Integrated pest management and the future of farming

Integrated Pest Management
and the future of farming
Protocol
• Due to the number of people registered all participants will be muted.
• After testing your speakers, please do remember to connect your audio by using the “Join Audio”
icon at the bottom left of the screen or dial in via phone using the number provided in the joining
instructions.
• If you have any technical problems, please use the chat to seek advice from the host
• Please use the Q&A box to type in your questions to the presenters during or after the
presentation (do not use this for technical problems).
PLEASE NOTE – THE WEBINAR IS BEING RECORDED
The recording will be made available after the event.
The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.

Simon Baty – KTM Food
simon.baty@ktn-uk.org
Kaeli Johnson – KTM AgriFood (Plants & Crops)
kaeli.johnson@ktn-uk.org
David Telford – Head of AgriFood
david.telford@ktn-uk.org
Pedro Carvalho – KTM AgriFood (Plants & Crops)
pedro.carvalho@ktn-uk.org
The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.
#InnovationIPM
Meg Lewis – Research Partnerships Manager
megan.lewis@sheffield.ac.uk

Agenda
09.30 – 09.40 Welcome and introduction – Kaeli Johnson
09.40 – 10.30 Session 1 – Martin Clough, Toby Bruce, Roma Gwynn, David George
10.30 – 10.45 Panel Session 1 – Q&A
10.45 – 11.05 BREAK
11.05 – 11.55 Session 2 – Jenna Ross, Jurriaan Ton, Paul Neve, Andrew McLay
11.55 – 12.10 Panel Session 2 – Q&A
12.10 – 12.25 Interactive Session – Mentimeter
12.25 – 12.30 Closing remarks – Kaeli Johnson The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.

https://integrated-pest-management-future-farming.meeting-mojo.com
• Networking through online messaging and/or 1:1 virtual meetings
• Upload profile, search profiles and book video chat meetings
• Meeting slots are available from 1pm - 5pm today.
The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.
Register at the break – may take a few minutes!
Meeting MoJo

KTN
Build connections. Drive Innovation.

https://ktn-uk.co.uk/interests/agri-food

10/06/2020 © The University of Sheffield
• Led by Co-Directors Prof Duncan Cameron and Prof Peter Jackson
• How do we feed nearly 10bn people sustainably by 2050?
• Over 100 academic groups; over £11m of investment in facilities
and staff
• Transdisciplinary, challenge focused
• Network of >80 external partners including Syngenta, KWS SAAT,
AHDB, Defra, UNHCR, Enza Zaden, ADAS, KTN
• https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/sustainable-food

2016 – Innovation in soil-free growing
2017 – Managing and improving soil health
2018 – Driving engagement, innovation and impact in plant science
2019 – Supporting early adoption of agri-tech innovation
The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.
5th Annual Joint Event – Plant Sector

The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.
IPM and the future of farming
KTN Plant Sector Advisory Board report
UN International Year of Plant Health (2020)
Defra update: “The future of food, farming and the
environment”
European Commission Farm to Fork Strategy

Challenges and
opportunities in
protecting harvests
from pests
Prof Toby Bruce
Keele University

Intensified agriculture is
more dependent on crop
protection
Lush monocultures of high yielding
varieties grown with fertiliser and
irrigation are often more susceptible to
pests

Bruce (2016) Food and Energy Security 80: 89-96

Difficulties faced by farmers can
be seen on a smaller scale in
your garden

Bruce (2012) J. Exp. Bot. 63:537-541

Opportunity 1:
resistant varieties

Orange wheat blossom midge
• varies from year to
year
• was difficult to decide
in time which fields
needed treating
• difficult to control with
insecticide

• Females lay eggs, but
larvae die when they start
to feed
• A wound plug is formed at
the feeding site due to
lignification
Resistant varieties

Oakley et al 2005 HGCA Project Report No. 363
Resistance found in ‘Welford’ - 2004
Now approx. 60% of UK wheat is resistant
Damagescore

Yellow rust on wheat OWBM resistant cultivar (Robigus)
Need for multiple resistance

Monitoring systems
• often impossible to decide
in time which fields need
treating
• sex pheromone traps:
• provide a solution to the
detection problem
• enable more accurate and
effective spray timing
OCOC3H7
OCOC3H7

Blight resistant
potato
No pesticide needed10 fungicide sprays
to protect
(image courtesy of
Jonathan Jones, The
Sainsbury Laboratory)

Resistant crop
varieties
Potentially a major route by which crop
protection could be improved
Currently limited by the time taken to
breed appropriate traits into elite crop
varieties
Could be much faster
using GM technology
cleaner and more
precise than generating
mutants by irradiation
If based on multiple traits would be less
likely to break down by evolution of
resistant pest biotypes

Opportunity 2:
biological control

Biological control of pests -
either by release in glasshouses
or encouraging natural
populations outside.

