Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 12.03.2024 | Research

Differences Between Farmers and Crop Protection Service Providers in the Use of Pesticides

verfasst von: Andreas Heinzl, Roman Braun, Hubert Köppl, Siegfried Pöchtrager, Siegrid Steinkellner

Erschienen in: Journal of Crop Health | Ausgabe 3/2024

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

EU-wide statistics on the use of pesticides in agriculture are available on the quantities placed on the market, but data on actual use in practice are limited. In this study, comparative data on pesticide use and resistance management were collected for a region with mixed agriculture (arable and animal husbandry) in Austria. Based on individual pesticide records of 30 farmers and 10 service providers who perform plant protection tasks for 30 farms, the average application rates of pesticides, the change of the active substance group as well as the shortfalls and exceedances of the maximum permissible application rate were compared. Most farmers and service providers usually make a well-considered change in the group of active substances to avoid the development of resistance. Exceedances and underdosing of authorised application rates were found for both groups of people, with farmers tending to deviate more often. The applications amounts were largely in compliance with the law, however, in 3.69% of the 2387 evaluated uses of pesticides, the authorised application rate was exceeded. This excess was found somewhat more frequently among farmers than service providers. The application rate excesses can be attributed to technical overruns due to differences between actually farmed and formally declared area, confusion caused by complex application instructions but also by intention. To avoid inadequate information on authorised application rates and to simplify information gathering, the development of databases and apps that take into account not only the indisputably essential aspect of correct registration, but especially the user and user-friendliness, would be of great benefit and value. Packaging sizes adapted to different requirements and farm sizes would also be advantageous. High priority should be given to the technical training of users and sales personnel. This can contribute to higher professionalism in the use of pesticides in terms of compliance and resistance management, but also to the reduction of pesticides.
Hinweise

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Pesticides, i.e. plant protection products and biocidal products, are substances that suppress, eradicate or prevent the activity of harmful organisms (WHO 2020). The use of pesticides contributes significantly to ensuring the yield of crops in terms of quantity and quality (Popp et al. 2013; Feike et al. 2022). However, the use of these products is critically questioned and refused by parts of society. Possible health risks for the population, negative effects on the environment, and uncertainties in risk assessment are cited as reasons for this rejection (Szöcs et al. 2017; Wijewardene et al. 2021). In addition, professionalism in the application of pesticides and compliance with the relevant legal regulations are sometimes critically questioned by consumers (Meyer 2018). EU-wide regulations for the approval and the use of pesticides help to reduce potential risks. In the European Union, the placing of plant protection products on the market is governed by Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. The EU Directive 2009/128/EC provides a common framework for the sustainable use of pesticides; the implementation of this directive is based on national action plans of the member states. Depending on the legal regulations in the EU member states, the individual federal states may also have different requirements for implementing the national action plans. In Austria, for example, the authorization of plant protection products is regulated by federal law, whereas for the application and storage individual state laws apply (BML 2023).
In the EU, a certificate of competence is required for the professional use of pesticides in agriculture (Directive 2009/128/EC). This is to ensure that the user has the necessary knowledge and skills to apply chemical pesticides properly and in compliance with all application regulations. The detailed requirements for this certificate of competence are in turn defined in national and state-specific regulations. However, only competent persons may carry out plant protection measures and only pesticides with approved active ingredients (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009) may be used in the individual EU member countries after an extensive evaluation procedure. Furthermore, a large number of instructions as specified in course of the authorisation have to be observed when applying a pesticide, such as the application rate, the application methods, any waiting periods.
In addition, pesticide resistance management is playing an increasingly important role in the use of pesticides. It includes all measures aimed at preventing or slowing down the development of resistance in order to ensure the full effectiveness of an active substance for as long as possible. In addition, professional resistance monitoring is essential to detect changes in the sensitivity of target organisms in time. Measures of adapted resistance management include restricting the use of pesticides with only one Mode of Action group of active ingredients, as well as using mixtures and alternating active ingredients with a different, non-cross-resistant mechanism of action. Furthermore, adhering to authorised application rates, to the optimum time of use and limiting the number of applications to what is necessary contribute significantly to resistance management (Jutsum et al. 1998; Mehl and Stenzel 2008). A qualified resistance management also requires the consideration of all non-chemical measures of integrated plant protection with the aim of impeding/minimising the occurrence of the target organisms. However, this is not a standardized procedure, but each user of pesticides is faced with the task of developing a resistance management strategy suitable for his or her farm (Börner et al. 2009).
The decision for a pesticide and the application of pesticides can be made by different persons. In many cases, this task is performed by the farmer himself/herself or by an employee of the farm. An alternative is to outsource the entire crop protection measures to a professional service provider. Due to the diversity of specifications and legal obligations, precise compliance with all specifications could be a challenge for farmers. The inter-farm use, i.e. the application of pesticides by a service provider, who is usually more experienced and familiar with the application of pesticides, could be advantageous herein this case. Benefits cited include cost savings, as the application equipment does not have to be purchased, maintained and stored, and time savings for the farmer. Environmental benefits such as the reduced use of pesticides are also assumed (Vorbach et al. 2007). Potential disadvantages linked to plant protection services include limited knowledge of local conditions, extended travel distances or an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio for farmers. However, surveys categorized these potential obstacles as minor (Vorbach et al. 2007). So far, there is a lack of data comparing farmers to crop protection service providers as well as farmers of different farm sizes regarding the use of pesticides. The official statistics on pesticides refer to the sales quantities and not to the quantity actually applied in a crop. Although there are strict recording requirements for the use of pesticides, there is little data on the quantity actually applied. In this explorative study, comparative data on the quantities of pesticides applied and the pesticides used in relation to resistance management were collected and analysed. An Austrian region characterized by mixed agriculture (arable farming and cattle husbandry) was studied. The objective of the work was to identify possible differences in the selection of pesticides, especially in terms of resistance management and application rates used, between crop protection service providers and farmers. The data will provide evidence of professionalism in pesticide use with respect to compliance and resistance management and identify potential areas for improvement.

