Deliverables From Study Entitled Survey On The Adaptation of Agronomic Practices by EU Farmers To Neonicotinoid Restrictions'

Ref.
Ares(2015)1851679 - 30/04/2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE AGRONOMIC PRACTICES AND PEST

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY FARMERS BEFORE THE
RESTRICTIONS ON NEONICOTINOIDS AND SAMPLING METHOD FOR
MAIZE IN SPAIN, FRANCE AND ITALY AND SUNFLOWER IN HUNGARY
Introduction
There is a consensus that the application of pesticides is one of the most widely used
ways of protecting plants and plant products against harmful organisms and of improving
agricultural production. Neonicotinoid insecticides are among the most broadly adopted
chemical insecticides used to manage insect pests of annual and perennial crops in the
world (Jeschke et al., 2011). Seed dressing, film coating, pelleting or multilayer coating
allow for environmentally safe and good protection of young plants against insect attack
(Elbert et al., 2008). It is important to bear in mind that the use of seed treatments is
compatible with the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Modern seed
treatment products including neconicotinoids and fipronil are able to achieve high levels
of efficiency in the control of insects and diseases during the early stages of cultivation,
with reduced use of the products as compared to foliar and alternative soil treatments.
Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third (in monetary
terms) of the world insecticide market (Simon-Delso et al., 2015). Neonicotinoids
include the following active substances imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin,
acetamiprid, thiacloprid, dinotefuran and nitenpyram. Among them, imidacloprid,
thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and the active substance fipronil, which belongs to the
phenylpyrazoles chemical family, are the most commonly used systemic insecticides
(Simon-Delso et al., 2015). The high systemic activity of these insecticides is a feature
that has contributed to the development of formulations for diverse application
techniques, such as seed treatments, soil treatments (incorporation of granules, injection,
drip irrigation), spraying and the use of tablets. All these application methods are feasible
and have been included in IPM programs worldwide (Elbert et al., 2008; Jeschke and
Nauen, 2008; Simon-Delso et al., 2015).
In recent years, neonicotinoids and fipronil have been the fastest growing class of
insecticides in modern crop protection, with widespread use against a broad spectrum of
sucking and certain chewing pests (Jeschke and Nauen, 2008). In Europe, more than 200
plant protection products containing imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin,
acetamiprid, or thiacloprid were on the market in 2012, with more than 1000 authorised
uses, including field, greenhouse and indoor uses. The authorised uses were for a wide
range of crops including maize and sunflower. Approximately 69% of the field uses were
spray applications, while less than 20% as seed treatment and about 12% other methods
of application such as drip irrigation and soil disinfectant (EFSA, 2012). However, these
percentages represent the number of authorised uses which is not related to the volume of
the total active substance that was used or the extent of the treated area. The use of
neonicotinoids as a seed treatment can be considered of greater importance than as foliar
treatments. Neonicotinoid seed treatments are routinely applied to the vast majority of
grain and oilseed crops in developed countries, untreated seeds often being unavailable
for purchase (Simon-Delso et al., 2015). For example in the UK 93% of all insecticidal
seed treatments (by weight) were neonicotinoids and 87% of the total amount of
1
neonicotinoids were applied as seed treatments in 2012 (Simon-Delso et al., 2015).
Moreover, it is estimated that 90% of the maize crop planted in the USA receives a seed
treatment (CropLife Foundation, 2013), with only minor use as foliar and soil treatment.
Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October
2009 concerning the commercialization of plant protection products lays down rules
which govern plant protection products and the active substances contained in them.
Subsequently, the European Commission has published two other regulations that
prohibit the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the
active substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, in the case of Regulation
(EC) No. 485/2013 (24 May 2013), and the active ingredient fipronil in the case of
Regulation (EC) No. 781/2013 (14 August 2013). The mentioned regulations do not
allow the authorization of plant protection products containing clothianidin,
imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and fipronil as seed, soil or foliar treatments with the
exception of some specific uses and conditions indicated in the regulations. These
restrictions were established in the light of new scientific and technical information that
was evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and from which a high
risk to bees derived from plant protection products containing the above cited active
substances was identified.
Reviewing the information contained in the report of the inclusion directives for the
approval of the four active substances (European Commission, 2005; European
Commission, 2006; European Commission 2008; European Commission, 2010), it can be
seen that some of these active substances are important for the control of soil pests.
Certain crops, such as maize (Zea mays L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) greatly
rely on the above mentioned neonicotinoids to manage soil-dwelling and early-season
insect pests (EFSA, 2012). Thus, restricting the use of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
clothianidin, and fipronil for the control of major pests in maize and sunflower might
have an economic impact for EU farmers.
In the case of fipronil, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2010)
the following uses were considered for approval: Maize and sunflower seed treatment to
control soil insects with seed dressing as the method of application, and the use in
sunflower crop in Spain, France and Italy and in maize in Greece, Italy, Spain, France,
the Netherlands, and Belgium. Fipronil was included in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC by the Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007. Additional
provisions to protect honey bees were introduced by Directive 2010/21/EU of 12 March
2010. Fipronil was approved under regulation 1107/2009 by the reg. EU 540/2011,
entering into force on 14 June 2011. In 2013 EFSA published the conclusion on the peer
review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance fipronil. It must
worth noting that this conclusion considered the authorized uses of fipronil as a seed
treatment (EFSA, 2013a). The following plant protection products containing fipronil
have been commercialized in Member States for maize and sunflower seed treatment:
Regent FS (500 g/l fipronil) (seed treatment of maize and sunflower) in Spain; Cosmos
FS (500 g/l fipronil) (seed treatment of maize and sunflower) in Bulgaria, Czech
Republic and Slovakia; and Cosmos FS for seed treatment of maize in Hungary (EFSA,
2013a). Furthermore, other plant protection products containing fipronil have been
authorized and commercialized in Member States for other uses different than seed
treatment, these products are the following: Regent 800WG (800 g/kg fipronil) (soil
2
treatment at sowing in maize); Regent MG (20 g/kg fipronil), Schuss WG (800 g/kg
fipronil) and Trident GR (62.5 Aldicarb + Fipronil 20 g/kg g/kg) used for soil
treatments against Agriotes spp.; Regent G GR (20 g/kg fipronil) for sunflower and
maize to be applied in furrow during sowing.
For thiamethoxam, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2006

SANCO/10390/2002), some of the uses considered for approval were the following: seed
treatment (Cruiser 70 WS) for wheat, barley, sunflower, maize, rapeseed, sugar beet,
peas, cotton and potatoes and foliar application (Actara 25WG) for apple, pear, peach
trees, citrus, cotton, fruiting vegetables, potatoes, tobacco and ornamentals. Cruiser 70
WS was used as a seed treatment against insects for early season sucking pest as well as
some leaf feeding insect pests on many different crops, and specifically for maize in
Spain and Italy. Thiamethoxam was included in Annex I of Directive 91/414 in 2007 by
the Directive 2007/6/EC, and was approved under regulation 1107/2009 by the
Regulation (EU) 540/2011, entering into force on 14 June 2011. In 2013 EFSA published
the conclusion of the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active
substance thiamethoxam. It must worth noting that this conclusion considered the
authorized uses of thiamethoxam as a seed treatment (EFSA, 2013b), whereas other uses
and plant protection products that were authorized in Member States were not taken into
account. Regarding maize and sunflower, thiamethoxam has been commercialized as
Cruiser 350 FS for seed treatment of maize and sunflower in Spain, Greece, Slovakia
and Hungary and for seed treatment of maize in France, Italy, Czech Republic and
Austria (EFSA, 2013b).
For clothianidin, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2005,

SANCO/10533/05), among the intended uses considered to this active substance for
Annex I inclusion were seed treatments of sugar and fodder beet as well as maize. This
active substance was included on Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC on 1 August 2006
under Inclusion Directive 2006/41/EC and was approved under Regulation (EC)
1107/2009 by Regulation (EU) 540/2011, entering into force on 14 June 2011. In 2013
EFSA published the conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for
bees for the active substance clothianidin. It must worth noting that this conclusion
considered the authorized uses of clothianidin as a seed treatment or granules on a variety
of crops (EFSA, 2013c), whereas other uses and plant protection products that were
authorized in Member States were not taken into account. As of 2013, several plant
protection products were authorized in EU Member States: Poncho 600 FS in Czech
Republic and Hungary; Poncho in Spain and the United Kingdom, Cheyenne in France;
Santana 1G in Hungary, Poncho 600 FS Rosso in Italy and Santana 0.7 GR in Italy for
seed treatment or granular soil applications in maize. For the seed treatment of
sunflower, Poncho 600 FS was approved in Slovakia and FS 600 in Romania (EFSA,
2013c).
In the case of imidacloprid, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission,

2008, SANCO/108/08), maize and sunflower were not among the intended uses
considered for this active substance (only the use on tomato was included in the review
report). This active substance was included into Annex I of Directive 91/414 in 2008,
entering into force on 1 August 2008 (Directive 2008/116/EC) and was approved under
Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 by the Regulation (EU) 540/2011, entering into force on 14
June 2011. However, after the inclusion in Annex I of the active substances several
3
authorizations of plant protection products containing imidacloprid were granted by
Member States for maize and sunflower. In 2013 EFSA published the conclusion of the
peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance
imidacloprid. It must worth noting that this conclusion considered the authorized uses of
clothianidin as a seed treatment or granules on a variety of crops (EFSA, 2013d),
whereas other uses and plant protection products that were authorized in Member States
were not taken into account. As of 2013 the products for maize seed treatment are
Gaucho 600 FS in Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Greece and Hungary; Gaucho R70 WS in
Belgium; Gaucho 350 FS in Greece and Italy; Gaucho 70 WS, Seedoprid 600FS and
Nuprid 600 FS in Greece; Nuprid in Estonia; Escocet, Picus 35; Seedoprid 350 FS;
Seedoprid red, Seedoprid 600 FS in Spain; Gaucho 350 FS, Nuprid 350 FS and
Nuprid 600 FS Blanco in Italy; Nuprid 600 FS in Italy and Poland; Couraze 350 FS in
Poland; and Gaucho in Portugal. For seed treatment of oil seed rape Chinook was
registered in Austria, Antarc (004674-00) and Chinook (004672-00) in Germany;
Nuprid in Estonia; Chinook FS 200 in Finland; Chinook 200 FS in Hungary, Sweden
and Slovakia; Chinook in Poland and United Kingdom; Chinook Blue 200 FS, Couraze
350 FS and Nuprid 600 FS in Poland. For sunflower seed treatment Gaucho 600 FS
was registered in Hungary (EFSA, 2013d).
It must worth noting that derogations of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 (Art. 53) (European
Commission, 2009) allow Member States the authorization of plant protection products
containing active substances that are not approved. These authorizations are for a period
not exceeding 120 days. This establishes a frame in which the use of the four active
substances mentioned above are not totally restricted and in some circumstances could be
used in some Member States if the exceptional authorization is granted and if it is
demonstrated that the danger cannot be contained or controlled by any other reasonable
means. Before the restriction of use of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin and
fipronil some Member States granted exceptional authorizations for plant protection
products containing these active substances for seed treatment of sunflower or for
application along rows during seeding for maize against wireworm. The number of
emergency authorizations according to Article 53 of Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 of plant
protection products for controlling soil pests has increased in the last year. Furthermore
some Member States have granted exceptional authorization for seed treatment with
some of these active substances, as Romania that requested exceptional authorization to
use clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam for sunflower seed from February to
June 2014.
These exceptional authorizations allow other substances to be considered as alternatives

for treatment of seeds, such as it is the case for cypermethrin, thiacloprid and tefluthrin,
for which exceptional authorizations have been granted. Nowadays there are in process
authorization of plant protection products containing other insecticides for seed treatment
on maize and sunflower (the information of exceptional authorization was extracted from
the information distributed among MS and the European Commission).
The restrictions of neonicotinoids and fipronil may imply a substantial shift from soil-
based to foliar-based pest management systems. Farmers might incur several new costs
under this scenario, including costs for alternative active substances, additional
application costs, and added costs for using higher seeding densities. It is necessary to
quantify the impact of the restriction of use of these active substances. This can be done
4
through surveys aimed at farmers, agricultural associations, cooperatives or any other
agents involved in the agricultural sector that will allow a descriptive assessment of the
impacts of the restrictive uses of neonicotinoids and fipronil. The objective of this report
is to explain the agronomic and pest management practices in maize and sunflower in
regions of France, Italy, Spain (maize) and Hungary (Sunflower) in which the use on
neonicotinoids and fipronil as seed treatment were important before the restrictions.
Maize Pest Management practices
Maize production in Europe, for both human consumption and livestock feeding, is
characterized by a high productivity based on high inputs (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers and
water). Data from France, Spain and Italy are reported in Table 1. The highest input of
nitrogen fertilizers (organic and synthetic) was reported from Spain (350 kg/ha),
followed by France and Italy (180230 kg/ha) (Meissle et al., 2010). Water use in Spain
is very high as most maize growing areas are under irrigation.
Table 1. Current inputs for maize cropping systems in three European regions
Inputs France Spain Italy
Energy use VH VH VH
Water use H-M VH H-M
Land use H-M H-M H-M
Mineral fertilizer H-M VH M-L
te: VH: very high; H-M: high to medium; M-L: medium to low; L-M: low to medium (Adapted
m Vasileiadis et al., 2011)
The crop protection scenarios in France, Italy and Spain are related to the different agro-
ecosystems (irrigated and rain-fed) found in each region, which will determine the
presence and degree of importance of maize pests. Maize can be attacked by a wide
range of insects, but relatively few are major and/or regular pests. In terms of target
pests, neonicotinoid seed treatments are primarily applied to manage soil-dwelling and
early-season primary insect pests. Current control options include a wide range of
cultural and chemical practices in Spain, France and Italy (Table 2) to prevent or avoid
injury of the following primary pests: a) soil insects can significantly affect
establishment by causing injuries in germinating seeds and roots in the first growth
stages, such as cutworms (Agrotis spp.) and wireworms (Agriotes spp.), and western
corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) as a potentially major pests (see Table 2
legend); b) sucking insects, such as aphids (Rhopalosiphum padi, R. maidis, Sitobion
avenae, Metopolophium dirhodum), especially in the first growth stages to avoid virus
transmission of MRDV (maize rough dwarf virus) and MDMV (maize dwarf mosaic
virus); c) leafhoppers (mainly Zyginidia scutellaris), sucking insects that feed on young
leaves causing a decrease in chlorophyll levels; d) the first generation of lepidopteran
corn borers (Ostrinia nubilalis and Sesamia nonagrioides) damage young plants, which
often die and those that survive can either be barren or produce smaller ears, and also
lepidopteran leaf feeders (Mhytimna Spp., Heliothis armigera). In addition, there are
other positive effects of seed treatments (e.g. better emergence, greater plant density at
5
the end of the vegetation period). Foliar and soil applications of neonicotinoids to control
maize pests have less significance as compared with seed treatments (EFSA, 2012).
Table 2. Current crop protection practices against primary pests, weeds, and diseases* of
continuous and rotated1 maize cropping systems in Spain, France and Italy2
Cropping practices Biotic stress factor3
Pre -showing and Weeds
post-emergence
herbicide
Seed treatments Insect born viruses (transmited by Rhopalosiphum padi, R.
maidis, Sitobion avenae, Metopolophium dirhodum), wireworms
(Agriotes Spp.), cutworms (Agrotis Spp.), leafhoppers (mainly
Zyginidia scutellaris)/Fusarium Spp.
Pesticides Corn borers (ECB, Ostrinia nubilalis, and MCB, Sesamia
nonagrioides), cutworms, wireworms, lepidopteran leaf feeders
(Mhytimna spp., Heliothis armigera), western corn rootworm
(WCR, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera)* /Fusarium spp./ and
weeds
Crop choice in Corn borers (ECB, MCB), cutworms, wireworms, lepidopteran
rotation leaf feeders, western corn rootworm (WCR)*/Fusarium spp./ and
weeds
Sowing time Corn borers (ECB, MCB), insect borne viruses and western corn
management rootworm (WCR)*
Major tillage Corn borers (ECB, MCB)/Fusarium spp./ and weeds
(ploughing)
Minor tillage Corn borers (ECB, MCB)/Fusarium spp./ and weeds
(harrowing)
Removal of crop Corn borers (ECB, MCB)/Fusarium spp.
residues
Biological Control Some initiatives in France and Italy
Bt maize Corn borers (ECB, MCB) in Spain
1
Rotation depends on the agro-ecosystem. The most common rotations are: maize after maize;
maize-winter wheat; alfalfa- maize-winter wheat
2
The presence and degree of virulence of the primary maize pests shown in this table varies, though
it is not the aim of this table.
* Source: Castaera (1986), Meissle et al. (2010) and Vasileiadis et al. (2011). We have included
western corn rootworm (WCR) as a potential major pests, though it must be stressed that economic
damage has only been recorded on maize in Serbia, and in some bordering areas in Croatia, Hungary,
Romania, and small areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Bulgaria (EPPO bulletin, 2012).
The production costs of the current agronomic practices in the Ebro Valley, as a case
study, are reflected in Table 3. High yielding maize cropping systems require large
pesticide inputs for realizing the yield potential. The removal of neonicotinoids would
make soil and early-season pests control difficult by using allowable insecticides. This
new scenario would imply a substantial shift to more foliar-based pest management
6
system. The most affected inputs are seed and pesticide application costs. The lower
fertilizer and water use in France and Italy might reduce production cost by about 10%,
but the incomes should be rather similar, since the expected yield is proportionally lower.
Yet, the economic impact of the use of alternative pesticides should be rather alike in the
selected regions, because of the similar economic significance of the targeted pest complex
(Meissle et al., 2010).
Table 3. Estimation of costs and gross margin for current maize agronomic practices in the
Ebro Valley (Spain)
Inputs /ha (%)
Seed1 269 13.0
Fertilizers (sowing + growing) 587 28.5
Pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) 1 155 7.5
Cultural practices (ploughing and application of 411 19.9

pesticides) 1
Water use (5000-8000 m3/ha) 224 10.9
Energy use (Grain drying) 1 416 20.2
Total variable cost (/ha) 2,062 -
Revenue (/ha) 2,897 -
Gross margin (/ha) 835 -

Source: Adapted from a AGPME (2010)
1
Inputs most likely to be affected by neonicotinoid restrictions.
7
The number of emergency authorizations (Article 53 Regulation (EC) 1107/2009) of
plant protection products for controlling soil pests has increased in the last year, due to
the prohibition of the use and sale of maize seed treated and foliar applications with plant
protection products containing the active substances imidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
clothianidin and fipronil. In 2013 Germany, Spain and Hungary granted exceptional
authorization of plant protection products containing cypermethrin, thiacloprid and
tefluthrin for soil (MAGRAMA, 2013a), foliar and seed treatment for controlling
wireworms (Agriotes spp.) and western corn rootworm. In 2014 Austria, Hungary,
Slovakia, Romania and Hungary granted exceptional authorization of plant protection
products containing cypermethrin, thiacloprid, tefluthrin, clothianidin, for controlling
wireworms and western corn root worm by soil and seed treatment: (content extracted
from the information distributed among MS and EU Commission).
The great economic importance of maize in France, Italy and Spain (32% of the total
maize production in the EU-27) jointly with the wide use of neonicotinoids for seed
dressing, provides an interesting case study for the assessment of the economic
consequences of restricting this technology to maize growers. Thus, inefficient control of
the mentioned primary pests, particularly soil pests, can reduce plant establishment,
plant populations, plant growth, and subsequent maize yield potential and farmers'
incomes.
Sunflower Pest Management practices
With an area of about 26 million hectares worldwide, sunflower is essential to maintain

the sustainability of many regions, especially in Europe. It is also a strategic crop, which
in recent years has increased its potential thanks to the innovation, as the development of
new hybrid varieties. Sunflower cultivation has witnessed a boost in productivity by an
improvement of agricultural technologies and a supportive socio-economic policy
environment, as well as efficient institutional support services (Gorton et al., 2004;
Komjti et al., 2004; Molinero-Ruiz et al., 2009; Fodor and Psztor, 2010; Viranyi and
Spring, 2011; Sezen et al., 2011; Balali et al., 2012; Dhima et al., 2012; Ghobadi et al.,
2013). Furthermore, research includes the development of specific characters such as
herbicide resistance and disease tolerance in new seed varieties, in addition to oleic acid-
rich varieties. Innovation also affects pesticides and fertilizers applications in this crop
(Mohammadi et al., 2013; Sukanya et al., 2015).
Approximately 40% of sunflower production is turned into oil for food consumption;
other end products from sunflower are feedstuffs and fuel oils (Bai, 2001; Csete et al.,
2007; FAO 2010). It is one of the most important herbaceous plants cultivated in the
world from which oil is extracted for human consumption. It is a crop whose production
has been increasing at a stable rate in recent years. Weeds, pests and diseases may entail
a yield reduction of 50% or higher. To realize the yield potential of sunflower cropping,
pesticide inputs are required (Jayakumar et al., 1988. FAO, 1994).
In 2012 in Hungary, sunflower seed occupied the fourth position in the list of main
commodities in the country with an average production of 1,316,545 MT, after maize,
wheat and milk, implying that sunflower seed production in Hungary occupies the
8
seventh position in the world ranking. It is also important to note that sunflower
production in Hungary has increased considerably in recent years, from 483,649 in 2000
to 615,000 ha in 2012 (FAOSTAT, 2014; European Commission, 2014). The price of
sunflower production increased by 14% in 2012 over the previous year that represented
128,000 Hungarian forint (HUF) per ton (422 /ton) (Ministry of Rural Development of
Hungary, 2012). In 2013, the sunflower area in Hungary was 580,000 ha, 80% of which
used seeds treated with neonicotinoids. Fipronil was not registered for sunflower in
Hungary (Alonso-Prados personal communication).
Sunflower production in Hungary, both for human consumption and livestock feeding, is
characterized by high productivity based on high volume of inputs (i.e. pesticides,
fertilizers), as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Input use intensity for sunflower cropping systems in Hungary

Hungary
Water use L-M
Land use VH
Mineral fertilizer use H-M
Qualitative states: VH: very high; H-M: high to medium; M-L: medium to low; L-M:
low to medium (based on FAOSTAT, 2014)
Table 4 has been constructed with estimations taking into account the available information in
FAO for Hungary, regarding economic indicators; food, nutrition and food security, land use and
agricultural inputs, machinery usage, pesticide trade, evolution of fertilizer consumption,
evolution of arable land, water resources and irrigation, agricultural production and trade.
The crop protection scenarios in different EU Member States are rather similar, though
they would be related to the differential agro-ecosystems found in each region. The
current crop protection practices to control the primary pests, weeds and diseases in
Hungary are reported in Table 5.
Table 5. Current Crop Protection Practices against primary pests, weeds, and diseases of
sunflower cropping systems1
Cropping practices Biotic stress factor
Pre sowing, pre- Weeds
emergence and post-
emergence herbicide
Cutworms (Agrotis Spp.), wireworms (Agriotes spp.), false
Seed treatments
wireworms (Tenebrionidae), sunflower downy mildew
(Plasmopara helianthi)
Cutworms, wireworms, white grubs (Melolontha Spp.), false
Insecticide
wireworms, Heliothis Spp., and the weevil (Tanymecus
dilaticollis)
Crop choice in White rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), verticilosis (Verticilium
rotation (crop and dahliae), sunflower broomrape (Orobanche cumana), weevils
time)
9
Sowing time Cutworms
management
Major tillage White rot, sunflower broomrape
(ploughing)
Root and stem charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina), white
Agronomic practices
rot, weevils, sunflower moth (Homoeosoma nebulella)
and cropping
strategies
Resistant Sunflower downy mildew, verticilosis, sunflower broomrape,
hybrids/varieties sunflower moth, sunflower rust (Puccinia helianthi)
Fungicides Gray rot (Botrytis cinerea)
treatments
Organic fertilizer White rot
1
Rotation depends on the agro-ecosystem. The most common rotations are with winter cereal
(wheat, barley) and maize.
Information included in Table 5 comes from a general review of the relevant literature (Elbert et al.,
2008; .Fodor et al., 2010; Komjti et al., 2004; Molinero-Ruiz et al., 2009; Nagy et al., 2006;
Sukanya et al., 2015; Vasileiadis et al., 2011 and Viranyi and Spring, 2011).
In 2011, the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics of the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences (2011) published a comparative cost and profit analysis of organic and
conventional farming in western Hungary (Urfi et al., 2011). Yields and prices of
products from conventional farming practices in 2009 and cost per unit for sunflower in
Hungary are reported in Table 6. (The result of organic farming has not been considered
because the agricultural and plant protection practices are different.)
Table 6. Yields and prices of products from conventional farming practices in 2009 and
cost per unit for sunflower in Hungary
Yield Selling Price Direct Cost Direct Cost per

Unit
3.20 50,000 167,145 (HUF/ha) 52,233 (HUF/t)

(HUF/t)
(t/ha)
163.00(/t) 544.89 (/ha) 170.28 (/t)
Source: Urfi et al., 2011.
Sunflower seeds treated with clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam may not be
used or put on the market from 1 December, 2013. In the case of sunflower seeds treated
with fipronil, they cannot be marketed or planted from 1 March 2014. Clothianidin,
imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, and fipronil were commonly used to control certain soil
insect pests. Inefficient control of some of the key pests might have negative effects on
sunflower yield and on farmers' incomes.
10
In Hungary, in May 2014, an exceptional authorization (according to Art. 53 of Reg.
(EC) 1107/2009) was granted to use plant protection products containing lambda-
cyhalothrin in order to treat soil against Agriotes spp., weevils and other pests from April
to June 2014.
The restriction of use of plant protection products containing the active substances
clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and fipronil, could affect the production of
sunflower in Hungary, which could mean some considerable losses in production as
some stakeholders have indicated. In the new situation it is necessary to identify and
evaluate possible actions to be undertaken to preserve constant values of sunflower crop
production, and increase them if possible. It is therefore essential to assess the impact
that has led to the restriction of these four active substances.
Sampling Method and Selection of Participants
The type of survey used in this study was a quantitative farm-level survey. A
questionnaire was specifically designed for commercial (grain) maize and sunflower
growers.
The target population of the survey was defined as the collective of maize growers of
one region of France, Italy and Spain, and the collective of sunflower growers of one
region in the case of Hungary. The requirement to take part of the target population was
having used any of the neonicotinoid products of restricted use (fipronil, imidacloprid,
thiamethoxam, clothianidin) before 2014 sowing. The definition includes all growers
using these active substances in any of the previous years, but specially focuses on the
two previous seasons (2013 and 2012).
According to the previous statement, the sampling procedure should refer to this universe
and should look for a representative selection of interviewees among this group.
The location of interviewees have been preview in a multistage process, which ensures
the suitability and representativeness of the sample finally obtained.
In the first steps of the process we have noticed a great lack of information concerning
the use of the restricted neonicotinoids, together with a very heterogeneous situation
inside every country/region. Due to the lack of information regarding neonicotinoid
usage, we decided to concentrate the sampling on the regions with the biggest usage of
each crop taking into account the surface and the number of holders, which implies
adapting the original survey proposal.
The sampling procedure has taken into account the total surface and the number of
holders per country and crop. The areas selected, as shown in table 7 and figure 1, are the
ones with the highest presence of the crop. Some additional information suggests that the
presence of the crop/number of holders is correlated with the usage of neonicotinoids.
Additional information to support the choice of regions was coming from public
information, commercial panels on phytosanitarian product use, national experts, etc.
11
Table 7. Regions selected by country/crop and region.
Country Region Selected Number of Holders Total Surface (Has)
Italy Lombarda 22,871 337,598