Biocontrol
• Proven success in greenhouses with artificial release
• Conservation biocontrol strategies needed in
outdoor cropping environments
• Growth rate and arrival rate slower than pests
• Can arrival be speeded up?

Conservation biocontrol
- preserving what is already out there

significantly longer time spent on
induced plants
0
5
10
15
20
25
Treated Control
min
O
Aphidius ervi foraging on cis-Jasmone treated wheat

• Conclusion
Innovation in crop protection is very much needed as conventional pesticides are
lost to resistance or banned

***go to 'Insert' tab and then 'Header & Footer' to add twitter
and hashtag***
Better regulation for new biological technologies in agriculture
Roma L Gwynn rgwynn@biorationale.co.uk

and hashtag***
Food security
30 40 % crops
lost before harvest
>10 %
after harvest
Biological technologies
increasingly
the
mainstay of
sustainable
crop protection
To meet the challenges
we need
Be Prac ice
crop protection
Crop protection problem

and hashtag***
Global market
Increased
Over
300% *
2008-2018
Bioprotectanst
Global market 2019
value
over
$6 billion*
Increase
Biological solutions - global markets
* DunhamTrimmer, 2018
CAGR estimated at 20-24%

and hashtag***
Bioprotectants – biological technologies
Macroorganisms Botanicals Semio-chemicalsMicroorganisms
Biological technologies have multiple modes of action against pests and interactions with plants

and hashtag***
Plant colonising microorganisms
Plant colonising microbials are common – no plant is microbial free
Plant colonising microbials will affect plant physiology
Interactions operate at multiple levels
Source: Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology 2017

and hashtag***
Multi-trophic interactions for crop protection

and hashtag***
IPM in practice
Compared to nature, cropping
systems are less stable.
Often populations of the naturally
occurring organisms are too
small or develop too late to
prevent plant damage.
Management intervention
needed
Biological solutions can be
harnessed in agriculture by:
Conservation
Introduction
Augmentation

and hashtag***
Agronomic practice
Monitoring and forecasting
Physical and natural interventions
Biological interventions
Chemical interventions
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
EU Sustainable Use
Directive 2009/128/EC :
IPM compulsory since
2014
IPM promoted for
decades

and hashtag***
The problem with monocultures
“Ecosystem services are the
many and varied benefits
that humans freely gain from
the natural environment and
from properly-functioning
ecosystems .
In the context of pest control,
pathogens and other natural
enemies are ecosystem
services, as they contribute
to a health functioning
ecosystem.

and hashtag***www.crophealthnorth.co.uk
Biological technology for disease and pest control:
a farmer led study
(EIP-AGRI funded)

and hashtag***
The EIP-AGRI Project 3 year project
Can we reduce our dependence on conventional chemical fungicides and insecticides in wheat
production using biological technologies ?
www.crophealthnorth.co.uk

and hashtag***
Ecosystem services

and hashtag***
Bioprotectants – provide ecosystem services?

and hashtag***
EU Regulatory groupings for plant protection products
Basic substances PPP
Out of scope
Natural enemies
Entomopathogenic nematodes
Root symbionts
Registered EU PPP
(EC 1107/2009)
Conventional chemicals
Microorganism
Semio-chemicals
Botanicals
Biorationals
Biostimulants
New regulation: CE fertiliser mark
Microbial or botanical biostimulant
= abiotic effects only
Some microorganisms exempted
Low Risk PPP

and hashtag***
EU bioprotectant* PPP - active substances
EU active substances (updated February 2019)*
* Definition of bioprotectant PPP not fixed so approximate numbers only
Total all PPP = 493
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Insect Fungi Weeds Nematodes Other
Micro-organism Bt Micro-organism non-Bt Botanical Semio-chemical Other
Approved PPP
> 30% approved PPP
= biological technologies
Since early 2016 more new
applications for PPP are
biological technologies than
conventional chemicals

