P GRO MAGAZINE SPRING 2019 PULSE THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE PGRO Processors and Growers Research Organisation THE PGRO AT YOUR fingertips Download the APP from Apple and Google Stores
P G R O
MAGAZINE SPRING 2019PULSE
THE
OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE PGRO
Processors and Growers Research Organisation
PGRO the UK’s centre of excellence for peas and beans
THE PGRO AT YOUR
fingertips
Download the APP from
Apple and Google Stores
Nirvana®Enlightened weed control
Nirvana is a registered trademark of BASF. Nirvana contains pendimethalin and imazamox. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further product information including warning phrases and symbols, you can refer to www.agricentre.basf.co.uk.
A pre-emergence herbicide for use on all varieties of spring and winter field beans, combining and vining peas.
What is Nirvana®
Why you shouldchoose Nirvana®
• The #1 herbicide for peas and beans• Two complementary herbicide modes of action• Long lasting broad spectrum weed control
nivana_a4_v4.indd 1 20/02/2019 09:08
Do only swots sit at the front? I have become increasingly aware of the activities of people at conferences. Not you understand the speakers or workshop leaders, I mean those attending, ostensibly to learn.
Reflecting on my own attendance recently, I wondered why I always seem to sit at the back – at the end of the row too! It’s not because I arrive late - that’s no good – because if you turn up late the back seats will be long gone.
I wondered if it was a hangover from schoolday gibes: “only swots sit at the front”? Then I came up with a number of possibilities: The long-sighted can see better from the back? Positions further away avoid embarrassing interactions with the speaker? If terrible, an unobtrusive escape is offered by being nearer the door? Muttering under your breath will not be heard? Nodding off is less likely to be noticed? Or maybe, remembering a particularly painful incident in my schooltime, you are less likely to suffer a direct hit by the board rubber?
However, after considering all these I concluded that, as I am an incredible fidget who doodles to aid concentration, it is simply that I am very considerate and I don’t want to disturb others.
So, there I was sitting in my lofty perch at the back of the steeply-banked lecture theatre all attentive, when a latecomer hauled in a spare chair from outside, plonked it down beside me, and snivelled a greeting as they sneezed: “I’b a derrible dold”.
Attention disturbed, mind wandering, and now interested in a less germ-laden location, I began appraising the situation in front. As we know, pens and paper are almost history nowadays - the proliferation of iPads, tablets and the like has been terrific. But in my attentive innocence I had always assumed these diligent tappers were capturing notes for electronic filing and further dissemination, efficiently avoiding the need to transcribe later from illegible scribble. Au contraire, believe me, whilst a few were indeed doing this, most were paying no attention at all!
With my elevated view, illusions were shattered. Most were attending emails, checking calendars or surfing the internet for photos, TV schedules and video clips - whilst others were hiding in social media. One even appeared to be booking their dream holiday.
But then I realised I wasn’t listening either and became annoyed with myself. Why go to a conference at all, if you are simply going to play on your computer? Stop disturbing me!
Armed with this new knowledge, and confirmation of a view I have had since schooldays that the swots in front are no better than the rest of us, I have come to a new conclusion for conferences today. Sit near the front, fidget all you like – and don’t be distracted by those sneezing in your ear or the irrelevant screens of those worrying a keyboard - they won’t notice anything you do. And if you decide to sneak out? Well, that’s your business!
For a traditional printed publication like the Pulse Magazine*, we have the reassurance that, as a pulse grower or someone interested in pulses, you have engaged with us and are interested in the topics. We can only hope you are not interrupted and that the contents hold your attention.
In this issue we introduce the concept of IPM for pulse growers, explore findings from intercropping, report final outcomes of our bean row width trials and analyse peas for nutrient stress.
Contents
04 Market ProspectThe World of Pulses
Lewis Cottey, Incoming President of Pulses UK
06 PGRO CommentaryThe writing on the wall …
Roger Vickers, PGRO CEO
07 PGRO Pulse AgronomyIntegrated management of pests and diseases in pulses
Dr Becky Howard, PGRO R&D Manager
12 PGRO Pulse AgronomyIntercropping with pulses
Stephen Belcher, PGRO Principal Technical Officer
14 PGRO Pulse AgronomyA checklist for pea growers and agronomists
Roger VickersChief Executive
03t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
05 Pulse Roadshows2019 PGRO/Syngenta Roadshows
Simon Jackson & Dr Max Newbert, Syngenta
Diary Dates 2019
Cereals 2019 Boothby Graffoe
Lincolnshire
12-13 June 2019
Vining Pea Field Day Nocton, near Lincoln
June 2019
Pulse Crop Field Day Stubton, near Newark
2 July 2019
16 Pulse ResearchPeak Nutritional demand for peas
Ian Robertson, Sustainable Soil Management
Roger Vickers, Chief Executive
18 PGRO Pulse ResearchSpring bean row widths
Stephen Belcher, PGRO Principal Technical Officer
Congratulations to Becky Howard and
Shona Duffy on reaching the 10 year
marker at PGRO. We thank them both for
being stimulating and affable colleagues!
And Becky for returning to us for her
second 10 year stint.
P G R O
*The ‘page turning’ e-copy of this edition
of the magazine can be read at
www.pgro.org
PGRO, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough PE8 6HJ ISSN 1758-3543 Chief Executive: Roger Vickers
R&D Manager: Becky Howard Principal Technical Officers: Stephen Belcher, Jim Scrimshaw Plant Pathologist: Dr Lea Herold
For editorial and advertising contact: Sue Bingham at PGRO Published by Ahead PR aheadpr.eu Design graphicgene.co.uk
Reading The Pulse Magazine in conjunction with other PGRO publications is recognised by BASIS and carries 2 CPD points (CP/70072/1819/g).
10 Pulse AgronomyThe art of Pre-em Application
James Thomas, Syngenta application specialist
Nirvana®Enlightened weed control
Nirvana is a registered trademark of BASF. Nirvana contains pendimethalin and imazamox. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further product information including warning phrases and symbols, you can refer to www.agricentre.basf.co.uk.
A pre-emergence herbicide for use on all varieties of spring and winter field beans, combining and vining peas.
