Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report on General Characterization of the ‘CascadeReUse Systems’
Deliverable D5.1
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: Miguel Santos, FCUP | Ruth Pereira, FCUP | Ana Aguiar,
FCUP | Susana Carvalho*, FCUP
REVIEWERS: Josenalde Oliveira, INESC TEC | Aslihan Kerç, SUEN
DATE: 28-11-2017
VERSION: 1
CLASSIFICATION: PU | Public
AGRINUPES | 2
PROJECT ACRONYM: AGRINUPES
PROJECT TITLE: Integrated monitoring and control of water, nutrients and plant
protection products towards a sustainable agricultural sector
EU FUNDING: ERA-NET Cofund WaterWorks2015
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
Dr. José Boaventura-Cunha
INESC TEC
R. Dr. Roberto Frias,
4200-465 Porto, Portugal
E-mail: [email protected]
PROJECT WEBSITE: www.agrinupes.eu
*DOCUMENT CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Prof. Dr. Susana M.P. Carvalho
GreenUP/CITAB-UP, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de
Vairão, Rua Padre Armando Quintas 7, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
E-mail: [email protected]
AGRINUPES | 3
Table of contents
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6
2. Materials and methods ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1. Structure of the questionnaire ........................................................................................... 7
2.2. Inquired sample and data collection .................................................................................. 7
2.2.1. PAM growers’ organization ......................................................................................... 7
2.2.2. HORPOZIM growers’ organization .............................................................................. 8
2.2.3. Campoeste S.A. ........................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................ 8
3. Results ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Characterization of the grower and production system .................................................... 9
3.2. Characterization of the irrigation system ........................................................................ 10
3.3. Characterization of the PPP ............................................................................................. 13
4. Final considerations and conclusions .................................................................................. 14
Appendix I ................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix II .................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix III ................................................................................................................................. 20
List of abbreviations
AGRINUPES Integrated monitoring and control of water, nutrients and plant protection
products towards a sustainable agricultural sector
CRUs CascadeReUse system
EDM Entre-Douro-e-Minho region
PPP Plant Protection Products
List of figures
Figure 1. Characterization of the production system, in terms of (a and b) production method,
and (c) use of nutrient solution (open system: free drainage; CascadeReUse system: drain is
collected and re-used in secondary crops; closed system: recirculation of the drain in the main
crop), from the inquired soilless cultivation growers (Question 1 -Appendix I; n=12). ................ 9
Figure 2. Frequency (%) of the reasons pointed out for not adopting a closed irrigation system
(Question2 – Appendix I), from the growers inquired that chose at least one option (n=7). .... 10
AGRINUPES | 4
Figure 3. Crops from (a) greenhouse production and (b) open field production, per area, from
the growers inquired (Question 3 - Appendix I; n=12) ............................................................... 10
Figure 4. Characterization of the irrigation system in terms of (a) type of system used, and (b)
origin of the irrigation water. The graphs represent the frequency (%) that a given answer has
been selected (being allowed to select more than one option). Frequency (%) of (a) the
irrigation system used and of (b) the origin of the irrigation water, from the growers inquired
(Question 8 - Appendix I; n=12). ................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5. Frequency (%) of the methods used, by the growers inquired (n=12), for the control
of the irrigation needs (Question 7 - Appendix I). ...................................................................... 11
Figure 6. (a) Frequency (%) of control of the drained nutrient solution (Question 10 - Appendix
I; n=12), and (b) frequency (%) of the parameters evaluated from the drain (Question 10.1 -
Appendix I; n=7). ......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 7. (a) Frequency (%) of existence of reservoirs for the drained nutrient solution
(Question 11; n=12), and characterization of the reservoirs, in the case of existence (n=6), in
terms of frequency (%) of (b) the coating material and (c) being open or closed (Question 11.1).
..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8. Frequency (%) of (a) application of Plant Protection Products (PPP) and (b) their
method of application by the respondents (Questions 15 and 16; n=12). ................................. 13
List of tables
Table 1. Overall characterization of the 12 growers inquired in terms of exploited crops,
diseases and pests observed in their farms, and active ingredients included in the
phytopharmaceutical products utilized. ..................................................................................... 19
Table 2. Most used plant protection products in Portugal. ........................................................ 20
AGRINUPES | 5
Summary
This report is integrated into WP5 – Task 5.1 from AGRINUPES - which aims to perform a
general characterization of the Portuguese greenhouse soilless cultivation systems. The
fertigation management and the application of plant protection products on soilless crops in
Portugal were characterized through questionnaires (face-to-face, via phone call or email)
conducted to a sample of growers, with a focus on the Entre-Douro-e-Minho and West regions
and on the cultivation of tomato, strawberry and flowers (roses and carnation).