and hashtag***
Registration timeline
Submit dossier
Active substanceYear
0
1
2
3
4
5
EU vote - Approval
Peer review - EFSA
Assess dossier - DAR
Product approval
Zonal assessment
Submit dossier
Products - zonal Products - Low risk
Submit dossier
Zonal assessment
Product approval

and hashtag***
Biological technology specific regulation
0
5
10
15
20
NL SE FR DK DE EE IT BE ES HU AT PL SI UK
Number
EU country
RMS for microbial active substances
approvals
Good regulatory practice:
1. Dedicated biological technology regulators
2. Clear pre-submission and submission process
3. Provide a high-level framework for the principle that
data are excluded e cept when
4. Trusted partnerships
5. Harmonisation of evaluations
6. Reciprocity of evaluations between regulatory agencies
7. Reciprocity/extrapolation for efficacy data

and hashtag***
Biological technology challenge to understand and use their complexity
soil ecology, plant ecology, landscape ecology, biology, microbiology, genetics, microbial
ecology, population biology, plant physiology, population modelling, landscape modelling,
pop lation ecolog , engineering, digital technolog , etc.
and maybe, sometimes, even chemistry

and hashtag***
Thank you for your attention
www.biorationale.co.uk rgwynn@biorationale.co.uk

David George
Newcastle University

Opportunities to realise IPM
benefits from environmental
enrichment in and around
crop fields
David George, Newcastle University

Pollinatormix
Biocontrolmix
Combination
Campbell, Biesmeijer Varma & Wäckers, 2012. Basic &
Applied Ecology 13: 363-370
Environmental enrichment can promote
biocontrol and IPM, but needs to be
carefully designed for best overall returns

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
5m 50m 95m
Meanaphids/parasitism
Distance from flowering field margin
Aphids per
plot

Q & A
Please submit questions
through the Q&A box
(NOT the Chat)

BREAK
Please return promptly for 11.05am
Register for Meeting MoJo
https://integrated-pest-management-future-farming.meeting-mojo.com
• Networking through online messaging and/or 1:1 virtual meetings
• Upload profile, search profiles and book video chat meetings
• Meeting slots are available from 1pm - 5pm today.

ACCE Step by Step Partnership Building
‘Adapting to the Challenges of a Changing Environment’ (ACCE)
The ACCE initiative will be funding collaborative PhD projects within the
areas of:
Pests on the horizon
Managing soils sustainably
Nature’s contribution to quality of life
We want to work with partners from across this sector. To find out more go
to: acce.shef.ac.uk/partners/
Or email Jesamine.Hughes@sheffield.ac.uk after the webinar today.

Session 2: Current
innovations and future
opportunities

Innovations in Industry: Perspectives from CHAP
Dr Jenna Ross
KTN - Integrated Pest Management and the Future of Farming
9th June 2020

System based approach:
What is Integrated Pest Management (IPM)?
Agronomic practices
and cultural control
Monitoring, record keeping,
forecasting
Physical control
Biological control
Chemical control
Prevention
Intervention

• Loss of actives
• Resistance
• Residue levels
• Concerns over impact on
the environment, non-
target organisms and
human health
• Sustainable Use Directive
• Agricultural Bill public
good
What are the drivers behind IPM?

IPM Triangle Opportunities for Innovation
Agronomic practices
Monitoring, record keeping,
forecasting
Physical control
Biological control
Chemical control

Agri-Tech Centres of Agricultural Innovation

National CHAP Network
Non-delivery Partners:
Delivery Partners:

Phenotyping and Soil Health Facility
• Improve our understanding of soil
management to improve soil health.
• Unique combination of soil, crop and
water research.
• Weather independent
• Above and below ground phenotyping.
• Glasshouse facilities are fully integrated
with Agri-EPI phenotyping platform.

Tillage, cultivation
and drilling
Growth and
monitoring
Impact of soil
erosion and rainfall
Plants grown
to maturity
and
harvested
Soil
preparation

Field Scale Precision Equipment
• The strip-till allows trials to
investigate IPM approaches
considered to benefit crop and
soil health.
• Cover crops in no-till/min-till
• Flowering strips to support
beneficial arthropods
• Investigate use of companion
crops to attract or deter pests

Fine Phenotyping Lab
• Cutting-edge imaging equipment:
– PhenoCenter
– VideometerLab
– XIMEA xiSpec equipment.
• Automate the scoring of plant responses to
pathogens, pests and weeds.
• Controlled environment chambers for plant
growth and disease assays.
• Managed by our full-time scientist, Dr Tom
Ashfield.

