Our Head of Environmental Fate and Behaviour, Dr David Brown, reports back from this interesting Fresenius conference on digital agriculture and precision farming.
The conference provided an opportunity for industry, regulators, and research organisations from across Europe to discuss the regulatory and scientific aspects of precision application in farming. This was a suitable moment to reflect on the development of precision spraying applications and how their use can be assessed within the regulatory frameworks of Europe.
Precision applications are already available.
Much of the conference focused on the consequences of using precision spraying techniques in the field. Precision spraying comes in a range of techniques but ultimately, these methods are used to reduce the dose or effects of plant protection product (PPP) applications on fields whilst maintaining effectiveness. As was repeated on several occasions during the conference, precision applications allows PPP to be used “as much as needed, but little as possible”.
Precision spraying techniques have been around for years and there are many examples of their use in farming (think optimised nozzles to direct spray or band spraying of planted rows only). More recently, these methods have been further developed to incorporate digital tools and intelligent weed detection to allow for spot applications in the field and, hence, further PPP use reductions. Much of the development has and will focus on the use of precision spraying for herbicides but there is some indication that these techniques can be used with fungicides and insecticides. However, precision uses with these classes of PPP will be more difficult for several reasons (i.e., more difficult to detect the presence of disease/insect infestation).
Examples of precision application categories.
Regulatory framework needs to catch up.
Regulatory frameworks to assess the risks of PPP in the EU and UK are generally premised on broadcast spraying (i.e. treatment of the whole field). All aspects of this type of spray application are well understood and assessing the potential risks to humans and the environment is considered routine. Although regulators within the EU and the UK are open to the use of precision techniques, their authorisation, in some instances, requires a better understanding of risk. For example, a technique that reduces PPP application/dose may have a positive or negative influence on risk depending where and how the PPP is applied on the field.
Work to address these regulatory concerns is being managed in part by the European Precision Application Task Force (EUPAF) and through projects by individual country regulators. For example, regulators in the UK (HSE) have funded work to assess how precision spraying methods can be incorporated into the regulatory risk assessment frameworks used in the UK. This UK project, which includes a major contribution by CEA, is seeking to understand the effects of precision spraying on exposure to terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Many more similar projects are planned or are currently running with a view to plug the knowledge gaps around the exposure and potential risks of precision spraying and reduce uncertainty.
Regulators are open to the use of precision spraying methods for products that are already authorised. However, agreement on how precision agriculture equipment use instructions need to be captured in the GAP and label needs to be arrived at. The development of digital labels is considered a good way to improve communication of application instructions and increase regulatory compliance by ensuring accurate records of spray applications are maintained.
Concluding thoughts.
There is much to like about precision agriculture, and it is currently an exciting field to be involved in. Reducing PPP inputs whilst maintaining their effectiveness can help ensure protection of human health and the environment and move towards a more sustainable future in agriculture. It would allow a wider diversity of products to remain on the market, which reduces the risks of resistance developing. Although several precision spraying methods are permissible under current regulatory rules, knowledge gaps need to be addressed in order to really unlock their potential. It is likely that a significant amount of effort will be spent tackling these gaps in the coming years. Other uncertainties, such as who will pay for the conversion of spraying equipment on farms, also need to be dealt with. The European Commission emphasised this and suggested their preference was for currently available equipment to be retrofitted. Expect to see many further regulatory and technology developments in this area in the coming months and years.
If you would like to learn more about precision agriculture or how these techniques can impact regulatory risk assessment, please feel free to contact us directly.
Enjoyed this article? Avoid missing out on our future news articles by signing up – you can select which topics you are interested in and can unsubscribe at any time.