What is Nirvana®
Why you shouldchoose Nirvana®
• The #1 herbicide for peas and beans• Two complementary herbicide modes of action• Long lasting broad spectrum weed control
nivana_a4_v4.indd 1 20/02/2019 09:08
It’s official, February 10th will now be forever known as World Pulses
Day! The UN have taken the decision to officially ordain February
10th to encourage global consumption of pulses. 2019 sees over
25 countries getting together in a world celebration of the event,
with the aim of raising global awareness on how healthy, affordable,
sustainable and nutritious pulses are.
Lewis Cottey President
The World of PulsesMarket Prospect
04 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Pulses UK celebrated the day with the
launch of the second annual British
Dal Festival. It followed our inaugural
celebration of Dal in 2018 – this was
an enormous event that culminated
in a virtually sold-out finale held in the
Paintworks, Bristol.
We built upon the success of 2018 and
this year’s finale was hugely popular.
Held on 16th February, we saw a range
of cooking demos from celebrity chefs,
including Jenny
Chandler and ‘BBC
Cook of the Year’
Jo Ingleby.
Multiple stalls from
a range of diets
produced mouth-
watering dishes from
around the world that
delighted visitors. We
proudly represented our industry with a
pivotal stand explaining to the audience
punters how affordable, sustainable,
healthy and nutritious pulses are.
Well done all!
The B-word
Unfortunately, when asked to discuss
market prospects for pretty much
anything beyond the end of March
2019, it is impossible not to mention
the dreaded Brexit. As I write this, the
information we have is very limited.
As Donald Rumsfeld famously once
said: “ … there are things we know we
know. We also know there are known
unknowns … But there are also unknown
unknowns—the ones we don’t know we
don’t know ...”
That convoluted but spot-on quote
surely sums up brexit-driven uncertainty
- and this uncertainty has limited forward
sales. Some consumers have pulled
forward their annual requirements to
ensure stocks reach their facilities by the
end of March to avoid potential hiccups.
Others are more relaxed and waiting to
see what happens.
Stocks
Both stock levels of peas and beans in
the UK are diminishing.
Beans have seen a huge
export demand and peas
have been gobbled up by
numerous end-users due
to the reduced area and
lower yield in harvest 2018.
Hand over
My reign as President
starts, coincidentally, as this issue of the
Pulse Magazine reaches you at the end
of March. So I want to thank
our immediate past-President Franek
Smith for his hard work on behalf of
our members over the last two years.
Also I welcome James Maguire of KWS
who will step up as Vice-President elect.
Future
I am proud to be part of the team that
has transformed BEPA into its re-named
and re-energised form as Pulses UK. This
is a time of uncertainty – but we must
instead see it as a time of challenges to
be met and overcome! Pulses UK is most
certainly now in great shape to focus on
our goals as an association that will play
its part in giving our industry a secure
future.
affordable, sustainable, healthy and
nutritious pulses
Lewis Cottey is the incoming
President of Pulses UK, formerly
BEPA (British Edible Pulse
Association). The name and
image change took place in
November 2018 to reflect the
changing nature of the UK
pulse sector and the role of the
processors and users of pulses.
Pulses UK liaises with the UK
Government as well as relevant
national and international
bodies to encourage the
production and consumption
of home-produced pulses. This
is by promoting their value as
healthy, high-protein, high-fibre
and sustainable foods.
Pulse Roadshows
t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected] 05
Pulse Roadshows
Weevil warningThe late and slow start to the 2018 growing season, in wet soil conditions, severely increased pressure from Pea and Bean Weevil.
“Leaf notching on emerging crops looked severe, but could quickly be outgrown as soil conditions warmed,” reported Syngenta Insecticide Technical Manager, Dr Max Newbert. “However, the impact on roots and nodules, along with the stress on plants, has far greater effect on yield and the value of legumes in the rotation.”
Max reported trial results had shown well-timed applications of Hallmark Zeon could give high levels of pest control and enable the crop to get away strongly. However, he urged growers and agronomist not to cut the rate from the full 75 ml/ha, to minimise the risk of resistance developing.
2019 PGRO/Syngenta Roadshows brought a positive pulse message to the major growing regions of the UK
Simon Jackson
The Roadshows provided a valuable opportunity to review the agronomy challenges of the 2018 season, and an update of lessons learned for the coming year, with Syngenta’s Simon Jackson and Dr Max Newbert.
Dr Max Newbert
Green protectionPea and bean growers will need to adopt new fungicide strategies in the future, to counter the combination of increasing disease pressures and changes in available options.
Speaking at the Roadshows, Syngenta Field Technical Manager, Simon Jackson, highlighted the 2018 season had reinforced the new approach of an earlier start to bean disease control programmes.
He reported repeated trials had shown an average 0.35 t/ha yield increase from adding in a T0 application at pre-flowering, typically in early May. “After the late and slow start to the season last year, keeping crops green and healthy for even a few extra days as the hot, dry season progressed could have made a significant difference.
“In most seasons and conditions an application of Amistar at 0.5 l/ha alone has proven sufficient,” Simon advocated. “But, where downy mildew infection is easily found in small plants, trials have shown the addition of SL567A can give a significant uplift in yield.” resistance developing.
Bruchid battleThe prolonged hot, dry weather last summer led to almost continuous Syngenta BruchidCast warnings of insect activity.
Dr Max Newbert highlighted the key learn from the long season pressure was the need to, firstly, knockdown adult beetles and reduce the egg laying potential, followed by the systemic action of thiacloprid to target and control larvae moving into the plant.
Max advocated starting the programme with Hallmark Zeon when adult beetles are seen to be active in the crop when pods are forming on the bottom trusses and temperatures are warming up. This will reduce the chance of missing the first egg laying.
Once conditions hit the BruchidCast trigger point, alternating product treatments will improve overall control and be an effective anti-resistance strategy, he added.
Application on targetFor early season applications in pulse crops, Simon Jackson advocated the use of angled nozzles that can increase spray retention on small plants.
“In good spraying conditions the angled Syngenta 3D Nozzle would be the preferred option,” he advised. “If conditions are compromised, however, switching to an angled 90% Drift Reduction Nozzle, such as a Lechler IDTA, could still enable timely treatment.”
As the season progress, angled nozzles can help target insects in the top leaf layers, but Syngenta application trials have shown higher deposition of sprays on the middle and bottom leaves with using an Amistar Nozzle as the first choice, he suggested.