Spain Ebro Valley 9,268 83,965
France Aquitaine 22,884 382,605
Hungary Northern Great Plain 13,674 139,973
Figure 1: Maps of /Geographic location for Regional Sampling selection
In France, the Aquitaine region is the leading grain farming region in the country (20%
over the total grain maize), and the majority of farms face high pest pressure (Noleppa
and Hahn, 2013), suggesting a wide use of seed treatments. In fact, private panel
information has reported around 45% of maize producers in this region using
neonicotinoids in 2012/2013.
For Spain we have considered the Ebro Valley, specifically Zaragoza and Lleida, because
of the innovative profiles of maize growers there. Seed treatments (including
neonicotinoids) have been widely used due to the high adoption rate of Bt maize in these
areas, more than 75% in 2013. (http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-
ambiental/temas/biotecnologia/organismos-modificados-geneticamente-omg-/consejo-
interministerial-de-ogms/superficie.aspx)
12
We also consider a first contact with the Regional/Local Agricultural Authorities by
letter/telephone (guaranteed by the Commission), informing them of the imminent
agricultural study to be carried out on crop growing practices, for which we request their
cooperation in advising us which municipalities are the most ideal with regards to the
presence of the crop, commercialization points, and big farms.
As a result of this step we found a great diversity of situations between countries at the
county level in the determined regions, for example after a contact with the Provincial
Consortium of Bergamo (Lombarda), we found that they switched to a non-
neonicotinoid scenario more than 3-5 years ago, were the products1 Gaucho
(imidacloprid), Cruiser (thiamethoxam) and Poncho (clothianidin) were not sold for a
long time, and the Nuprid has never been used. An exceptional authorization was
nevertheless previewed in 2012, for a single campaign, where the use of Santana
(clothianidin) was allowed because, contrary to previous products, it was not used on
seeds, but instead placed in the seed furrow. Soon after, it was definitely removed from
the market. Apart from Bergamo, other areas of Lombardia are not confirmed to
have the same kind of restrictions regarding neonicotinoids.
1The active substance has been presented during the interviewer selection and the interview as
commercial names.
13
References
General Association of Spanish Corn Producers (AGPME, 2010): "Study of overall

costs of cultivation of maize in Aragon for transgenic and conventional varieties".
Bai, A. 2001. Economic Assessment of Biodiesel Production for Hungarian Farmers.
University of Debrecen, Centre of Agricultural Sciences Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Development. This study was sponsored by the OTKA (research
topic F 032 133) and the FKFP (0069/2001)
Balali, I., Miroslav Z., Gordana B., Sreten T., Jovan C. (2012). Interpretation of
hybridsowing date interaction for oil content and oil yield in sunflower. Field Crops
Research, 137, 7077.
Castaera, P. (1986). Plagas del maz. IV Jornadas tcnicas sobre maz, Lrida,
ponencias y comunicaciones sobre plagas, pags.1-24.
Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007 amending Council Directive
91/414/EEC to include ethoprophos, pirimiphos-methyl and fipronil as active
substances. Official Journal of the European Union.
Commission Directive 2007/6/EC of 14 February 2007 amending Council Directive
91/414/EEC to include metrafenone, Bacillus subtilis, spinosad and thiamethoxam as
active substances. Official Journal of the European Union.
Commission Directive 2008/116/EC of 15 December 2008 amending Council Directive
91/414/EEC to include aclonifen, imidacloprid and metazachlor as active substances.
Official Journal of the European Union.
Council Directive of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products
on the market (91 / 414 / EEC ). Official Journal of the European Communities. 19. 8.
91. No L 230/1.
Commission Directive 2006/41/EC of 7 July 2006 amending Council Directive
91/414/EEC to include clothianidin and pethoxamid as active substances. Official
Journal of the European Union.
CropLife Foundation, 2013. The Role of Seed Treatment in Modern U.S. Crop
Production. 67 pp.
Csete, M., Zldy, M., Szlvik, J. 2007. Regional Development Perspectives of
Production and Utilization Renewable Fuels in Hungary. Communication IYCE 2007
Conference
Dhima, K., Vasilakogloub, I., Paschalidis, K.A., Gatsis, T., Keco, R. (2012).
Productivity and phytotoxicity of six sunflower hybrids and their residues effects on
rotated lentil and ivy-leaved speedwell. Field Crops Research, 136, 4251.
Elbert, A., Haas M., Springer B.,Thielert W. and Nauen R. (2008). Mini-review
Applied aspects of neonicotinoid uses in crop protection. Pest Manag Sci, 64, 1099
1105.
European Commission (2014). Agriculture CEC reports Hungary.
(http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/peco/hungary/summary/sum_en.htm).
European Commission (2009). Regulation (Ec) No 1107/2009 of The European
Parliament and of The Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and
91/414/EEC.
European Commission (2005). SANCO/10533/05 Final. Review report for the active
substance Clothianidin Finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and
14
Animal Health at its meeting on 27 January 2006 in view of the inclusion of
clothianidin in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm?event=activesubstance.ViewRevi
ew&id=368.
European Commission (2006). SANCO/10390/2002 - rev. final. Review report for the
active substance thiamethoxam finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain
and Animal Health at its meeting on 14 July 2006 in view of the inclusion of
thiamethoxam in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
ew&id=399.
European Commission (2008). SANCO/108/08 rev. 1 FINAL Review report for the
active substance imidacloprid Finalised in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain
and Animal Health at its meeting on 26 September 2008 in view of the inclusion of
imidacloprid in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
ew&id=265.
European Commission (2010). SANCO/10033/2006 final rev 1. 12 March 2010
Review report for the active substance fipronil finalised in the Standing Committee on
the Food Chain and Animal Health at its meeting on 16 March 2007 in view of the
inclusion of fipronil in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
ew&id=84.
European Commission (2013). REGULATION (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013
amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of
approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and
prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing
those active substances.
European Commission (2013). REGULATION (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013
approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds
treated with plant protection products containing this active substance.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2012). Statement on the findings in recent
studies investigating sub-lethal effects in bees of some neonicotinoids in consideration
of the uses currently authorized in Europe. EFSA J 10(6):2752.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2752, 27 pp.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2013a). Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance fipronil. EFSA Journal
2013a;11(5):3158. [51 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3158. Available online:
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2013b). Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance thiamethoxam. EFSA Journal
2013 b;11(1):3067. [68 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3067. Available online:
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2013c). Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance clothianidin. EFSA Journal
2013c;11(1):3066. [58 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3066. Available online:
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2013d). Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance imidacloprid. EFSA Journal
15
2013d;11(1):3068. [55 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3068. Available online:
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1994. Weed
management for developing countries. Plant Production and Protection Paper 120. Eds.
Labrada, Caseley and Parker. ISSN 0259-2517
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010. Sunflower
Crude and Refined Oils. Punda and Prikhodko. Agribusiness Hadbook
FAOSTAT. Organizacin de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentacin y la
Agricultura. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/S (accedido en 2014).
Fodor, N., Psztor, L. (2010). The agro-ecological potential of Hungary and its
prospective development due to climate change. Applied Ecology and Environmental
Research, 8, 177-190.
Ghobadi, M., Taherabadi, S., Ghobadi, M.E., Mohammadi, G.R., Jalali-Honarmand, S.
(2013). Antioxidant capacity, photosynthetic characteristics and water relations of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) cultivars in response to drought stress. Industrial
Crops and Products, 50, 29-38.
Gorton, M., Davidova, S., Banse, M., Bailey, A. 2004. The International
Competitiveness of Hungarian Agriculture: Past Performance and Future Projections.
Paper for presentation at the Transition in Agriculture - Agricultural Economics in
Transition Conference, Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, 7th November 2004.
Jayakumar, R., Premsekar, M., Kempuchetty, N., Subramanian, S. 1988. Effect of
integrated weed management on yield and quality of sunflower. Madras Agricultural
Journal 75: 85-88.
Jeschke, P and Nauen, R. (2008). Review Neonicotinoids from zero to hero in
insecticide chemistry. Pest Manag Sci, 64, 10841098.
Jeschke, P., R. Nauen, Schindler, M and Elbert, A. (2011). Overview of the Status and
Global Strategy for Neonicotinoids. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry ,59,
2897-2908.
Komjti, H., Fekete, C., Virnyi, F. (2004). Genetic and molecular characterization of
Plasmopara Halstedii Isolates from Hungary. Spencer-Phillips S. and Jeger M. (eds.).
Kluwer Academic Publisher. Advances in Downy Mildew Research, 2, 193-201.
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente) (2013a).
Resolucin de autorizacin excepcional para la comercializacin de productos
fitosanitarios formulados a base de Teflutrin como insecticidas en semillas de girasol
contra Agrotis Spp., Agriotes, Spp. y Spodoptera Spp. 4 de Noviembre de 2013.
Secretara General de Agricultura y Alimentacin. Direccin General de Sanidad de la
Produccin Agraria.
Meissle, M., Mouron, P., Musa, T., Bigler, F., Pons, X., Vasileiadis, V.P., Otto, S.,
Antichi, D., Kiss, J., Plinks, Z., Dorner, Z., van der Weide, R., Groten, J., Czembor,
E., Adamczyk, J., Thibord, J.-B., Melander, B., Cordsen Nielsen, G., Poulsen, R.T.,
Zimmermann, O., Verschwele, A., Oldenburg, E. (2010). Pests, pesticide use and
alternative options in European maize production: current status and future prospects. J.
Appl. Entomol. 134, 357375.
Ministry of Rural Development of Hungary, 2012. The Hungarian agriculture and food
industry in figures. Research Institute of Agricultural Economics. Based on information
materials received from competent divisions of the Ministry of Rural Development and
on statistical data supplied by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office and the Research
Institute of Agricultural Economics. ISSN 1219-3852
16
Mohammadi, K., Heidari, G., Javaheri, M., Rokhzadi, A., Karimi Nezhad, M.T.,
Sohrabi, Y., Talebi, R. (2013). Fertilization affects the agronomic traits of high oleic
sunflower hybrid in different tillage systems. Industrial Crops and Products, 44, 446
451.
Molinero-Ruiz, M.L., Garca-Ruiz, R., Melero-Vara, J.M. and Domnguez. J. (2009).
Orobanche Cumana race F: performance of resistant sunflower hybrids and
aggressiveness of populations of the parasitic weed. Weed Research, 49, 469-478.
Nagy, S., Reisinger, P., Pomsr P. (2006). Experiences of introduction of
imidazolinone-resistant sunflower in Hungary from the herbological point of view.
Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection Zeitschrift fr Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Pflanzenschutz Sonderheft XX, 31-37.
Noleppa, S. and Hanh T. (2013): The value of the Neonicotinoid seed treatment in the
European Union. Humboldt forum for food and agriculture e.V. HFFA.
Sezen, S.M., Yazar, A. Kapur, B., and Tekin. S. (2011). Comparison of drip and
sprinkler irrigation strategies on sunflower seed and oil yield and quality under
Mediterranean climatic conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 11531161.
Simon-Delso N, Amaral-Rogers V, Belzunces LP, Bonmatin JM, Chagnon M, Downs
C, Furlan L, Gibbons DW, Giorio C, Girolami V, Goulson D, Kreutzweiser DP, Krupke
C, Liess M, Long E, McField M, Mineau P, Mitchell EAD, Morrissey CA, Noome DA,
Pisa L, Settele J, Stark JD, Tapparo A, van Dyck H, van Praagh J, van der Sluijs JP,
Whitehorn PR and Wiemers M (2015). Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and
fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 22, 5
34.
Sukanya S. Lava, Reinhard Zipper, Otmar Spring. (2015). Sunflower white blister rust
e Host specificity and fungicide effects on infectivity and early infection stages. Crop
Protection, 67, 214-222.
Urfi, P., Hoffmann, A., Kormosn Koch, K. 2011. The Comparative Cost and Profit
Analysis of Organic and Conventional Farming. Studies in Agricultural Economics No.
113 p. 67-84 (2011). HU ISSN 1418 2106. Research Institute of Agricultural
Economics. Committee on Agricultural Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Vasileiadis, V. P., M. Sattin, S. Otto, A. Veres, Z. Plinks, R. Ban, X. Pons, P. Kudsk,
R. van der Weide, E. Czembor, A.C. Mooneng, J. Kiss. (2011). Crop protection in
European maize-based cropping systems: Current practices and recommendations for
innovative Integrated Pest Management. Agricultural Systems, 104, 533540.
Vasileiadis, V. P., A.C. Mooneng, M. Sattin, S. Otto, X. Pons, P. Kudsk, A. Veres, Z.
Dorner, R. van der Weide, E. Marraccini, E. Pelzerg, F. Angeving, J. Kiss. (2011).
Sustainability of European maize-based cropping systems: Economic, environmental
and social assessment of current and proposed innovative IPM-based systems. Europ. J.
Agronomy, 48, 111.
Viranyi, F., Spring, O. (2011). Advances in sunflower downy mildew research. Spring.
Eur J Plant Pathol, 129, 207220.
17
Q1: TARGET CROP
Single coded
MAIZE ........................................... 1
SUNFLOWER ............................... 2
RAPESEED.................................... 3
Q2: TARGET COUNTRY

Single coded
Czech Republic .............................. 1

France ............................................. 2
Germany ......................................... 3
Hungary .......................................... 4
Italy................................................. 5
Spain ............................................... 6
United Kingdom ............................. 7
Q3: REGION
SPAIN
Ebro Valley .................................... 1

Cdiz (Sunflower) ........................... 4
Q4: MUNICIPALITY
Please insert the name of the
MUNICIPALITY where the farm is
located
2
INTERVIEWER, READ OUT LOUD
The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, part of the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission (JRC-IPTS), is engaged in an important investigation of the European agricultural sector.
Among the Member States of the European Union,
[SPAIN/HUNGARY/ITALY/SPAIN/GERMANY/UK/CZECH REPUBLIC] is a key country for
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] production. To carry out this investigation, JRC-IPTS entrusted to TNS
Demoscopia a survey among farmers cultivating [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER].
TNS, together with the relevant regional agrarian offices, cooperatives, agricultural associations, etc., has
determined that your municipality is among the most important within the country for the purpose of this
investigation. For this reason you have been selected for the study.
Therefore, we request your kind collaboration through a personal interview, which can provide us with
important information related to the cultivation of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] in your region.
This study is dedicated to collect and analyze data and has no commercial purpose. Our Institute
guarantees that all information that you provide will be treated strictly confidentially and only for the
purpose of research. Your answers will be analyzed in a way so that the answers cannot be associated
with one person in particular.
We are at your disposal if you want to learn more about this project. Thank you in advance for your
availability.
Q5: What is your role in the farm?

Single coded
Head of the Farm / household ........ 1
General Manager ............................ 2
Section head ................................... 3
Field worker ................................... 4
SCREEN OUT
Other (specify) ______________ _7 SCREEN OUT IF NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SEED
CHOICE OR CROP MAINTENANCE
Q6: What was your TOTAL FARM Utilized Agricultural Area in Year_D, Year_D-1, Year_D-2,
Year_D-3, and Year_D-4? Please consider the sum of all the cultivated plots, rented, owned, etc.
but excluding lakes forests and rivers.
Multi coded
Don't Answer
(DO NOT READ)
1 Year_D |___|___|___|___| ha
2 Year_D-1 |___|___|___|___| ha
3 Year_D-2 |___|___|___|___| ha
4 Year_D-3 |___|___|___|___| ha
5 Year_D-4 |___|___|___|___| ha
3
Q11b; Have you used any of the following products in Year_D, Year_D-X and/or Year_D-Y in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?
(READ OUT) Please mark all seed treatments you have used in any of these years.
Do not consider GM [MAIZE]; (<- This comment is only for [MAIZE] in Spain)
Multiple answers coded
Maize:
(ES)
Regent ............................................ 10
Poncho ........................................... 11
Escocet ........................................... 12
Picus ............................................... 13
Seedoprid ........................................ 14
Cruiser ........................................... 15
(FRA)
Cruiser ........................................... 15
Cheyenne. ...................................... 17
(ITA)
Gaucho .......................................... 18
Cruiser ........................................... 15
Nuprid ............................................ 19
Poncho ............................................ 11
Santana ........................................... 20
Sunflower
(HU)
Gaucho ........................................... 18
Cruiser ............................................ 15
(ES)
Regent............................................. 10
OSR
(GER)
Antarc ............................................. 22
Chinook .......................................... 23
Cruiser ............................................ 15
Elado............................................... 24
(UK)
Chinook .......................................... 23
Cruiser ............................................ 15
Modesto .......................................... 25
(CZ)
Cruiser ............................................ 15
Elado............................................... 24
Modesto .......................................... 25
None of them................................... 97 SCREEN OUT
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ........ 98 SCREEN OUT
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ)..... 99 SCREEN OUT
5
Q11c. What is the main reason why you have decided not to cultivate [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]
in year_D?.[I.P.: SINGLE ANSWER. For those with Q7=2]
Normal crop rotation............................................................ SCREEN OUT
[list of products] not available for seed treatment .......... [skip questions for Year D, and Q46 to Q53]
[list of products] not available for soil or foliar treatment3 [skip questions for Year D, and Q46 to Q53]
Other reason (specify) (DO NOT READ) ........................... 4 SCREEN OUT
Q12: Please indicate all insecticide seed treatment products of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] you
used in year_D, D-X and D-Y. In case you used more than one type of seed treatment, or untreated seed,
for different parts of your total farm seed, please indicate them separately. In addition, indicate the
hectares, quantity, and cost of the seed corresponding to each seed treatment product (or non-treated
seed). (I.E. there is larger number of possible seed treatments a farmer could have used than the list on
Q11b contains. All seed treatments that a farmer has used, whether in the list of Q11b or not, should be
recorded, as well as the amount of seed untreated, if any.). Multi coded. [I.E.: Please write 998 for dont
know and 999 for dont answer] (I.E.: Leave blank if the respondent do not have any untreated seeds).
Year_D
a. Name of seed
treatment d. Cost
c. Quantity
(active b. Hectares (I.P.: confirm the e. Unit used
(Kg./Tn./Quintals)
substance and/or currency)
brand name)
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

Year_D-X
a. Name of seed
treatment d. Cost
c. Quantity
(Kg./Tn./Quintals)
brand name)
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

Year_D-Y
a. Name of seed
treatment d. Cost
c. Quantity
(Kg./Tn./Quintals)
brand name)
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
6
Q12a: Before Year_D, were you able to buy [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] seed that were not
treated with (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in question 11b)?
Yes
No
Dont know (DO NOT READ)
Dont Answer (DO NOT READ)
Q13: Do you practice rotation in your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?

Single coded
Q13a: If yes, please specify the surface you

normally manage using rotation for
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER].
Yes ........................................................... 1
|___|___|___|___| ha
No............................................................. 2 [I.P.: Q13<q8]
Q14: [I.P.: SKIP IF Q13=NO]. Which of the following crops normally precede
Single coded; Just 3 main answers in terms of cultivated surface.
(READ OUT). Rotate 1-7.
(I.P.: Max. of 3 responses, but 1 or 2 are allowed).
Maize .............................................. 1
Potato .............................................. 2
Sunflower ....................................... 3
Legumes ......................................... 4
Sugar beet ....................................... 5
Winter Wheat ................................. 6
Winter Barley ................................. 7
Other, (specify) _______________8
Don't know ..................................... 9
Q15: How many hectares of the [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] total cultivated surface were
irrigated in year_D, year_D-X, and year D-Y? Please also state the cost of irrigation in each year.
[I.E.: Interviewer, please state the number of hectares]
(READ OUT) Please select all the years that apply and state the surface irrigated. Multi coded
I.P.:/I.E.: Do not to include the years in which not cultivated [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER],
according to Q7.
998 if the respondent Don't Know. 999 if the respondent Don't Answer. If the land is not
irrigated please put 0. (I.E.: The cost should be automatically switched to o).
1 Year_D |___|___|___|Ha. |___|___|___|
2 Year_D-X |___|___|___|Ha. |___|___|___|
3 Year_D-Y |___|___|___|Ha. |___|___|___|
7
Q20: [I.P.: Only if any product selected in Q19] How much money did you spent on fertilizers in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] production in the Year_D and in the previous years?
Please provide a GLOBAL figure taking into account the FULL SEASON
Expenditure Don't Know Don't Answer/Do
(DO NOT not apply
READ) (DO NOT READ)
1 Year_D
|___|___|___|___|
2 Year_D-X
|___|___|___|___|
3 Year_D-Y
|___|___|___|___|
Q21: Were you part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or organic farming program or
certification scheme that includes your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] production in the last or any
of the previous years? (READ OUT);
Year_D Year_D-X Year_D-Y

1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
2 Organic farming certification
3 None of the Above
8 Don't Know (DO NOT READ)
9 Don't answer (DO NOT READ)
Q22: Which of the following types of soil management did you use in your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] culture?
(READ OUT); Also add the surface of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] area with all options used.
Multi coded
(I.P.: Q22 <=Q9) (I.P.: Q22 <=Q8) (I.P.: Q22 <=Q8)
(for maze) (for sunflower/OSR) (for sunflower/OSR)
1 Conventional tillage |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
2 Conservation/minimum
|___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
tillage
3 No tillage |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
4 Other (specify)________ |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
8 Don't Know
(DO NOT READ)
9 Don't answer
(DO NOT READ)
9
C. FUNGICIDES
MAIZE
Cyproconazole Epoxiconazole................... 22 22 22 22
23 23 23
Sulphur ....................................................... 23
24 24 24
Mancozeb ................................................... 24 25 25 25
Methyl Thiphanate ..................................... 25
SUNFLOWER
Fenpropimorph ........................................... 26 26 26 26
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
OSR
Mancozeb ................................................... 27
27 27 27
Methyl Thiphanate ..................................... 29 29 29 29
Propiconazole ............................................. 30 30 30 30
Tebuconazole ............................................. 31 31 31 31
Other fungicide (specify) ............................... 94

Don't know (DO NOT READ) ..................... 95 94 94 94
95 95 95
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) .................. 96
96 96 96
Q27: What type of treatment did you use in this
application?
Single coded
Soil treatment .................................................. 1 1 1 1
Foliar treatment ............................................... 2 2 2 2
Other (specify) ................................................ 4 4 4 4
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) .................. 9 9 9 9
Q28: What was the crop stage when the

application took place? READ OUT, single code
Before Sowing ................................................ 1 1 1 1
During Sowing ................................................ 2 2 2 2
3 3 3
After sowing/pre-emergence .......................... 3
4 4 4
Vegetative stage .............................................. 4 5 5 5
Flowering stage ............................................... 5 6 6 6
Fructification stage ......................................... 6
Other (DO NOT READ) ............................... 8 8 8 8
12
Q29: What was the pest treated with this
application?
(I.E.: SHOWCARD AND READ OUT LOUD.
Multi coded)/I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds,
should automatically be assigned)
(MAIZE cod.2-7)
Corn Borer (ECB/WCB) ......................................2 2 2 2
Cutworms ..............................................................3 3 3 3
Wireworms ............................................................4 4 4 4
Lepidopteran leaf feeders ......................................5
5 5 5
6 6 6
Leafhoppers ..........................................................6
7 7 7
Insect borne viruses ...............................................7
27 27 27
Diabrotica virgifera................................................27
(OSR cod. 8-26)
Alternaria ...............................................................8 8 8 8
Aphids....................................................................9 9 9 9
Brassica pod midge ...............................................10 10 10 10
Cabagge aphid .......................................................11 11 11 11
Cabagge flea beetle ................................................12 12 12 12
Cabagge root fly ....................................................13 13 13 13
Cabagge seed weevil .............................................14 14 14 14
Cabagge stem flea beetle .......................................15 15 15 15
Cabagge stem weevil ............................................16 16 16 16
Cylindrosporium ....................................................17 17 17 17
Flies .......................................................................18
18 18 18
19 19 19
Pod beetles .............................................................19
20 20 20
Pod midge ..............................................................20
22 22 22
Pollen beetles ........................................................22 23 23 23
Rape stem weevil ..................................................23 24 24 24
Rape winter stem weevil .......................................24 25 25 25
Sclerotinia ..............................................................25 26 26 26
Stem beetles ...........................................................26
(SUNFLOWER cod.28-39)
Cutworms .............................................................3 3 3 3
False wireworms ....................................................28 28 28 28
Heliothis spp. ........................................................29 29 29 29
Root and stem charcoal rot ....................................30 30 30 30
Sunflower broomrape ............................................31 31 31 31
Sunflower downy mildew ......................................32 32 32 32
Sunflower moth .....................................................33
33 33 33
34 34 34
Verticilosis .............................................................34
35 35 35
Weevils, ................................................................35
36 36 36
White grubs, ..........................................................36 37 37 37
White rot ................................................................37
Wireworms ...........................................................4 4 4 4
Gray rot ..................................................................38 38 38 38
White rot ................................................................39 39 39 39
Other (specify) ............................................... 97 97 _______ 97 _______ 97 _______
Q30: What was the cost of the treatment? Per Hectare Per Hectare Per Hectare
(I.P.; control currency unit)
13
(I.E.: Cost of application including product and Total. Total. Total.
machinery, handwork, etc.).
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ................... 998
|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |___|___|___|
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ................ 999
14
C. FUNGICIDES
MAIZE
Sulphur ....................................................... 23 23 23 23
24 24 24
Mancozeb ................................................... 24
25 25 25
SUNFLOWER
Fenpropimorph ........................................... 26 26 26 26
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
OSR
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
29 29 29
30 30 30
Propiconazole ............................................. 30 31 31 ______ 31
Tebuconazole ............................................. 31
Other fungicide (specify) ............................... 94 94 94 94


application?
Single coded 1 1 1
Soil treatment .................................................. 1 2 2 2
Other (specify) ................................................ 4 8 8 8
application took place? (READ OUT, single code)
Before Sowing ................................................ 1 1 1 1

2 2 2
During Sowing ................................................ 2
4 4 4
After sowing/pre-emergence .......................... 3 5 5 5
Flowering stage ............................................... 5 8 8 8
Fructification stage ......................................... 6 9 9 9
Other (DO NOT READ) ............................... 8
17
application?
(I.E.: SHOWCARD AND READ OUT LOUD.
Multi coded.I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds,
should automatically be assigned)
(MAIZE cod.2-7)
Cutworms ..............................................................3 3 3 3
Wireworms ............................................................4 4 4 4
Lepidopteran leaf feeders ......................................5
5 5 5
6 6 6
Leafhoppers ..........................................................6
7 7 7
Insect borne viruses ...............................................7
27 27 27
(OSR cod. 8-26)
Alternaria ...............................................................8 8 8 8
Aphids....................................................................9 9 9 9
Cabagge aphid .......................................................11 11 11 11
Cabagge root fly ....................................................13 13 13 13
Flies .......................................................................18
18 18 18
19 19 19
Pod beetles .............................................................19
20 20 20
Pod midge ..............................................................20
22 22 22
Pollen beetles ........................................................22 23 23 23
Rape stem weevil ..................................................23 24 24 24
Sclerotinia ..............................................................25 26 26 26
Stem beetles ...........................................................26
Cutworms .............................................................3 3 3 3
False wireworms ....................................................28 28 28 28
Heliothis spp. ........................................................29 29 29 29
Sunflower moth .....................................................33
33 33 33
34 34 34
Verticilosis .............................................................34
35 35 35
Weevils, ................................................................35
36 36 36
White grubs, ..........................................................36 37 37 37
White rot ................................................................37
Wireworms ...........................................................4 4 4 4
Gray rot ..................................................................38 38 38 38
White rot ................................................................39 39 39 39
Other (specify) ............................................... 97 97 97 97
18
Q38: What was the cost of the treatment?
(I.P.; control currency unit) Per Hectare Per Hectare Per Hectare
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ................ 999 |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|
19
C. FUNGICIDES
MAIZE
Sulphur ....................................................... 23 23 23 23
24 24 24
Mancozeb ................................................... 24
25 25 25
SUNFLOWER
Fenpropimorph ........................................... 26 26 26 26
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
OSR
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
29 29 29
30 30 30
Propiconazole ............................................. 30 31 31 31
Tebuconazole ............................................. 31

Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) 96 96 96 96

application?
Single coded
Soil treatment .................................................. 1 1 1 1