Material and Methods

An agricultural area in Upper Austria was selected as the study area, which is characterized by the Central European transitional climate with average precipitation of 900–1000 mm per year and an average annual temperature of 6 to 10 °C (Land Oberösterreich 2022). The study area includes the districts of Grieskirchen and Schärding, whereby the Sauwald communities in Schärding were excluded due to the deviating geological conditions. The area in Schärding is characterized by a favorable climate for agriculture, fertile soil and flat to slightly sloping areas (Kimberger 1987). Mixed farms with arable farming and animal husbandry dominate this agricultural landscape. The district of Grieskirchen is characterized by a varied landscape between the foothills of the Sauwald and the Hausruckwald and the western edge of the Welser Heide (Baumgartner 1987). In the entire area, about 56.6% of the agricultural and forestry area is arable land, 25.6% is grassland. In Grieskirchen, wheat is cultivated on 19.5% of the arable land, barley on 18.4% and corn on 31.2%. In the study area of the Schärding district, wheat is cultivated on 26.3% of the arable land, barley on 16.2% and corn on 33.7% (Agrarstrukturerhebung 2010). The farms were selected based on specified criteria by an independent person who was not involved in the study (selective sampling according to Schirmer 2009) and had to meet the following criteria: cattle husbandry, cultivation of winter wheat, winter barley and maize in crop rotation and the use of pesticides in the survey years. Cattle husbandry was chosen as a criterion because of the strong emphasis on animal husbandry on these farms with pesticide application being often a subordinate activity (R. Braun pers. comm.). The selected crops are the most widespread in this region.
Data were collected from a total of 30 farms that organized the use of chemical pesticides, i.e. plant protection products, themselves. The group of 30 farmers was divided into three size groups of ten farmers each: farms with a) < 15 ha of arable land, b) 15–50 ha and c) > 50 ha of arable land. For comparison, farms managed by a total of ten pesticide service providers who were managing plant protection tasks for 30 farms were available. The number of service providers was limited, as there are only a few of them in the region. Furthermore, the application of pesticides must be orientated towards the development of the crop and the harmful organisms and can only be carried out under suitable weather conditions. Thus, their area of operation is limited due to the technical performance and the crop-specific requirements for the respective application time windows. The data on the pesticides used came from the records for professional users in accordance with the EU Regulation on pesticides (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009). This information must include the name of the product, the time and dose of application as well as the area and crop on which it was applied. The records can be informal or template-based, hand-written or electronically, but must be kept up to date on a daily basis and have to be stored for four years in accordance with the OÖ Bodenschutzgesetz. The data transfer of the recordings to an Excel spreadsheet was carried out directly at farm. The data of plant protection service providers were based on invoices for the applications. The data was made available by Maschinenring OÖ, as the service providers are organized via the Maschinenring and must submit these data records for this purpose. The data included all pesticide applications from the 2016–2019 cropping seasons for winter wheat, winter barley, and corn. In addition, a personal face-to-face interview was conducted with each farmer and service provider. Furthermore, mode of action groups of the active substances contained in the products were indicated in order to be able to evaluate the alternation of mode of action groups, which is essential for an adequate resistance risk management.
Pesticide data from all farms were evaluated in Excel 2021 (version 16) using a database that contained detailed information on each pesticide used, particularly the authorised application rate, active substances, and directions for use according to the Austrian register of pesticides (BAES 2021). Products with already expired authorisation in the respective crop were evaluated based on the approval data. The application rate used was set in relation to the authorised application rate and violations of the authorised application rates were recorded. In addition, the average application rates per type of pesticide as well as underdosing of the authorised application rate were determined. The limits of a reasonable application rate that may not enhance the development of resistance were defined by experts from the advisory service (Hubert Köppl, LK Upper Austria; Roman Braun, MR Upper Austria) as follows: In case of single product applications, the application rate had to be at least 75% of the authorised application rate, and in the case of product combinations at least 50% of the authorised application rate per product. In addition, based considering the mode of action groups on the active substances contained in the individual products, it was recorded to what extent a change of mode of action groups had been carried out for each crop species in the four years of survey. According to the above-mentioned experts from the advisory service, a change in the active substance group for herbicides was considered sufficient, if at least three different active substance groups were used in one crop species in the four years of study. In the case of fungicides in barley, too, three different groups of active substances were taken as standard value. In the case of wheat, fewer different active substance groups are available, therefore, the value was set to 2. Two groups of active substances were also defined for insecticides, if they are used in a crop every four years. If pesticides were not used in a crop every four years, the requirements for an adequate resistance strategy were adopted. For example, if no insecticides were used in one year, the requirements for a suitable resistance strategy were reduced from three different active ingredient groups to two.