The results showed that the 12 surveyed growers mainly use substrates (semi-hydroponics)
and less pure hydroponics. Regarding the reutilization of the nutrient solution, an equal
distribution between open system (i.e. without drainage collection, 42 %) and CascadeReUse
system (‘CRUs’; with drainage collection which is reused in secondary crops, 42 %), being that
only 16 % of the respondents produces in closed system (with recirculation of the nutrient
solution). The growers indicated the cost of investment as the main limitation for not adopting
a closed system. Drip fertigation was the main irrigation system adopted (83 %), and boreholes
(55 %), wells (27 %) and rain (27 %) were the main sources of irrigation water. Irrigation needs
are mainly evaluated empirically (75 %), and/or through drainage volume (58 %). Half of the
growers referred to have reservoirs for drainage collection, but only 58 % of these growers
control the drainage, namely through the control of the electrical conductivity (100 %), pH (71
%) and volume (43 %). Disinfection of the drained nutrient solution is an uncommon practice
(10 %). In terms of application of phytopharmaceuticals to combat pest and diseases, the most
common application frequency is weekly (58 %), mostly by pulverization (91 %), while
application through the irrigation water is used by only 27 % of the respondents. In summary,
the present characterization will continue for other Portuguese regions, but the results
corroborate the need to develop methodologies that allow growers a recurrent assessment of
the potential of reuse of water, encouraging them to implement production systems in which
the drainage is reused (closed systems or ‘CRUs’).
AGRINUPES | 6
1. Introduction
The aim of this study was to characterize the Portuguese hydroponic and semi-hydroponic
systems (i.e. on substrate), whether they are based on the collection of the drained nutrient
solution following irrigation of a main crop or a secondary crop – here referred as
‘CascadeReUse System’ (‘CRUs’) and in which the secondary crops might be either grown in
greenhouse or in open field – or based on an open system, where the drainage is not utilized.
The characterization was done with special focus on the management of fertigation and
application of plant protection products (PPP) in order to optimize the efficiency of these
systems and to reduce the environmental impact. In that sense, questionnaires were
performed (face-to-face, via phone call or email) by national growers which produce soilless
crops, with focus on Entre-Douro-e-Minho region (EDM) and West region, and on the
cultivation of strawberry, tomato and cut flowers (rose and carnation). These crops have been
chosen due to its representativeness in terms of soilless cultivation in Portugal and their
economic importance. Concerning the choice of the regions, West region and EDM region are
amongst the most representative regions in Portugal in terms of protected horticulture.
EDM region is located between the rivers Douro and Minho, in the northwest of Portugal, and
is composed by the districts of Porto, Braga and Viana do Castelo. From these three districts,
four municipalities were sampled, considering them as the most important in terms of soilless
production: Póvoa de Varzim (Porto district), Vila do Conde (Porto district), Barcelos (Braga
district) and Esposende (Braga district).
As a first step the questionnaire was prepared taking into account our research goals. This has
been tested in our growers in order to identify possible gaps in terms of content or order of
the questions. Following small adjustments, the questionnaire was further conducted to the
growers, preferably face-to-face or, if not possible otherwise, via phone call or email, being
these questionnaires filled by the respondents.
AGRINUPES | 7
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Structure of the questionnaire
In order to collect the needed information to fulfill our goals, a questionnaire was developed
for this study. The questionnaire (Appendix I) is composed by an introductory section
describing its purpose and contextualization within the AGRINUPES project, and informing the
growers about the anonymity of the information, followed by 30 questions, distributed by four
sections: A) Characterization of the company and grower; B) Characterization of the
production system; C) Characterization of the irrigation system; D) Characterization of the used
phytopharmaceutical products. The questionnaire includes open-ended questions, single and
multiple-choice questions. In the multiple-choice questions, more than one answer was
possible. At the end of the questionnaire, the growers were asked whether or not they were
interested in knowing the general results of this work, indicating their email addresses for that
purpose. For details about the questionnaire see Appendix I.