• Capabilities and equipment include:
– SpectraMax i3X Plate Reader: Measures absorbance, luminescence and
fluorescence of cells and microbes.
– DNA/RNA sequencing: Illumina MiSeq and Qiagen Q48 Pyrosequencer.
– Gene expression analysis: Life Technologies Quantstudio 6 qPCR machine.
– High-resolution capillary electrophoresis: Qiagen QIAxcel. Can identify
minute differences in the size of a gene (3-5 bp)
Molecular Diagnostic Lab

• Mobile laboratories with on-board
state-of-the-art equipment
• Sample collection and testing
• Development of new diagnostic
testing facilities
• Environmental monitoring
• Soil health monitoring
Mobile Crop Science Labs

• CHAP have supplied 180 Android tablets, including licensed software, to host online/offline
crop health info.
• Extension workers in 5 countries trained to provide crop health support and collect records
on plant pest and diseases.
• Thousands of clinic records collected.
International Pest Horizon Scanning

• Sophisticated tool for surveillance forecasting and diagnostics to support decision making in the
field.
• Predicts the risk posed by a range of pests and diseases as evidence for the need to spray, with
timing based on current and predicted crop growth stages.
• Hourly weather data from the Met Office at a 2 km resolution.
• The CropMonitor Pro modules for winter wheat, oilseed rape and potato.
CropMonitor Pro

IPM Triangle Opportunities for Innovation
Agronomic practices
Monitoring, threshold levels,
record keeping, forecasting
Physical control
Biological control
Chemical control

Fungal Biopesticide Development Lab
• Testing and screening for potential new fungal
biopesticides.
• Mass production and formulation studies to
determine whether they are commercially
viable.
• Application can be tested using computer-
controlled spraying apparatus.

MALDI-TOF-MS / Cryo facilities
• MALDI-TOF MS (Matrix-
assisted laser-
desorption and
ionization time-of-flight
mass spectroscopy).
• MALDI-TOF-MS can be
used to characterise
finge p in diffe en
species and strains, as
they each produces a
unique spectral image.
• Statebourne cryo
storage facility

• Purpose built glasshouse at Stockbridge
Technology Centre
• Testing of potential new fungal
biopesticides.
• Separate large bays prevent cross
contamination
• Includes deep water hydroponic tanks
Advanced Glasshouse facility

• Cost effective replacement of glass with ethylene
tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), a material that allows full
UV penetration. Novel method for EFTE film
placement, with Venlo roof system.
• RIPE will focus on new and emerging technologies for
controlled environments
• Optimising growing conditions
• Substrates and irrigation
Natural Light Growing (NLG) Centre

• Two identical growth rooms each with
full climate control (temperature,
relative humidity, CO2).
• Each growth rooms contains 140m2 of
LED lit cropping area (five tiers).
• Fully recirculating hydroponics system.
• Optimise light wavelengths and
intensities
• Test bed for technologies
Vertical Farming Development Centre

• IHCEA demonstration site for
development, testing and research
into next-generation technologies to
improve the cultivation of indoor and
protected crops.
• 30m2 growing area featuring 3
different hydroponic systems
– Ebb & Flood
– Nutrient Film Technique (NFT)
– Deep water
Innovation Hub for Controlled Environment Agriculture (IHCEA)

Innovation Opportunities for IPM
• Identifying best use of rotations, cover crops,
flowering strips, companions crops etc.
• Soil health
• Remote sensing and automated diagnostics for pests
and diseases
• Robotic systems (monitoring, precision treatment,
weeding, sowing)
• Decision support systems for IPM
• Forecasting for a variety of crop types
• Demonstrator to test IPM systems / mixtures
• Fine phenotyping to fast track biologicals screening
• Improved mass production, formulation, application,
shelf life and water usage of biologicals

W Chap-solutions.co.uk
@CHAP_enquiries
Connect on LinkedIn
Find us on Facebook
Thank you
jenna.ross@chap-solutions.co.uk

Jurriaan Ton
University of Sheffield

IPM and
the pros & cons
of priming agents
Jurriaan Ton

• easy to select for by crop breeders
• not durable
• narrow range of effectivenes
• very strong resistance
resistance
F
Disease resistance in plants
• difficult to select by crop breeders
• very durable
• broad range of effectiveness
• relatively weak and not completely effective
resistance
F
quantitative disease resistance qualitative disease resistance