06 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Roger VickersChief Executive
PGRO Commentary The writing on the wall…
Now with a focus on soil health almost
everywhere, it can easily be envisaged that
the environmental concerns will soon start to
turn to the way that soil is managed. Yet this
won’t really be new. Prescriptive measures
are defined within environmental schemes
for which farmers are rewarded, and there
has long been regulation around NVZs.
Cross-compliance is made up of ‘Statutory
Management Requirements’ and standards
for ‘Good Agricultural and Environmental
Conditions’. More recently ‘The Reduction
and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse
Pollution (England) Regulations 2018’ directly
control the application of fertilisers and
organic manures and the management of
livestock and soil. What we have yet to see is
the industry-wide prescription of approved
cultivation practices.
The changes driven by environmental
concerns should not be a surprise. The
issues have been mounting up for decades
now. The political leverage of those with
narrow environmental concerns, and their
influence on a population largely distanced
and detached from the origins of their food,
has become enormous and the need for
recognition in agriculture very apparent.
I am increasingly surprised by the number
of farmers who do not seem to recognise
the situation, so regular are conversations
imploring new chemistry: ‘Can we use this?’,
‘What is coming for that?’, ‘How are we
supposed to do without it?’ As restrictions are
imposed and approvals revoked, there are no
easy fixes in trying to adhere to the practices
of old, but I realise it is hard to let go. Change
is tough. For the successful farmers of the
near future, it seems clear that there will be
no relying upon a ‘can of this’, a ‘bottle of
that’ or ‘bags of the other’. It is highly likely
that those days are gone for good and that
the pressures now almost upon us will bring
an untimely end to businesses that have not
already realised the urgent need to change,
and to those without a plan.
I recently heard Professor Mohamed Khan
of North Dakota State University and the
University of Minnesota speaking in relation
to sugar beet and a challenge he posed is
equally valid for all of us in this in this context:
“How do we use science in an ethical,
economical, socially and environmentally
acceptable manner for world food security?
Surely integrated management practices
have to be at the heart of it. And the
following article in this issue of the Pulse
Magazine examines one important part
of the changes to come.
This trend is magnified in part by the increasing ability to detect molecular residues in ever-decreasing concentrations, and a precautionary, hazard-based approach rather than risk-assessment.
Environmental studies that take many seasons to conclude have shown practices continued in good faith and with an assured clean bill of health, have stored up toxic problems for nature and humans alike. These studies have cast doubt on the very desirability and purpose of our agricultural industry itself in the eyes of significant elements of the public.
Ever-rising concerns about the impact of agricultural practices apply pressure to account for their effect on the environment. A lifeless environment is in no one’s interest, and farmers being guardians of our surroundings have more to gain than most from ensuring nature thrives. Their livelihoods depend on it, and for the last 25-30 years the phrase ‘intensive agriculture’, glibly thrown at all questioning of environmental issues in the UK, seems increasingly inappropriate. It fails completely to acknowledge what agriculture is today and that inputs before they reach the market are rightly subject to extreme rigour in testing before being released in a controlled manner for just such reasons.
Nonetheless, it seems clear that Agribusiness has lost the argument and that the regulators and policy makers - in Europe at least - are determined to have food produced with as little chemistry as possible, even if it is not quite organic in its designation.
Of course, there have always been those who have shunned most of the manufactured inputs in crop production and animal welfare, but for the majority they have become just part of the routine of business along with good management practice, the pursuit of productivity, good quality healthy produce, welfare and profit.
For quite some time it has become apparent that the writing is on the wall for the agriculture so many grew up with and pursued over decades.
A baited banker thus desponds,
From his own hand foresees his fall,
They have his soul, who have his bonds;
‘Tis like the writing on the wall.
Source: Jonathan Swift’s Miscellaneous works, 1720.
t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected] 07
Dr Becky Howard
PGRO R&D Manager
PGRO Pulse Agronomy Integrated management of pests and diseases in pulses
Preventative practices include careful
consideration of crop husbandry. Soil
structure is known to have significant impact
on pulse performance, compaction being
a key factor leading to yield suppression in
peas and beans. Compaction reduces the
availability of soil moisture and nutrition to
plant roots, and in years where moisture
deficit is high, roots are unable to penetrate
compacted layers to reach moisture and
nutrients. Compaction may also lead to
increased waterlogging during periods of
high rainfall, and although field beans are
more tolerant than most legume species
to waterlogging, prolonged periods of root
submergence can lead to significant damage
to root and plant growth, and yield. Peas are
particularly susceptible to waterlogging and
even short periods can lead to significant
problems. Difficulties with soil structure also
lead to increased plant stress and likelihood
of infection with damaging soil-borne
diseases such as Fusarium, Didymella and
Aphanomyces.
Integrated management of pests, diseases and weeds in pulses
has been the basis of PGRO activities since the organisation was
established in the 1950s. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) includes
the use of a wide range of alternatives such as soil management, crop
rotations, cultivation techniques, seed and farm hygiene, biological
controls, monitoring and forecasting, crop and species diversity
and plant resistance, as well as chemical controls, and forms a core
component of Integrated Farm Management. IPM relies on farm-
specific information such as location, soil type, weather, rotations and
cropping history to help reduce and manage damaging pest, disease
and weed populations below a level that causes economic harm,
whilst reducing the risk to people and the natural environment.
Weevil damage in beans
08 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Ensuring seed quality and hygiene is an important step to
reduce the likelihood of moving pests and diseases onto or
across farms. There are several seed-borne problems that
can affect crop growth that can be easily avoided by seed
testing and good seed and farm hygiene:
Stem and bulb nematodes (Ditylenchus spp.) are found
in between 10 and 20% of field bean seed samples tested
at PGRO each year, and impact in crops is seen in various
ways. Seed quality may be affected due to discolouration
of seed when high numbers of nematodes are present,
and crop yields are affected as the nematodes multiply
in stem tissue, causing plant distortion, stem swelling,
discolouration of plant tissue and broken stems. In severe
cases, and particularly in cold, wet springs, yields can be
reduced by 70%. The free-living nematodes are seed and
soil-borne and once present in soils, can remain for up
to 10 years. They are initially spread to farms by the use
of infested seed and over years, soil populations increase
until yield is significantly impacted. For this pest, the use of
clean seed is of great importance as there are no chemical
means to manage the pest once present in soils.