Other (specify) ................................................ 4 4 4 4
8 8 8
Q42: What was the crop stage when the application

took place? READ OUT, single code
Before Sowing ................................................ 1
During Sowing ................................................ 2 1 1 1
2 2 2
After sowing/preemergency............................ 3
4 4 4
Flowering stage ............................................... 5 6 6 6
Other (DO NOT READ) ............................... 8 9 9 9

application?
(I.E.: SHOWCARD AND READ OUT LOUD. Multi
coded)
(I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds, should
automatically be assigned)
(MAIZE cod.2-7)
Corn Borer (ECB/WCB)................................ 2
2 2 2
Cutworms ........................................................ 3 3 3 3
Wireworms ..................................................... 4
21
Lepidopteran leaf feeders ............................... 5 4 4 4
Leafhoppers ................................................... 6 5 5 5
Insect borne viruses ........................................ 7 6 6 6
7 7 7
Diabrotica virgifera ......................................... 27
27 27 27
(OSR cod. 8-26)
Alternaria ........................................................ 8
Aphids ............................................................. 9 8 8 8
Brassica pod midge ........................................ 10 9 9 9
Cabagge aphid ................................................ 11 10 10 10
Cabagge flea beetle ......................................... 12 11 11 11
12 12 12
Cabagge root fly ............................................. 13
13 13 13
Cabagge seed weevil....................................... 14 14 14 14
Cabagge stem flea beetle ................................ 15 15 15 15
Cabagge stem weevil ..................................... 16 16 16 16
Cylindrosporium ............................................. 17 17 17 17
Flies................................................................. 18 18 18 18
Pod beetles ...................................................... 19 19 19 19
20 20 20
Pod midge ....................................................... 20
22 22 22
Pollen beetles ................................................. 22 23 23 23
Rape stem weevil ........................................... 23 24 24 24
Rape winter stem weevil ................................ 24 25 25 25
Sclerotinia ....................................................... 25 26 26 26
Stem beetles .................................................... 26
Cutworms ....................................................... 3
3 3 3
False wireworms ............................................. 28 28 28 28
Heliothis spp. ................................................. 29 29 29 29
Root and stem charcoal rot ............................. 30 30 30 30
Sunflower broomrape ..................................... 31 31 31 31
Sunflower downy mildew ............................... 32 32 32 32
Sunflower moth .............................................. 33 33 33 33
34 34 34
Verticilosis ...................................................... 34
35 35 35
Weevils, ......................................................... 35 36 36 36
White grubs, ................................................... 36 37 37 37
White rot ......................................................... 37
Wireworms .................................................... 4
Gray rot ........................................................... 38 4 4 4
White rot ......................................................... 39 38 38 38
39 39 39
Other (specify) ............................................... 97
97 97 97

22
Q45: [skip if Q7 = 2]. Are you aware of the recent EU regulations restricting the use of
(I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in question 11) ("neonicotinoids"/
"Fipronil") or seed, soil and foliar treatments of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?
Multi coded (READ OUT)
Yes. .................................................................................................................... 1
Q45a. If Yes; What have you heard about it?_____________________
No ....................................................................................................................... 2
Q45b. If No: (READ OUT) In the EU, the use of some neonicotinoids (I.P.:
Include the list of Neonicotinoids products for the crop/country, used in
question 11) for seed, soil and foliar (before flowering) treatments is banned
since December 2012. Also, the use of Fipronil (I.P.: Include the list of Fipronil
products for the crop/country, used in question 11) for seed treatments is
banned since March 2013.
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ..................................................................... 9
Q46: [skip if Q7 = 2]. Have you changed any of your crop protection practices in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] in Year_D as compared to Year_D-X because of the
restrictions of the use of (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in
question 11)? Single coded (DO NOT READ)
Yes ............................................................................................ 1
No ............................................................................................. 2
Don't know .............................................................................. 8
Don't Answer ........................................................................... 9
Q47: [skip if Q7 = 2]. After the restrictions of the use of (I.P.: Include the list of brands for the
crop/country, used in question 11) which measures, if any, have you undertaken in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]? Multi coded, (READ OUT)
Increase sowing density ..................................................................................... 1
Earlier sowing date ............................................................................................. 2
Later sowing date ............................................................................................... 3
Reduce area of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] ................................................. 4 [Do Q54]
Use alternative seed insecticide treatments ........................................................ 5
Use more soil insecticide treatments .................................................................. 6
Use more foliar insecticide treatments ............................................................... 7
Use more mechanical pest control practices ...................................................... 8
More frequent scouting for pests .................................................................... 9
Other (specify) ________________________ .................................................. 10
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ........................................................................... 11
Q48: [skip if Q7 = 2]. Do you think that overall, due to the restrictions of (I.P.: Include the list of
products for the crop/country, used in question 11), protecting your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] is becoming more time-consuming, less time-consuming, or
staying similarly time-consuming as compared to before?
Single coded
More time-consuming ........................................................................................ 1

Less time-consuming.......................................................................................... 2
23
Similar ................................................................................................................ 3
Don't Know (DO NOT READ) ......................................................................... 8
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ...................................................................... 9
products for the crop/country, used in question 11) protecting your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] is becoming more expensive, less expensive or staying similarly
expensive as compared to before?
Single coded (DO NOT READ)
More expensive .................................................................................................. 1

Less expensive.................................................................................................... 2
Similar ................................................................................................................ 3
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] is requiring more, fewer, or a similar amount of chemical
plant protection products as compared to before?
More ................................................................................................................... 1
Less..................................................................................................................... 2
Similar ................................................................................................................ 3
Q50a. [skip if Q7 = 2]. [I.P.: only ask if farmer switched from using a restricted seed treatment product
before the restrictions to using a non-restricted seed treatment product after the restrictions indicated by
his answer to Q12]
You have switched from using (I.P.: name those seed treatment product(s) the farmer used in D-X
or D-Y), to using (I.P.: name those seed treatment product(s) the farmer used in D, as indicated in
Q12) with your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] seeds. How do you compare the overall effectiveness
of these products as part of your pest management practices in [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?
[I.E.: READ OUT / I.P.: MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Product(s) used in D-X (D-Y) more effective

Product(s) used in D-X (D-Y) somewhat more effective
Products equally effective
Product(s) used in D somewhat more effective
Product(s) used in D more effective
Q51: [skip if Q7 = 2]. In [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER], but also in general on your farm, have you
noticed higher or lower pressure from SOIL PESTS in Year_D as compared to Year_D-X?
Higher incidence. .............................................................................................. 1
Lower incidence ................................................................................................. 2
Similar incidence ................................................................................................ 2
24
Q51a. If higher or lower; Which ones have a higher/lower incidence? _____________________
noticed higher or lower pressure of FOLIAR PESTS in Year_D as compared to Year_D-X?

Lower incidence ................................................................................................. 2
noticed higher or lower incidence of WILD BENEFICIAL INSECTS (e.g. pollinators,
predators of pests) in Year_D as compared to Year_D-1?.
Lower incidence ................................................................................................. 2
Q54. Have you grown any substitute crops on the area of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] that you
reduced because of the restrictions of (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country,
used in question 11)? Please indicate all the different crops (including unused land) along with
their area and estimated gross margins you have realized with them.
I.E.: Ask this question only to those farmers who indicated in Q47 "Reduce area of
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]". For those who did not indicate that, skip this question.
[substitute crop] Hectares Gross margin

|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
Unused |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
Q55. Imagine the restrictions of (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in
question 11) would be removed and the products become again available for use in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]: Considering all monetary and non-monetary factors, how
much value would this give to you? Please indicate the value per hectare.
0 ........................................................................................................................ 1
1-5..................................................................................................................... 2
6-10................................................................................................................... 3
11-15................................................................................................................. 4
16-20................................................................................................................. 5
21-25................................................................................................................. 6
More than 25 .................................................................................................... 7
25
Q56. [I.E./I.P.: Ask only if Q55>1< 8] Finally in this case, could you please tell me what characteristics
you value most about (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in question 11)?
Easy to use .......................................................................................................... 1
Low price / cost .................................................................................................. 2
Easy to get .......................................................................................................... 3
Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 4
Dont need to use other treatments additionally................................................. 5
Other (Specify)_________________ ________________________________ 6
26
Analysis of Agronomic
and Pest Management
Adaptations taken by
farmers of Maize in
France after
neonicotinoids
restrictions
SURVEY ON THE ADAPTATIONS OF AGRONOMIC PRACTICES BY EU

FARMERS TO NEONICOTINOID RESTRICTIONS
Survey on The Adaptation of Agronomic Practices by EU farmers to neonicotinoid restrictions

Deliverable 5: Analysis of Agronomic and pest management. Adaptations taken by farmers of Maize in
France after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Institutional contacts ...................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Sampling Points. ............................................................................ 7
3.1.3 Selection of informants ................................................................... 7
4. Farmers Demographics ......................................................................... 9
5. Agronomic and pest management impact ...............................................11
6. Analysis of Economic Impact .................................................................14
7. Farmers opinions and perceptions about neonics restriction ......................16
7.1 Awareness of the Restriction ..............................................................16
7.2 Declared Changes in Agronomic Practices ............................................17
7.3 Perceived Impact on time and costs of the Maize culture. ......................18
7.4 Perceived Impact on plant protection products used .............................19
7.5 Perceived Pest Pressure on the Maize culture .......................................19
7.6 Perceived Effectiveness of the Available Plant Protection Products ..........20
7.7 Perceived Economic Impact. ..............................................................21
8. Annex I: Additional Information. ...........................................................22
8.1 Farmers Demographics. ....................................................................22
8.2 Fertilizers Usage ...............................................................................23
8.3 Integrated Pest Management or Organic Farming Practice and Soil
Management. ............................................................................................24
9. Annex II: List of active substances contained within molluscicides .............25
10. Annex III: List of active substances contained within (other) insecticides ...26
Survey on The Agronomic Practices by EU farmers to neonicotinoid restrictions

Spain after neonicotinoid restrictions
France (Maize) - 3
1. Abstract
The use of maize seed treated with neonicotinoids is a common plant

protection measure in maize crop to control soil-dwelling and early-season
insect pests. The aim of this study was to identify the economic impact of
the restriction by the European Commission (EC) on the use of maize seed
treated with thiamethoxam, and clothianidin (EU Regulation 2013/485) on
the pest management practices of maize farmers in France.
Surveys were conducted in the region of Aquitaine, which is the cradle of

maize and leader in France, with the biggest surface and number of holders
dedicated to the target crop. Our data reveal that French maize farmers
have promptly substituted the use of maize treated seed with the banned
neonicotinoid, clothianidin (Poncho), by seed treated with a new
authorized formulation of the neonicotinoid thiacloprid (Sonido). This rapid
switch may explain the lack of clear agronomic or economic impacts after
restricting the use of maize treated seed with certain neonicotinoids in
France. The differences in the income and outcome can be attributed to the
maize market trend and to the yearly production variation. No increases on
soil and foliar pesticide treatments were observed in the surveyed period
(2012-2014). Furthermore, farmers do not declare abandonment of maize
growing, which is consistent with the fact that the grown maize area was
similar to that of years before the restrictions. All together, these data
suggest that no clear agronomic or economic impacts have been identified
after the limitation of use of maize treated seed with thiamethoxam and
clothianidin.

France (Maize) - 4
2. Introduction
The use of maize seed treated with neonicotinoids and fipronil has become a
common plant protection tool in maize crop to control soil-dwelling pest and
also early-season insect pests, as they exhibit a long-lasting residual
effects. They have proved to control successfully: a) soil pests, such as
cutworms and wireworms, and western corn rootworm; b) sucking insects,
such as aphids to avoid virus transmission; c) leafhoppers, sucking insects
that feed on young leaves causing a decrease in chlorophyll levels; d) the
first generation of lepidopteran corn borers and also lepidopteran leaf
feeders. Foliar and soil applications of neonicotinoids to control maize pests
have less economic significance as compared with seed treatments.
The European Commission has, from 24th May 2013, restricted the use of
neonicotinoid seed dressings (Regulation EU 485/2013) including
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam for two years. This no-
neonicotinoid scenario may imply a substantial shift from soil-based to
foliar-based pest management systems, since seed dressings have provided
an important tool in the control of soil-dwelling pest. Farmers might incur
several new costs for this scenario, including costs for alternative active
substances, additional application treatment costs, as well as added costs
for using higher seeding densities to compensate soil pest damage. In this
context, we intend to investigate ex post how French farmers adapt their
pest management practices and the production cost and gross margins in
France. This can be done through surveys aimed at farmers, agricultural
associations, cooperatives or any other agents involved in the agricultural
sector that will allow a descriptive assessment of the impacts of the
restrictive uses of neonicotinoids. Therefore, we performed surveys to
farmers to assess the impacts of the restrictive use of neonicotinoids.
Before the restriction, plant protection products containing Thiamethoxam
(Cruiser 350 FS) and Clothianidin (Cheyenne) were authorized for maize
seed treatment in France.

France (Maize) - 5
Among the alternative active substances, it can be included the

neonicotinoid thiacloprid, since the plant protection product SONIDO 40%
FS is a new formulation for maize seed treatment. An authorization of the
plant protection product SONIDO was granted in France in November 2012.
We report here on 100 face to face interviews that were carried out in
France in order to evaluate the consequences of the restriction of use of
seed maize treated with some neonicotinoids (thiamethoxam and
clothianidin) in the European Union. The survey was designed taking into
account all possible combinations of alternatives that farmers can use to
substitute the treatment of seeds with neonicotinoids, and how these
possible alternatives can have an economic impact. Therefore, some
questions were designed to gather information about the perception of
farmers in relation to the pest control in their crops before and after the
restriction. A second group of questions intend to recognize how the crop
management included use of pesticides, fertilizers, water management, IPM
measures or sowing before and after the restrictions. A final group of
questions was related with the income and outcome of the crop both before
and after the restriction.

France (Maize) - 7
3.1.1 Institutional contacts
We considered a first contact with the Regional/Local Agricultural

Authorities by letter (preferably guaranteed by the Commission), informing
them of the imminent agricultural study to be carried out on crop growing
practices, for which we request their cooperation in advising us which
municipalities are the most ideal with regards to the presence of the crop,
commercialization points, and big farms - municipalities which would then
be identified as sampling points for conducting the survey.
3.1.2 Sampling Points.
For each municipality selected, a duly qualified interviewer created a

relation of companies/entities linked to commercialisation of the target
crop for the country (manufacturers, buyers, distributors, cooperatives,
seed sellers, etc), and a relation of big farms, if any, presents in the
municipality.
Within each municipality, the companies identified as being linked to the

target crop will be the object of a personal interview with a professional TNS
interviewer, duly accredited and in possession of an explanatory letter
describing the conduction of an Agricultural Study on Maize Growing and
its problems and practices, for which we will request their cooperation by
taking part in a brief interview.
From the information received from the companies/entities linked to maize,

a strategy was then established for contacting crop farmers in each
municipality, either, being present at meeting points (offices,
establishments, warehouses, etc.) or Visiting the farmers home/premises
3.1.3 Selection of informants
With the range of potential contact points covered, we followed a guided

strategy of approaching the farmers to ensure proper representativeness of
the target for the study.

France (Maize) - 15
To compare the economic impact of the restriction of neonicotinoids and

fipronil in maize yield we must use an indicator that avoids bias due to
fluctuations along year of the maize prize market. Thus, we used the Return
on Investment (Kg/) resulting of dividing the yield by the total variable
cost each year. This value remained rather constant before and after the
restriction of use of neonicotinoids (Table 9).
Altogether, the data obtained suggest that there is not a clear economic
impact due to the restriction of use of maize seed treated with
neonicotinoids.

27
List of Tables
Table 1.Geographic Location of interviews at NUTS2. ......................................... 6

Table 2. Distribution of maize farm size and in the selected sampling areas .......... 8
Table 3. Incomes coming from the farm ........................................................... 9
Table 4. Income from maize production. ........................................................... 9
Table 5. Annual farm gross income. ................................................................10
Table 6. Insecticide seed treatment products used ............................................11
Table 7. Number of soil and foliar treatment to control maize pest ......................12
Table 8. Percentage of farmers treating to control soil and aerial pests ................13
Table 9. Evolution of estimated costs for maize agronomic practices and yield .....14
Table 10. Knowledge of the EU Regulations restricting the use of neonicotinoids. ..16
Table 11. Measures undertaken in Maize after the restrictions. ...........................17
Table 12. Perceived time requirement changes. ................................................18
Table 13. Perceived plant protection product costs changes. ..............................18
Table 14. Perceived changes in the number of chemical plant protection products
required. .....................................................................................................19
Table 15. Perceived Soil pests pressure changes...............................................19
Table 16. Perceived effectiveness of pest management practices. .......................20
Table 17. Evaluation of pre-restriction products characteristics. ..........................20
Table 18. Perceived Economic Impact .............................................................21
Table 19 A. Farmers Age ...............................................................................22
Table 20 A. Farmers Education Level ...............................................................22
Table 21 A. Membership of association or cooperative (*) ..................................22
Table 22 A.Fertilizers usage. ..........................................................................23
Table 23 A. Integrated Pest Management. .......................................................24
Table 24 A. Soil Management. ........................................................................24

and pest management
farmers of Maize in Italy
after neonicotinoids
restrictions
SURVEY ON THE ADAPTATIONS OF AGRONOMIC PRACTICES BY EU FARMERS TO

NEONICOTINOID RESTRICTIONS
Survey on The Adaptations of Agronomic Practices by EU farmers to neonicotinoid restrictions

Deliverable 5: Analysis of Agronomic and pest management. Adaptations taken by farmers of Maize
in Italy after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract................................................................................................ 3
2. Introduction .......................................................................................... 4
3. Methods ............................................................................................... 6
4. Farmers Demographics .......................................................................... 9
5. Agronomic and pest management impact ................................................11
6. Analysis of Economic Impact ..................................................................14
7. Farmers opinions and perceptions about neonics restriction .......................15
7.1. Awareness of the Restriction ............................................................15
7.2. Declared Changes in Agronomic Practices ..........................................16
7.3. Perceived Impact on time and costs of the Maize culture and on plant
protection products used .......................................................................16
7.4. Perceived Pest Pressure on the Maize culture .....................................17
7.5. Perceived Effectiveness of the Available Plant Protection Products ........18
7.6. Perceived Economic Impact .............................................................19
8. Conclusions ..........................................................................................20
9. Annex I: Additional Information. .............................................................21
8.1. Sample/Farmer Demographics..........................................................21
8.2. Fertilizers Usage.............................................................................22
8.3. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or organic farming practice and Soil
Management. .......................................................................................22
Survey on the adaptations of the Agronomic Practices by EU farmers to neonicotinoid

restrictions.
Italy (Maize) - 3
1. Abstract

protection measure to control soil-dwelling and early-season maize pests.
The aim of this study was to identify the economic impact of the restriction
on the use of maize seed treated with thiamethoxam, clothianidin and
imidacloprid (EU Regulation 2013/485) on the pest management practices
of maize farmers in Italy.
Interviews were conducted in Lombarda because it is the region with the

higher number of holders/surface dedicated to maize. Our data reveal that
Italian farmers using granular formulation of clothianidin at sowing decrease
with time, while increasing the percentage of farmers applying granular
formulation with tefluthrin. No significant increase of soil or foliar
applications was recorded. Moreover, farmers do not declare abandonment
of maize growing, which is consistent with the fact that the grown maize
area was similar to that of years before the restrictions. The differences in
the income and outcome can be attributed to the maize market trend and to
the yearly production variation.
Our data suggest that there is not an economic impact of the restriction of
neonicotinoids use (EU Regulation 2013/485) on the cost of maize
cultivation in Italy. Altogether, it can be inferred that no clear agronomic or
economic impacts have been identified after the limitation of use of maize
treated seed with the above mentioned neonicotinoid.

Italy after neonicotinoid restrictions
Italy (Maize) - 4
2. Introduction
common plant protection tool in maize crop to control soil-dwelling pest and
also early-season insect pests, as they exhibit a long-lasting residual
effects. They have proved to control successfully: a) soil pests, such as
cutworms and wireworms, and western corn rootworm; b) sucking insects,
such as aphids to avoid virus transmission; c) leafhoppers, sucking insects
that feed on young leaves causing a decrease in chlorophyll levels; d) the
first generation of lepidopteran corn borers and also lepidopteran leaf
feeders. Foliar and soil applications of neonicotinoids to control maize pests
have less significance as compared with seed treatments.
European Commission has published two regulations that prohibit the use
and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the
active substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, in the case
of Regulation (EC) No. 485/2013 (from 24 May 2013), and the active
ingredient fipronil in the case of Regulation (EC) No. 781/2013 (from 14
August 2013). These restrictions may imply a substantial shift from soil-
based to foliar-based pest management systems, since seed dressings have
provided an important tool in the control of soil-dwelling pest. Farmers
might incur several new costs for this situation, including costs for
alternative active substances, additional application costs, as well as added
costs for using higher seeding densities to avoid soil pest damage. In this
context, we intend to investigate ex post how Italian farmers adapt their
pest management practices and the production costs. This can be done
through surveys aimed at farmers, agricultural associations, cooperatives or
any other agents involved in the agricultural sector that will allow a
descriptive assessment of the impacts of the restrictive uses of
neonicotinoids.
In the case of Italy, plant protection products for seed treatment containing
thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin were withdrawn before the EU
restriction. It is necessary to take into account that the Italian national
competent authority suspended the use of plant protection products
containing Imidacloprid; Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin for seed

Italy (Maize) - 5
treatments, since September 2008, following the receipt of a number of

warnings of bee deaths. This decision was taken on the basis of the
precautionary principle stated in (E.C.) Regulation 178/2002.
The suspension was renewed yearly starting from 2009 when it was started
the APENET project whose aim was both to investigate the potential effects
of neonicotinoids dusts, released following treated seeds incorporation in
soil, on bees and monitor the health and behavior of bees. The project was
concluded in 2011.On the basis of the result of APENET, the suspension was
confirmed also in 2012 and finally the EU restriction was implemented.
Therefore the maize farmers in Italy had to find alternatives to
thiamethoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin seed treatment before the EU
restriction was published and implemented. Currently there are authorized,
in Italy, plant protection products containing tefluthrin for seed treatment
(Force 20 CS) and granular formulation for soil application
(http://www.fitosanitari.salute.gov.it/fitosanitariwsWeb new/FitosanitariSer
vlet consulted in December 2015).
We report here 1001 face to face interviews that were carried out in Italy to
evaluate the economic consequences of the restriction of use of seed maize
treated with the neonicotinoids thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and
imidacloprid in the European Union.
The survey was designed taking into account all possible combinations of
alternatives that farmers can use to substitute seed treatments with
thiamethoxam, clothianidin, imidacloprid, and the economic impact of pest
management alternatives. Therefore, some questions were designed to
gather information about the perception of farmers in relation to the pest
control in their crops before and after the restriction. A second group of
questions intend to recognize how the crop management included use of
pesticides, fertilizers, water management, IPM measures or sowing before
and after the restrictions; at last, a final group of questions was related with
the income and outcome of the crop both before and after the restriction.
1
Another 5 interviews were done for a pilot purpose but as some important
changes were done in the questionnaire, these interviews couldnt be taken into
account.

Italy (Maize) - 6
3. Methods
The universe of the survey was defined as the collective of maize growers in
Lombarda that used any of the neonicotinoid products restricted
(imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin) before 2014 sowing. The
definition includes all growers using these active ingredients in any of the
previous four years.
The sampling procedure referred to this universe and looked for a

representative selection of interviewees among this group. The location of
interviewees was preview in a multistage process, which ensures the
suitability and representativeness of the sample finally obtained.
Interviews in Italy were conducted in those regions with the higher number
of holders/surface dedicated to Maize and also grain Maize.
In a first step of the process we noticed a great lack of information

concerning the use of neonicotinoids, and a very heterogeneous situation
inside every country/region. Therefore, we concentrate the sampling in
those regions with the biggest surface and number of holders dedicated to
the target crop, adapting the original survey proposal.
The sampling procedure has taken into account the total surface and the
number of holders for the crop. The areas selected, are the ones with the
highest presence of the crop.
Some additional information suggests that the presence of the crop/number

of holders is correlated with the usage of neonicotinoids. Additional
information to support the choice of regions was coming from public
information, commercial panels on phytosanitarian product use, national
experts, etc.
In Italy we selected Lombarda because the higher number of

holders/surface dedicated to Maize and also grain Maize. The table 1 shows
the municipalities/councils (NUT2) of Lombarda, were the interviews took
place, adding 22,871 maize holders and a total surface dedicated to this
crop of 337,598 has.

Italy (Maize) - 11
5. Agronomic and pest management impact
The main focus of this survey was to identify eventual changes on the
agronomic practices of maize producers as a result of the implementation of
the Regulation (EC) No. 485/2013 that that prohibit the use and sale of
seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active
substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam.
The data shown in Table 6 indicates that the years before the restriction the
majority of the farmers used granular formulation of insecticides containing
clothianidin and tefluthrin (70%) and a 16% used seed treated with
clothianidin or imidacloprid, although this use was already suspended in
Italy. The number of farmers using granular formulation of clothianidin at
sowing decreases with time (69% in 2012, 29% in 2013 and 24% in 2014),
while the percentage of farmers using granular formulation of tefluthrin
increase (from 1% in 2012 to 44% and 47% the following years).
The application of granular formulation of insecticides, applied during

sowing, is a common plant protection practice for the protection of the crop
in the first stages of development. The use of plant protection products
containing thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid for seed treatment
was suspended in 2008 in Italy, but the use of granular formulations
containing these active substances was not suspended, that is the reason
why there is a higher percentage of farmers using granular formulation of
clothianidin rather than treated seed in the years before the EU restriction.
These findings suggest that maize growers switched rapidly to a soil
treatment with a granular formulation of clothianidin before the EU
restriction and switch to a granular formulation of tefluthrin after the EU
restriction.
It is worth noting that the number of farmers using seed treated with
clothianidin or imidacloprid (11% and 8% respectively) did not decrease
after the EU restriction. Regulation 485/2013 establishes a period of grace
for selling and use of plant protection products containing thiamethoxam,
clothianidin and imidacloprid that finish the 30 November 2013. Therefore,
it is surprising that a 24% of the surveyed farmers used a granular
formulation containing clothianidin after the EU restriction.