Results

All farmers as well as service providers used herbicides in the years studied. Fungicides were used by 70–100% of the farmers (depending on the arable land size group), as well as by all service providers. Insecticides were applied by 50–90% of the farmers and 70% of the service providers (Fig. 1).
Resistance management was evaluated based on the change of mode of action groups in course of the years of study. This was assessed individually for each crop species and pesticide for the years of application covered. Based on the criteria defined above, all farmers and all service providers have practiced appropriate resistance management when using fungicides. For insecticide use, one service provider was found to have an inadequate resistance management. The alternation of herbicidal mode of action groups was not found to be sufficient in all cases (1–3 farmers per arable land size group as well as 2 service providers) (Fig. 1).
A total of 2387 pesticide applications were evaluated (Table 1). The evaluation refers to the number of pesticides used, whereas several products were often used as tank mixtures. Over the entire study period, 1507 plant protection applications carried out by the farmers themselves and 880 applications were conducted by service providers. In 3.69% (88 out of 2387) evaluated uses of pesticides, the authorised application rates were exceeded. According to their records, 21 of the 30 farmers and 6 of the 10 service providers frequently exceeded the permissible application rates. Exceedances were found least frequently at medium-sized farms (15–50 ha arable land) and most frequently at large farms (> 50 ha arable land). The service providers as well as the group of small farms (< 15 ha arable land) were in the middle.
Table 1
Pesticide applications between 2016–2019
 