The leaf and pod spot diseases in peas and beans are
diseases that have been reduced to a large extent by the
widespread use of seed testing. The diseases include
Ascochyta pisi, Didymella pinodella and Didymella pinodes
in peas, and Ascochyta fabae in field beans. Simple tests are
carried out to determine the presence and abundance of
these diseases in pulses and to screen infected seed lots out
of production.
Germination problems caused by physical damage to seed
were discussed in the Winter edition of Pulse Magazine.
The reduction in germination capacity in field beans in
the 2018 harvest season was caused by high levels of
bruchid beetle damage and harvesting of over-dry crops.
Mechanical damage to seed causes seedling abnormalities
and increased infection by soil-borne pathogens such as
damping off (Pythium spp.), lowering germination capacity
and sometimes the vigour of the plant. Issues experienced
in 2018 emphasise the importance of seed testing.
Selecting varieties for local growing conditions and
maintaining healthy crops is an additional line of defence,
and within the PGRO Recommended Lists for Peas and
Beans, all varieties are evaluated for their susceptibility to
downy mildew infection, key yield-impacting diseases in
pulses. In areas where downy mildew has been a problem,
particularly where peas and beans have been grown for
many years, growers can select varieties that are more
resistant to the disease.
Another important component of an integrated approach
to pest and disease management is the use of monitoring
systems to predict risk and aid decision-making for the
application of crop protection products.
Regular crop observation is important at key times of year
and there are several systems available for pulses:
CropMonitor® predicts the risk of downy mildew infection
in spring beans and is available at www.cropmonitor.
co.uk. When risk is forecast to be higher, crops should be
inspected and fungicides applied when disease is observed
in crops, particularly around the flowering period.
Aphid data is gathered by the Rothamsted/SASA suction-
trap network and the FERA yellow water-pan trap network
(https://ahdb.org.uk/aphid-news) and the data indicate first
flights and activity throughout the season. This can provide
an early warning for growers of likely incidence in crops
and help with decisions about better timing of aphicides to
prevent virus transmission and feeding damage in crops,
as well as reducing harm to beneficial insects and lowering
the risk of insecticide resistance by reducing unnecessary or
poorly timed sprays.
A commercial monitoring system is available for the pea
and bean weevil (Sitona lineatus). Traps should be placed
on field margins of the previous year’s pea or bean crops
in mid-February and monitored three times each week.
The traps predict when peak activity occurs as weevils
move from their over-wintering sites, with a threshold of an
average 30 weevils recorded per trap on a single occasion.
When the threshold is reached, insecticides are applied
when the characteristic leaf-edge notching is seen in crops.
The system prevents unnecessary insecticide applications
and may be used to alter drilling date to avoid peak periods
of activity.
Weevil trap
Give peas a chance!
Tel 01223 890777 • Email [email protected]
@SenovaLtd • www.senova.uk.com
KariokaFIELD PEA
l Blue pea with superb yieldsl Good standing abilityl Excellent disease resistance
KareniFIELD PEA
l Popular white peal High yieldsl Good standing ability
VertixFIELD PEA
l Large blue variety with good yieldsl Good colour retentionl Large seed size
KarpateFIELD PEA
l High yielding white peal Large seed sizel Excellent agronomics
Contact us or your seed merchant for more details on this perfect spring crop option
RecommendedList 2019, P2
RecommendedList 2019, R
RecommendedList 2019, R
RecommendedList 2019, R
Senova Peas Pulse Half Page Ad 1-19.qxp_Layout 1 30/01/2019 10:57 Page 1
Bruchid beetles are a problem in field and broad beans each
year in the UK, particularly southern England, and activity is
related to daily temperature. Egg-laying is triggered when
temperature reaches 20°C, and the BruchidCast forecast,
https://www.syngenta.co.uk/bruchidcast, predicts when this
will be reached. When a temperature threshold is forecast,
growers should inspect crops to determine that first pods have
set on the bottom trusses. If so, insecticide applications should
be made to prevent egg-laying. Two or three applications may
be required throughout the season if weather continues to be
warm. In some regions, where bruchid is not always active,
spray applications may not be necessary, and BruchidCast can
be used to help decision-making in these areas.
The pea moth monitoring system consists of traps that are
placed in crops during May, together with a model that predicts
day degrees required for eggs to hatch. The threshold for
combining peas is 10 moths in either trap on two consecutive
occasions, after which the model will predict a precise spray
date for a particular location. Further information about the
system is available at http://www.pgro.org/pea-moth/ and traps
are available from Oecos.
The use of all options to reduce pest and disease problems in
crops aids the responsible use of pesticides, as they are used
only as required and at the specific time for optimum efficacy,
reducing pressure on existing active substances. Factors such as
the development of resistance and the loss of active substances
highlight the continuing importance of the development and
use of alternative strategies. Stem nematode in seed
Pea moth trap
10 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Pulse crops create some diverse and challenging targets for sprayer operators throughout the growing season. From targeting bare soils with pre-emergence herbicides, to hitting pests and diseases on lower leaves in a metre-high bean crop, each application requires a different approach to balance efficacy, with timeliness and all-important environmental protection.
Trials results have consistently shown that fine tuning application technique for
optimum droplet targeting can make at least 10%, and up to 30%, difference in product
efficacy. But in an on-farm situation, that has to be set against the practicality of
physically covering the required area and the limitations of weather conditions.
Furthermore, operators have to be extremely conscious of potential for environmental
losses during spraying, which is coming under increasing regulatory scrutiny.
With all these elements in play, fine-tuning sprayer set-up and operation for the key
factors of nozzle selection, water volume, pressure and speed could give significant
gains.
The Art of Pre-em ApplicationPulse Agronomy
Application techniques play a
huge role in product efficacy and
environmental protection, says
James Thomas
James Thomas
Bare soil challengeStarting the season with pre-emergence herbicides, for example, Syngenta has been
investigating techniques to achieve more consistent coverage of the soil surface and optimise
results for an extremely difficult target. The lessons learned for blackgrass control in arable
crops, could be equally applied for pulse crop seedbeds.
Syngenta application
specialist, James Thomas,
reviews the latest
research trials and gives
practical guidance to
start the season with
pre-em applications
With no crop to intercept sprays, bare ground is a particularly challenging target for application
Unlike a growing crop, bare soil offers nothing to trap and hold the spray – especially fine
droplets. In some conditions there is risk that a significant proportion of the finest droplets
never have the momentum to reach the target soil surface, particularly if it’s windy or there
is thermal inversion - with rising warm air from the soil on a cool morning carrying away fine
droplets, for example.