Italy (Maize) - 20
8. Conclusions
Our data reveal that Italian farmers using granular formulation of

clothianidin at sowing decrease with time, while increasing the percentage
of farmers using granular with tefluthrin.
Tefluthrin is an approved active substance in the EU (Regulation (EU) No

800/2011). According to EFSA 20103, and considering the use of trefluthrin
as a seed treatment for sugar beet, a low risk was identified for birds,
aquatic organisms, bees, non-target arthropods, earthworms, non-target
soil macro- and micro- organisms.
Toxicity endpoints from studies on Apis mellifera, for the imidacloprid,

thiamethoxam, clothianidin and tefluthrin are recorded in the review report
of each active substance and in the EFSA opinion on sub-lethal effects in
bees of some neonicotinoids (EFSA 2010; EFSA 20124). Imidacloprid,
thiamethoxam and clothianidin show a similar acute toxicological profile,
while tefluthrin are less toxic.
There are not a comparison of the risk to honey bees and pollinators of the
use a granular formulation of clothianidin and a granular formulation of
tefluthrin, but taking into account only the acute oral bee toxicity endpoints
(LD50) for tefluthrin (1.88 g/bee) that are near 500 times higher than the
acute oral bee toxicity endpoints (LD50) for clothianidin (0.00379 g/bee)
we can expect a lower risk.
3
European Food Safety Authority; Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide
risk assessment of theactive substance tefluthrin. EFSA Journal 2010;8(12):1709.
[65 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1709. Available online:www.efsa.europa.eu
4
European Food Safety Authority; Statement on the findings in recent studies
investigating sub-lethal effects in bees of some neonicotinoids in consideration of
the uses currently authorized in Europe. EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2752. [27 pp.]
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2752. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal

Italy (Maize) - 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Geographic location of interviews at NUT2 level .................................... 7

Table 2. Distribution of maize farm size (%) and in the selected sampling areas. ... 8
Table 3. Household Incomes coming from the farm ............................................ 9
Table 4. Incomes coming from maize production ............................................... 9
Table 5. Annual farm gross income .................................................................10
Table 6. Main insecticides used for maize soil-pest control in Italy (seed treatment
and granular formulations) ............................................................................12
Table 7. Number of soil and foliar treatment to control maize pest ......................12
Table 8. Insecticide active substance used .......................................................13
Table 9.: Percentage of farmers treating to control soil and aerial pests ..............13
Table 10. Evolution of estimated costs for maize agronomic practices and yield ....14
Table 11. EU Regulations Awareness. ..............................................................15
Table 12. Measures undertaken in Maize after the restrictions (*) .......................16
required. .....................................................................................................17
Table 17. Perceived foliar pests pressure changes .............................................18
Table 18. Perceived effectiveness of pest management practices ........................18
Table 21.A.Farmers Age. ...............................................................................21
Table 22.A.Farmers Education Level. ...............................................................21
Table 23.A. Membership of Association or Cooperative (*). ................................21
Table 24.A. Fertilizers usage ..........................................................................22
Table 25.A. Integrated Pest Management I ......................................................22
Table 26.A. Type of soil management ..............................................................22

and pest management
farmers of Maize in
Spain after
neonicotinoids
restrictions


2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Institutional contacts ................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Sampling Points. ......................................................................... 7
3.1.3 Selection of informants ................................................................ 7
4. Farmer Demographics .......................................................................... 9
7. Farmers perceptions about restrictions ...................................................16
7.3 Perceived Impact on time and costs of the agronomic practices. ............18
7.5 Perceived Pest Pressure on the Maize culture .......................................19
7.7 Perceived Economic Impact ...............................................................21
8. Additional Information .........................................................................22
8.2 Fertilizers usage. ..............................................................................23
8.3 Integrated Pest Management or Organic Farming Practice .....................23

Spain (Maize) - 3
1. Abstract

protection measure in maize crop to control soil-dwelling and early-season
insect pests. The aim of this study was to identify the economic impact of
the restriction by the European Commission (EC) on the use of maize seed
treated with thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid (EU Regulation
2013/485) and fipronil (EU Regulation 2013/781) on the pest management
practices of maize farmers in Spain.
Surveys were conducted in Ebro Valley because is a representative maize

growing area, and farmers used regularly maize treated seed. Our data
reveal that Spanish farmers have promptly substituted the use of the seed
treated with Poncho (clothianidin), by seed treated with a new authorized
formulation of the neonicotinoid thiacloprid (Sonido 40FS). No increases on
soil and foliar pesticide treatments were observed in the surveyed period
(2012-2014). Furthermore, farmers do not declare abandonment of maize
growing, which is consistent with the fact that the grown maize area was
similar to that of years before the restrictions. The differences in the income
and outcome can be attributed to the maize market trend and to the yearly
production variation. All together, these data suggest that no clear
agronomic or economic impacts have been identified after the limitation of
use of maize treated seed with clothianidin.
2. Introduction
common plant protection tool in maize to control soil-dwelling and early-
season insect pests, as they exhibit a long-lasting residual effects. They
have proved to control successfully: a) soil pests, such as cutworms and
wireworms, and western corn rootworm; b) sucking insects, such as aphids
to avoid virus transmission; c) leafhoppers, sucking insects that feed on
young leaves causing a decrease in chlorophyll levels; d) the first
generation of lepidopteran corn borers and also lepidopteran leaf feeders.
Foliar and soil applications of neonicotinoids to control maize pests have had
less economic significance as compared with seed treatments.

Spain (Maize) - 4
The European Commission has, from 24th May 2013, suspended the use of
neonicotinoid seed treatment (Regulation EU 485/2013), including
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, for two years. This restriction
may imply a substantial shift from seed-based to soil and foliar-based pest
management systems. Farmers might incur several new costs for this
scenario, including costs for alternative active substances, additional
application treatment costs, as well as higher seeding densities costs to
compensate soil pest damage. In this context, we intend to investigate ex
post how maize Spanish farmers adapt their pest management practices
and the production cost and gross margins in Spain. Therefore, we
performed surveys to farmers to assess the impacts of the restrictive use of
neonicotinoids. Before the restriction, plant protection products containing
Fipronil (Regent FS), Thiamethoxam (Cruiser 350 FS); Clothianidin (Poncho)
and Imidacloprid (Seedoprid red, Seedoprid 600 FS) were authorized for
maize seed treatment in Spain.
Spain granted an exceptional authorization (from October 2013 till February

2014) according the article 53 of the Regulation 1107/2009 of a new
formulation for maize seed treatment against soil pests, particularly
Agriotes spp, the neonicotinoid thiacloprid (Sonido 40% FS). On March the
3rd of 2015 the authorization of Sonido 40% FS was granted in Spain
following the mutual recognition procedure of regulation 1107/2009 from an
authorization previously granted in France. Additionally, an exceptional
authorization following the article 53 of the mentioned Regulation
1107/2009 EC, was also granted to Spain for the pyrethroid tefluthrin
(Force 20S), used as soil insecticide against Agriotes spp., from October
2013 till February 2014. Furthermore the use of currently used foliar
insecticide (e.g. pyrethroids and organophosphates) shall be considered as
an alternative treatment.
We report here results of 100 face to face interviews that were carried out
in the Ebro valley, Spain. The survey was designed taking into account all
possible combinations of alternatives that farmers can use to substitute the
treatment of seeds with neonicotinoids and fipronil, and how these possible
alternatives can have an economic impact. Some questions were designed
to gather information about the perception of farmers in relation to the pest
control in their crops before and after the restriction.

Spain (Maize) - 5
A second group of questions intend to recognize how the crop management

included use of pesticides, fertilizers, water management, IPM measures or
sowing before and after the restrictions. A final group of questions was
related with the income and outcome of the crop both before and after the
restriction.

Spain (Maize) - 7

crop for the country (Manufacturers, buyers, distributors, cooperatives,
municipality.

target crop will be the objetct of a personal interview with a professional
TNS interviewer, duly accredited and in possession of an explanatory
letter describing the conduction of an Agricultural Study on Maize
Growing and its problems and practices, for which we will request their
cooperation by taking part in a brief interview.
From the information received from the companies/entities linked to maize,

a strategy was then established for contacting crop farmers in each
establishments, warehouses, etc.) or Visiting the farmers
home/premises.

We ensured that the person we are addressing is a farmer and he complies

with the requirements described in terms of location of the exploitation, the
size of farm (Table 2). We screened out the employees of the farm or
someone else not involved in its management, or with limited knowledge of
the decisions related to the management practices.
The final sample includes a 58% of head of the farm/household (family

owned business) and a 42% of general managers.

Spain (Maize) - 11
agronomic practices of maize producers as a result of the neonics
restrictions imposed by the EC (Regulation EU 485/2013) and by the
restriction of use of fipronil by EC (Regulation 781/2013). For this purpose
we have identified year 2014 representing the first year in which the
interviewee farmer grew maize after the entry into force of restricting the
use of seed treated with thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid; year
2013 and 2012 represent years in which the interviewee farmer grew maize
before the restriction, we have not identified strong rotations patterns.
In general, no significant differences on the agronomic practices were

detected between the years surveyed before and after the restriction. No
significant changes were observed in the use of fertilizers (N, P, K) (Table
23a), farmers adoption of IPM programs by maize growing farmers (Table
24a) and soil management (Table 25a). IPM programs are not very
important in Spain, none farmer was part of an IPM program and this figure
did not change during the three years of this study.
The use of seed treated with neonicotinoids to control soil pests (wireworms
and cutworms) and aerial pests (leafhoppers and corn borers) was very
common in Ebro Valley, being 89% in 2012, 91% in 2013 and 80% in 2014
(Table 6). The main neonicotinoid used before the restriction was
clothianidin (80% in 2012; 89% in 2013), and fipronil was not used.
Interestingly, the majority of maize growers (78%) switched rapidly to
maize seed treated with a new formulation of thiacloprid (Sonido 40FS) in
2014 (after the restriction), and a small proportion of farmers (2%)
continue using Poncho, although its sale and use was not allowed (Table 6).

Spain (Maize) - 15
To compare the economic impact of the restriction of neonicotinoids and

fipronil in maize yield we must use an indicator that avoids bias due to
fluctuations along year of the maize prize market. Thus, we used the Return
on Investment (Kg/) resulting of dividing the yield by the total variable
cost each year. This value remained rather constant before and after the
restriction of use of neonicotinoids (Table 9).
Altogether, the data obtained suggest that there is not a clear agronomic
and economic impact due to the restriction of use of maize seed treated
with neonicotinoids.

Spain (Maize) - 25
List of Tables
Table 1. Geographic Location of interviews at NUTS2. ........................................ 6

Table 2. Distribution of maize farm size (%) and percentage of the selected
sampling areas. ............................................................................................. 8
Table 4. Incomes coming from maize production ............................................... 9
Table 5. Annual farm gross income .................................................................10
Table 7. Number of insecticide seed treatments ................................................12
Table 8. Percentage of farmers treating to control soil and aerial pests ................13
Table 9. Evolution of estimated costs for maize agronomic practices and yield in
Spain ..........................................................................................................14
Table 10. Knowledge of the EU Regulations restricting the use of neonicotinoids...16
Table 11. Intended Pest Management actions after the neonicotinoid restrictions..17
Table 12. Perceived time requirement changes .................................................18
Table 13. Perceived changes of the cost of plant protection product ....................18
Table 14. Perceived impacts on the number of plant protection products required. 19
Table 17. Perceived effectiveness of pest management practices ........................20
Table 20.A. Farmers Age ...............................................................................22
Table 21.A. Farmers education level................................................................22
Table 22.A. Membership of association or cooperative (*) ..................................22
Table 24.A. Integrated pest management ........................................................23
Table 25.A. Soil Management .........................................................................23
Table 26.A. Distribution of herbicide treatments along the time ..........................24

and pest management
farmers of SUNFLOWER in
Hungary after
neonicotinoids
restrictions
SURVEY ON THE ADAPTATIONS OF AGRONOMIC PRACTICES BY EU FARMERS TO

NEONICOTINOID RESTRICTIONS

Deliverable 5: Analysis of Agronomic and pest management. Adaptations taken by farmers of Sunflowe in
Hungary after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Institutional contacts ................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Sampling Points. ......................................................................... 7
3.1.3 Selection of informants ................................................................ 7
4. Farmer Demographics .......................................................................... 9
(*) Multiple responses are allowed. .................................................................14
7.1 Awareness of the Restriction: ............................................................16
7.3 Perceived Impact on time and costs of the Sunflower culture .................17
7.5 Perceived Pest Pressure on the Sunflower culture .................................19
7.7 Perceived Economic Impact ...............................................................21
8. Conclusions ........................................................................................22
9. Annex I; Additional Information. ...........................................................23
9.3 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or organic farming practice and Soil
Management .............................................................................................24
10. Annex II: List of active substances contained within herbicides and
fungicides. ...................................................................................................25

Hungary (Sunflower) 3
1. Abstract
The use of sunflower seed treated with neonicotinoids and fipronil is a

common plant protection measure in sunflower crop to control soil-dwelling
and early-season insect pests. The aim of this study is to investigate ex
post the impact of restriction by the EU on the use of sunflower seed treated
with thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid (Regulation 2013/485) and fipronil
(Regulation 2013/781) on the pest management practices of sunflower
growers in Hungary.
The results of the survey show that farmers have changed their strategy to
control sunflower pest. They have replaced the use of treated seed with the
neonicotinoids thiamethoxam (Cruiser) and imidacloprid (Gaucho) by foliar
and soil application of plant protection products containing pyrethroid and
thiacloprid, as main active substances. Furthermore, there is a significant
increase of the number of insecticide applications at the vegetative and
flowering stage, mainly to control Heliothis spp., sunflower moth
(Homoeosoma nebulella) and the weevil (Tanymecus dilaticollis).
Nevertheless, these increases were rather similar to the one observed the
year before the EU restriction, which seems to be related to a recurring
high incidence/damage of the above-mentioned pests. Hence, they cannot
be unambiguously related to the restriction. Our data suggest that there is
not a clear agronomic impact after the restriction. The increase of about 8
% in total variable costs can be attributed to pesticides and cultural
practices

Deliverable 5: Analysis of Agronomic and pest management. Adaptations taken by farmers of Sunflower
in Hungary after neonicotinoid restrictions
2. Introduction
The use of sunflower seed treated with neonicotinoids and fipronil has
become a common plant protection tool in sunflower crop to control soil-
dwelling pest and also early-season insect pests, as they exhibit a long-
lasting residual effects. They have proved to control successfully soil pests,
such as cutworms and wireworms.
European Commission has published two regulations that prohibit the use
and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the
active substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, in the case
of Regulation (EC) No. 485/2013 (from 24 May 2013), and the active
ingredient fipronil in the case of Regulation (EC) No. 781/2013 (from 14
August 2013). The mentioned regulations do not allow the authorization of
plant protection products containing clothianidin, imidacloprid, and
thiamethoxam and fipronil as seed treatment, soil treatment or foliar
application with the exception of some specific uses and conditions indicated
in the Regulations. The restriction of use of plant protection products
containing the active substances imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and fipronil,
could affect the production of sunflower in Hungary, which could mean
some considerable losses in production as some stakeholders have
indicated.
The restrictions may imply a substantial shift from soil-based to foliar-based

pest management systems. Farmers might incur several new costs for this
situation, including costs for alternative active substances, additional
application costs, and added costs for using higher seeding densities. It is
necessary to quantify the impact of the restriction of use of these active
substances. This can be done through surveys aimed at farmers,
agricultural associations, cooperatives or any other agents involved in the
agricultural sector that will allow a descriptive assessment of the impacts of
the restrictive uses of neonicotinoids and fipronil.
In Hungary, in May 2014, an exceptional authorization (according Art 53 of

Reg. EC 1107/2009), from April to June 2014, to use plant protection

products containing lambda-cyhalothrin was granted in order to treat

against Agriotes spp., weevils and other pests.
Hungary in order to evaluate the consequences of the restriction of use of
seed sunflower treated with some neonicotinoids (thiamethoxam,
imidacloprid) and fipronil in the European Union.
alternatives that farmers can use to substitute the treatment of seeds with
neonicotinoids and fipronil, and how these possible alternatives can have an
economic impact. Therefore, some questions were designed to gather
information about the perception of farmers in relation to the pest control in
their crops before and after the restriction.

sowing before and after the restrictions; at last, a final group of questions
was related with the income and outcome of the crop both before and after
the restriction.
As a first phase of our survey we have conducted five pilot interviews in

Hungary in order to review questionnaire performance, before the main
fieldwork of 100 interviews.

Pyrethroids, as tefluthrin, deltamethrin, alpha cypermethrin and lambda

cyhalothrin are approved active substance in the EU (Regulation (EU) No
800/2011; Regulation (EU) No 823/2012 and Regulation (EU) No
540/2011). EFSA has published the opinion on the review of two of these
pyrethroids (tefluthrin1 and lambda cyhalotrhin 2) and for deltamethrin and
alpha cypermethrin the EU review report are available.
Toxicity endpoints from studies on Apis mellifera, for the imidacloprid,

thiamethoxam, clothianidin, thiacloprid and the mentioned pyrethroids are
recorded in the review report of each active substance and in the EFSA
opinion on sub-lethal effects in bees of some neonicotinoids (EFSA 20123).
Toxicity endpoints from studies on Apis mellifera, for imidacloprid,
thiamethoxam, clothianidin, acetamiprid and thiacloprid are recorded in the
review report of each active substance.
Generally, the oral toxicity appears to be higher than the contact toxicity
(one order of magnitude). Imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin
show a similar acute toxicological profile, while thiacloprid and acetamiprid
are less toxic. Considering the toxicity of these substances, the sub-lethal
effects observed on honeybees and bumblebees for imidacloprid,
thiamethoxam and clothianidin are not likely to occur for thiacloprid and
acetamiprid at similar levels of exposure (EFSA, 2012)
There are not a comparison of the risk to honey bees and pollinators of the
use of sunflower seed treated with thiamethoxam and imidacloprid with the
use of soil and foliar applications of plant protection products containing
pyrethroid and thiacloprid. The acute bee toxicity endpoints (LD50) for
thiacloprid are four orders of magnitude higher in the case of the oral
1
risk assessment of the active substance tefluthrin. EFSA Journal 2010;8(12):1709.
[65 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1709. Available online:www.efsa.europa.eu
2
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014. Conclusion on the peer review of
the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance lambda-cyhalothrin. EFSA
Journal 2014;12(5):3677, 170 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3677
3
European Food Safety Authority; Statement on the findings in recent studies
investigating sub-lethal effects in bees of some neonicotinoids in consideration of
the uses currently authorised in Europe. EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2752. [27 pp.]
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2752. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal

8. Conclusions
The results of the survey show that farmers have changed their strategy to
control sunflower pest. They have replaced the use of treated seed with the
neonicotinoids thiamethoxam (Cruiser) and imidacloprid (Gaucho) by foliar
and soil application of plant protection products containing pyrethroid and
thiacloprid, as main active substances.
Furthermore, there is a significant increase of the number of insecticide

applications at the vegetative and flowering stage, mainly to control
Heliothis spp., sunflower moth (Homoeosoma nebulella) and the weevil
(Tanymecus dilaticollis). Nevertheless, these increases were rather similar
to the one observed the year before the EU restriction, which seems to be
related to a recurring high incidence/damage of the above-mentioned pests.
Hence, they cannot be unambiguously related to the restriction. Our data
suggest that there is not a clear agronomic impact after the restriction. The
increase of about 8 % in total variable costs can be attributed to pesticides
and cultural practices.

26
List of Tables
Table 1. Geographic Location of interviews at NUT3 level. ................................... 6
Table 2. Respondents role in the farm ............................................................. 7
Table 3. Distribution of sunflower farm size (%) in Hungary and in the selected
sampling areas. ............................................................................................. 8
Table 4. Sample farms status. ........................................................................ 9
Table 5. Annual farm gross income; ................................................................10
Table 6. Incomes coming from SUNFLOWER production .....................................10
Table 8: Average number of Plant Protection Products applications .....................12
Table 9: Active substances of insecticides applied .............................................12
Table 10: Percentage of farmer applying soil and foliar treatments to control
sunflower pests ............................................................................................14
Table 11. Evolution of estimated costs for sunflower agronomic practices in
Hungary. .....................................................................................................15
Table 12. EU Regulations Awareness ...............................................................16
Table 13. Measures undertaken by Hungarian farmers in SUNFLOWER crop after the
restrictions ..................................................................................................17
Table 14. Perceived time requirement changes .................................................18
Table 15. Perceived changes of the cost of plant protection product ....................18
Table 16. Perceived impacts on the number of plant protection products required. 19
Table 19. Effectiveness of pest management practices ......................................20
Table 20. Most valuable features of the plant protection products available before
the EU restriction of neonicotinoids and fipronil ................................................20
Table 22.A. Membership of Association or Cooperative (*). ................................23
Table 23.A. Farmers Age. ..............................................................................23
Table 24.A. Farmers Education Level. ..............................................................23
Table 25.A.Incomes coming from the farm ......................................................23
Table 27.A. Integrated Pest Management I ......................................................24
Table 28.A. Soil Management. ........................................................................24
Table 29.A. Active substance applied: Herbicides ..............................................25
Table 30.A. Active substance applied: Fungicides ..............................................25

Ref. Ares(2015)3901698 - 22/09/2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE AGRONOMIC PRACTICES AND PEST

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BY FARMERS BEFORE THE
RESTRICTIONS ON NEONICOTINOIDS AND FIPRONIL AND SAMPLING
METHOD FOR SUNFLOWER IN SPAIN AND RAPESEED IN THE CZECH
REPUBLIC, GERMANY AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
Introduction
Neonicotinoid insecticides are among the most broadly adopted chemical insecticides
used to manage insect pests of annual and perennial crops in the world (Jeschke et al.
2011). Seed dressing, film coating, pelleting or multilayer coating allow for
environmentally safe and good protection of young plants against insect attack (Elbert et
al, 2008). Modern products for seed treatment are able to achieve high levels of
efficiency in the control of insects and diseases at the early stages of cultivation, with
reduced use of the products as compared to foliar and alternative soil treatments.
Moreover, the use of seed treatments is compatible with the principles of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM).
In recent years, neonicotinoids and fipronil have been the fastest growing class of
insecticides in modern crop protection, with widespread use against a broad spectrum of
sucking and certain chewing pests (Jeschke and Nauen, 2008). Currently these group of
insecticides account for approximately one third (in monetary terms) of the world
insecticide market (Simon-Delso et al., 2015). Neonicotinoids, includes the following
active substances imidacloprid; thiamethoxam; clothianidin; acetamiprid; thiacloprid;
dinotefuran; nitenpyram. Among them, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and
the active substance fipronil, which belongs to the phenylpyrazole chemical family, are
the most commonly used systemic insecticides (Simon-Delso et al., 2015). The high
systemicity of these insecticides is a feature that has contributed to the development of
formulations for diverse application techniques, such as seed treatments, soil treatments
(incorporation of granules, injection, drip irrigation), spraying and the use of tablets. All
these application methods are feasible and, therefore, have been included in IPM
programmes worlwide (Simon-Delso et al., 2015; Jeschke et al. 2008; Elbert et al, 2008).
In Europe, more than 200 plant protection products containing imidacloprid,

thiamethoxam, clothianidin, acetamiprid, or thiacloprid were on the market in 2012, with
more than 1,000 authorised uses, including field, greenhouse and indoor uses. The
authorised uses were for a wide range of crops including rapeseed and sunflower.
Approximately 69% of the field uses were spray applications, while less than 20% were
seed treatment and about 12% were other methods of application such as drip irrigation
and soil disinfectant (EFSA, 2012). However, these percentages represent the number of
authorised uses, which is not related with the volume of the total active substance that
was used or the extent of the treated area. The use of neonicotinoids as a seed treatment
can be considered of great importance compared with foliar treatments. Neonicotinoid
seed treatments are routinely applied to the vast majority of grain and oilseed crops in
developed countries (Simon-Delso et al., 2015). For example, 93% (by weight) of all
insecticidal seed treatments in the UK contained neonicotinoids and 87% of the total
neonicotinoid volume was applied as a seed treatment in 2012 (Simon-Delso et al.,
2015).
1
Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (21 October
2009) concerning the commercialization of plant protection products lays down rules
which govern plant protection products and the active substances contained in them,
ensuring a high degree of protection with regards to human and animal health as well as
to the environment, while the competitiveness of EU agriculture is safeguarded
(European Commission, 2009). Subsequently, the European Commission has published
two other regulations that prohibit the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection
products containing the active substances clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam,
in the case of Regulation (EC) No. 485/2013 (from 24 May 2013) (European
commission, 2013a), and the active ingredient fipronil in the case of Regulation (EC) No.
781/2013 (from 14 August 2013) (European commission, 2013b). The mentioned
regulations do not allow the authorization of plant protection products containing
clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and fipronil as seed treatment, soil
treatment or foliar application with the exception of some specific uses and conditions
indicated in the Regulations. These restrictions were established in the light of new
scientific and technical information that was evaluated by EFSA (European Food Safety
Authority), and from which a high risk to bees derived from plant protection products
containing the above cited active substances was identified.
Reviewing the information contained in the review report of the inclusion directives for
the approval of the four active substances (a.s.) (European Commission, 2005; European
Commission, 2006; European Commission 2008; European Commission, 2010a), it can
be seen that some of these a.s. are important for the control of soil pests. Certain crops,
such as rapeseed (Brassica napus var. oleifera) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)
greatly rely on the above mentioned neonicotinoids to manage soil-dwelling and early-
season insect pests (EFSA, 2012). In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
published the conclusions of the peer reviews of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for
the active substance fipronil (EFSA, 2013a), thiamethoxam (EFSA 2013b), clothianidin
(EFSA 2013c), and imidacloprid (EFSA 2013d). It must worth noting that these
conclusions considered the authorised uses of active substances only as a seed treatment,
whereas other uses and plant protection products that were authorized in member states
were not taking into account . Yet, restricting the use of imidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
clothianidin, and fipronil as seed treatment, soil treatment and some foliar applications
for the control of major pest in oilseed rape and sunflower might have a significant
economic impact in EU farmers.
For instance, in the case of fipronil, as foreseen in the review report (European
Commission, 2010), seed treatment to control soil insects in rapeseed and sunflower was
considered for the approval. Use in sunflower crop was authorized in Spain. Fipronil was
included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC by the Commission Directive
2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007 (European Commission, 2007). Additional provisions to
protect honey bees were introduced by Directive 2010/21/EU of 12 March 2010
(European Commission, 2010b). Fipronil was approved under regulation 1107/2009 by
the regulation 540/2011 (European Commission 2011), entering into force on 14 June
2011. The following plant protection products containing fipronil have been
commercialized in member states for sunflower seed treatment: Regent FS (500 g/l
fipronil) (seed treatment of sunflower) in Spain; Cosmos FS (500 g/l fipronil) (seed
treatment of sunflower) in Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Slovakia (EFSA, 2013a).
2
Furthermore, other plant protection products containing fipronil have been authorized
and commercialized in member states for soil treatment against soil and foliar pests for
sunflower and maize, among other crops. These products are the following: Regent
800WG (800 g/kg fipronil); Regent MG (20 g/kg fipronil), Schuss WG (800 g/kg
fipronil) and Trident GR (62.5 Aldicarb+Fipronil 20 g/kg g/kg) used for soil treatments
against Agriotes spp.; Regent G GR (20 g/kg fipronil) for sunflower to be applied in
furrow during sowing (European Commision, 2004)
For thiamethoxam, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2006a)

some of the uses considered for the approval of the a.s. were the following: seed
treatment (Cruiser 70 WS) for sunflower, maize, rapeseed, among others. The a.s.
thiamethoxam was included in Annex I of Directive 91/414 in 2007 by the Directive
2007/6/EC, and was approved under regulation 1107/2009 by the regulation 540/2011,
entering into force on 14 June 2011 (European Commission, 2007b). Plant protection
products containing thiamethoxam have been commercialized, as Cruiser 350 FS, for
seed treatment of sunflower in Spain, Greece, Slovakia and Hungary, and for seed
treatment of rapeseed, as Cruiser OSR, in Czech Republic, Germany and United
Kingdom (EFSA, 2013 b)
For clothianidin, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2005), among
the intended uses considered to this a.s. for Annex I inclusion were seed treatment of
sugar and fodder beet. This active substance was included on Annex I of Directive
91/414/EEC on 1 August 2006 under Inclusion Directive 2006/41/EC (European
Commission, 2006b) and was approved under regulation 1107/2009 by the reg. EU
540/2011 (European Commission 2011), entering into force on 14 June 2011. Several
plant protection products were authorized in EU Member States: Elado FS 480, Elado
and Modesto for the seed treatment of rapeseed in Czech Republic, Germany and United
Kingdom. For the seed treatment of sunflower, Poncho 600 FS in Slovakia and FS 600
in Romania (EFSA, 2013c).
In the case of imidacloprid, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission,