Number of overall applications
Approval-compliant applications* (%)
Applications exceeding the authorised amounts (%)
Farms < 15 ha
296
96.28
3.72
Farms 15–50 ha
525
97.33
2.67
Farms > 50 ha
686
95.34
4.66
Service provider
880
96.48
3.52
In total
2387
96.31
3.69
* Including underdosed applications
The average application rate was calculated as a percentage of the authorised application rate for all herbicide, fungicide and insecticide applications (Table 2). In 238 (15.79%) of the 1507 assessed pesticide applications by farmers, the application rate was below the above specified level (75% of the authorised application rate for single product applications, 50% of the authorised application rate for product combinations). In the case of service providers, the specified application rate was reduced in 112 (12.73%) of the 880 cases evaluated. On average, farmers here applied about 17% less than the maximum permitted herbicide rate for single applications and 28% for combined applications. For fungicides, these values were 11 and 24%, respectively. Insecticides were used by slightly more than two thirds of the farmers; on average, the quantity was exceeded by 1%.
Table 2
Relative amounts (in %) of pesticides used per application, (2016–2019) (100% = the authorised dose)
User
Mode of action
Single use of products
Combined use of products
Average (%)
Lower limit (%)
Upper limit (%)
Average (%)
Lower limit (%)
Upper limit (%)
Farmers < 15 ha
Herbicide
90.2
25.0
125.0
73.2
22.2
100.0
Fungicide
89.7
50.0
125.0
85.9
57.1
100.0
Insecticide
96.0
Farmers 15–50 ha
Herbicide
75.7
6.3
120.0
74.6
14.3
106.7
Fungicide
85.4
37.5
110.0
68.2
9.2
180.0
Insecticide
105.1
80.0
200.0
Farmers > 50 ha
Herbicide
83.3
37.5
150.0
67.6
16.7
133.3
Fungicide
92.3
30.0
250.0
73.8
16.0
200.0
Insecticide
101.5
20.0
133.3
All farmers
Herbicide
83.1
6.3
150.0
71.8
14.3
133.3
Fungicide
89.1
30.0
250.0
76.0
9.2
200.0
Insecticide
100.9
20.0
133.3
Service providers
Herbicide
89.9
3.4
150.0
72.1
4.0
120.0
Fungicide
86.6
38.4
125.0
70.0
25.3
100.0
Insecticide
96.5
20.0
125.0
49.8
37.0
62.3
Service providers used on average 10% less than the authorized herbicide dose for individual applications. For tank mixtures, they were on par with farmers. For fungicides, these levels were about 13 and 30% below the authorised rate, respectively. For insecticides, service providers used on average about 96% of the allowable amount for single applications and half of the authorized dose, if the insecticide was applied in tank mixture.
Overall, it was found that the maximum permissible amount was reduced much more frequently than it was exceeded (Table 3). Applications with underdosing are 68% due to farmers. Considering the type of pesticides, underdosing situations are typically reported for herbicide applications (72%), compared to 27% for fungicides and only 1.4% for insecticide uses.
Table 3
Deviations from the authorised application rate for various types of pesticides
  
Overdosing of application rate
Underdosing of application rate
Pesticide type
Total number of applications
Total number
% by farmers
% by service providers
Total number
% by farmers
% by service providers
Herbicide
1431
41
61.0
39.0
251
64.5
35.5
Fungicide
529
21
76.2
23.8
94
78.7
21.3
Insecticide
141
17
53.0
47.0
5
40.0
60.0
Plant Growth regulators
286
3
100.0
0.0
Total
2387
82
64.6
35.4
350
68.0
32.0
82 out of the documented 88 exceedances were included in further evaluations. Six non-compliances, all of them herbicides, were eliminated due to recording errors (the application in the listed form would obviously have led to a total failure of the crop). In detail, half of the exceedances were found for herbicides followed by fungicides and insecticides. Farmers were more often responsible for overdosing than service providers (Table 2).
Nine farmers and four service providers have not made any application overruns, ten persons (nine farmers, 1 service provider) exceeded one application rate during the entire survey period, while two farmers and two service providers each committed more than five exceedances (Fig. 2). Five persons (three farmers and two service providers) were responsible for nearly half (46.34%) of the 82 exceedings evaluated. The three farmers each managed farms with over 50 hectares of arable land.
The application rate was exceeded to varying degrees (Table 2). In the event of one exceedance, an application rate of 250% of the authorised application rate was determined. In about 40% of 82 cases, this exceedance was in the range of up to 10%, in 28% of the cases it was over 20% (Fig. 3). While applications with only a minor exceedance of the authorised application rate are mostly due to service providers, the situations with a clear overdosing are reported for farmers.
70% of farmers and 60% of service providers adapt their crop protection strategy to the annual climatic and economic conditions.
Regarding decision support tools, not just one but several sources were used. 50% of the farmers use the Austrian warning service (https://​warndienst.​lko.​at) for their decision making and 50% are guided by recommendations from regional consultants. Damage thresholds are only used by 40% of the farmers as a basis for decision-making.
Service providers are oriented to damage thresholds by 60% and use the Austrian warning service by 80%; furthermore, in 70% of the cases they take over the decision making for the farmer (Fig. 4).

