Reducing Pesticides can be Advantageous, Depending on the Crop

Does pesticide reduction reduce profitability and increase working time? Quite the reverse – Agroscope researchers showed that going pesticide-free can be an attractive proposition.

The Confederation is supporting a reduction in the use of herbicides, growth regulators, insecticides and fungicides on farms that comply with Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) requirements by offering direct payments of CHF 250 to 1400 per hectare, depending on the crop. Production systems that are organic and thereby pesticide-free can receive direct payments of CHF 1200 to 2600 per hectare.

But is it worth ditching pesticides? Researchers at Agroscope studied organic production, two direct payment schemes: one herbicide-free and the other free from growth regulators, insecticides and fungicides (formerly Extenso), as well as a combination of these schemes in winter wheat, sugar beet and potatoes. The Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) scheme – the precondition for receiving direct payments – served as the reference. They analysed the profitability of the production systems and the working time requirements for fieldwork and farm management tasks.

Direct payments maintain profitability in many cases

Profitability was assessed by calculating the estimated yield, crop price and direct payments for each scheme, along with direct costs for seed, pesticides, fertiliser and labour. For winter wheat, despite assumed yield losses, there were clear economic incentives not to use herbicides, growth regulators, insecticides and fungicides (Fig. 1).

In the case of potatoes, dispensing with herbicides increased profitability compared with the Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP) scheme for the assumed yields, while dispensing with insecticides had no economic benefit (Fig. 2).

In contrast, in sugar beet, insecticide- and fungicide-free schemes were more profitable than the PEP scheme, while reducing herbicides proved economically challenging (Fig. 3).

Based on the assumptions made, the calculations showed that the organic scheme was more profitable than the PEP scheme with conventional plant protection for all three crops (Fig. 1–3).

Dispensing with pesticides reduces working time slightly if no manual weeding is required

The working time requirement for each cultivation scheme and crop was modelled for fieldwork and farm management tasks. The main model assumptions were chosen by crop protection experts to reflect a typical situation on a Swiss farm.

The calculations showed that reducing or dispensing with herbicides had little effect on the overall working time requirement (fieldwork and management), except where it was deemed necessary to remove problematic weeds by hand, for example in winter wheat and organic sugar beet. Dispensing with other pesticides (insecticides, growth regulators and/or fungicides) reduced the overall working time requirement in all crops compared with the PEP and reduced-herbicide schemes.

Organic cultivation had the highest working time requirement for fieldwork but the lowest for farm management tasks in all three crops. This is because less time is needed for crop protection tasks such as planning spraying, purchasing chemical-synthetic pesticides and mineral fertilisers, checking pesticide stocks, inspecting fields, recording spraying operations, and even seeking crop protection advice.

Boosting profitability without increasing working time

What are the recommendations for farmers who want to maintain or increase profitability without increasing their hours when they dispense with pesticides? Producing winter wheat and sugar beet without growth regulators, insecticides and fungicides can bring benefits in terms of profitability and working time. For potatoes, these benefits are achieved by herbicide-free and organic production. The flexibility of the current direct payment system enables farmers to make optimal use of these synergies.