2008a), sunflower was not among the intended uses considered for this a.s. (only the use
on tomato was included in the review report). This active substance was included into
Annex I of Directive 91/414 in 2008, entering into force on 1 August 2008 (Directive
2008/116/EC) (European Commission, 2008b) and was approved under regulation
1107/2009 by the reg. EU 540/2011 (European Commission 2011), entering into force on
14 June 2011. Several plant protection products were authorized for seed treatment of
rapeseed Antarc (004674-00) and Chinook (004672-00) in Germany; Chinook 200 FS
in Hungary, Sweden and Slovakia; Chinook in Poland and United Kingdom; Chinook
Blue 200 FS, Couraze 350 FS and Nuprid 600 FS in Poland. For sunflower seed
treatment only Gaucho 600 FS was registered in Hungary (EFSA, 2013d).
It must worth noting that derogations of Regulation n 1107/2009 (Art 53) (European
Commission, 2009) allow Member States the authorization of plant protection products
containing active substances that are not approved. These authorizations are for a period
not exceeding 120 days. This establish a frame in which the use of the four active
substances mentioned above are not totally restricted and authorization (limited on time)
could be granted in member states when pest damage cannot be contained or controlled
by any other reasonable means. Before the restriction of use of imidacloprid,
3
thiamethoxam, clothianidin and fipronil some member states granted exceptional
authorizations for plant protection products containing these active substances for seed
treatment of sunflower and rapeseed. The number of emergency authorizations (Art 53
Reg 1107/2009) of plant protection products for controlling soil pests has increased in
the last year. Furthermore some member states have granted exceptional authorization for
seed treatment with some of these active substances, as Romania that requested
exceptional authorization to use clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxam for
sunflower seed from February to June 2014, Denmark that requested exceptional
authorization of Thiamethoxam (Cruiser RAPS) and Chlothianidin (Modesto FS 480) for
rapeseed seed treatment; Estonia that required exceptional authorization of
Thiamethoxam (Cruiser OSR). These exceptional authorizations allows other substances
to be considered as alternatives for treatment of seeds, such as is the case for
cypermethrin, thiacloprid and tefluthrin, for which exceptional authorizations have been
granted. Nowadays there are in process authorization of plant protection products
containing other insecticides for seed treatment on sunflower (the information of
exceptional authorization was extracted from the information distributed among MS and
EU Commission).
The restrictions of neonicotinoids and fipronil may imply a substantial shift from soil-
based to foliar-based pest management systems. Farmers might incur several new costs,
such as: costs of alternative a.s., additional treatment costs, and added costs for using
higher seeding densities. It is necessary to quantify the impact of the restriction of use of
these active substances. This can be done through surveys aimed at farmers, agricultural
associations, cooperatives or any other agents involved in the agricultural sector that will
allow a descriptive assessment of the impacts of the restrictive uses of neonicotenoids
and fipronil. The objective of this report is to explain the agronomic and pest
management practices in rapeseed and sunflower in regions of Czech Republic, Germany
and United Kingdom (Rapeseed) and Spain (Sunflower) in which the use on
neonicotinoids and fipronil as seed treatment were important before the restrictions.
Sunflower Pest Management practices in Spain
With an area of about 26 million hectares worldwide, sunflower is essential to maintain

the sustainability of many regions, especially in Europe. It is also a strategic crop, which
in recent years has increased its potential thanks to innovation, as the development of
new hybrid varieties. Sunflower crop has suffered a boost in productivity by improving
agricultural technologies and support from favourable socio-economic policy
environment, as well as efficient institutional support services (Gorton et al., 2004;
Komjti et al., 2004; Molinero-Ruiz et al., 2009; Fodor and Psztor, 2010; Viranyi and
Spring, 2011; Sezen et al., 2011; Balali et al., 2012; Dhima et al., 2012; Ghobadi et al.,
2013). Furthermore, research includes the development of specific characters such as
herbicide resistance and disease tolerance in the new varieties of seeds, in addition to
oleic acid-rich varieties. Innovation also affects pesticides and fertilizers applied to this
crop (Mohammadi et al., 2013; Sukanya et al., 2015).
Approximately 40% of sunflower production turns into oil for food consumption, some
other end products from sunflower are feedstuffs and fuel oils (Bai, 2001; Csete et al.,
2007; FAO 2010). It is one of the most important herbaceous plants cultivated in the
4
world, from which oil is extracted for human consumption. It is a crop whose production
has been increasing at a stable rate in recent years. Weeds, pests and diseases may entail
a yield reduction of up to 50% or higher. To realize the yield potential in sunflower
cropping, pesticide inputs are required (Jayakumar et al., 1988; FAO, 1994).
The agronomic characteristics and the climate in Spain facilitate the production as less
inputs are needed, including phytosanitary treatments. In Spanish conditions herbicide
treatments in preemergence or early postemergence are common. The factors that limit
the use of plant protection products on sunflower are different in nature: economic (high
cost of some treatments in the crop whose production does not reach a very high price),
legislative (impact of EU legislation on some active substances) and agronomic (time and
manner of application, toxicity to bees, resistance to an active substance). Sunflower
cultivation in Spain takes place between the months of January-February and October-
November depending on the area. In Andalusia, early sowing (late January-early
February) is sought to make better use of soil water reserves in the advanced stages of
cultivation. From May the plants reach senescence, so the harvest happens usually in the
months of June-July. The choice of the sowing season in the north, once the time of
winter frosts are over, depends more on cultural and economic reasons than to agronomic
or climatic factors. Farmers prefer to wait for the weeds in order to eliminate them before
sowing. Sowing in areas of Valladolid and Burgos (Castile Leon) begins in April and the
latest harvests are those of Soria (the second half of October or, in not very hot years, in
November). The sunflower has a higher rusticity and plasticity than other field crops,
which makes applications of plant protection products less necessary than in other cases.
The sunflower is therefore a good candidate to practice sustainable agriculture based on
the use of plant protection products (Molinero Ruiz, L. 2009).
As a spring crop, sunflower does not have many problems of narrow-leaved weeds,
which often affect winter crops. Typically, weeds that have emerged in the fall are
eliminated either through tillage or through glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium
treatment or in combination with low-dose oxifluorfen. The plant that affects the most to
sunflower cultivation in Spain, particularly in Andalusia, is the parasitic species
Orobanche cumana (sunflower broomrape). The broomrape is considered one of the
main limiting factors in crop production in Spain and in most of the countries of southern
and eastern Europe and some East Asian. Currently, the cultivation of conventional
sunflower hybrids resistant to this parasitic plant is the most viable and effective control
method. There are other herbicidal active substances registered for sunflower, but they
are infrequently used. Many of them are used against narrow-leaved weeds, in pre-
emergence (clethodim, S-metolachlor, flurochloridone) or in post-emergence of the crop
(fluazifop-p-butyl, quizalofop-p-ethil). Aclonifen is one of the few registered herbicides
against broadleaf weeds in sunflower. Treatments with insecticides that are specific for
sunflower cultivation are few or used infrequently. The few pest problems in cultivation
come from polyphagous insects that attack several plant species, including sunflower.
The most important pests are polyphagous wireworms and white grubs. Within
wireworms, Agriotes is very common, but not unique. Both wireworms and white grubs
are usually fought with chlorpyrifos treatments applied to the soil in post-emergency.
Fipronil was also used, mainly in Andalusia, against soil insects. This active material was
used applied to sunflower seed sowing, as metalaxyl-M. Damage done by Lygus
pratensis, Helicoverpa armigera and aphids (Aphis fabae) may also be observed
sporadically. Treatments against these pests are usually carried out with deltamethrin and
5
pirimicarb active substances. There are three active substances recommended for
fungicide treatments on sunflower: fenpropimorph, thiram and metalaxyl-M. The first
two are recommended for the control of oidium (Erysiphe cichoracearum) and Pythium
spp. and Fusarium spp. respectively. However, none of these three pathogens causes
diseases of importance in sunflower in Spain. The use of metalaxyl-M to control mildew
(caused by the oomycete Plasmopara halstedii) deserves special attention. Mildew, along
with the broomrape, is the most limiting disease for sunflower production in Spain. The
chemical control of the disease by systemic fungicide metalaxyl, which has been widely
used for the past 30 years, is also possible (Molinero Ruiz, L. 2009).
The main cultivation of oilseeds in Spain is the sunflower with a percentage higher than
90%. In 2011 the value of production of oil crops reached 479 million euros, representing
1.16% of the value of the final production of the agricultural industry and 1.92% of the
value of the final crop production, hence special attention should be paid to the
restriction on the use of plant protection products to control certain pests that can affect
the cultivation of sunflower (MAGRAMA 2013a). The cultivated sunflower surface in
2013/2014 has increased by 14% over the previous year while the increase in production
has been above 60% due to a good performance with average levels, 1.2 t / year, and the
fact that it was not affected by drought as in the previous season (MAGRAMA, 2015).
According to the Technical General Secretariat of the MAGRAMA, sunflower cultivated

area in the seasonal year 2014/2015 would have been reduced by 7% compared to the
previous season, as well as production, which with an average yield of 1.18 t / ha has not
reached one million tons.
Table 1: Area (ha) of sunflower in Spain 2014 in different Autonomous Communities*

Rain-fed Irrigated Total
Andalusia 288,303 15,391 303,694
Castile and Leon 248,268 15,990 264,258
Castile-La Mancha 183,621 7,434 191,055
Extremadura 14,388 1,647 16,035
Aragon 7,190 995 8,185
Navarre 4,313 723 5,036
Catalonia 1,689 257 1,946
La Rioja 779 57 836
Basque Country 606 - 606
Madrid 369 - 369
TOTAL 749,526 42,494 792,020
*Offered areas reflect the result of a statistical sampling operation and refer to the land cover at the time of the field
research (summer 2014)Source: ESYRCE. Area and Yield Survey. Technical General Secretariat. MAGRAMA, 2014a
According to the available information (Table 1) rain fed sunflower surface represents
94% of the total surface dedicated to the crop. According to the information from
ANOVE 2014 (Asociacin Nacional de Obtentores Vegetales) surface planted with
sunflower seeds treated with insecticide is above the 370,000 ha, this means that more
than 40% of the surface of sunflower in Spain uses seed treated with insecticides. In
Andalusia 90% of the sunflower seed was treated with fipronil (personal communication
to Alonso-Prados, 2015).
6
Sunflower production in Spain, both for human consumption and livestock feeding, is
characterized by high productivity based on high inputs (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers), as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Current input for sunflower cropping systems in Spain

Spain
Water use L-M
Land use H-M
Mineral fertilizer use H-M
low to medium (based on FAOSTAT, 2014)
Table 2 has been constructed with estimations that take into account the available information of
economic indicators of sunflower cropping system in Spain from FAOSTAT 2014.
The crop protection scenarios in different EU member states are rather similar, though
they would be related to the differential agro-ecosystems found in each region. The
current crop protection practices to control the primary pests, weeds and diseases in
Spain are reported in Table 3.
Table 3. Current Crop Protection Practices against primary pests, weeds, and diseases of
sunflower cropping systems1
Pre sowing, pre- Weeds
emergence and post-
emergence herbicide
Cutworms (Agrotis spp.), wireworms (Agriotes spp), false
Seed treatments/
wireworms (Tenebrionidae), Heliothis spp., sunflower downy
Insecticide (soil
treatment) mildew (Plasmopara helianthi), white grubs (Melolontha spp.),
Weevil (Tanymecus dilaticollis)
Insecticide (foliar
treatment)
Crop choice in White rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum), verticilosis (Verticilium
rotation (crop and dahliae), sunflower broomrape (Orobanche cumana), weevils
time)
Sowing time Cutworms
management
Major tillage White rot, sunflower broomrape
(ploughing)
Root and stem charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina), white
Agronomic practices
rot, weevils, sunflower moth (Homoeosoma nebulella)
and cropping
strategies
Resistant Sunflower downy mildew, verticilosis, sunflower broomrape,
hybrids/varieties sunflower moth, sunflower rust (Puccinia helianthi)
7
Fungicides Gray rot (Botrytis cinerea)
treatments
1
Rotation depends on the agro-ecosystem. The most common rotations are with winter cereal
(wheat, barley) and maize.
Information included in Table 3 comes from a general review of the relevant literature about
sunflower (Elbert et al., 2008; Fodor and Psztor, 2010; Komjti et al., 2004; Molinero-Ruiz et al.,
2009; Nagy et al., 2006; Sukanya et al., 2015) included in the References section.
Estimation of costs for current agronomic practices for rain-fed sunflower in Spain was
done taking into account the measure values of production cost that MAGRAMA has
published in 2013, corresponding to the 2012 campaign (MAGRAMA, 2013c). For the
calculation, the mean values of production of three Autonomous Communities
(Andalusia, Aragon and Castile-La Mancha) have been considered (Table 4). Table 5
shows the estimation of costs for current agronomic practices for rain-fed and irrigated
sunflower in Spain in 2013 in the Autonomous Community of Castile and Leon,
published in 2014.
Table 4. Estimation of costs for current agronomic practices for rain-fed sunflower in
Spain in 2012 (mean values of Andalusia, Aragon and Castile-La Mancha)
Concept Sunflower
/ha /100 kg %
I-Direct costs(*) 67.87 9.43 12.61
II-Machinery 138.53 20.44 29.18
III-Wage labor 2.30 0.28 0.32
IV-Indirect costs 79.47 12.28 18.14
V-Amortizations 65.77 10.45 15.69
Subtotal 353.93 52.88 75.92
VI-Other indirect costs 128.82 18.00 24.08
FULL COST OF PRODUCTION 482.76 70.88 100.00
Production (t/ha)(**) 0.66
(*)
Direct costs includes pesticides, fertilizers, seed and other supplies
(**)
Production (t/ha): Andalusia 0.82; Aragon 0.55; Castile-La Mancha 0.62
Source: Estimation based on data available in MAGRAMA, 2013a
Table 5. Estimation of costs for current agronomic practices for rain-fed and irrigated
sunflower in Spain (Castile Leon) in 2013
Concept Sunflower (/ha)
Rain-fed Irrigated
I-Direct costs(*) 91.73 431.21
II-Machinery 189.42 242.95
III-Wage labor 6.52 8.55
IV-Indirect costs 104.05 107.56
V-Amortizations 61.97 86.42
Subtotal 453.69 876.70
VI-Other indirect costs 66.54 227.40
FULL COST OF PRODUCTION 520.23 1,104.10
Production (t/ha) 1.19 2.07
(*)
Direct costs includes pesticides, fertilizers, seed and other supplies
Source: Data available in MAGRAMA, 2014b
8
Sunflower seeds treated with clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiametoxan may not be used
or put on the market from December 1, 2013. In the case of sunflower seeds treated with
fipronil, they cannot be marketed or planted from February 28, 2014. Clothianidin,
imidacloprid and thiametoxan and fipronil were commonly used in different crops to
control certain soil insect pests (Molinero Ruiz, L. 2009). Inefficient control of some of
the key pests might have negative effects on sunflower yield and on farmers incomes.
In the case of Spain, and regarding the restriction of use and sale sunflower seeds treated
with plant protection products containing the active substance fipronil, Spain has granted
two exceptional authorizations (according Art 53 of Reg EC 1107/2009) for plant
protection products based on tefluthrin to control soil pests (Agriotes and Agrotis) in
sunflower seeds, in November 2013 and October 2014 (MAGRAMA 2013b; 2014c).
The restriction of use of plant protection products containing the active substances
clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiametoxam and fipronil could affect the production of
sunflower in Spain, which could mean some considerable losses in production as some
stakeholders have indicated (ANOVE, 2014). In the new situation it is necessary to
identify and evaluate possible actions to be undertaken to preserve constant values of
sunflower crop production, and increase them if possible. It is therefore essential to
assess the impact of the restriction of these four active substances
Rapeseed Pest Management practices
Brassica napus var oleifera (rapeseed) is cultivated to produce oil for human
consumption, rape cake as protein source for animal feeding and also raw materials for
several industries. Last years, their use in biodiesel industry has been growing, favored
by EU legislation aimed at developing alternative fuel sources. Consequently, the area
dedicated to rape cultivation has increased during this period. Depending on the final use
of rapeseed (human/animal consumption or industry), a low erucic variety (with no
erucic acid present) can be used (erucic acid has a mild toxicity for humans and animals)
(Fediol, 2014). The use of rapeseed for animal feeding is interesting for milk producers
under GMO-free production. Currently, GMO rapeseed is not permitted in the EU and
rapeseed can substitute for the use of soybean in dairy cattle feedstuffs, which is mostly
imported from overseas and genetically modified (UFOP, 2013).
The key-steps in rapeseed production are seed establishment, growth until bud formation,
flowering and seed formation. Sowing could be done in autumn (winter varieties) or in
spring (spring/summer varieties), the winter ones producing higher yields (mostly used in
central-north Europe). Harvest takes place in July (winter varieties) in northern zones
while in the Southern regions it can start in May. In the first steps, if sowing was done
adequately in a non-flooded soil and correctly fertilized, insects, diseases and weeds play
an important role in final yield. Seed treatments have been used to avoid damages
(insects and diseases) during the first steps of rapeseed development (HGCA Division,
2014). Weather conditions (especially temperature and rain) during the growing season
help explain the increase/decrease of rapeseed yield among years (Angandi et al., 2000
and Kutcher et al, 2010).
9
The use of seeds treated with neonicotinoids has been restricted in the EU from 2013.
Consequently, other agronomic practices and pest control techniques have to be used in
areas affected by pests year by year. It has to be mentioned that seed treatments only
reduce damage produced by soil pests around one month from sowing (Kadza et al.,
2005) and in-furrow granular treatments with systemic insecticides have shown to be as
effective as seed treatments for controlling soil inhabiting insects. A well-planned crop
rotation, seed election, date of seedling and seed density helps reducing pest population
during crop establishment and increase rapeseed yield (Ozen, 2003; Nuss and Ulber,
2004; Dosdall and Stevenson, 2005; Hwang et al., 2012; Harker et al., 2013; Liu et al.,
2014). Foliar application of insecticides, such as Spinosad, has been reported to maintain
yield production similar to seeds treated with thiamethoxam (Antwi et al., 2007). Some
varieties with special traits, as hairy cotyledons, are also useful to avoid (or reduce)
damage produced by flea beetles (Soroka et al., 2011).
A study done in UK in September 2014 assesses the incidence of cabbage stem flea
beetle (key pest in crop establishment) in winter rapeseed indicated that less than 6.2% of
area under monitoring exceed control threshold levels and that the most important point
is to select the time and conditions of sowing aim to avoid the most susceptible stage of
seedling with the presence of the stem flea beetle. This ascertains the extended view that
the earlier the rapeseed was drilled the less susceptible it was to cabbage stem beetle.
Insecticide treatments were done in most than a half of the regions under study despite
that more than the 80% of the area were reported to have no damage caused by cabbage
stem flea beetle (Wynn et al., 2014).
Williams (2004) highlights the importance of using threshold levels, and doing a
treatment only when this threshold is exceeded. The use of pesticides when not necessary
increases the risk of appearance of resistant populations, the reduction of natural enemies
and the economic costs. The change from neonicotinoid treated seeds to other control
measures implies an effort for farmers, but alternative methods are available, and should
be based in data from pest monitoring.
The crop protection practices in Germany, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic
are related to the different agro-ecosystems in each region, which determine the presence
and virulence of pests. It is recommended to monitor primary pests that can affect
growing (pollen beetles, weevils, larvae, midges, flies, aphid), as well as natural enemies
to determine if a chemical control is required and to carry out the treatment at the best
moment. Chemical treatments have to be applied when threshold levels are exceeded.
Few products (containing deltamethrin, cipermetrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalotrin)
are authorized to use in rapeseed against stem, pollen and pod beetles, pod midges, flies
and aphids.
Several exceptional authorizations according to article 53 of Regulation 1107/2009 have

been demanded by EU countries to continue using treated-seeds during 2014 and 2015,
the exceptional authorizations were granted for the use of clothianidin, beta-cyflutrin,
imidacloprid, teflutrin, thiametoxam, fluodioxanil andmetalaxyl-m for seed treatment. In
the UK, 120 day emergency authorizations of acetamiprid (expiring on 23 of January
2015) and of thiamethoxam for oilseed rape treatement (expiring on 20th November
10
2015) were granted against cabbage stem flea beetle resistant to pyrethroids (Nicholls,
2015a).
The economic importance of rapeseed is great in Germany (9% of world rapeseed

production and being rapeseed and oleaginous the fourth most important crop in
Germany), the UK (3.3%) and the Czech Republic (2.2% and one of the most important
agrarian export commodities of the Czech Republic) (Tams and Janatov, 2014). This
fact together with the wide use of neonicotinoids seed dressing in EU countries (Simon-
Delso et al., 2015) provides an interesting case study for the assessment of the economic
consequences of restricting this technology to rapeseed growers. Thus, inefficient control
of some of the key pests (Table 6) might have an effect on rapeseed yield and on
farmers incomes in some areas/specific cases.
The level of yield per hectare in last years ranges from 2 to 4.5 t/ha (see Table 9), with
German farms realizing the highest yield (Tams and Janatov, 2014). Differences in
inputs and degree of technology used in crops (see Table 7) can explain differences in
rapeseed yield among countries.
In the case of the UK, where rapeseed represents the 57% of all arable break crops, a
study (Twining and Clarke, 2009) reports that about 7% of pesticide use is due to
insecticides; herbicides being the pesticide most used in oilseed production (71%),
followed by fungicides (14%). In most areas, the increase or reduction in yield from one
year to another is reported to be due to different climatic conditions (rain and
temperature) (Angandi et al., 2000; Kutcher et al., 2010) and the way that climatic
conditions affect pest growth and development. In this country, concerns on how the
restriction can affect yields due to the low active substances available to control rapeseed
pests were reported, but data from a first survey show no impact of the neonicotinoid
restrictions (Nicholls, 2015a and 2015b).
Considering data from a report on factors affecting yield improvement in oilseed rape
(Booth et al., 2005), the incidence of diseases (light leaf spot) is the main reason
affecting rape production. In a survey done in winter oilseed rape in UK in summer 2015,
the main disease found in crops (86% of crops) was light spot leaf (38% of plants
damaged by), being described as the highest incidence since 1989 (Crop monitor, 2015).
Light Leaf Spot and Phoma canker were described as main rape disease in last 25 years
(Fitt et al., 1997).
When calculating the costs of oilseed production, the variation among scenarios (when
using/not using treated seeds) mostly comes from seeds and pest protection practices.
The ban on treated seeds would reduce the cost of seeds (treated seeds are more
expensive than non-treated seeds), but the cost of plant protection products may increase
to solve initial pest problems [only in regions were key pests appear in the first stages of
rapeseed cultivation and depending on how the previous crops (and which one) were
managed]. This fact makes difficult a correct calculation of the cost of pest protection
because it depends on the area, the prevalence of pests in the area, the climatic conditions
of each year, kind of pest management used, the previous crop in crop-rotation, etc.
Table 6. Relative importance of the main insect pests of winter

rapeseed in Europe
11
Pest Winter rape
Brassica pod midge (Dasineura brassicae) +
Cabagge seed weevil (Ceutorhynchus assimilis) +
Pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus) +
Rape stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus napi) +
Cabagge stem flea beetle (Psylliodes chrysocephala) +
Cabagge stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus pallidactylus) (+)
Cabagge aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae) (+)
Cabagge flea beetle (Phyllotreta spp) -
Cabagge root fly (Delia radicum) -
Rape winter stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus picitarsis) (+)
+ Often damaging in areas where it occurs
(+) Occasionally or locally damaging
- Present but of little or no importance
Source: Alford, D.V. 2003. Biological control of oilseed rape pests, Ed. Blackwell
Science Ltd,
Table 7. Current inputs for rapeseed cropping systems in three European regions
Inputs Czech Republic Germany United Kingdom

Energy use L-M H H
Water use L-M L-M L-M
Land use H-M H-M H-M
Mineral L-M H-M H-M
fertilizer use
low to medium (Estimation from data from Tams and Janatova, 2014; Twining and
Clark, 2009, and FAOstats)
The cost of fertilizers depends on the richness of the area used for cultivation and the
design of the crop-rotation, so it is not considered to depend on using/not using treated
seeds. Cost of labour is not going to change in most cases (only when labour was used
aim to reduce pest populations). Cost of energy is depending on the number of plant
protection practices done to solve or avoid, if required, problems caused by pests in the
new scenario.
12
Table 8. Current Crop Protection Practices against primary pests, weeds, and diseases on
rapeseed systems

Post-emergence herbicide Weeds
Seed treatments Cabbage stem flea beetle (Psylliodes
chrysocephala), Stem weevil (Ceutorhynchus
pallidactylus and C. napi), Pollen beetle
(Meligethes aeneus), Seed beetles (C. assimilis),
and Pod midge (Dasineura brassicae)
Pest monitoring Pollen beetles (M. aeneus), Stem beetles (P.
chrysocephala), Cabagge flea beetle (Phyllotreta
spp), Seed beetles (C. assimilis), Cabagge root fly
(Delia radicum), Aphids (Brevicoryne brassicae,
,Myzus persicae), Pod midge (D. brassicae)
Insecticide application Pollen beetles (M. aeneus), Stem beetles (P.
chrysocephala; Phyllotreta spp), Seed beetle (C.
assimilis), Cabagge root fly (Delia radicum),
Aphids (Brevicoryne brassicae,Myzus persicae),
Pod midge (D. brassicae)
Fungicide application Light leaf spot (Pyrenopeziza brassicae), Phoma
stem canker (Leptosphaeria maculans), Powdery
mildew (Erysiphe cruciferarum), Sclerotinia stem
rot (Sclerotinia spp), Alternaria pod rot (Alternaria
brassicae), Verticillium wilt (Verticillium
longisporum)
Crop choice in rotation Pests and diseases
Sowing time management Soil moisture, pests and diseases
Trap Crops Pests
Removal of crop residues Pests and diseases
Source: Hardwick et al., 1991, Dosdall and Stevenson, 2005, Antwi et al., 2007,,
Gladders, 2009; Hwang et el., 2012; Liu et al., 2014; Tansey et al., 2008; Soroka et al.,
2011; Crop Monitor, 2015.
13
Table 9. Estimation of costs for current agronomic practices in CZ, DE and UK and yield
and economic profits considering data from 2010 to 2013.
Inputs CZ DE UK
Costs (/ t):
-Fertilizer 70-80 40-50 50-65
-Plant protection products 30-50 25-30 40-50
-Seeds 30-50 10-25 10-30
-Operating expenses * 120-160 90-110 80-120
Total costs (/t) 250-340 165-215 180-265
Yield (tones /ha) 1.8-3 3.8-4.5 3.6- 4
*Including labour, contractor services, machinery and diesel.