Discussion

In this study we compared the practical pesticide management of farmers and service providers to explore potential advantages and disadvantages of crop protection product application by service providers and farmers, respectively. As mentioned above, for this comparison only a reduced survey group was available to collect data from farms with comparable management within a region. However, the group is comparable in its basic structure (climatic conditions, vegetation period, arable farming with cattle farming). The service providers invoice their services via the “Maschinenring”, which is one reason why the willingness to participate was very high. We cannot rule out the possibility of bias due to self-selection by farmers/service providers—however, the responses show that even obvious misbehaviour was not concealed. Weed management in winter wheat, winter barley and maize were done by all farmers and service providers by the application of herbicides, while insecticides and fungicides were used less frequently. This is in line with Herzog et al. (2006) and emphasizes the need for weed management to ensure yield. Our accompanying questionnaire (unpublished data) showed that all applications were performed with certified application equipment. Among the users, there were three farmers who did not have a valid certificate of competence. These users were in violation of applicable law, although one of the family members was in possession of a valid certificate. The application of pesticides without valid authorization in the respective crop could not be determined from the records.

Decision Making

Various options are available for decision-making. Half of the farmers get support in their decision-making either from regional advisors or professional colleagues. The forecast provided by the Austrian warning service (https://​warndienst.​lko.​at) is used by half of the farmers and 80% of the service providers. This is higher than reported from a study from northern Germany, showing that around 20% of farmers had experience with the use of forecasting models (Thiel et al. 2021). The reason for this could be the increased offer, easy access and the intensive advertising of this offer by the Austrian Chambers of Agriculture within the last decade. Our data do not show a clear trend as to whether smaller farms use less pesticides than larger ones, but indicate that fungicides and insecticides were less frequently used on smaller farms. It could be argued that larger farms generally use pesticides more intensively than smaller farms and generally use several different products. This has been shown e.g. in China for rice growing areas, with very different production conditions compared to Austria. Large-scale farmers were responsible for overdosing and high application frequency, while small-scale farmers tend to reduce the authorised dose and use pesticides less frequently (Shi-le and Xin-ye 2020). However, this is not confirmed by data from several European countries. Herzog et al. (2006) found no clear relationship between the number of pesticide applications and farm size. More detailed studies were conducted for specific farm types (arable, mixed, and cattle), but none of them showed a significant relationship between farm size and pesticide use, even when looking in more detail for individual countries or specific farm types (arable, mixed, and cattle). Altogether, we assume that regional conditions and individual decision-makers play the essential role in pesticide use.

Application Rates

EFSA prepares an annual report on the evaluation of pesticide residues in foodstuffs on the European market on the basis of European Union legislation (Article 32, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005). In 2021, 3.9% of samples were found to exceed the maximum residue limit (MLR), 3.9% (EFSA et al. 2023). Possible overruns are therefore a known risk. However, for our study, the data is subject to a confidentiality agreement on the handling of personal data. This was a basic prerequisite to obtain and collect the relevant information. In principle, however, this data is subject to a legal control system and exceeding the permitted application quantities would lead to a report in the event of an official inspection.
In general, application rates higher than the authorised dose are used for single product applications than for combinations, and herbicides are more often applied with reduced application rates than fungicides and insecticides, which is also consistent with the recommendations given by advisory services (Brandstetter et al. 2023). The costs of insecticides are comparatively low and high application rates are generally used to ensure successful effectiveness. Farmers in the smallest size group, i.e. < 15 ha of arable land, applied herbicides and fungicides less underdosed than larger farms. However, over- and underdosing of the authorised application rate were found in all user groups studied.
Overall, our study shows that the majority of pesticide applications complied with the authorised dose, with 88 out of 2387 applications (= 3.69%) exceeding the authorised dose. The highest percentage of violations occurred among “large” farms, while service providers and small farms (< 15 ha) were in the middle. The highest number of dose exceedances are due to herbicides, followed by fungicides and insecticides. Farmers are more prone to exceedances than service providers. Pesticides have to be applied according to the specifications as authorised and indicated in the Austrian pesticide register. Nevertheless, there are deviations which, according to our accompanying survey, can be attributed to unconsidered personal decisions and, in some cases, deliberate behaviour. The application rate excesses can be attributed to technical overruns due to differences between the formally declared area and the actually cultivated area. In addition, the authorisation of some pesticides varies depending on the plant species (e.g. different authorised application rates for wheat and barley) or the stage of development of the plants. These subtle differences are not apparent at first glance in the Austrian official pesticide register (BAES 2023) and could be overlooked. In future, a user app that is oriented to the immediate application requirements in practice could contribute here to improving appropriate pesticide application. However, these measures do not provide a solution for deliberate overruns, e.g. to compensate for reduction effects, to avoid residual quantities or to set up individual tests. There are indications that this is being considered for some insecticides, as lower efficiencies have already been observed in practice in individual cases. In addition, in case of inexpensive products, users may be more tempted to increase application rates beyond the legally legitimate limits.
For our study, we cannot rule out the possibility of bias. However, the data on the plant protection products used came from the records for professional users in accordance with the EU Regulation on plant protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009). Every farmer must record each pesticide application, present it in case of official controls and keep it for a minimum of 4 years. More precise data are currently not available. In addition, the interviewer was characterised by a high level of expertise, which made it possible to clarify any ambiguities.