F
resistance
primed disease resistance
• does not require cumbersome breeding
• very durable
• more effective, but not always 100%
• can have negative side effects
Priming agents
Priming agents increase quantitative disease resistance
• difficult to select by crop breeders
• very durable
• relatively weak and not completely effective
resistance
F
quantitative disease resistance

Ahmad et al. & Ton (2010) Mol Plant Pathol 11: 817
Heil & Ton (2008) Trends Plant Sci 13: 264
Wilkinson et al. & Ton (2019) Annual Rev Phytopathol 57:505-529
defenceactivity
time
priming
stimulus
herbivores
pathogens
rhizobacteria
Priming: a form of immunological memory in plants
pathogen
attack
primed
un-primed

Ahmad et al. & Ton (2010) Mol Plant Pathol 11: 817
Heil & Ton (2008) Trends Plant Sci 13: 264
Wilkinson et al. & Ton (2019) Annual Rev Phytopathol 57:505-529
defenceactivity
time
priming
stimulus
Priming chemicals
pathogen
attack
primed
un-primed
Priming: a form of immunological memory in plants

IBI1IBI1
substrate
accumulation
tRNAasp
augmented
defence
plant
stress
R-BABA
primed
defence
SA
pathogen attack
ABA
GCN2-induced
inhibition of
translation
IBI1IBI1
control
1.5 mM
BABA
0.1 mM
BABA
control
broad induced spectrum resistance
Luna et al., & Ton (2014), Nature Biol Chem, 10: 450
plant growth reduction
Schwarzenbacher et al., & Ton (2020), Mol Plant, accepted
BABA: a broad-spectrum priming agent with a nasty side effect
Luna et al. & Ton (2016) Plant Dis 100: 707-710.

Jakab et al. (2001) Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2001: 107: 29-37
14C
BABA is systemically taken up by the plant but not metabolised

- Ecd = 50.36 kcal.mol-1
L-Asp
R-BABA
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
0 0.5 1 1.5
R/S-β-heptanoic
acid
β-alanine
R/S-β-pentanoic
acid
R-β-homoserine
S-β-homoserine
S-threo-β-methyl-asp
Buswell et al. & Ton (2018) New Phytol 218: 1205-1216
Screen for structural and functional analgues of BABA

R-
BABA
RGR(g.g.-1.d-1)
R-β-homoserine (RBH)
0
10
20
0
10
20
0 0.05 0.15 0.5 1.5 (mM)
RGR(g.g.-1.d-1)
GROWTH
0 0.05 0.15 0.5 1.5 (mM)
RESISTANCE
RBH: a plant priming agent with fewer side-effects

0
0.3
0.6
0.9
0
3
6
9
Lesiondiameter…
*
RGR(cm.cm-1.d-1)
water 0.5 mM
water 0.5 mM
R-β-homoserine (RBH)
RBH: a plant priming agent with fewer side-effects

• Chemical priming agents induce durable disease resistance against commercially relevant diseases
• Chemical priming agents can have side effects, form chemical residues and are not always completely
effective
• Fundamental research is needed to understand the genetic and biochemical basis of priming
• Future translational research should be focused on:
> formulation and delivery of the agents (hydroponics, seed coatings, etc.)
> breeding for compatible crop varieties
> integration with other crop protection measures (IPM)
What is the future of priming agents?

Prevent, Detect, Control: Putting the
“I” in IPM.
Paul Neve, Head of Crop Health and IPM
Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board

Integrated Pest Management: Why now?
• Loss of plant protection products
• Rising levels of resistance
• Environmental concerns
• Consumer pressure
• Slowing innovation pipeline
• Policy drivers
• 25 year Environment plan, Agriculture Bill, ‘public
money for public goods’, ‘polluter pays’,
Sustainable Use Directive, National Action Plan
for pesticides
• Climate change, Net zero, soil health

The need for innovation in crop protection is clear
How do we move IPM forward?

We have reached and passed ‘peak pesticide’
Pesticides are a critical component of IPM
We need to embrace the opportunities presented
by IPM
New genetic, biological, engineering & agronomic
solutions are critical, but IPM is about more than
alternatives to pesticides.

IPM as a way of thinking and acting
is a coordinated strategy to
prevent, detect and control
crops pests, weeds and
diseases to optimise yield and
reduce environmental impacts.