Source: Tams and Janatova, 2014.
14
Sampling Method and Selection of Participants
The universe of the survey was defined as the collective of Oilseed Rape growers, for the
case of Germany, Czech Republic and the UK, and sunflower growers for the case of
Spain; that used any of fipronil, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, or clothianidin products
restricted before the 2014-2015 sowing period. The definition includes all growers using
these active ingredients in any of the previous years, but specially focuses on the two
previous seasons (2014 and 2013).
According to the previous statement, the sampling procedure should refer to this universe
and should look for a representative selection of interviewees among this group.
The location of interviewees have been previewed in a multistage process, which ensures
the suitability and representativeness of the sample finally obtained.
In the first steps of the process we have noticed a great lack of information concerning
the use of the restricted substances and a very heterogeneous situation inside every
country/region. Due to the lack of information regarding neonicotinoid usage we have
decided to concentrate the sampling in the regions with the biggest usage of each crop
taking into account the surface and the number of holders, adapting the original survey
proposal. The areas selected, as shown in tables 8 to 11, are the ones with the highest
presence of the crop.
UK Number of Holders Total Surface

(Ha)
Eastern (East Anglia) 2,980 144,090
East Midlands (Lincolnshire) 2,770 154,550
South East (Berkshire, 1,520 88,810
Buckinghamshire, and
Oxfordshire)
Yorkshire & the Humber 2,440 85,930
(North Yorkshire)
Rest of the Country 5.220 167.970
Total 14,930 641,350
Table 8; Regions considered in England by number of holders and surface.
Germany Number of Holders Total Surface

(Ha)
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1,951 251,893
Sachsen-Anhalt 1,957 171,360
Bayern 18,945 148,446
Brandenburg 1,279 133,016
Niedersachsen 8,298 129,590
Rest of the Country 26,509 622,730
Total Germany 58,939 1,457,035
Table 9; Regions selected in Germany by number of holders and surface.
15
Czech Republic Number of Holders Total Surface1
(Ha)
Central Bohemia 840 91,269
Southwest 790 88,727
(South Bohemian Region and
Plze Region)
Southeast 990 84,740
(Vysoina Region and South Moravian
Region)
Rest of the country 1.750 154,072
Total Czech Rep. 4,370 418,808
Table 10; Regions selected in Czech Republic by number of holders and surface.
Some additional information have been consulted in Germany and England to support
that the biggest presence of the crop/number of holders and the usage of Neonicotinoids.
The biggest sector organizations has been referred a 90% of the seed commercialized
being treated with neonicotinoids.
Country Region Selected Number of Total Surface

Holders (Has)
Germany Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 1,951 251,893

England Eastern (East Anglia) 2,980 144,090
Czech Republic Central Bohemia 840 91,269
Table 11; Regions selected by country.
1 Data from 2013.
16
Table 12: Spain sample design, sunflower area harvested and holders by NUTS3, 2010.
According to the available information rain fed sunflower surface represents2 10% of the
total surface dedicated to the crop. Usually farmers invest in treated seed especially for
irrigated crops, where bigger yields/incomes are obtained. According to the information
form ANOVE3 surface planted with sunflower seeds treated with insecticide is above the
370,000 ha, this means that more than 40% of the surface of sunflower in Spain uses seed
treated with insecticides; nevertheless in Andalusia almost all are treated plants while in
Cuenca 97% per cent of the sunflower surface is rain fed and consequently less likely to
be treated seed.
2 Statistical Yearbook of Ministry of Agriculture, Spain 2012 (Data 2010 and 2011)
3 Asociacin Nacional de Obtentores Vegetales.
18
References
Alford, D.V. 2003. Biological control of oilseed rape pests, Ed. Blackwell Science Ltd,
Angandi, S.V., Cutforth, H.W., Miller, P.R., McConkey, B.G., Entz, M.H., Brandt,
S.A., Volkmar, K.M. 2000. Response of three Brassica species to high temperature
stress during reproductive growth. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences, 80(4): 693-701.
ANOVE, 2014. Nota de Prensa. AEPLA y ANOVE alertan de las negativas
consecuencias que la falta de disponibilidad de productos para el tratamiento de
semillas puede generar en la viabilidad del sector semillas
(http://web.anove.es/media/140514-AEPLA-ANOVE-alertan-de-las-negativas.pdf)..
Antwi, F.B., Olson, D.L., Kinodel, J.J. 2007. Comparative evaluation and economic
potential of ecorational versus chemical insecticides for crucifer flea beetle (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) management in canola. Journal of Economical Entomology, 100(3):
710-716.
Bai, A. 2001. Economic Assessment of Biodiesel Production for Hungarian Farmers.
University of Debrecen, Centre of Agricultural Sciences Institute of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Development. This study was sponsored by the OTKA (research
topic F 032 133) and the FKFP (0069/2001)
Balali, I., Miroslav Z., Gordana B., Sreten T., Jovan C.. 2012. Interpretation of
hybridsowing date interaction for oil content and oil yield in sunflower. Field Crops
Research, 137, 7077.
Booth, E. J., I Bingham, KG Sutherland, D Allcroft, A Roberts, S Elcock and J Turner.
2005. Evaluation of factors affecting yield improvement in oilseed rape. HGCA Project
No. 2890. Research Review No. 53.
Csete, M., Zldy, M., Szlvik, J. 2007. Regional Development Perspectives of
Production and Utilization Renewable Fuels in Hungary. Communication IYCE 2007
Conference
Crop Monitor, 2015. Winter oil seed rape disease survey: Summer 2014.
www.cropmonitor.co.uk/cmsReport.cfm?=33.
Dhima, K., Vasilakogloub, I., Paschalidis, K.A., Gatsis, T., Keco, R. 2012. Productivity
and phytotoxicity of six sunflower hybrids and their residues effects on rotated lentil
and ivy-leaved speedwell. Field Crops Research, 136, 4251.
Dosdall, L.M., Stevenson, F.C. 2005. Managing flea beetles (Phyllotreta spp.)
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in canola with seedling date, plant density, and seed
treatment. Agronomy Journal, 97(6): 1570-1578.
Elbert, A., Haas M., Springer B.,Thielert W. and Nauen R. 2008. Mini-review Applied
aspects of neonicotinoid uses in crop protection. Pest Manag Sci, 64, 10991105.
European Commission 2005. SANCO/10533/05 Final. Review report for the active
substance Clothianidin finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and
Animal Health at its meeting on 27 January 2006 in view of the inclusion of
clothianidin in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
ew&id=368.
European Commission 2006a. SANCO/10390/2002 - rev. final. Review report for the
active substance thiamethoxam finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain
and Animal Health at its meeting on 14 July 2006 in view of the inclusion of
thiamethoxam in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
19
ew&id=399.
European Commission 2006b. Commission Directive 2006/41/EC of 7 July 2006
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clothianidin and pethoxamid as
active substances. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission, 2007a. Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethoprophos, pirimiphos-methyl
and fipronil as active substances. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission, 2007b. Commission Directive 2007/6/EC of 14 February 2007
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include metrafenone, Bacillus subtilis,
spinosad and thiamethoxam as active substances. Official Journal of the European
Union.
European Commission 2008a. SANCO/108/08 rev. 1 FINAL Review report for the
active substance imidacloprid finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain
and Animal Health at its meeting on 26 September 2008 in view of the inclusion of
imidacloprid in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
ew&id=265.
European Commission, 2008b. Commission Directive 2008/116/EC of 15 December
2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include aclonifen, imidacloprid and
metazachlor as active substances. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission 2009. Regulation (Ec) No 1107/2009 of The European
Parliament and of The Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and
91/414/EEC.
European Commission 2010a. SANCO/10033/2006 final rev 1. 12 March 2010 Review
report for the active substance fipronil finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food
Chain and Animal Health at its meeting on 16 March 2007 in view of the inclusion of
fipronil in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC.
ew&id=84.
European Commission 2010b. COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2010/21/EU of 12 March
2010 amending Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specific
provisions relating to clothianidin, thiamethoxam, fipronil and imidacloprid.
European Commission 2011. REGULATIONSCOMMISSION IMPLEMENTING
REGULATION (EU) No 540/2011 of 25 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No
1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of
approved active substances.
European Commission 2013a. REGULATION (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013
approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and
prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing
those active substances.
European Commission 2013b. REGULATION (EU) No 781/2013 of 14 August 2013
approval of the active substance fipronil, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds
treated with plant protection products containing this active substance.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2012. Statement on the findings in recent
studies investigating sub-lethal effects in bees of some neonicotinoids in consideration
20
of the uses currently authorized in Europe. EFSA J 10(6):2752.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2752, 27 pp.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2013a. Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance fipronil. EFSA Journal
2013a;11(5):3158. [51 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3158. Available online:
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2013b. Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance thiamethoxam. EFSA Journal
2013 b;11(1):3067. [68 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3067. Available online:
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2013c. Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance clothianidin. EFSA Journal
2013c;11(1):3066. [58 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3066. Available online:
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) 2013d. Conclusion on the peer review of the
pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance imidacloprid. EFSA Journal
2013d;11(1):3068. [55 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3068. Available online:
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1994. Weed
management for developing countries. Plant Production and Protection Paper 120. Eds.
Labrada, Caseley and Parker. ISSN 0259-2517
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2010. Sunflower
Crude and Refined Oils. Punda and Prikhodko. Agribusiness Hadbook
FAOSTAT. Organizacin de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentacin y la
Agricultura. http://faostat3.fao.org/home/S (accedido en 2014).
Fediol (EU Oil and Protein Meal Industry), 2014. www.fediol.be
Fitt, B.D.L., Gladders, P., Turner, J.A., Sutherland, K.G., Welham, S.J., Davies, J.M.L.
1997.Prospects for developing a forecasting scheme to optimize use of fungicides for
disease control on winter oilseed rape in the UK. Aspects Applied Biology 48, 135-14
Fodor, N., Psztor, L. 2010. The agro-ecological potential of Hungary and its
prospective development due to climate change. Applied Ecology and Environmental
Research, 8, 177-190.
Ghobadi, M., Taherabadi, S., Ghobadi, M.E., Mohammadi, G.R., Jalali-Honarmand, S.
2013. Antioxidant capacity, photosynthetic characteristics and water relations of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) cultivars in response to drought stress. Industrial
Crops and Products, 50, 29-38.
Gladders, P.G. 2009. Relevance of verticillium wilt (Verticillium longisporum) in winer
oilseed rape in the UK. HGCA Research Review n. 72, HGCA.
Gorton, M., Davidova, S., Banse, M., Bailey, A. 2004. The International
Competitiveness of Hungarian Agriculture: Past Performance and Future Projections.
Paper for presentation at the Transition in Agriculture - Agricultural Economics in
Transition Conference, Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
Budapest, 7th November 2004
Hardwick, N.V., Fitt, B.D., Wale, S.J., Sweet, J.B. 1991. Oilseed rape diseases.
Research Review n. 0S4. HCGA.
Harker, K.N., Clayton, G.W., Blackshow, M.R.E., ODonovan, J.T., Stevenson, F.C.
2013. Seedling date, herbicide timing and competitive hybrids contribute to integrated
weed management in canola (Brassica napus). Canadian Journal of Plant Science,
83(2): 433-440.
21
HGCA Division. 2014. Oilseed rape guide. Agriculture and Horticulture Development
Board, AHDB. HGCA Guide 55 (G55)
Hwang, S.F., Cao, T., Xiao, Q., Ahmed, H.U., Manolii, V.P., Turnhull, G.D., Gossen,
B.D., Peng, G., Strelkov, S.E. 2012. Effects of fungicide, seedling date and seedling age
on clubroot severity, seedling emergence and yield of canola. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science, 92(6): 1175-1186.
Jayakumar, R., Premsekar, M., Kempuchetty, N., Subramanian, S. 1988. Effect of
integrated weed management on yield and quality of sunflower. Madras Agricultural
Journal 75: 85-88
Jeschke, P and Nauen, R. 2008. Review Neonicotinoids from zero to hero in
insecticide chemistry. Pest Manag Sci, 64, 10841098.
Jeschke, P., R. Nauen, Schindler, M and Elbert, A. 2011. Overview of the Status and
Global Strategy for Neonicotinoids. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59,
2897-2908.
Kadza, J., Baranyk, P., Nerad., D. 2005. The implications of seed treatment in Winter
oilseed rape. Plant Soil Environment, 51: 403-409.
Komjti, H., Fekete, C., Virnyi, F. 2004. Genetic and molecular characterization of
Plasmopara Halstedii Isolates from Hungary. Spencer-Phillips S. and Jeger M. (eds.).
Kluwer Academic Publisher. Advances in Downy Mildew Research, 2, 193-201.
Kutcher, H.R., Warland, J.A., Brandt, S.A. 2010. Temperature and precipitation effects
on canola yields in Saskatchen, Canada. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150(2).
161-165.
Liu, C., Gan, Y., Poppy, L. 2014. Evaluation of on-farm crop management decisions on
canola production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 94(1): 131-139.
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2013a:
Resultados tcnico-econmicos de explotaciones agrcolas de
Andaluca/Aragn/Castilla-La Mancha en 2012. Subdireccin General de Anlisis,
Prospectiva y Coordinacin. Subsecretara. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y
Medio Ambiente. NIPO: 280-13-005-1
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2013b.
fitosanitarios formulados a base de Teflutrin como insecticidas en semillas de girasol
contra Agrotis spp., Agriotes, spp. y Spodoptera spp. 4 de Noviembre de 2013.
Secretara General de Agricultura y Alimentacin. Direccin General de Sanidad de la
Produccin Agraria.
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2013c.
Gobierno de Espaa. Anuario de Estadstica 2012. Madrid, 2013. NIPO: 280-13-076-X
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2014a.
ESYRCE. Encuesta sobre superficies y rendimientos de cultivos. Resultados nacionales
y autonmicos. Secretara General Tcnica. Subdireccin General de Estadstica
Madrid, 2014 NIPO: 280-13-016-9
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2014b.
Resultados tcnico-econmicos de Cultivos Herbceos 2013, Subdireccin General de
Anlisis, Prospectiva y Coordinacin, Subsecretara. Ministerio de Agricultura,
Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente.
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2014c.
fitosanitarios formulados a base de Fludioxonil como fungicida contra Botritis spp. en
22
semillas de girasol y productos fitosanitarios formulados a base de Teflutrin como
insecticida contra insectos del suelo, en semillas de girasol y de maz. 29 de Octubre de
2014. Secretara General de Agricultura y Alimentacin. Direccin General de Sanidad
de la Produccin Agraria.
MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacin y Medio Ambiente). 2015.
Cultivos Herbceos e industriales. Leguminosas y oleaginosas. Informacin disponible
en: www.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/producciones-agricolas (accedido en
enero 2015)
Mohammadi, K., Heidari, G., Javaheri, M., Rokhzadi, A., Karimi Nezhad, M.T.,
Sohrabi, Y., Talebi, R. 2013. Fertilization affects the agronomic traits of high oleic
sunflower hybrid in different tillage systems. Industrial Crops and Products, 44, 446
451.
Molinero Ruiz, L. 2009. Tratamientos fitosanitarios en el cultivo del girasol en Espaa:
Limitaciones. 11 Symposium nacional de Sanidad Vegetal. Uso sostenible de
Fitosanitarios, Enero 2009. Junta de Andaluca. Consejera de Agricultura y Pesca. N
14. Pg 219-229
Molinero-Ruiz, M.L., Garca-Ruiz, R., Melero-Vara, J.M. and Domnguez. J. 2009.
Orobanche Cumana race F: performance of resistant sunflower hybrids and
aggressiveness of populations of the parasitic weed. Weed Research, 49, 469-478.
Nagy, S., Reisinger, P., Pomsr P. 2006. Experiences of introduction of imidazolinone-
resistant sunflower in Hungary from the herbological point of view. Journal of Plant
Diseases and Protection Zeitschrift fr Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz
Sonderheft XX, 31-37.
Nicholls, S. 2015a. Life after neonicotinoids. Agriculture and Horticulture
Development Board. Available on-line:
http://www.hgca.com/media/530495/Neonicotinoids--key-messages-November-
2014.pdf
Nicholls, S. 2015b. Assessing the effect of the restrictions on the use of neonicotinoid
seed treatment. HGCA. Available on-line:
http://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/634103/pr541-final-project-report.pdf
Nuss, H., Ulber, B. 2004. Effect of sowing density of oilseed rape on the abundance
and within-plant distribution of cabbage stem flea beetle, Psylloides chrysocephala.
Integrated Protection in Oilseed Crops. IOBC/wprs Bulletin, 27(10): 223.
Ozen, H. 2003. Sowing date and nitrogen rate effects on growth, yield and yield
components of two summer rapeseed cultivars. European Journal of Agronomy, 19(3):
453-463.
Sezen, S.M., Yazar, A. Kapur, B., and Tekin. S. 2011. Comparison of drip and sprinkler
irrigation strategies on sunflower seed and oil yield and quality under Mediterranean
climatic conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 98, 11531161.
Simon-Delso N, Amaral-Rogers V, Belzunces LP, Bonmatin JM, Chagnon M, Downs
C, Furlan L, Gibbons DW, Giorio C, Girolami V, Goulson D, Kreutzweiser DP, Krupke
C, Liess M, Long E, McField M, Mineau P, Mitchell EAD, Morrissey CA, Noome DA,
Pisa L, Settele J, Stark JD, Tapparo A, van Dyck H, van Praagh J, van der Sluijs JP,
Whitehorn PR and Wiemers M. 2015. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and
fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 22, 5
34.
Soroka, J.J., Holowachuk, J.M., Gruber, M.Y., Grenkow, L.F. 2011. Feeding by flea
beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysolmelidae); Phyllotreta spp.) is decreased on canola
23
(Brassica napus) seedlings with increased thricome density. Journal of Econommic
Entomology, 104(1): 125-136.
Sukanya S. Lava, Reinhard Zipper, Otmar Spring. 2015. Sunflower white blister rust e
Host specificity and fungicide effects on infectivity and early infection stages. Crop
Protection, 67, 214-222.
Tams, V. and Janatov, B., 2014. International comparison of rapessed cultivation
costs. Available on-line:
spu.fem.uniag.sk/fem/mvd2014/proceedings/articles/Tamas.pdf
Tansey, J.A., Dosdall, L.M., Keddie, B.A., Sarfraz, R.M. 2008. Differences in
Phyllotreta cruciferae and P. striolaa (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) responses to
neonicotinoids seed treatments. Journal of Economical Entomology, 101(1): 159-167.
Twining, S. and Clarke, J. 2009. Future of UK winter oilseed rape production. ADAS.
Available on-line:
http://www.voluntaryinitiative.org.uk/importedmedia/library/1152_s4.pdf
UFOP, 2013. Rapeseed Opportunity or risk for the future?
www.biofuelstp.eu/downloads/2013/uifop_brochure_rape_seed_2013.
Viranyi, F., Spring, O. 2011. Advances in sunflower downy mildew research. Spring.
Eur J Plant Pathol, 129, 207220.
Williams, I.H. 2004. Advances in insect pest management of oilseed rape in Europe.
Insect Pest Management. In: Horowith, A.R., Ishaaya, I. (Eds.) Insect Pest
Management. Spinger-Verlag. Berlin. Germany. pp 181-208.
Wynn, S., Ellis, S., Alves, L. 2014. Cabbage stem flea beetle snapshot assessment-
incidence and severity at end September 2014. Agriculture & Horticulture
Development Board AHDB division. Available on-line:
http://www.hgca.com/media/507048/cabbage-stem-flea-beetle-report.pdf
24
Q1: TARGET CROP
Single coded
MAIZE ........................................... 1
SUNFLOWER ............................... 2
RAPESEED .................................... 3
Q2: TARGET COUNTRY

Single coded
Czech Republic .............................. 1

France ............................................. 2
Germany ......................................... 3
Hungary .......................................... 4
Italy................................................. 5
Spain ............................................... 6
United Kingdom ............................. 7
Q3: REGION
SPAIN
Ebro Valley .................................... 1

Cdiz (Sunflower) ........................... 4
Q4: MUNICIPALITY
Please insert the name of the
MUNICIPALITY where the farm is
located
2
INTERVIEWER, READ OUT LOUD
The Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, part of the Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission (JRC-IPTS), is engaged in an important investigation of the European agricultural sector.
Among the Member States of the European Union,
[SPAIN/HUNGARY/ITALY/SPAIN/GERMANY/UK/CZECH REPUBLIC] is a key country for
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] production. To carry out this investigation, JRC-IPTS entrusted to TNS
Demoscopia a survey among farmers cultivating [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER].
TNS, together with the relevant regional agrarian offices, cooperatives, agricultural associations, etc., has
determined that your municipality is among the most important within the country for the purpose of this
investigation. For this reason you have been selected for the study.
Therefore, we request your kind collaboration through a personal interview, which can provide us with
important information related to the cultivation of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] in your region.
This study is dedicated to collect and analyze data and has no commercial purpose. Our Institute
guarantees that all information that you provide will be treated strictly confidentially and only for the
purpose of research. Your answers will be analyzed in a way so that the answers cannot be associated
with one person in particular.
We are at your disposal if you want to learn more about this project. Thank you in advance for your
availability.
Q5: What is your role in the farm?

Single coded
Head of the Farm / household ........ 1
General Manager ............................ 2
Section head ................................... 3
Field worker ................................... 4
SCREEN OUT
Other (specify) ______________ _7 SCREEN OUT IF NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SEED
CHOICE OR CROP MAINTENANCE
Q6: What was your TOTAL FARM Utilized Agricultural Area in Year_D, Year_D-1, Year_D-2,
Year_D-3, and Year_D-4? Please consider the sum of all the cultivated plots, rented, owned, etc.
but excluding lakes forests and rivers.
Multi coded
Don't Answer
(DO NOT READ)
1 Year_D |___|___|___|___| ha
2 Year_D-1 |___|___|___|___| ha
3 Year_D-2 |___|___|___|___| ha
4 Year_D-3 |___|___|___|___| ha
5 Year_D-4 |___|___|___|___| ha
3
Q7: Have you cultivated [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] in Year_D?
Single coded
Yes .................................................. 1 GO TO Q8
No ................................................... 2 GO TO Q10
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ....... 8 SCREEN OUT
Don't answer (DO NOT READ) .... 9 SCREEN OUT
Q8. What surface of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] have you cultivated in Year_D?

_______________________ GO TO Q9.
Q9. [ONLY MAIZE] what type of [MAIZE] have you grown in Year_D:
1. Grain [MAIZE] ......................... |___|___|___|___| ha
2. Green [MAIZE] SCREEN OUT
3. Both (In this case we will ask all the following questions just for Grain [MAIZE])
(I.P. surface for Grain Maize is required in this case).
Q10: Have you cultivated [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] in any of the Year_D-1 or Year_D-2? If

this is the case, could you please state the surface for each of the years?
Single coded for each year;
Year_D-1 Q10.a. SURFACE Year_D-2 Q10.b. SURFACE
Cultivated. (ha) Cultivated.(ha)
IF ALL YEARS
| | | | |
1 Yes |___|___|___|___|ha MARKED GO
ha
TO Q11b
IF ANY YEAR
2 No -- -- MARKED GO
TO Q11a
Don't know IF ALL
8 (DO NOT -- -- MARKED
READ) SCREEN OUT
Don't answer IF ALL
9 (DO NOT -- -- MARKED
READ) SCREEN OUT
Q11a: What was the last year before D-2 in which you cultivated [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER],
and what surface? (multiple answers possible) (IP: in case the answer is D-3 or D-4; also use that year
for the rest of the questionnaire instead of D-1 or D-2, according to these criteria the possible
combinations are: D/D-1/D-2 D/D-2/D-3 - D/D-3/D-4 D/D-1/D-3 D/D-1/D-4 D/D-2/D-4).
I have never before cultivated [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] 1 if Q10=2
D-3 .................................................................. .......... 2 Surface (Ha.) _____________
D-4 .................................................................. .......... 3 Surface (Ha.) _____________
Other, (specify) ........................................................ _____4 SCREEN OUT
4
Q11b; Have you used any of the following products in Year_D, Year_D-X and/or Year_D-Y in
(READ OUT) Please mark all seed treatments you have used in any of these years.
Do not consider GM [MAIZE]; (<- This comment is only for [MAIZE] in Spain)
Multiple answers coded
Maize:
(ES)
Regent ............................................ 10
Poncho ........................................... 11
Escocet ........................................... 12
Picus ............................................... 13
Seedoprid ........................................ 14
Cruiser ........................................... 15
(FRA)
Cruiser ........................................... 15
Cheyenne. ...................................... 17
(ITA)
Gaucho .......................................... 18
Cruiser ........................................... 15
Nuprid ............................................ 19
Poncho ............................................ 11
Santana ........................................... 20
Sunflower
(HU)
Gaucho ........................................... 18
Cruiser ............................................ 15
(ES)
Regent............................................. 10
Cruiser ............................................ 15
OSR
(GER)
Antarc ............................................. 22
Chinook .......................................... 23
Cruiser ............................................ 15
Elado............................................... 24
Modesto .......................................... 25
(UK)
Chinook .......................................... 23
Cruiser ............................................ 15
Modesto .......................................... 25
(CZ)
Cruiser ............................................ 15
Elado............................................... 24
Modesto .......................................... 25
None of them................................... 97 SCREEN OUT

Don't know (DO NOT READ) ........ 98 SCREEN OUT
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ)..... 99 SCREEN OUT
5
Q11c. What is the main reason why you have decided not to cultivate [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]
in year_D?.[I.P.: SINGLE ANSWER. For those with Q7=2]
Normal crop rotation............................................................ SCREEN OUT
[list of products] not available for seed treatment ......... [skip questions for Year D, and Q46 to Q53]
[list of products] not available for soil or foliar treatment3 [skip questions for Year D, and Q46 to Q53]
Other reason (specify) (DO NOT READ) ........................... 4 SCREEN OUT
Q12: Please indicate all insecticide seed treatment products of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] you
used in year_D, D-X and D-Y. In case you used more than one type of seed treatment, or untreated seed,
for different parts of your total farm seed, please indicate them separately. In addition, indicate the
hectares, quantity, and cost of the seed corresponding to each seed treatment product (or non-treated
seed). (I.E. there is larger number of possible seed treatments a farmer could have used than the list on
Q11b contains. All seed treatments that a farmer has used, whether in the list of Q11b or not, should be
recorded, as well as the amount of seed untreated, if any.). Multi coded. [I.E.: Please write 998 for dont
know and 999 for dont answer] (I.E.: Leave blank if the respondent do not have any untreated seeds).
Year D
a. Name of seed
treatment d. Cost
c. Quantity
(Kg./Tn./Quintals)
brand name)
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

Year_D-X
a. Name of seed
treatment d. Cost
c. Quantity
(Kg./Tn./Quintals)
brand name)
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

PER HECTARE
Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
Year_D-Y
a. Name of seed
treatment d. Cost
c. Quantity
(Kg./Tn./Quintals)
brand name)
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
6
Q12a: Before Year_D, were you able to buy [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] seed that were not
treated with (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in question 11b)?
Yes
No
Q13: Do you practice rotation in your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?