In an ideal world the angled Syngenta 3D Nozzle can provide the optimum results. However,
where application conditions are compromised, the our research has shown that new designs
of 90% Drift Reduction Technology (DRT) nozzles, such as the Teejet TTI110-05, can perform
better than conventional finer droplet nozzles and with a significant reduction in drift risk.
There’s two elements to drift to consider; the physical loss of product from the field, and the
sideways movement of the spray pattern caused by gusts of wind during application – leading
to inconsistent coverage on the surface that would result in less effective results.
Low Slow CoveredIn all instances, the pre-emergence application mantra of ‘Go Low; Go Slow; Get Covered’ will give
positive results.
Boom height has one of the biggest influences over spray drift. A sprayer operating at one metre
boom height would have 10 times the drift, compared to operation at the recommended 50 cm
boom height – with trials showing a physical 17% better weed control at the lower height (Table 1).
11t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
New designs of 90% DRT nozzles have been shown to give good results with pre-em applications, and a significant reduction in risk of drift
One of the challenges for some bigger sprayers’ design is the
mechanical limitation of adjusting boom height down to 50 cm
above bare ground. In these instances, the 90% DRT nozzles do
appear better able to cope and perform, compared to conventional
flat fans.
Allied to height, faster forward speed immediately creates more
turbulence behind the sprayer that increases risk of drift. Furthermore,
at faster speeds operators tend to work with higher booms to avoid
problems with greater instability. Going slower, typically at 10 – 12
km/hr, has consistently improved results with weed control in the
field, and hugely improves boom stability (Table 2).
New trials have also shown clear advances with new 90% DRT
nozzles operated at water volumes of 200 l/ha, with up to 20%
better results from residual pre-emergence grass weed herbicide
applications, compared to conventional treatment at 80 or 100 l/ha
(Table 3).
The trials have shown no real advantage in further increasing water
volume, to 400 l/ha for example, so 200 l/ha demonstrates a
reasonable compromise between work rate and product efficacy.
Syngenta is investing in new pre-emergence application trials in other
crops for the coming season, to validate the previous trials and test
new 90% DRT nozzle designs that the company has been developing.
For post-emergence herbicides in peas and beans, trials have shown
that the angled 3D Nozzle can prove most effective to reduce the
amount of spray intercepted by crop leaves and ensure more reaches
the target soil surface. In more difficult conditions, however, an Amistar
Nozzle offers the best compromise between efficacy and physically
getting the application on at an appropriate time.
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50 50cm 100cm 50cm FF 100cmFF 90% DR 90% DR
Table 1 - Boom Height - Effect of boom height on weed control
% C
on
tro
l
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50 50 l/ha 100 //ha 200 l/ha 400 l/ha
Table 3 - Water Volume - Effect of water volume on weed control
% C
on
tro
l
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 6kph 8kph 12kph 16kph
Table 2 - Forward Speed - Effect of forward speed on weed control
% C
on
tro
l
Water Pressure Speed LERAP DriftNozzel volume (bar) (kph) rating reduction Comments (l/ha) rating
3D 83-06 200 2.1 12 Up to N/A 1.0 bar
3D 83-05 200 2.1 10 N/A N/A
Teejet 200 2.0 10 Up to 90% Up toTTI110-05 7.0 bar 2.0 bar
90% Drift Reducing Nozzle
Syngenta 3D Nozzle
CommentsIdeal spray conditions ONLY. *Alternate
angle to face forward and backward along the spray
boom
Top recommendation for 90% drift reduction and good
efficacy
Syngenta recommendations for pre-emergence herbicide application - Spring 2019
Intercropping with pulsesPGRO Pulse Agronomy
12 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Intercropping means different things to different people, but in its simplest
form it means growing two or more crop species together where at least
one component is taken through to harvest. Pulses are often treated as the
secondary crop in an intercrop, providing a benefit, often in the form of
nitrogen.
Stephen BelcherPGRO Principal Technical Officer
Peas are inherently weak-strawed and are
often lodged at harvest, giving harvesting
difficulties. A stiff-strawed companion crop
grown with peas may provide a scaffold
to improve the standing ability and ease of
harvesting.
From a trial in 2017 it was concluded that
spring barley was not strong enough to
hold peas up, and spring oilseed rape
did not establish with problems from
flea and pollen beetle. Oats did give a
small improvement with standing ability
and allowed the pea oat mix to flow
much more readily on to the combine
header. There was an indication of weed
suppression at harvest time from the oat
mixes.
In 2018, sole crops of peas, spring oats and
spring beans were grown together with
peas + oats and peas + beans. A constant
rate of peas was used and 3 rates of oats
or beans in the mixtures. From the 2017
work it was found that the yields of the mix
components were lower when grown in
the mix compared to sole crops, but the
overall yield of the mix was improved. This
has been found by other researches also.
Oats did improve the standing ability of
peas a little, but just as important the
presence of oats made for easier harvesting
and improved the flow of the mix on to
the combine header. Beans kept the peas
standing, with highest rate of beans giving
the best standing ability.
The concept of Land Equivalent Ratio
(LER)
A method to assess any potential benefits
of intercropping is to measure productivity
using the Land Equivalent Ratio. LER
compares the yields of the intercrop
mix to the yields of the mix components
when grown as sole crops. LER can
give a measure of positive and negative
interactions between crops.
LER is calculated from the yields of:
Intercrop1 / pure crop1 + Intercrop2 / Pure
crop2
EG: Pea (intercrop) / pea (sole crop) + bean
(intercrop) / Bean (sole crop)
This calculation gives a ratio that indicates
the amount of land needed to grow the
intercrop compared to the amount of land
needed to grow sole crops of each.
An LER of 1.0 means there is no benefit
/ disadvantage to growing the intercrop
compared to the sole crops. An LER of
less than 1.0 means it is disadvantageous.
An LER greater than 1.0 means it is
advantageous to growing the intercrop.
As an example, a LER of 1.18 means that an
area planted as a sole crop would require
18% more land to produce the same yield
as the same area planted as an intercrop
While the pea/oat mixtures give the higher
yields it is the mix of Pea70 and bean50
that gave the highest LER (1.18) – an
18% increase in land use efficiency – a
somewhat surprising result, but a very
positive result.