Ploughing Delayed
autumn
sowing
Competitive
cultivars
Spring crops Sowing rate Grass ley /
fallow break
69%
-82 to 96%
31%
-64 to 97%
22%
8 to 45%
88%
78 to 96%
26%
7 to 63%
70%
Lutman et al.,
IPM is complicated, costly, time-consuming, risky and site-specific

Using farm data to support and inform IPM decision-making
Evidence-
based crop
protection
Distribution
Abundance
Resistance
Management
Costs
Yield
Soils
Weather
“Traditional, replicated field-experiment agronomy is too
time-consuming and expensive to provide an effective
approach for identifying optimal practices”
“the key is to take advantage of the farmer innovation
that occurs across the millions of fields planted to crops each
year. In essence, each of these fields is an “experiment”
that receives a specific set of crop and soil management
practices”
“At issue is how to cost-effectively and efficiently identify
which combination of practices works best for a given
combination of crop, soil type, and climate”

A national IPM monitoring and data platform
• Monitoring farms (c. 100)
• On the ground monitoring and sample
collection, IPM practices and outcomes
• Demonstrator farms (c. 10)
• Highly instrumented, testing novel IPM
strategies, validating DSS
• Donor farms (c. 1000)
• Crowdsourcing data on targets,
management and outcomes

Putting the “I” in IPM
• A planned integration of prevention, detection & control
• Integration of chemical, genetic, biological, and cultural control
• Integration of decision-making for invertebrate, pathogen and
weed management
• Collating and Integrating farm data for better targeted crop
protection
• Integrating strategic and applied funding sources for a more
coordinated effort to provide IPM systems and solutions
• Integrating plant health, soil health and agroecosystem health for
a One Crop Health approach.

Andrew McLay
ISCF Transforming Food
Production

Andrew McLay
Innovation Lead
ISCF Transforming Food Production
Driving
Adoption

ISCF Transforming Food Production
Towards net zero emissions productive food
systems by 2040:
• Accelerating the development and adoption of
integrated precision approaches to improve
productivity in agricultural systems
• Enable food to be produced in ways that more
efficient, resilient and sustainable
• Driving economic growth across the country
£90 m – 2018 - 2023 Embed adoption of precision approaches to
Objective 2: Bridge the productivity gap,
strengthening connections between
researchers, businesses and practitioners

Adoption can be high…
Visibility / certainty of benefits Behavioural / cultural change
Rate/speedofadoption
Level of farmer engagement

Bad
Marketing
Clarifying barriers
Difficult to
scale what
works on
farm
Industry
Fragmentatio
n
Planning
constraints
Low level of
co-innovation
infrastructure
Overcoming
old habits
Business
ownership
conflicts
Just not
knowing
about a
potential
solution
Low incentive
to change -
subsidies
Education
level
Lack of trust
in evidence
(conflicting
messages)
Access to
investment
Perception
that risk
outweighs
benefits
Business
structures –
lack of
formality in
family farms
Legislation
Physical
compatibility
– ie working
widths
Compatibility
of data
streams
Poor data
Difficult to
measure at
scaleToo difficult
to use
Disseminatio
n
Facilitation
Evidence and
evaluation
Performance
lack of cost
benefit / link
to
compliance
Irrelevance –
covers eco
and policy
drivers, tax
etc.
EnvironmentUSERProduct / Service

Defining the problem
Technology and
Knowledge
Development and
Adoption
Not just adoption…
• doing things differently
• being able to make
better, more informed
decisions
Not about imposing solutions
Providing evidence

Transforming Food Production focus…
• Agri-food
• CR&D1
• STiP Demonstration
• Future
programmes

Session 3: Identifying
challenges and opportunities
associated with IPM
www.menti.com

Simon Baty – KTM Food
simon.baty@ktn-uk.org
Kaeli Johnson – KTM AgriFood (Plants & Crops)
kaeli.johnson@ktn-uk.org
David Telford – Head of AgriFood
david.telford@ktn-uk.org
Pedro Carvalho – KTM AgriFood (Plants & Crops)
pedro.carvalho@ktn-uk.org
The University
Of She eld.
Institute for
Sustainable Food.

Integrated pest management and the future of farming

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Integrated pest management and the future of farming

Similar to Integrated pest management and the future of farming (20)

More from KTN

More from KTN (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Integrated pest management and the future of farming