Single coded
Q13a: If yes, please specify the surface you

normally manage using rotation for
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER].
Yes ........................................................... 1
|___|___|___|___| ha
No ............................................................. 2 [I.P.: Q13<q8]
Q14: [I.P.: SKIP IF Q13=NO]. Which of the following crops normally precede
Single coded; Just 3 main answers in terms of cultivated surface.
(READ OUT). Rotate 1-7.
(I.P.: Max. of 3 responses, but 1 or 2 are allowed).
Maize .............................................. 1
Potato .............................................. 2
Sunflower ....................................... 3
Legumes ......................................... 4
Sugar beet ....................................... 5
Winter Wheat ................................. 6
Winter Barley ................................. 7
Other, (specify) _______________8
Don't know ..................................... 9
Q15: How many hectares of the [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] total cultivated surface were
irrigated in year_D, year_D-X, and year D-Y? Please also state the cost of irrigation in each year.
[I.E.: Interviewer, please state the number of hectares]
(READ OUT) Please select all the years that apply and state the surface irrigated. Multi coded
I.P.:/I.E.: Do not to include the years in which not cultivated [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER],
according to Q7.
998 if the respondent Don't Know. 999 if the respondent Don't Answer. If the land is not
irrigated please put 0. (I.E.: The cost should be automatically switched to o).
1 Year_D |___|___|___|Ha. |___|___|___|
2 Year_D-X |___|___|___|Ha. |___|___|___|
3 Year_D-Y |___|___|___|Ha. |___|___|___|
7
Q20: [I.P.: Only if any product selected in Q19] How much money did you spent on fertilizers in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] production in the Year_D and in the previous years?
Please provide a GLOBAL figure taking into account the FULL SEASON
Expenditure Don't Know Don't Answer/Do
(DO NOT not apply
READ) (DO NOT READ)
1 Year_D
|___|___|___|___|
2 Year_D-X
|___|___|___|___|
TOTAL
3 Year_D-Y
|___|___|___|___|
Q21: Were you part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or organic farming program or
certification scheme that includes your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] production in the last or any
of the previous years? (READ OUT);

1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
2 Organic farming certification
3 None of the Above
8 Don't Know (DO NOT READ)
9 Don't answer (DO NOT READ)
Q22: Which of the following types of soil management did you use in your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] culture?
(READ OUT); Also add the surface of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] area with all options used.
Multi coded
(I.P.: Q22 <=Q9) (I.P.: Q22 <=Q8) (I.P.: Q22 <=Q8)
(for maze) (for sunflower/OSR) (for sunflower/OSR)
1 Conventional tillage |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
2 Conservation/minimum
|___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
tillage
3 No tillage |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
4 Other (specify)________ |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|ha |___|___|___|___|ha
8 Don't Know
(DO NOT READ)
9 Don't answer
(DO NOT READ)
9
B1 : POST RESTRICTION PRACTICES
Q23: [MAIZE/SUNFLOWER/OSR] In Year_D, how many applications of PHYTOSANITARIAN

PRODUCTS did you do in your culture?
Please consider the total number of times you entered your crop for treating in Year_D. Do not
consider seed treatments.
|___|___| Times
Q23A [I.P.: New, and only for OSR] And more specifically, in Year_D, in how many of the times,
you just mentioned, you entered your crop for treating, did the applications contain
HERBICIDES, in how many did they contain INSECTICIDES and in how many did they contain
FUNGICIDES?.
(Interviewer: Note and explain to farmers that some applications may include more than one
phytosanitarian product).
(I.P. Q23 = or < than Q23A).
Do not consider seed treatments.
|___|___| Number of Herbicide Applications.

|___|___| Number of Insecticide Applications.
|___|___| Number of Fungicide Applications.
Interviewer, read out loud: Now we are going to speak about each one of these applications. [FOR
OSR only including at least one insecticide].
Interviewer, read Q25 to Q30 for each application. Note down information for up to 3 times for each
question, according to the number of times given in Q23, writing down the code or verbatim on each
appropriate cell
Q24: How much did you spend on plant protection products for your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] Year_D? Please provide a GLOBAL figure taking into account the
FULL SEASON. Please note that seed treatments are not included.
Don't Know Don't

(DO NOT Answer/Do not
READ) apply (DO NOT
READ)
1 Year_D
|___|___|___|___|
According to your response, in the following questions we will be talking about your use of plant
protection products in Year_D taking into account each time you entered your crop [FOR OSR
only to treat including at least one insecticide] even if you used two or more products at the same
time.
I.E.: Please complete all the questions about an application before going to the questions about the
following application.
I.E.: In case that the number of applications exceed the maximum allowed, (max. of 3 applications),
please include the active substance and the pest treated used in the forth and above applications in
the third application and note this fact in the observation of the questionnaire, with details.
10
Year_D
[I.E.: ASK AS MANY APPLICATIONS AS
App. 1 App.2 App.3
INDICATED IN Q23]. Min 1 | Max 3
Q25: [I.P.NOT FOR OSR] Did this application
consist of insecticides, fungicides and/or herbicides?
Multi coded. ASK Q26A, B AND/OR C WHEN
APPROPIATE
Yes, Herbicides (ASK Q26A HERBICIDES) 1 1 1
Yes, Insecticides (ASK Q26B INSECTICIDES) 2 2 2
Yes, Fungicides (ASK Q26C FUNGICIDES) 3 3 3
Q26: Which of the following products (active
substances) were contained in this application?
Please indicate the active substance and the brand
name belonging to the active substance. If you do not
know the active substance you used, please indicate
at least the brand name.
[READ OUT depending on the answer given in Q25;
All the OPTIONS included] Multi coded. SHOWCARD
A. HERBICIDES [I.P.NOT FOR OSR]
Glyphosate ..................................................... 1
Terbuthylazine ............................................... 2 1 1 1
2 2 2
Other herbicide (specify) ................................ 97
97 97 97
B. INSECTICIDES
MAIZE
Abamectine .......................................................3
Ethoprophos......................................................4 3 3 3
Alfa cypermethrin .............................................5 4 4 4
Cyfluthrin .........................................................6 5 5 5
Hexythiazox......................................................7 6 6 6
Chlorpyrifos......................................................8 7 7 7
Chlorpyrifos Methyl .........................................9 8 8 8
Deltamethrin .....................................................10
9 9 9
10 10 10
Lambda Cyhalothrin .........................................11
11 11 11
Tefluthrin ..........................................................12
12 12 12
SUNFLOWER
Deltamethrin .....................................................13
Chlorpyrifos......................................................14 13 13 13
Pirimicarb .........................................................15 14 14 14
Teflutrhin ..........................................................16 15 15 15
OSR 16 16 16
Cypermethrin ....................................................17
Deltamethrin .....................................................18 17 17 17
Esfenvalerate ....................................................19 18 18 18
Lambda Cyhalothrin .........................................20 19 19 19
Pirimicarb .........................................................21
20 20 20
21 21 21
Other insecticide (specify) ............................. 91
91 91 91
Don't know active substance (NOT READ) . 92 92 92 92
Don't Answer (NOT READ) ........................ 93 93 93 93
11
C. FUNGICIDES [I.P.NOT FOR OSR]
MAIZE
Cyproconazole Epoxiconazole................... 22
Sulphur ....................................................... 23 22 22 22
23 23 23
Mancozeb ................................................... 24
24 24 24
Methyl Thiphanate ..................................... 25 25 25 25
SUNFLOWER
Fenpropimorph ........................................... 26
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 26 26 26
OSR 27 27 27
Mancozeb ................................................... 27
27 27 27
Propiconazole ............................................. 30 29 29 29
Tebuconazole ............................................. 31 30 30 30
31 31 31
Other fungicide (specify) ............................... 94
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ..................... 95
95 95 95
96 96 96
application?
Single coded
Soil treatment .................................................. 1 1 1 1
Other (specify) ................................................ 4 4 4 4

Before Sowing ................................................ 1 1 1 1
During Sowing ................................................ 2 2 2 2
3 3 3
After sowing/pre-emergence .......................... 3
4 4 4
Flowering stage ............................................... 5 6 6 6
Fructification stage ......................................... 6
Other (DO NOT READ) ............................... 8 8 8 8
12
application?
coded)/I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds, should
(MAIZE cod.2-7, & 27)
Cutworms ..............................................................3 3 3 3
Wireworms ............................................................4 4 4 4
Lepidopteran leaf feeders ......................................5 5 5 5
Leafhoppers ..........................................................6 6 6 6
Insect borne viruses ...............................................7 7 7 7
Diabrotica virgifera................................................26 27 27 27
(OSR cod. 4-26; skip 5-7 & 21)
Wireworms ............................................................4
Alternaria ...............................................................8 4 4 4
Peach/Potate Aphid ...............................................9
8 8 8
9 9 9
Brassica pod midge ...............................................10
10 10 10
Cabagge aphid .......................................................11
11 11 11
Cabagge root fly ....................................................13 13 13 13
Pod midge ..............................................................20 20 20 20
Pollen beetles ........................................................21 22 22 22
Rape stem weevil ..................................................23 23 23 23
Sclerotinia ..............................................................25 25 25 25
Phoma stem canker ................................................27 27 27 27
(SUNFLOWER cod.3-39 skip 5-27)
Cutworms .............................................................3
3 3 3
False wireworms ....................................................28
28 28 28
Heliothis / Helicoverpa spp. ..................................29 29 29 29
Sunflower moth .....................................................33 33 33 33
Verticilosis .............................................................34 34 34 34
Weevils, ................................................................35 35 35 35
White grubs, ..........................................................36 36 36 36
White rot ................................................................37 37 37 37
Wireworms ...........................................................4 4 4 4
Gray rot ..................................................................38 38 38 38
Sunflower rust........................................................39 39 39 39
Grey Spot ...............................................................40 40 40 40
Aphids....................................................................41
41 41 41
96 96 96
None of the above ........................................... 96
97 97 97
Other (specify) ............................................... 97 98 98 98
Don't answer (DO NOT READ) ................... 99
13
Q30: What was the cost of the treatment? Per Hectare Per Hectare Per Hectare
(I.P.; control currency unit) Total. Total. Total.
(I.E.: Cost of application including product and
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ................... 998 |__|__|__| |__|__|__| |___|___|___|
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ................ 999
14
B2: PRE RESTRICTION PRACTICES
In the following questions we will be talking about the previous years you cultivated
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER], i.e. Year_D-X AND/OR Year_D-Y
Q31: [MAIZE/SUNFLOWER/OSR] In the Years_D-X and D-Y, how many APPLICATIONS OF
PHYTOSANITARIAN PRODUCTS did you do in your culture?
Please consider the total number of times you entered your crop for treating in the Year. Do not
consider seed treatments.
|___|___| Times D-X
|___|___| Times D-Y
Q31A [I.P.: New, and only for OSR] And more specifically, in Year_D-X and in Year D-Y, in how
many of the times, you just mentioned, you entered your crop for treating, did the applications
contain HERBICIDES, in how many did they contain INSECTICIDES and in how many did they
contain FUNGICIDES?. Do not consider seed treatments.
(Interviewer: Note and explain to farmers that some applications may include more than one
phytosanitarian product).
(I.P. Q31 = or < than Q31A, D-X or D-Y).
(Year D-X). (Year D-Y).

| | | Number of Herbicide Applications. | | | Number of Herbicide Applications.
| | | Number of Insecticide Applications. | | | Number of Insecticide Applications.
| | | Number of Fungicide Applications. | | | Number of Fungicide Applications.
Q32: How much did you spend on plant protection products for your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER], in Year_D-X and year_D-Y? Please provide a GLOBAL figure taking
into account the FULL SEASON. Please note that seed treatments are not included.
Don't Know Don't Answer/Do not
(DO NOT apply (DO NOT
READ) READ)
1 Year_D-X
|___|___|___|___|
2 Year_D-Y |___|___|___|___|
Interviewer, read out loud: Now we are going to speak about each one of these applications [FOR
OSR only Including at least one insecticide].
Interviewer, read Q33 to Q38 for each application. Note down information for up to 3 times for each
question, according to the number of times given in Q31, writing down the code or verbatim on each
appropriate cell.
According to your response, in the following questions we will be talking about your use of PLANT
PROTECTION PRODUCTS / INSECTICIDES in the Year_D-X and Year_D-Y taking into
account each time you entered your crop [FOR OSR only to treat including at least one
insecticide] even if you used two or more products at the same time.
I.E.: Please complete all the questions about an application before going to the questions about the
following application.
I.E.: In case that the number of applications exceed the maximum allowed, (max. of 3 applications),
please include the active substance and the pest treated used in the forth and above applications in
the third application and note this fact in the observation of the questionnaire, with details.
15
Year_D-X
App. 1 App. 2 App. 3
INDICATED IN Q23] Min 1 | Max 3.
Q33: [I.P.NOT FOR OSR] Did this application
consist of insecticides, fungicides and/or
herbicides? I.P.: ASK Q40A, B AND/OR C WHEN
APPROPIATE
Yes, Herbicides (ASK Q34A HERBICIDES) 1 1 1
2 2 2
Yes, Insecticides (ASK Q34B INSECTICIDES)
3 3 3
Yes, Fungicides (ASK Q34C FUNGICIDES)
name belonging to the active substance. If you do
not know the active substance you used, please
indicate at least the brand name.
All the OPTIONS included] Multi coded.
SHOWCARD
A. HERBICIDES [I.P.NOT FOR OSR]
Glyphosate ................................................ 1 1 1 1
Terbuthylazine .......................................... 2 2 2 2
97 97 97
Other herbicide (specify) ........................... 97
98 98 98
B. INSECTICIDES
MAIZE
Abamectine .......................................................3 3 3 3
Ethoprophos......................................................4 4 4 4
Cyfluthrin .........................................................6 6 6 6
Hexythiazox......................................................7 7 7 7
Chlorpyrifos......................................................8 8 8 8
9 9 9
Chlorpyrifos Methyl .........................................9
10 10 10
Deltamethrin .....................................................10
11 11 11
12 12 12
Tefluthrin ..........................................................12
SUNFLOWER
Deltamethrin .....................................................13 13 13 13
Chlorpyrifos......................................................14 14 14 14
Pirimicarb .........................................................15 15 15 15
Teflutrhin ..........................................................16 16 16 16
OSR
Cypermethrin ....................................................17
Deltamethrin .....................................................18 17 17 17
Esfenvalerate ....................................................19 18 18 18
19 19 19
20 20 20
Pirimicarb .........................................................21
21 21 21
Other insecticide (specify) ............................. 91 91 91 91
Don't know active substance (NOT READ) . 92 92 92 92
Don't Answer (NOT READ) ........................ 93 93 93 93
16
MAIZE
Sulphur ....................................................... 23 23 23 23
24 24 24
Mancozeb ................................................... 24
25 25 25
SUNFLOWER
Fenpropimorph ........................................... 26 26 26 26
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
OSR
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
29 29 29
30 30 30
Propiconazole ............................................. 30 31 31 31
Tebuconazole ............................................. 31


application?
Single coded 1 1 1
Soil treatment .................................................. 1 2 2 2
Other (specify) ................................................ 4 8 8 8
application took place? (READ OUT, single code)
Before Sowing ................................................ 1 1 1 1

2 2 2
During Sowing ................................................ 2
4 4 4
After sowing/pre-emergence .......................... 3 5 5 5
Flowering stage ............................................... 5 8 8 8
Other (DO NOT READ) ............................... 8
17
application?(I.E.: SHOWCARD AND READ OUT LOUD.
Multi coded. I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds, should
automatically be assigned) [I.P. OSR would not be asked
about weeds].
(MAIZE cod.2-7, & 27)
Cutworms ..............................................................3 3 3 3
Wireworms ............................................................4 4 4 4
Leafhoppers ..........................................................6 6 6 6
27 27 27
(OSR cod. 4-26; skip 5-7 & 21)
Wireworms ............................................................4
Alternaria ...............................................................8 4 4 4
Peach/Potate Aphid ...............................................9 8 8 8
Cabagge aphid .......................................................11 10 10 10
Cabagge root fly ....................................................13 12 12 12
Pod midge ..............................................................20 17 17 17
Pollen beetles ........................................................21 20 20 20
22 22 22
Rape stem weevil ..................................................23
23 23 23
Rape winter stem weevil .......................................24
24 24 24
Sclerotinia ..............................................................25
25 25 25
Phoma stem canker ................................................27 27 27 27
Cutworms .............................................................3 3 3 3
False wireworms ....................................................28 28 28 28
Sunflower moth .....................................................33 33 33 33
Verticilosis .............................................................34 34 34 34
Weevils, ................................................................35 35 35 35
White grubs, ..........................................................36 36 36 36
37 37 37
White rot ................................................................37
4 4 4
Wireworms ...........................................................4
38 38 38
Gray rot ..................................................................38
39 39 39
Sunflower rust........................................................39 40 40 40
Grey Spot ...............................................................40 41 41 41
Aphids....................................................................41
None of the above ........................................... 96 96 96 96
Other (specify) ............................................... 97 97 97 97
99 99 99
18
19
Year_D-Y
Application 1 Application 2 Application 3
INDICATED IN Q23]
Q39: Did this application consist of insecticides,
fungicides and/or herbicides? [I.P.NOT FOR OSR]
Multi coded. I.P.: ASK Q40A, B AND/OR C WHEN
APPROPIATE
Yes, Herbicides (ASK Q40A HERBICIDES) 1 1 1 1
2 2 2
Yes, Insecticides (ASK Q40B INSECTICIDES) 2
3 3 3
Yes, Fungicides (ASK Q40C FUNGICIDES) 3
name belonging to the active substance. If you do
not know the active substance you used, please
indicate at least the brand name.
All the OPTIONS included] Multi coded.
SHOWCARD
A. HERBICIDES [I.P.NOT FOR OSR] 1 1 1
Glyphosate ................................................ 1 2 2 2
Terbuthylazine .......................................... 2 97 97 97
98 98 98
Other herbicide (specify) ........................... 97
99 99 99
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ..................... 98
B. INSECTICIDES
MAIZE
Abamectine .......................................................3 3 3 3
Ethoprophos......................................................4 4 4 4
Cyfluthrin .........................................................6 6 6 6
Hexythiazox......................................................7 7 7 7
Chlorpyrifos......................................................8 8 8 8
9 9 9
Chlorpyrifos Methyl .........................................9
10 10 10
Deltamethrin .....................................................10
11 11 11
12 12 12
Tefluthrin ..........................................................12
SUNFLOWER
Deltamethrin .....................................................13 13 13 13
Chlorpyrifos......................................................14 14 14 14
Pirimicarb .........................................................15 15 15 15
Teflutrhin ..........................................................16 16 16 16
OSR
Cypermethrin ....................................................17 17 17 17
Deltamethrin .....................................................18 18 18 18
Esfenvalerate ....................................................19 19 19 19
20 20 20
21 21 21
Pirimicarb .........................................................21
Other insecticide (specify) ............................. 91 91 91 91
Don't know active substance (DO NOT READ) 92 92 92 92
20
MAIZE
Sulphur ....................................................... 23 23 23 23
24 24 24
Mancozeb ................................................... 24
25 25 25
SUNFLOWER
Fenpropimorph ........................................... 26 26 26 26
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
OSR
Mancozeb ................................................... 27 27 27 27
29 29 29
30 30 30
Propiconazole ............................................. 30 31 31 31
Tebuconazole ............................................. 31

Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) 96 96 96 96

application?
Single coded
Soil treatment .................................................. 1 1 1 1

Other (specify) ................................................ 4 4 4 4
8 8 8

Before Sowing ................................................ 1
During Sowing ................................................ 2 1 1 1
2 2 2
After sowing/preemergency............................ 3
4 4 4
Flowering stage ............................................... 5 6 6 6
Other (DO NOT READ) ............................... 8 9 9 9

application?
coded)
(I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds, should
coded.I.P.: IF herbicide code 1, Weeds, should
[I.P. OSR would not be asked about weeds].
21
(MAIZE cod.2-7, & 27)
Cutworms ..............................................................3 3 3 3
Wireworms ............................................................4 4 4 4
Leafhoppers ..........................................................6 6 6 6
27 27 27
(OSR cod. 4-26; skip 5-7 & 21)

Wireworms ............................................................4 4 4 4
Alternaria ...............................................................8 8 8 8
Peach/Potate Aphid ...............................................9 9 9 9
Cabagge aphid .......................................................11 11 11 11
Cabagge root fly ....................................................13 13 13 13
Cylindrosporium ....................................................17
17 17 17
20 20 20
Pod midge ..............................................................20
22 22 22
Pollen beetles ........................................................22
23 23 23
Rape stem weevil ..................................................23 24 24 24
Sclerotinia ..............................................................25 27 27 27
Phoma stem canker ................................................27

Aphids....................................................................41 41 41 41
Cutworms .............................................................3 3 3 3
False wireworms ....................................................28 28 28 28
31 31 31
Sunflower broomrape ............................................31
32 32 32
Sunflower downy mildew ......................................32
33 33 33
Sunflower moth .....................................................33
34 34 34
Verticilosis .............................................................34 35 35 35
Weevils, ................................................................35 36 36 36
White grubs, ..........................................................36 37 37 37
White rot ................................................................37 4 4 4
Wireworms ...........................................................4 38 38 38
Gray rot ..................................................................38 39 39 39
Sunflower rust........................................................39 40 40 40
Grey Spot ...............................................................40
Other (specify) ............................................... 97 97 97 97

99 99 99
22
Q45: [skip if Q7 = 2]. Are you aware of the recent EU regulations restricting the use of
(I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in question 11) ("neonicotinoids"/
"Fipronil") or seed, soil and foliar treatments of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?
Yes. .................................................................................................................... 1
Q45a. If Yes; What have you heard about it?_____________________
No ....................................................................................................................... 2
Q45b. If No: (READ OUT) In the EU, the use of some neonicotinoids (I.P.:
Include the list of Neonicotinoids products for the crop/country, used in
question 11) for seed, soil and foliar (before flowering) treatments is banned
since December 2012. Also, the use of Fipronil (I.P.: Include the list of Fipronil
products for the crop/country, used in question 11) for seed treatments is
banned since March 2013.
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ..................................................................... 9
Q46: [skip if Q7 = 2]. Have you changed any of your crop protection practices in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] in Year_D as compared to Year_D-X because of the
restrictions of the use of (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in
question 11)? Single coded (DO NOT READ)
Yes ............................................................................................ 1
No ............................................................................................. 2
Don't know .............................................................................. 8
Don't Answer ........................................................................... 9
Q47: [skip if Q7 = 2]. After the restrictions of the use of (I.P.: Include the list of brands for the
crop/country, used in question 11) which measures, if any, have you undertaken in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]? Multi coded, (READ OUT)
Increase sowing density ..................................................................................... 1
Earlier sowing date ............................................................................................. 2
Later sowing date ............................................................................................... 3
Reduce area of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] ................................................. 4 [Do Q54]
Use alternative seed insecticide treatments ........................................................ 5
Use more soil insecticide treatments .................................................................. 6
Use more foliar insecticide treatments ............................................................... 7
Use more mechanical pest control practices ...................................................... 8
More frequent scouting for pests .................................................................... 9
Other (specify) ________________________ .................................................. 10
23
products for the crop/country, used in question 11), protecting your
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] is becoming more time-consuming, less time-consuming, or
staying similarly time-consuming as compared to before?
Single coded
More time-consuming ........................................................................................ 1

Less time-consuming.......................................................................................... 2
Similar ................................................................................................................ 3
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] is becoming more expensive, less expensive or staying similarly
expensive as compared to before?
Single coded (DO NOT READ)
More expensive .................................................................................................. 1

Less expensive.................................................................................................... 2
Similar ................................................................................................................ 3
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] is requiring more, fewer, or a similar amount of chemical
plant protection products as compared to before?
More ................................................................................................................... 1
Less..................................................................................................................... 2
Similar ................................................................................................................ 3
Q50a. [skip if Q7 = 2]. [I.P.: only ask if farmer switched from using a restricted seed treatment product
before the restrictions to using a non-restricted seed treatment product after the restrictions indicated by
his answer to Q12]
You have switched from using (I.P.: name those seed treatment product(s) the farmer used in D-X
or D-Y), to using (I.P.: name those seed treatment product(s) the farmer used in D, as indicated in
Q12) with your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] seeds. How do you compare the overall effectiveness
of these products as part of your pest management practices in [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?
[I.E.: READ OUT / I.P.: MULTIPLE ANSWERS]
Product(s) used in D-X (D-Y) more effective

Product(s) used in D-X (D-Y) somewhat more effective
Products equally effective
Product(s) used in D somewhat more effective
Product(s) used in D more effective
24
noticed higher or lower pressure from SOIL PESTS in Year_D as compared to Year_D-X?
Lower incidence ................................................................................................. 2
noticed higher or lower pressure of FOLIAR PESTS in Year_D as compared to Year_D-X?

Lower incidence ................................................................................................. 2
noticed higher or lower incidence of WILD BENEFICIAL INSECTS (e.g. pollinators,
predators of pests) in Year_D as compared to Year_D-1?.
Lower incidence ................................................................................................. 2
Q54. Have you grown any substitute crops on the area of [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER] that you
reduced because of the restrictions of (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country,
used in question 11)? Please indicate all the different crops (including unused land) along with
their area and estimated gross margins you have realized with them.
I.E.: Ask this question only to those farmers who indicated in Q47 "Reduce area of
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]". For those who did not indicate that, skip this question.
[substitute crop] Hectares Gross margin

|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
Unused |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|
25
Q55. Imagine the restrictions of (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in
question 11) would be removed and the products become again available for use in
[MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]: Considering all monetary and non-monetary factors, how
much value would this give to you? Please indicate the value per hectare.
0 ........................................................................................................................ 1
1-5..................................................................................................................... 2
6-10................................................................................................................... 3
11-15................................................................................................................. 4
16-20................................................................................................................. 5
21-25................................................................................................................. 6
More than 25 .................................................................................................... 7
Q56. [I.E./I.P.: Ask only if Q55>1< 8] Finally in this case, could you please tell me what characteristics
you value most about (I.P.: Include the list of products for the crop/country, used in question 11)?
Easy to use .......................................................................................................... 1
Low price / cost .................................................................................................. 2
Easy to get .......................................................................................................... 3
Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 4
Dont need to use other treatments additionally................................................. 5
Other (Specify)_________________ ________________________________ 6
26
B4: DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE RESPONDENT
D1: What is the ownership status of the farm? D7: In Year_D, which percentage of your
(READ OUT).Single coded income came from the farm and which from
non-farming activities?
Individual/Family farm household . 1 Please state the part for each of the two
Private corporation ......................... 2 options. Total must add up to 100%
Public company .............................. 3
Don't Don't
Other (Specify)_________________7
Know Answer
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ....... 8 (DO (DO
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ... 9 NOT NOT
D2: Are you a member of any association or READ) READ)
cooperative of farmers? 1 The farm |___|___|___|%
(READ OUT). Rotate items 1-5. Multi
Other
coded 2 |___|___|___|%
activities
Cooperative .................................... 1
D8: Which percentage of your farm income
Agrarian society (not in France)..... 2 comes from [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]
Farmers Association ....................... 3 production?
Union ............................................. 5
Don't Don't
Other ............................................... 6
Know Answer
None of the above .......................... 7 [MAIZE/OSR/S
(DO (DO
Don't know (DO NOT READ) ....... 8 UNFLOWER]
NOT NOT
Don't Answer (DO NOT READ) ... 9 READ) READ)
D3: How old is the head of the farm/manager? |___|___|
production
Min 18 | Max 100 |___|___|___| %
D4: What is the gender of the head of the D10: And could you please tell us what is
farm/manager? approximately your annual FARM GROSS
INCOME, IN 2014?
Ask only if necessary. Single coded
[SHOW CARD] Single coded
Man................................................. 1
Woman ........................................... 2 Below 15.000 .............................. 1
D5: What is the head of the farm/manager 15.001 to 25.000 .......................... 2
level of education? 25.001 to 50.000 .......................... 3
Single coded 50.001 to 75.000 .......................... 4
Primary ........................................... 1 75.001 to 100.000 ........................ 5
Secondary ....................................... 2 100.001 to 150.000 ...................... 6
University ...................................... 3 150.0001 to 200.000 .................... 7
Dont know (DO NOT READ) ..... 8 200.001 to 300.000 ...................... 8
Dont Answer (DO NOT READ)... 9 More than 300.000 ...................... 9
D6: Does the head of the farm/manager have Dont know (DO NOT READ) ...... 98
a specific education in agriculture? Dont Answer (DO NOT READ) ... 99
Single coded Time end: l__l__l h l__l__l mn
Yes .................................................. 1
No ................................................... 2 Thank you very much for your help.
Dont know (DO NOT READ) ...... 8
WHEN SCREENED OUT: Unfortunately your
Dont Answer (DO NOT READ) .. 9 farm characteristics do not meet our recruitment
criteria.
27
B5: INTERVIEW QUALITY CONTROL
I1: Where did the interview took place?

Single coded
At the house door of the interviewee ..................................... 1
In the house of the interviewee .............................................. 2
In the cooperative ................................................................... 3
On the street or in a plot of the interviewee ........................... 4
Other (Specify) ___________________________________________6
I2: Where other persons present at the moment of the interview?