Resistance Management

A sufficient change of active substance group is crucial for a successful resistance management. This was evaluated individually for each crop species and each pesticide for the years of use recorded. Our data show that resistance management needs to be improved for herbicides in all user groups, but is working well for fungicides and insecticides. However, on the basis of the specified criteria, in our study the users often reduce the application rate, which promotes the development of resistance (Jutsum et al. 1998; Mehl and Stenzel 2008). However, since significantly higher amounts are permitted for herbicides than are necessary for a correspondingly successful effect, it cannot automatically be assumed that applications enhance resistance.
Application rate reductions did not play a role in insecticides. In the case of fungicides, these are most likely to be reduced by farmers, possibly for cost reasons. Service providers do not bear the costs of the pesticides and are therefore generally less likely to reduce the application rates.
The missing resistance management by some smaller farmers might be partially related to unsuitable, i.e. too large, packaging units of the pesticides for this farm size. Due to the often remaining residual quantities, these products are used for several years, which precludes a change of the active substance group. In the case of herbicides, there is currently a sufficient number of different active ingredients on the market so that resistance management could be easily implemented by changing the active ingredient group. Even though we found only a lack in insecticide resistance management for one service provider, the frequent use of insecticides should generally be questioned. Damage threshold values were considered overall by less than half of all users. Thus, the data suggests that insecticides partly are used together with fungicides only for safety, which is favored by the low costs, without any necessity.
Our questionnaire indicates that smaller farms and part-time farmers in particular outsource crop protection to service providers for economic reasons and use pesticides less intensively. There is an increasing demand for outsourcing to service providers, which, however, cannot be met by the Maschinenring (Braun, pers. Comm.). Capacity bottlenecks and the narrow time window for the use of pesticides were identified as limiting factors for plant protection service providers (Vorbach et al. 2007).
In the average application rates used by farmers and service providers, differences could only be determined for insecticides. However, these higher average application rates for insecticides by farmers are based on the fact that farmers at the largest farm level often exceeded the application rates for these. The overdosing of herbicides and fungicides by farmers of the smallest farm size level can be attributed, among other things, to the attempt to achieve a reliable effect with just one application and to the avoidance of residual quantities.

Conclusion

In our study, most pesticides were used in accordance with the authorisation, but there is still potential for improvement. Service providers can facilitate or relieve farmers of crop protection work, but this does not rule out application errors. However, a high level of professionalism in this work is also achieved by the farmers themselves. Based on the results, the priority for action is when the maximum permitted application rate is exceeded. Minor overdosings often occur due to technical overlaps. Tolerance limits that consider technical field application aspects would be required here. Larger overlaps that are not due to technical overlaps represent an ecological, economic and socio-political problem. To avoid inadequate information on permitted application rates and to simplify information gathering, digitization will be of great benefit. The development of databases and apps that take into account not only the indisputably essential aspect of correct registration, but especially the user-friendliness, would be of great benefit and value. The essential information must be presented in an easy-to-understand, easily accessible, target group-oriented form.
Packaging sizes adapted to different requirements and farm sizes would also be advantageous. Overruns due to other intentions can only be achieved through targeted training, information campaigns and higher quality controls. The technical advice is provided by official advisory bodies. The sales staff for pesticides also have the task of providing expert advice and information. Therefore, very high priority should be given to the technical training of this group of people. In the training of users and sales personnel, sufficient attention should be paid to the aspect of active ingredient alternation for successful resistance management. This can contribute to higher professionalism in the use of pesticides in terms of compliance and resistance management, but also to the reduction of pesticides.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all farmers and service providers for their openness and for providing the data.

Funding

This work is part of the Austrian Maschinenring Cluster to promote agricultural cooperation, project socially acceptable and production-oriented plant protection, funded by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Regions and Water Management.

