha, wahało się w granicach 0,12-2,57. Koszty przeprowadzonych zabiegów oszacowane na podstawie aktualnych cen ś.o.r. mieściły się w przedziale 67-574 zł·ha-1. Uprawa rzepaku ozimego charakteryzowała się najwyższym poziomem wykorzystania ś.o.r. i najwyższą ceną zabiegów ochronnych. W przebadanych próbkach nie stwierdzono zagrożenia pozostałościami ś.o.r. dla zdrowia ludzi i zwierząt.

Słowa kluczowe: koszty środków ochrony roślin, pozostałości pestycydów, rzepak ozimy, substancje aktywne, środki ochrony roślin

Accepted for print – Zaakceptowano do druku: 15.11.2011

SELECTED ASPECTS OF CHEMICAL PROTECTION OF ...

Documents

Transcript of SELECTED ASPECTS OF CHEMICAL PROTECTION OF ...