There is a lot to learn about intercropping
and many pitfalls, one of them being
maturity differences at harvest. While
differences were negligible in 2018, in
2017 the oats for example were still a little
green when the peas were ready (despite
desiccation). Pea bean mixes offer the
bonus of very similar crop protection
options.
Work on similar mixes will continue in 2019.
Species/plants/m2
1 P 70
2 SO 250
3 SB 50
4 P 70 SO 70
5 P 70 SO 35
6 P 70 SO 18
7 P 70 SB 50
8 P 70 SB 25
9 P 70 SB 13
P=Pea, SB=Spring Bean, SO=Spring Oats
Call 01526 396 000 Visit www.omex.co.uk
A nutrient formulation of zinc and copper complementing the fungicidal and bactericidal activity of agrochemicals.
Zynergy® is an effective foliar fertiliser with useful synergy in IPM programmes against a range of diseases including downy mildew and peas.
*Trials prove Zynergy® used as part of an IPM programme outperforms standard disease control from chemical sprays alone and can deliver higher yields in a range of crops.
Zynergy®
/OMEXCompanies @OMEXCompanies
*2016 test on vining peas by PGRO, and multiple independent and field trials on a range of other crops. Contact us for more details of trials results.
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1. P70 2. SO 3. SB 50 4. P70 5. P70 6. P70 7. P70 8. P70 9. P70 250 SO70 SO85 SO18 SB50 SB25 SB13
Pea Oat
LER Intercropping trials 2018
Bean
LER
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0 1. P70 2. SO 3. SB 50 4. P70 5. P70 6. P70 7. P70 8. P70 9. P70 250 SO70 SO85 SO18 SB50 SB25 SB13
Pea Oat
Yield Intercropping trials 2018
Bean
Yie
ld t
/ha@
15%
MC
14 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
A checklist for pea growers and agronomists
PGRO Pulse Agronomy
In striving for a perfect crop and year on year consistency, a number
of factors in protein pea agronomy need to be addressed before crop
maturity is reached.
Peas are perhaps not as forgiving as other crops. They need attention. Critically throughout
the season, ask yourself if you are checking the crop sufficiently to be able to intervene at
the optimum time if necessary.
Whilst factors such as the weather throughout a growing season cannot be influenced,
the following is a check list of key pea agronomy decisions where you can influence the
outcome:
Location: Consider the timing of potential sowing and harvest.
Soil Type: Is it suitable? Deep loamy soils are ideal. Minimise compaction.
Crop rotation: How long? Aim for a 1:6 rotation or longer if possible.
Soil Test: Nutrient status and soil type? Always test the soil ahead
of the crop.
Foot rot test: Foot rot risk? – Always check soil, preferably in the autumn
before planting.
Variety selection: Market suitability and variety performance?
Seed rate: Seed quality? Desired plant stand establishment and cost v
return?
Seed treatment: Choose according to cropping history, varietal choice and
sowing date.
Establishment: How can maximum establishment be achieved?
An absolute priority.
Cultivations: Plough or minimal cultivation?
Fertiliser and foliar feeds: Timing and application?
Seed bed preparation: What is the minimum to create a good seedbed?
Sowing date: When is the right time / opportunity?
Rolling: Pre or post emergence?
Plant count: Did you achieve the optimum?
Herbicide choice: Pre or post emergence?
Grass weeds: What are the threats ahead of the crop?
Insecticide choices: Look out for major pests – see Key insect pests
Fungicides: Check for major disease threats – see Key plant diseases
Micronutrients: Crop growth stage, symptoms of deficiencies
Key insect pests:
Pea and bean weevil
Pea moth – trap for threshold levels in
early May
APHIDS:
Pea aphid (Achrthosiphon pisum)
Peach potato aphid (especially early
winged aphids) (Myzus persicae)
Aphid and virus vector management were features in
Pulse Magazine in Spring and Summer editions 2018.
Key plant diseases:Leaf spot (Didymella pinodes, Aschochyta pisi) a seed-borne pathogen
Downy mildew (Peronospora viciae)
Foot rots (Aphanomyces eutiches, Didymella pinodella, Fusarium oxysporum)
Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea)
Sclerotinia (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)
Powdery mildew (Erysiphe pisi)
Working with ADAS, sponsoring partners and experienced agronomists, PGRO has been coordinating a pilot Yield Enhancement Network for Peas.
After two years of intensive crop monitoring to gain critical understanding of key issues, the opportunity is now presented to a wider grower base to benchmark their own pea growing with other growers.
The network is to be expanded in a manageable fashion and interested growers are welcomed on a first come basis for up to 30 growers in 2019.
If you are interested in taking part contact [email protected] for more information and details of the broad protocol that is to be followed in crop monitoring.
Assistance in answering these questions and decision-making can be found in the following resources:
Your Farm’s Agronomist
PGRO web site (www.pgro.org) growers guides, technical updates, crop updates, laboratory services, Recommended List varieties, previous Pulse Magazine editions, PGRO agronomy guide 2017.
PGRO Pea and Bean APP - technical advice in your pocket with built in alert services and reporting features for agronomy queries. (available free on Google Play and Apple App stores)
PGRO crop updates - sign up for the free email alert service www.pgro.org/ contact-us/
PGRO staff - technical answers can be addressed with a phone call to PGRO staff at 01780 782585, option 2 or email [email protected]
Sponsors
The truth is, there isn’t any. For well over a decade, UK growers have been protecting their pea and bean crops with Signum® and getting the same consistent resultsof improved yield, greater fl exibility in application timing, and protection across a broad range of diseases.
Visit agricentre.basf.co.uk/Signum for more details.
Signum is a registered Trade Mark of BASF. Signum contains boscalid and pyraclostrobin. Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use. For further information with regard to the warning phrases and symbols for this product please refer to the product label.
Spot the difference
2005 2019
0834490 BASF_Caryx_difference_press 297x210 V3.indd 1 25/02/2019 15:49
Peak Nutritional demand for peasPulse Research
16 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Ian Robertson
Working with the PGRO over the
growing season of 2018, we were
trying to see what nutrients were
required and in what volumes to
grow a decent crop of peas. One
of the key things learned over the
last couple of years is that just
because the soil has good indices
of nutrients, it does not always
mean that the plant can access
them.