Conflict of interest

R. Braun is employed by Maschinenring Oberösterreich as an agricultural/member support. A. Heinzl was not employed by Maschinenring Oberösterreich at the time the study was conducted; he was only employed after completing his studies. H. Köppl, S. Pöchtrager and S. Steinkellner declare that they have no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Baumgartner J (1987) Der Bezirk Grieskirchen. In: Lehr R (ed) LandesChronik Oberösterreich, 1st edn. Wien, pp 30–31 Baumgartner J (1987) Der Bezirk Grieskirchen. In: Lehr R (ed) LandesChronik Oberösterreich, 1st edn. Wien, pp 30–31
Zurück zum Zitat Börner H, Schlüter K, Aumann J (2009) Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 8th edn. Berlin, pp 489–490CrossRef Börner H, Schlüter K, Aumann J (2009) Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, 8th edn. Berlin, pp 489–490CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Brandstetter A, Kamptner A, Emsenhuber C, Schally H, Muck-Arthaber J, Köppl H, Greiml C (2023) Feldbauratgeber – Frühjahrsanbau 2023. LFI Niederösterreich, St. Pölten Brandstetter A, Kamptner A, Emsenhuber C, Schally H, Muck-Arthaber J, Köppl H, Greiml C (2023) Feldbauratgeber – Frühjahrsanbau 2023. LFI Niederösterreich, St. Pölten
Zurück zum Zitat Feike T, Frei M, Germeier C, Herrmann A, Hülsbergen KJ, Kaul HP, Komainda M, Kottmann L, Möller K, Nendel C, Pasda G, Pekrun C, Seidel S, Stützel H, Wrage-Mönnig N (2022) Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Strategiediskurs für einen nachhaltigen Pflanzenbau. Bodenkultur 73:153–192 Feike T, Frei M, Germeier C, Herrmann A, Hülsbergen KJ, Kaul HP, Komainda M, Kottmann L, Möller K, Nendel C, Pasda G, Pekrun C, Seidel S, Stützel H, Wrage-Mönnig N (2022) Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen zum Strategiediskurs für einen nachhaltigen Pflanzenbau. Bodenkultur 73:153–192
Zurück zum Zitat Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukácek R, De Blust G, De Cock R, Dirksen J, Dormann CF, De Filippi R, Frossard E, Liira J, Schmidt T, Stöckli R, Thenail C, van Wingerden W, Bugter R (2006) Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale. Eur J Agron 24:165–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.07.006CrossRef Herzog F, Steiner B, Bailey D, Baudry J, Billeter R, Bukácek R, De Blust G, De Cock R, Dirksen J, Dormann CF, De Filippi R, Frossard E, Liira J, Schmidt T, Stöckli R, Thenail C, van Wingerden W, Bugter R (2006) Assessing the intensity of temperate European agriculture at the landscape scale. Eur J Agron 24:165–181. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​eja.​2005.​07.​006CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jutsum AR, Heaney SP, Perrin BM, Wege PJ (1998) Pesticide resistance: assessment of risk and the development and implementation of effective management strategies. Pestic Sci 54:435–446CrossRef Jutsum AR, Heaney SP, Perrin BM, Wege PJ (1998) Pesticide resistance: assessment of risk and the development and implementation of effective management strategies. Pestic Sci 54:435–446CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kimberger A (1987) Der Bezirk Schärding. In: Lehr R (ed) Landeschronik Oberösterreich, 1st edn. Wien, pp 18–19 Kimberger A (1987) Der Bezirk Schärding. In: Lehr R (ed) Landeschronik Oberösterreich, 1st edn. Wien, pp 18–19
Zurück zum Zitat Mehl A, Stenzel K (2008in) Resistenzmanagement zur Erhaltung der Wirksamkeit von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Praxis – am Beispiel der Fungizide. In: Von Tiedemann A, Heitefuss R, Feldmann F (eds) Pflanzenproduktion im Wandel – Wandel im Pflanzenschutz: Themenschwerpunkt 56. Deutsche Pflanzenschutztagung 2008, Kiel. DPG Selbstverlag, Braunschweig, pp 122–137 Mehl A, Stenzel K (2008in) Resistenzmanagement zur Erhaltung der Wirksamkeit von Pflanzenschutzmitteln in der Praxis – am Beispiel der Fungizide. In: Von Tiedemann A, Heitefuss R, Feldmann F (eds) Pflanzenproduktion im Wandel – Wandel im Pflanzenschutz: Themenschwerpunkt 56. Deutsche Pflanzenschutztagung 2008, Kiel. DPG Selbstverlag, Braunschweig, pp 122–137