Yes .......................................................................................... 1
No ........................................................................................... 2
I3: How was the comprehension level of the interviewee at the questions?
Single coded
Very good ............................................................................... 5
Good ....................................................................................... 4
Normal .................................................................................... 3
Bad ......................................................................................... 2
Very bad ................................................................................. 1
Other (Specify)_____________________________________________6
I4: Which of the questions were more difficult to understand to the interviewee?
(Please indicate the number)
I5: Please insert any comment of the interview that need to be taken into account: clarification to
questions, etc.
[CONTACT DATA: NAME, ADRESSE, TELEPHONE NUMBER].
28
and Pest Management
farmers of OSR in
Czech Republic after
neonicotinoids
restrictions


Deliverable 5: Analysis of Agronomic and pest management. Adaptations taken by farmers of OSR in
Czech Republic after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 4
3.1.2 Sampling Points. ............................................................................ 6
7.3 Perceived Impact on time and costs of the OSR culture. ........................16
For a similar percentage of interviewees, near eight out of ten respondents, the
number of chemical plant protection products required for is now more intense. 16
7.5 Perceived Pest Pressure on the OSR culture .........................................17
Management. ............................................................................................20

(OSR) - 3
1. Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify the economic impact of the 2-year
restriction on the use of the neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, thiamethoxam,
and clothianidin enforced by the European Commission (EU Regulation
2013/485) on the farmers pest management practices.
Surveys were conducted in representative OSR growing area. Our data

reveal that Czech farmers have promptly substituted the use of the seed
treatments Thiamethoxam and Imidacloprid, by foliar insecticides,
predominantly the pyrethroids cypermethrin and gamma-Cyhalothrin.
Significant differences of the use of other pyrethroids as deltamethrin, zeta-
Cypermethrin and Tau-Fluvalinate compared with years before the
restriction were not detected.. It is worth noting that in 2015 it was
observed a significant increase of some key pests of OSR, particularly
cabbage flea beetle and rape stem weevil, at the vegetative stage, and
cabbage stem weevil, pollen beetles, brassica pod midge and cabbage root
fly at flowering stage. This could explain the increase of foliar treatment
after the restriction of neonicotinoids. The return on investment in 2015
was lower than the values of the years before the restriction. However this
reduction cannot be directly attributed to the restriction of neonicotinoids
since the increase in the cost of pesticides need further clarification before
any conclusion.
2. Introduction
The use of rape seed treated with neonicotinoids has become a common
plant protection tool in OSR crop to control early-season insect pests, as
they exhibit long-lasting residual effects. Seed treatments have been used
to avoid pest during the first steps of vegetative stage of OSR.
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam for two years. The restriction
may imply a substantial shift from soil-based to foliar-based pest
management systems, since seed dressings have provided an important
tool in the control of pests. Farmers might incur several new costs for this
situation, including costs for alternative active substances, additional
application treatment costs. In this context, we intend to investigate ex post

(OSR) - 4
how czech farmers adapt their pest management practices and the
production cost and gross margins in Czech Republic. This can be done
neonicotinoids. Therefore, we performed surveys to farmers to assess the
impacts of the restrictive use of neonicotinoids. Before the restriction, plant
protection products containing Thiamethoxam (Cruiser OSR) and
Clothianidin (Elado and Modesto) were authorized for OSR seed treatment
in Czech Republic. It should be noted that Modesto is plant protection
product containing clothianidin and Beta-Cyfluthrin.
Czech Republic in order to evaluate the consequences of the restriction of
use of OSR treated with some neonicotinoids (thiamethoxam and
clothianidin) in the European Union. The survey was designed taking into
account all possible combinations of alternatives that farmers can use to
substitute the treatment of seeds with neonicotinoids, and how these
possible alternatives can have an economic impact. Therefore, some
questions were designed to gather information about the perception of
farmers in relation to the pest control in their crops before and after the
restriction. A second group of questions intend to recognize how the crop
management included use of pesticides, fertilizers, water management, IPM
measures or sowing before and after the restrictions. A final group of
questions was related with the income and outcome of the crop both before
and after the restriction.
3. Methods
The sampling procedure has considered the total Oilseed Rape (OSR)surface
in this region and the number of holder per crop. The specific areas selected
(Table 1), are the ones with the highest OSR area. Some additional
information can be used to support that the biggest presence of the
crop/number of holders would determine also a big usage of neonicotinoids.

(OSR) - 6

municipality.

describing the conduction of an Agricultural Study on OSR Growing and its
problems and practices, for which we will request their cooperation by
From the information received from the companies/entities linked to OSR, a

strategy was then established for contacting crop farmers in each


with the requirements described in terms of location of the exploitation, and
the crop determined (Table 2). We screened out the employees of the farm
or someone else not involved in its management, or with limited knowledge
of the decisions related to the management practices.
The final sample includes 70 out of 100 farmers identified as section head
and 19% head of the of the farm/household, and 6% of general managers.
Due to the above mentioned lack of information, we were sampled without

specific view on farm size. The final sample data were weighted up to
farmer population level using weights calculated from the 2010 agrarian
census data of areas of OSR grown. These weights, when applied to the
sample data, estimate the OSR area grown in 2010.

(OSR) - 21
List of Tables

Table 2. Distribution of OSR farm size and in the selected sampling areas ............ 7
Table 4. Income from OSR production. ............................................................. 9
Table 5. Percentage of Insecticide seed treatment products used ........................10
Table 6. Number of treatments to control OSR pest ..........................................11
Table 7. Foliar insecticides products used ........................................................12
Table 8. Foliar applications at different phenological crop stage. .........................12
Table 9. Knowledge of the EU Regulations restricting the use of neonicotinoids. ...15
Table 10. Measures undertaken in OSR after the restrictions. .............................15
required. .....................................................................................................16
Table 14. Perceived insects presence and pests pressure changes. .....................17
Table 21 A. Fertilizers usage. .........................................................................20

and Pest Management
farmers of OSR in
Germany after
neonicotinoids
restrictions


Germany after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 5
3.1 Institutional contacts ......................................................................... 6
3.2 Sampling Points. ............................................................................... 6
3.3 Selection of informants ...................................................................... 6
5. Agronomic and pest management impact ................................................ 9
Management. ............................................................................................21

(OSR) - 3
1. Abstract
Germany is the EUs largest producer of winter oilseed rape (OSR), being
the use of seed treated with neonicotinoids a common plant protection
measure to control soil-dwelling and early-season insect pests. The aim of
this study was to identify the economic impact of the restriction on the use
of the neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin
enforced by the European Commission (EU Regulation 2013/485) on the
farmers pest management practices.

reveal that German farmers have promptly substituted the use of the seed
treatments with clothianidin + (beta-cyfluthrin) (Elado, Modesto), by foliar
insecticides, predominantly thiacloprid. It is worth noting that in 2015 it was
observed a significant increase of treatments against some key pests at the
vegetative stage, particularly cabbage stem flea beetle (Psylliodes
chrysocephal) and cabbage root fly (Delia radicum). Nevertheless, the
return on investment in 2015 was similar to the one before the restriction
on neonicotinoids in 2014 and farmers do not declare abandonment of OSR
growing. These data suggest that no clear agronomic or economic impacts
have been identified after the limitation of use of OSR treated seed with the
neonicotinoids above mentioned. Nevertheless, the impact in the
environment of the use of the alternatives to the restricted neonicotinoids
should be considered with further studies. Furthermore there is a need for
greater risk assessment that includes the ecosystem services when
considering different insect pest management options in OSR crop

(OSR) - 4
2. Introduction
Germany is the EUs largest producer of oilseed rape (OSR). This crop has
been associated with an intensive use of pesticides, as it is attacked by a
wide range of insect pests during the whole growing season (Alford et al.,
2003). Economic damage to OSR is most often caused by six insect species
in Germany: cabbage stem flea beetle (Psylliodes chrysocephala), stem
weevils (Ceutorhynchus napi, C. pallidactylus) -during the vegetative stage-
, and pollen beetle (Meligethes aeneus), cabbage seed weevil
(Ceutorhynchus assimilis/obstrictus), brassica pod midge (Dasineura
brassicae) and cabbage root fly (Delia radicum) at flowering stage
(Williams, 20101). The use of OSR seed treated with neonicotinoids has
become a common plant protection tool to control early-season insect
pests. Seed treatments have been used to avoid pest damage during the
vegetative stage.
neonicotinoids (Regulation EU 485/2013) including imidacloprid, clothianidin
and thiamethoxam. The restriction may imply a substantial shift from soil-
based to foliar-based pest management systems. Farmers might incur
several new costs for this situation, including costs for alternative active
substances, additional application treatment costs. We intend to investigate
ex post how German farmers adapt their OSR pest management practices
and the production cost and gross margins in Germany. This can be done
neonicotinoids.
1
Williams, I.H. (2010). The Major Insect Pests of Oilseed Rape in Europe and Their
Management: An Overview. In: Williams, IH (ed.) Biocontrol-based integrated
management of oilseed rape pests. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York.

(OSR) - 6
3.1 Institutional contacts
We considered a first contact with the Regional/Local Agricultural

Authorities by letter (preferably guaranteed by the Commission), informing
them of the imminent agricultural study to be carried out on crop growing
practices, for which we request their cooperation in advising us which
municipalities are the most ideal with regards to the presence of the crop,
commercialization points, and big farms - municipalities which would then
be identified as sampling points for conducting the survey.
3.2 Sampling Points.

municipality.

describing the conduction of an Agricultural Study on OSR Growing and its
problems and practices, for which we will request their cooperation by
From the information received from the companies/entities linked to OSR, a

strategy was then established for contacting crop farmers in each
3.3 Selection of informants


(OSR) - 9
agronomic practices of OSR producers as a result of the neonics restrictions
imposed by the EC (Regulation EU 485/2013). We have identified 2015 as
the first year in which the interviewee farmer grew OSR after the entry into
force of restricting the use of seed treated with thiamethoxam, clothianidin
and imidacloprid; year 2014 and 2013 represent years in which the
interviewee farmer grew OSR before the restriction.
In general, no significant differences on the agronomic practices were

detected between the years surveyed before and after the restriction. No
significant changes were observed in the use of fertilizers (N, P, K) (Table
23A), farmers adoption of IPM programs by OSR growing farmers (Table
24A) and soil management (Table 25A).
Before the 2-year restriction on the use of neonicotinoids, seed treatment

was the main plant protection tool to control OSR pests: 92% in 2013, 70%
in 2014. Interestingly, the majority of OSR growers abandoned the use of
neonicotinoids, 3% seed treatment in 2015 (Table 5). The total insecticide
treatments increased in 2015 (Table 6). The main alternative to restricted
OSR seed treated with neonicotinoids is the use of foliar insecticides, mainly
Pyrethroids (Cypermethrin, Gamma-Cyhalothrin, Zeta-Cypermethrin) and
thiacloprid (Table 7).

22
List of Tables

Table 3. Incomes from the farm ...................................................................... 8
Table 7. Active substance contained within the foliar treatment ..........................11
Table 8. Number of farmers treating at different crop stage. ..............................12
Table 9. Percentage of farmers treating to control pests ....................................13
Table 10. Evolution of estimated costs for OSR agronomic practices and yield ......14
required. .....................................................................................................16
Table 16. Perceived aerial and soil pests pressure changes. ...............................17
Table 22 A. Membership of association or cooperative .......................................20

and Pest Management
farmers of OSR in the
United Kingdom after
neonicotinoids
restrictions


England after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 4
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 5
3.1.2 Sampling Points. ............................................................................ 6
Management. ............................................................................................21

(OSR) - 3
1. Abstract
The use of Oilseed Rape (OSR) seed treated with neonicotinoids is a

common plant protection measure to control soil-dwelling and early-season
insect pests in UK during the vegetative stage. The aim of this study was to
identify the economic impact of restriction on the use of the neonicotinoids:
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, enforced by the European
Commission (EU Regulation 2013/485), on the pest management practices
of OSR farmers in UK.

reveal that UK farmers have promptly substituted the use of the seed
treatments with Clothianidin+ (Beta-Cyfluthrin) (Elado, Modesto), by foliar
insecticides, predominantly cypermethrin and to a much lesser extent
thiacloprid. It is worth noting that in 2015 the increase in foliar treatments
is targeted to two key pests at seedlings and the vegetative stage of OSR,
cabbage stem flea beetle (Psylliodes chrysocephal) and cabbage flea beetle
(Phyllotreta spp.), usually controlled by seed treatments. The return on
investment in 2015 was similar to the one before the restriction on
neonicotinoids in 2014 and farmers do not declare abandonment of OSR
growing. These findings suggest that no clear agronomic practices or
economic impacts have been identified after the limitation of use of OSR
treated seed with the neonicotinoids above mentioned. Nevertheless, the
impact in the environment of the use of the alternatives to the restricted
neonicotinoids should be considered with further studies. Furthermore there
is a need for greater risk assessment that includes the ecosystem services
when considering different insect pest management options in OSR crop.

Deliverable 10: Analysis of Agronomic and pest management. Adaptations taken by farmers of OSR in the
United Kingdom after neonicotinoid restrictions
(OSR) - 4
2. Introduction
UK is the one of the EUs largest producer of oilseed rape (OSR). This crop
has been associated with an intensive use of pesticides, as it is attacked by
a wide range of insect pests during the whole growing season (Alford et al.,
20031). Economic damage to OSR is most often caused by six insect species
in the UK: cabbage stem flea beetle (Psylliodes chrysocephala), stem
weevils (Ceutorhynchus napi, C. pallidactylus) and cabbage flea beetle
(Phyllotreta spp.) -during the vegetative stage-, and pollen beetle
(Meligethes aeneus), cabbage seed weevil (Ceutorhynchus
obstrictus/assimilis) and brassica pod midge (Dasineura brassicae) at
flowering stage (Williams, 20102). The use of OSR seed treated with
neonicotinoids has become a common plant protection tool to control early-
season insect pests. Seed treatments have been used to avoid pests
damage during the vegetative stage.
The European Commission has, on 24th May 20133, restricted the use of
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam; the restriction took effect from
November the 30th 2013. The restriction may imply a substantial shift from
soil-based to foliar-based pest management systems, since seed dressings
have provided an important tool in the control of pests. Farmers might incur
several new costs for this situation, including costs for alternative active
substances and additional application treatment costs In this context, we
intend to investigate ex post how British farmers adapt their pest
management practices and the production cost and gross margins in the
1
Alford DV, Nilsson C, Ulber B (2003). Insect pests of oilseed rape crops. In: Alford DV
(ed.) Biocontrol of oilseed rape pests. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
2
Williams, I.H. (2010). The Major Insect Pests of Oilseed Rape in Europe and Their
Management: An Overview. In: Williams, IH (ed.) Biocontrol-based integrated
management of oilseed rape pests. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York.
3
The date is referred to the Regulation, not to the date of entry into force

(OSR) - 13
the farmers used products containing thiacloprid in 2015, a neonicotinoid

that was not affected by the EU restriction, and it is recommended for
control of peach potato aphid and cabbage stem flee beetle. Therefore, the
main alternative in UK to restricted OSR seed treated with neonicotinoids is
the use of foliar insecticides, mainly cypermethrin and to a much lesser
extent thiacloprid. The use of cypermethrin as the only alternative of seed
treatment with neonicotinoids probably is not the best option, because of
development of pest resistance. It is necessary to combine insecticides with
different modes of action and in this sense thiacloprid could be a good
alternative to prevent the development of resistances in field pest
populations that have been exposed to a high selection pressure due to the
long history use of pyrethroids. In fact, resistance of pollen beetle to
pyrethroids has been reported since 1999. Initial reports suggest that
pyrethroid resistance first occurred in North East France and over the
following years has spread to other countries in Europe. Widespread pollen
beetle resistance to pyrethroid insecticides has raised concerns that other
insect pests on oilseed rape, such as cabbage flea beetles (Phyllotreta),
may also be exposed several times during the growing season to
pyrethroids (Muller et al., 20086). Cultural control options such as planting
date, plant density, and reduced tillage that have been shown to be
important for reducing flea beetle attack (Dosdall and Mason, 20107) should
be incorporated into an IPM program to mitigate pest resistance.
The impact that the use of insecticides following foliar and seed treatment
could have in the environment are different, mainly due to the different
6
Muller, A., Heimbach, U., Thieme, T., 2008. Pyrethroid sensitivity monitoring in
Germany of oilseed rape pest insects other than pollen beetle. Bull. OEPP/EPPO
Bull. 38, 85e90.
7
Dosdall L.M., Mason P G., 2010 - Key pests and parasitoids of oilseed rape or canola
in North America and the importance of parasitoids in integrated management. In:
Williams, I.H. (Ed.), Biocontrol-Based Integrated Management of Oilseed Rape Pests.
Springer, pp. 167 213 (Chapter 6).

(OSR) - 14
routes of exposure, and the different behaviour of the considered active

substances in the plant. The impact in the environment of the use of the
alternatives to the restricted neonicotinoids should be considered with
further studies. Furthermore there is a need for greater risk assessment
that includes the ecosystem services when considering different insect pest
management options in OSR crop.

22
List of Tables

Table 5. Annual farm gross income. ................................................................. 9
Table 6. Seed treatment products used ...........................................................10
Table 8. Active substance contained within the treatment ..................................11
Table 9. Number of farmers treating at different crop stage. ..............................12
Table 10. Percentage of farmers treating to control pests ..................................12
Table 11. Evolution of estimated costs for OSR agronomic practices and yield ......15
required. .....................................................................................................17

and Pest Management
farmers of Sunflower
in Spain after
neonicotinoids
restrictions


in Spain after neonicotinoid restrictions
2
Index
1. Abstract .............................................................................................. 3
2. Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
3. Methods .............................................................................................. 5
3.1 Institutional contacts ......................................................................... 5
3.2 Sampling Points. ............................................................................... 6
3.3 Selection of informants ...................................................................... 6
7.3 Perceived Impact on time and costs of the Sunflower culture. ................16
7.5 Perceived Pest Pressure on the Sunflower culture .................................17
Management. ............................................................................................20

(Sunflower) - 3
1. Abstract
The use of seed treated with neonicotinoids and fipronil was a common
plant protection measure to control soil-dwelling and early-season insect
pests. The aim of this study was to identify the economic impact of the
restriction on the use of the neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, thiamethoxam
and clothianidin as well as fipronil enforced by the European Commission
(EU Regulations 2013/485 and 2013/781) on the farmers pest management
practices.
The results of the survey show that most Spanish farmers have changed
their strategy to control sunflower pest by rapidly switching from the use of
the seed treatments with Fipronil to seed treated with Tefluthrin.
Furthermore, the return on investment was rather similar to the values
obtained before the EU restrictions. Our data reveal that the restriction for
use sunflower seed treated with fipronil and neonicotinoids has not resulted
in a negative impact on sunflower production. Nevertheless, the impact in
the environment of the use of the alternatives to the restricted
neonicotinoids and fipronil should be considered with further studies.
Furthermore there is a need for greater risk assessment that includes the
ecosystem services when considering different insect pest management
options in sunflower crop.
2. Introduction
imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, the restriction took effect from
November the 30th 2013. And in 14 August 20132, restricted the use the
active ingredient fipronil seed dressing (Regulation (EC) No. 781/2013), the
restriction took effect from februrary the 28th 2014
Clothianidin, Imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and fipronil were commonly used

to control certain soil insect pests. Inefficient control of some of the key
1
The date is referred to the Regulation, not to the date of entry into force.
2
Idem.

(Sunflower) - 4
pests might have negative effects on sunflower yield and on farmers

incomes. Therefore, the restriction of use of plant protection products
containing the active substances imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and fipronil,
could affect the production of sunflower in Spain, which could mean some
considerable losses in production as some stakeholders have indicated.
The restrictions of neonicotinoids and fipronil may imply a substantial shift

from soil-based to foliar-based pest management systems. Farmers might
incur several new costs for this scenario, including costs for alternative
active substances, additional application costs, and added costs for using
higher seeding densities. It is necessary to quantify the impact of the
restriction of use of these active substances. This can be done through
surveys aimed at farmers, agricultural associations, cooperatives or any
other agents involved in the agricultural sector that will allow a descriptive
assessment of the impacts of the restrictive uses of neonicotinoids and
fipronil.
We report here on 105 face to face interviews that were carried out in Spain
in order to evaluate the consequences of the restriction of use of seed
sunflower treated with some neonicotinoids (Clothianidin, thiamethoxam,
imidacloprid) and fipronil in the European Union.
alternatives that farmers can use to substitute the treatment of seeds with
neonicotinoids and fipronil, and how these possible alternatives can have an
economic impact. Therefore, some questions were designed to gather
information about the perception of farmers in relation to the pest control in
their crops before and after the restriction.

sowing before and after the restrictions; at last, a final group of questions
was related with the income and outcome of the crop both before and after
the restriction.
As a first phase of our survey consisted we have conducted five pilot

interviews in Hungary in order to review questionnaire performance, before
the main fieldwork of 100 interviews, therefore we have conducted another
five additional interviews in Spain for the questionnaire adaptation to the

(Sunflower) - 6
3.2 Sampling Points.

municipality.

describing the conduction of an Agricultural Study on Sunflower Growing
and its problems and practices, for which we will request their cooperation
by taking part in a brief interview.
From the information received from the companies/entities linked to

Sunflower, a strategy was then established for contacting crop farmers in
each municipality, either, being present at meeting points (offices,
3.3 Selection of informants


with the requirements described in terms of location of the exploitation, and
the crop determined (Table 2). We screened out the employees of the farm
or someone else not involved in its management, or with limited knowledge
of the decisions related to the management practices.
The final sample includes 70% out of 100 farmers identified as head of the
section, one in four head of the farm/household, and 6% of general
managers.
Due to the above mentioned lack of information, we were sampled without

specific view on farm size. The final sample data were weighted up to
farmer population level using weights calculated from the 2010 agrarian
census data of areas of Sunflower grown. These weights, when applied to
the sample data, estimate the Sunflower area grown in 2010.

(Sunflower) - 10
agronomic practices of sunflower producers as a result of the neonicotinoids
restrictions imposed by the EC (Regulation EU 485/2013) and by the
restriction of use of fipronil by EC (Regulation EU 781/2013). For this
purpose we have identified 2015 as the first year in which the interviewee
farmer grew sunflower after the entry into force of restricting the use of
thiamethoxam, clothianidin and imidacloprid and fipronil; year 2014 and
2013 represent years in which the interviewee farmer grew sunflower
before the restriction.
The use of treated seed with neonicotinoids (Thiametoxam) or fipronil was

one of the most important plant protection tools to prevent the damage
produced by soil pests (wireworms and cutworms) and aerial pests in the
Guadalquivir Valley, Spain, being 44% in 2013, 78% in 2014 and 10% in
2015 (Table 6). The main insecticide used for treatment of sunflower seed
was fipronil (Regent) (42% in 2013 and 76% in 2014). The treatments with
the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam (Cruiser) can be considered marginal (2%
in 2013 and 2014) and the same figure in 2015. Other neonicotinoids as
imidacloprid and clothianidin were not used. Interestingly, the majority of
sunflower growers (74%) switched rapidly to sunflower seed treated with an
alternative seed treatment formulation of tefluthrin (Force CS4) in 2015
(after the restriction), and a small proportion of farmers (8%) continue
using Regent and (2%) Cruiser, although its sale and use was not allowed
(Table 6). The total number of treatments remain stable in 2015 (Table 7),
being pyrethroids the most commonly used foliar insecticides in 2015 (Table
8).
4
An exceptional authorization under Article 53 of Regulation EC No.1107/2009 was
granted in Spain in 2013 and 2015. [4 Noviembre 2013 Resolucin de la de la
Direccin General de Sanidad de la Produccin Agraria and 18 Septiembre 2015
Resolucin de la Direccin General de la Direccin General de Sanidad de la
Produccin Agraria].
Exceptional authorization in force are available in
http://www.magrama.gob.es/agricultura/pags/fitos/registro/fichas/pdf/AUTORIZAC
IONES+EXCEPCIONALES+EN+VIGOR.pdf
A granular formulation of tefluthrin (Force 1,5G) is authorised in Spain since 2008

(Sunflower) - 13
tefluthrin or the use of a granular formulation of tefluthrin during sowing.

Toxicity endpoints on Apis mellifera for each active substance are published
in EFSA opinions or in the review reports of the European Commision7
Thiamethoxam and fipronil show a similar acute oral toxicological profile,

while tefluthrin are less toxic for bees. In the case of the acute contact
toxicity profile fipronil is more toxic than thiamethoxam and more than
tefluthrin, the differences in the acute contact toxicty among each active
substance are of one order of magnitude. Furthermore the non systemicity
behaviour of tefluthrin made that the exposure through polen and nectar is
negligible.
The use of seed treated with these insecticides are conditioned to risk
mitigation measure as the use of adequate seed drilling equipment to
ensure a high degree of incorporation in soil, minimisation of spillage and
minimisation of dust emission. This type of risk mitigation measures are
used for the reduction of the exposure to non target organisms.
These data showed that the impact in the environment of the use of the
alternatives to the restricted neonicotinoids and fipronil should be
considered with further studies. Furthermore there is a need for greater risk
assessment that includes the ecosystem services when considering different
insect pest management options in sunflower crop.
7
risk assessment of the active substance tefluthrin. EFSA Journal 2010;8(12):1709.
[65 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1709. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu
SANCO/10390/2002 - rev. final 14 July 2006 COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT -
DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION SERVICES
Review report for the active substance thiamethoxam (14 July 2006).
http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-
database/public/?event=activesubstance.ViewReview&id=399

21
List of Tables

Table 2. Distribution of Sunflower farm size and in the selected sampling areas .... 7
Table 4. Income from Sunflower production. ..................................................... 8
Table 5. Annual farm gross income. ................................................................. 9
Table 7. Number of treatments to control Sunflower pest ..................................11
Table 8. Percentage of farmers treating to control sunflower pests ......................12
Table 9. Evolution of estimated costs for sunflower agronomic practices and yield 14
Table 11. Measures undertaken in Sunflower after the restrictions. .....................15
required. .....................................................................................................16


Deliverables From Study Entitled Survey On The Adaptation of Agronomic Practices by EU Farmers To Neonicotinoid Restrictions'

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Deliverables From Study Entitled Survey On The Adaptation of Agronomic Practices by EU Farmers To Neonicotinoid Restrictions'

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ref.

DESCRIPTION OF THE AGRONOMIC PRACTICES AND PEST

For thiamethoxam, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2006

For clothianidin, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission, 2005,

In the case of imidacloprid, as foreseen in the review report (European Commission,

These exceptional authorizations allow other substances to be considered as alternatives

Maize Pest Management practices

Seed1 269 13.0

Fertilizers (sowing + growing) 587 28.5

Pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides) 1 155 7.5

Cultural practices (ploughing and application of 411 19.9

Energy use (Grain drying) 1 416 20.2

Total variable cost (/ha) 2,062 -

Revenue (/ha) 2,897 -

Gross margin (/ha) 835 -

Sunflower Pest Management practices

With an area of about 26 million hectares worldwide, sunflower is essential to maintain

Table 4. Input use intensity for sunflower cropping systems in Hungary

In 2011, the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics of the Hungarian Academy of

Yield Selling Price Direct Cost Direct Cost per

3.20 50,000 167,145 (HUF/ha) 52,233 (HUF/t)

Sampling Method and Selection of Participants

Country Region Selected Number of Holders Total Surface (Has)

Italy Lombarda 22,871 337,598

Figure 1: Maps of /Geographic location for Regional Sampling selection

General Association of Spanish Corn Producers (AGPME, 2010): "Study of overall

Q2: TARGET COUNTRY

Czech Republic .............................. 1

Ebro Valley .................................... 1

Q5: What is your role in the farm?

|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

Not treated |___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___| |___|___|___|___|

Q13: Do you practice rotation in your [MAIZE/OSR/SUNFLOWER]?

Q13a: If yes, please specify the surface you

No............................................................. 2 [I.P.: Q13<q8]

Year_D Year_D-X Year_D-Y

Other fungicide (specify) ............................... 94

Q28: What was the crop stage when the

Other fungicide (specify) ............................... 94 94 94 94

Q35: What type of treatment did you use in this

Before Sowing ................................................ 1 1 1 1

Other fungicide (specify) ............................... 94 94 94 94

Q41: What type of treatment did you use in this

Soil treatment .................................................. 1 1 1 1

Q42: What was the crop stage when the application

Q43: What was the pest treated with this

Q44: What was the cost of the treatment?

More time-consuming ........................................................................................ 1

More expensive .................................................................................................. 1

[I.E.: READ OUT / I.P.: MULTIPLE ANSWERS]

Product(s) used in D-X (D-Y) more effective

Higher incidence. .............................................................................................. 1

[substitute crop] Hectares Gross margin

|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|

|__________________| |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|

Unused |___|___|___|___| ha |___|___|___|___|

SURVEY ON THE ADAPTATIONS OF AGRONOMIC PRACTICES BY EU

Survey on The Adaptation of Agronomic Practices by EU farmers to neonicotinoid restrictions

Survey on The Agronomic Practices by EU farmers to neonicotinoid restrictions

|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|___|

|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|___|

Not treated |_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|___|

|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|___|

|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|___|

Not treated |_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_| |_|_|_|___|

|________________| |_|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|___|

|________________| |_|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|___|

Unused |_|_|_|_| ha |_|_|_|_|