With peas one of the biggest
constraining factors is poor soil structure
limiting rooting and therefore water and
nutrient access, resulting in soil structure
induced deficiencies. The peas had no
nutritional products applied to either
the soil or the foliage over the course
of the growing season. An SSM Gold
soil test highlighted that the soil and
the following crop would be potentially
short of Mg, S, Mn, B and Mo. The test
indicated that if adequate rooting and
early plant vigour were achieved then
there should be sufficient other nutrients
to grow a decent 4T/Ha harvested crop.
Following a simple plan, pea plants
were cut from a known area over the
growing season weighed, and analysed
for nutrition and DM. Tissue testing the
whole plant, we aimed to see what the
plant needed not just the new growing
parts. Sampling every week we could see
how much of any one nutrient was in the
crop at any growing period.
The aim was to find out how many
nutrients were required to grow the
plant architecture to allow the pea plant
to yield 4T peas. This is very different to
offtake figure, which is the amount of
nutrients you remove in the harvested
fraction of the crop, in this instance
the crop removal in peas is 8.8Kg P205
and 10Kg K20/T combining peas, so 4T
would remove 35Kg P205 and 40Kg K20.
Normal procedure at index 2 P&K would
be to apply this to meet the crop offtake.
However, when you look at the peak
demand of the crop the requirements are
greater than the offtake. The other factor
when looking at peak demand is that a
pea plant requires more elements than
NPK albeit in smaller volumes.
Figure 1: Dry weight plotted against the volume of nutrients over time.
Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Dry Weight T/Ha
Dry Weight against Elements Over time
Nitogen Phosphorus Potassium Calcium
Magnesium Sulphur Boron(ppm) Copper Iron
Manganese(ppm) Manganese(ppm) Zinc
Elem
ents
17t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
The plant tissue analysis guidelines (from LanCrop) enable us
to see at each sampling point what is in the crop and what
should be in the crop (peak demand). Key to the sampling is
to ensure the fresh weight from a known area is recorded and
to ask the lab for dry matter analysis of the sample.
This shows that in growing weeks 3,4,5 and 6 the plants are
putting on 10T/Ha of fresh weight and that a massive nutrient
requirement must come from the soil. The dry matter in week
5 will vary but is equivalent to only 1T of Dm/Ha. In week 7
there is nearly 10T DM/Ha; another massive increase. This dry
matter is made up of key nutrients. The guidelines are:
Graph showing dry weight and fresh weight growth over time.
Working with these figures it can be seen that the three
largest mineral elements in the pea plant are Nitrogen,
Potassium and Calcium with Phosphorus and Magnesium
being fourth, followed closely by Sulphur. These figures
are interesting, but become more meaningful when you
multiply them in to kg/ha. In the table below the demand
for nitrogen goes from 9Kg/Ha up to 317Kg/Ha. You can
see that in the early growth stages most elements keep up
with demand, however when the crops is growing rapidly
up to 40T fresh weight/Ha the plants struggle to keep up
with the demand. The reason for this could be twofold,
soils are deficient or the crops root system is compromised
via soil structure or the lack of water is reducing soil
nutrient availability.
Another element that I think we should consider more for
peas is Sulphur. The peak demand in week 8 is 21Kg S (52Kg
SO3/Ha). With decreasing sulphur depositions from the
atmosphere and lower soil levels the pea crops needs to
feed some of this 52Kg SO3 requirement (30Kg SO
3/Ha).
The same can be said for the micronutrients. At week 8
there are some very big deficiencies occurring. However,
unlike the major nutrient deficiencies these micronutrients
are measured in grams and could possibly be applied via a
sprayer to meet these peak demand requirements. In the
later growth stages, the crop ran out of nitrogen, however,
if this is because the plant ran out of Iron and Mo earlier,
the nodules may not have functioned efficiently and
therefore not translocated the N from the nodule to plant?
When the dried peas were analysed they were found to
contain far higher levels of Zinc, N, P, Mag and Mo in their
dry matter compared to the haulm and leaves. It may then
be too simple to say that K, Ca, B, Fe and Mn are needed to
maintain the architecture? The building blocks of the pea
are perhaps N, P, Mag, Zn and Mo?
More work will be carried out this year (2019) with key
nutrients being applied at key stages at the right amounts
to meet peak demand. This will hopefully highlight that
if the soils are short, or if there are structure inducing
deficiencies, then a nutrient application strategy could be
followed to maximise yield.
Nutrient Requirement
Nitrogen % DM 3.0
Phosphorus % DM 0.3
Potassium % DM 2.2
Calcium % DM 0.5
Magnesium % DM 0.3
Sulphur % DM 0.2
Micro Nutrients
Boron (ppm) 30.0
Copper(ppm) 7.0
Iron (ppm) 150.0
Manganese (ppm) 35.0
Molybdenum (ppm) 2.0
Zinc (ppm) 25.0
Week1 Week 5 Week 8
9 12 3 118 152 34 317 252 -65
0.9 0.6 -0.3 12 15 3 32 20 -12
6.9 10 3.1 86 131 45 233 155 -78
0.63 0.4 -0.23 8 10 2 21 12 -9
N
P
K
S
Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference
4 example elements (elemental form) all in Kg/Ha
Week1 Week 5 Week 8
9.5 6.1 -3.4 72 72 0 318 257 -61
47 68 21 364 554 190 1590 667 -923
11 7.3 -3.7 85 83 -2 371 153 -218
7.9 8.1 0.2 60 85 25 265 174 -91
B
Fe
Mn
Zn
Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference Peak demand Actual difference
4 example elements (elemental form) all in grams/Ha
Source Lancrop 2018
Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 Week5 Week6 Week7 Week8 Week9 Week10 Harvest Peas
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fresh Weight & Dry Weight Over Time
Fresh Weight T/Ha Dry Weight T/Ha
Key areas for
nutrition and water
(rooting)
Spring bean row widthsPGRO Pulse Research
18 t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
Stephen Belcher,
PGRO Principal Technical Officer
Where beans are grown in higher rainfall
areas or fertile conditions or where
vigorous growth is expected, plant
populations should remain around the
40-45 plants/m². Increasing the plant
population means drilling more seed,
which means the plants will be more
closely associated within the rows,
giving possible intra-row competition.
Direct drills often have a row spacing
much greater than 20cm and these are
becoming increasingly popular.
We reported in spring 2017 on the first
year of investigating row width in spring
beans. After three years of trials, this work
is now complete and the outputs are
given below.