Zurück zum Zitat Meyer R (2018) Pflanzenschutz und moderne Agrartechnologien in der Gesellschaft: Ebenen kontroverser Debatten. In: Dachverband Agrarforschung e. V. (ed) Zukunft des Pflanzenschutzes Wissenschaftliche Tagung des Dachverbandes Agrarforschung, Berlin, 5 Oct 2017 DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 74–85 Meyer R (2018) Pflanzenschutz und moderne Agrartechnologien in der Gesellschaft: Ebenen kontroverser Debatten. In: Dachverband Agrarforschung e. V. (ed) Zukunft des Pflanzenschutzes Wissenschaftliche Tagung des Dachverbandes Agrarforschung, Berlin, 5 Oct 2017 DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt, pp 74–85
Zurück zum Zitat Popp J, Pető K, Nagy J (2013) Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:243–255CrossRef Popp J, Pető K, Nagy J (2013) Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 33:243–255CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schirmer D (2009) Empirische Methoden der Sozialforschung – Grundlagen und Techniken. UTB, Paderborn, p 114CrossRef Schirmer D (2009) Empirische Methoden der Sozialforschung – Grundlagen und Techniken. UTB, Paderborn, p 114CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shi-le Q, Xin-ye L (2020) Do large-scale farmers use more pesticides? Empirical evidence from rice farmers in five Chinese provinces. J Integr Agr 19:590–599CrossRef Shi-le Q, Xin-ye L (2020) Do large-scale farmers use more pesticides? Empirical evidence from rice farmers in five Chinese provinces. J Integr Agr 19:590–599CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Szöcs E, Brinke M, Karaoglan B, Schäfer RB (2017) Large scale risks from agricultural pesticides in small streams. Environ Sci Technol 51:7378–7385CrossRefPubMed Szöcs E, Brinke M, Karaoglan B, Schäfer RB (2017) Large scale risks from agricultural pesticides in small streams. Environ Sci Technol 51:7378–7385CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Thiel L, Mergenthaler M, Haberlah-Korr V (2021) Wahrgenommene Umsetzung des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes bei landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in Nordwestdeutschland. Gesunde Pflanz 73:119–134CrossRef Thiel L, Mergenthaler M, Haberlah-Korr V (2021) Wahrgenommene Umsetzung des integrierten Pflanzenschutzes bei landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben in Nordwestdeutschland. Gesunde Pflanz 73:119–134CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Vorbach S, Streberl H, Perl E, Flesch S, Jerlich F, Klage M, Mert W (2007) Serplant Pro Dienstleistung Pflanzenschutz. Ein Konzept zur Verbreitung in der Landwirtschaft. In: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (ed) Berichte aus der Energie- und Umweltforschung 39a/2007 Vorbach S, Streberl H, Perl E, Flesch S, Jerlich F, Klage M, Mert W (2007) Serplant Pro Dienstleistung Pflanzenschutz. Ein Konzept zur Verbreitung in der Landwirtschaft. In: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie (ed) Berichte aus der Energie- und Umweltforschung 39a/2007
Zurück zum Zitat WHO (2020) The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019th edn. WHO, Geneva WHO (2020) The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019th edn. WHO, Geneva
Zurück zum Zitat Wijewardene L, Wu N, Qu Y, Guo K, Messyasz B, Lorenz S, Riis T, Ulrich U, Fohrer N (2021) Influences of pesticides, nutrients, and local environmental variables on phytoplankton communities in lentic small water bodies in a German lowland agricultural area. Sci Total Environ 780:146481CrossRefPubMed Wijewardene L, Wu N, Qu Y, Guo K, Messyasz B, Lorenz S, Riis T, Ulrich U, Fohrer N (2021) Influences of pesticides, nutrients, and local environmental variables on phytoplankton communities in lentic small water bodies in a German lowland agricultural area. Sci Total Environ 780:146481CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Differences Between Farmers and Crop Protection Service Providers in the Use of Pesticides
verfasst von
Andreas Heinzl
Roman Braun
Hubert Köppl
Siegfried Pöchtrager
Siegrid Steinkellner
Publikationsdatum
12.03.2024
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Journal of Crop Health / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 2948-264X
Elektronische ISSN: 2948-2658
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-024-00978-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

Journal of Crop Health 3/2024 Zur Ausgabe