Trials were conducted 2016-2018. Two
plant densities of 40 and 60 plants/m²
were selected. In 2016, three RWs were
used, but this was increased to six in
2017/18. A list of treatments is detailed
below. The trial was semi-randomised
with 8 replications split across 2 blocks.
The 1994 PGRO field bean handbook recommended that narrow
row widths (RW) of 20cm or less were optimum for spring beans.
The target plant density at that time was 40 plants/m². Through the
Optibean project higher plant populations were recommended, up
to 60 to 65 plants/m² for maximum yield and 50 to 55 plants/m² as
an economic optimum, taking into account sowing date, likely
yield, produce value and cost of the seed.
Number of rows Row width cm Plant density (plants/m²)
10 15 40 & 60
6 15&30* 40 & 60
8 18.75* 40 & 60
6 25 40 & 60
5 30* 40 & 60
4 37.5 40 & 60
Plant density
The number of plants established was
generally higher than the target plant
density (few field losses).
• At 40 plants/m² density there was
little influence of RW with respect to
the number of plants established, but
there was a slight
trend of lower plant
numbers at wider
RWs.
• At 60 plants/m²
density there was
a clear trend of
decreasing plant
establishment with
increasing RW.
Yield
The 15&30cm RW was a double row
at 15cm with a 30cm gap between
the double rows. This was attempting
to simulate some types of direct drill
which drill a double row and a wider
gap, but the drill used was not a
direct drill.
• The 15&30 treatment did not
perform either as a 15 or 30cm
RW. Nor did it perform the same
as the 25cm RW (in both cases
there were 6 rows across the
drilled plot).
• Over years and RWs, 60 plants/m²
gave significantly higher yields
than 40 plants/m² by 6.0%.
*2017 & 2018 only
t: 01780 782585 www.pgro.org e: [email protected]
• Over years and densities, a RW of
25cm gave the highest yields. RWs
15&30, 15cm and 37.5cm gave the
lowest yields.
• At 40 plants/m² there was a small
influence of RW on yield, with the
highest yields at 25-30cm RW.
• At 60 plants/m², yields increased
with increasing RW up to 25cm
after which yields were lower.
Other characters
• Branch counts, % brackling, standing
ability and maturity were little
influenced by either density or RW.
• There was no influence of either
density or RW on plant height, with
the average range only 3cm across
the treatments.
• TSW was not assessed in 2018 as there
appeared little difference in the two
previous years. In 2016 there was no
difference in TSW for the treatments.
In 2017 TSW increased from 40 to 60
plants/m² density, but only by 9g/1000
seeds. Other studies have shown TSW
to decrease as density increases.
How wide is too wide?At plant densities of 50-65 plants/m² the higher yields came from a 25cm RW. Both wider and narrower row widths gave lower yields.
There is more leeway at 40-45 plants/m² and RW had less influence on yield up to the 37.5 cm RW tested.
EVOLVED FORMULATIONS OPTIMISED WEED CONTROLMohawk contains clomazone.Use plant protection products safely. Always read the label and product information before use.
For further product information and guidance refer to www.sipcamuk.co.uk
110.0
105.0
100.0
95.0
90.0
Yie
ld %
Tri
al M
ean
40 plants/m2
15 18.75 15/30 25 30 37.5
60 plants/m2
Row width & Density Vs Yield 2016-18
Row width cm
Processors and Growers Research OrganisationThe Research Station, Great North Road, Thornhaugh, Peterborough, PE8 6HJ
Tel: +44(0) 1780 782585 Fax: +44(0) 1780 783993
www.pgro.org email: [email protected] twitter: @pgroresearch
Roger - 01780 781344 Becky - 01780 781351 Jim - 01780 781346 Stephen - 01780 781347 Lea - 01780 781340
PGRO the UK’s centre of excellence for peas and beansGrowers of peas and beans qualify for membership of the PGRO by virtue of the small voluntary
levy on produce sold through the merchant trade. Grower membership of the PGRO means that
advice from the PGRO team is only a phone call away. There are also these other benefits:
P G R O
Full access to the PGRO website (www.pgro.org) and to all the updates, technical information and
associated services provided there. Telephone and farm visit support is also available.
The PGRO is accessible for two-way communication via social media on twitter@pgroresearch, and PGRO Crop Updates are emailed throughout the growing season to highlight topical issues.
Pulse Market Updates are published and circulated on a monthly basis to registered members along with the Pulse Magazine in spring, summer and winter.
PGRO Agronomy APP tool
• By using the APP you will be able to access Recommended List variety information for combining peas and field beans and the Descriptive List data for vining peas – all adapted for viewing on a small screen.
• A Pests, Diseases and Deficiencies section shows images of common issues arising in the field together with a written description to aid identification, notes on potential impact, and control strategies.
• A useful growth stage guide is included together with commonly requested tools for seed rates and weight loss in drying calculations.
• Brief notes and guidance to sources of information for other pulses and legumes are also provided – and will be expanded in the future.
• The most innovative feature is the ability to generate your own crop reports. Accessed via the Pests, Diseases and Deficiencies section, the user can take images and write a short report, sending them from the APP by email to others. The report
will automatically be sent to the PGRO Plant Clinic where a request for advice can be lodged. Anonymised, the incidence/report will appear marked on a map of the UK on the PGRO web site enabling others to be aware of crop developments around the country.
• Another significant advantage is that the APP can be updated at any time enabling real-time notifications of updates and changes. This is particularly valuable for services such as the Pea Moth Alert.
• All of the content will also be available on the PGRO web site www.pgro.org in the form of Technical Updates and other publications - including downloadable print ready
Recommended Lists of varieties if required.
Download the APP from
Apple and Google Stores -
search for PGRO Pea and Bean
Guide
PGRO Plant ClinicThe PGRO operates a plant clinic for pea and bean growers for the diagnosis of crop disorders, pest and disease problems.
Basic diagnosis of most issues and any remedial recommendations are free of
charge to levy payers.
The plant clinic diagnosis request form and instructions to ensure samples arrive in the best possible condition can be downloaded from the PGRO web site.
www.pgro.org
The PGRO Pea & Bean APP is the worthy successor to the Agronomy Guide. It provides up to date technical backup as well as the RL variety guides and an interactive pest and disease reporting tool via your smartphone or tablet.
P G R O
THE PGRO AT YOUR
fingertips