2.2. Inquired sample and data collection
To better identify the growers that fulfilled our requirements (with a soilless cultivation system
and from the regions surveyed), the main associations/cooperatives of the EDM region have
been contacted, namely PAM (Produção e Distribuição Hortícola do Litoral, Lda) and
HORPOZIM (Associação de Horticultores da Póvoa de Varzim). These associations have
indicated the growers and we proceeded as described above. The growers from EDM region,
owed to their proximity to Porto University, were inquired preferentially face-to-face, except
for those that declared to be unavailable to meet the researchers. In that case we have sent an
email with the questionnaire. Growers from the West region were identified with the help of
Campoeste S.A., a company of the agro-business sector which is located in this region. The
representatives of the West region were inquired via phone call and email.
Relatively to the PPP frequently utilized by the respondents, it was through consultation of the
products datasheets that the active ingredients which are included in their formulation were
identified.
2.2.1. PAM growers’ organization
The PAM organization was founded by eight farmers in 1991, in Laundos, at Póvoa de Varzim
municipality, with the main objectives of improving the entry in the market of their products.
Nowadays, PAM has 22 associates which are distributed by eight neighboring municipalities:
Póvoa de Varzim, Barcelos, Vila Nova de Famalicão, Viana do Castelo, Guimarães, Vila do
Conde, Felgueiras and Maia.
AGRINUPES | 8
This group of farmers represent 40 ha of outdoor farming, and 55 ha of greenhouse
agriculture, producing horticultural products, soft fruits, passion fruit and kiwi. Approximately
90 % of the production is sold to large-scale distribution chains, while the remaining 10 % are
exported to Spain and France.
2.2.2. HORPOZIM growers’ organization
The HORPOZIM organization is a horticulturists association, founded in 1987 by 36 farmers, at
the northwest of Portugal, representing three municipalities: Póvoa de Varzim, Vila do Conde
and Esposende.
The objectives of the organization are to identify and solve problems and challenges faced by
their associates, to give support in their rights and needs, aiming to maximize the quality of the
products and the modernization of production methods.
Nowadays, HORPOZIM has 781 associates, managing 2,000 ha of outdoor farming, and
approximately 250 ha of greenhouse horticulture. The main outdoor crops are lettuce, onion,
cabbage, garlic and courgette, while the main greenhouse crops are tomato, turnip, lettuce,
pepper and cucumber. The products are mainly delivered to the domestic market, namely at
large commercial centers, wholesalers, fairs and stores, but also can be exported to nearby
countries, like Spain, France, or Italy.
2.2.3. Campoeste S.A.
Campoeste S.A. is a company created in 2008 after the fusion of several Campoeste
companies, all of them linked to the agro-business sector, namely to the production of
fertilizers, agrochemicals, plastic materials, seeds, hydroponic systems, greenhouse
constructions, irrigation systems and horticultural plants, among other activities.
The business activity of the mother company begun in 1985, and the plant breeding sector of
the company was created in 1992, with the main objective of providing horticultural plants to
the local growers at the West region.
Nowadays, the company aims to reinforce their presence at foreign markets, namely Angolan
market, through the sale of metallic structures, agrochemicals and plants.
The company has a yearly turnover of 13 million euros, and employs 80 workers.
2.3 Data analysis
All the single and multiple-choice questions were further coded for data compilation and for a
descriptive statistical analysis.
In the multiple-choice questions, owed to the possibility of choosing more than one option,
the percentages were calculated considering each option individually. So, the total sum of
frequencies within each question was often higher than 100 %.
AGRINUPES | 9
3. Results
3.1. Characterization of the grower and production system
Of the regions surveyed, a total of 12 growers have responded to the questionnaire, 10 from
the EDM and 2 from the West region. The average age of the growers was 43 years old. The
yearly turnover of the companies they represent, asked in an optional question and answered
by 10 respondents, totalized 5.5 million euros. Relatively to the production area the growers
inquired represent 27.8 ha, being approximately 26.5 ha of greenhouse production and
approximately 1.4 ha of open field production. From the total area, 47.9 % was from the EDM
region and 52.1 % was from the West region (data not presented in a graph).
In terms of the production system (Figure 1), from the 12 growers inquired, only 1 produces in
hydroponics (nutrient film technique), while the remaining 11 produce in semi-hydroponic
system (i.e. using substrate). In terms of drainage and reutilization of the nutrient solution, 84
% of the growers use an open system and ‘CRUs’ with an equal distribution among them, and
only 16 % use a closed system, with recirculation of the nutrient solution.
When asked about the reason(s) for not adopting a closed irrigation system (Figure 2), all the
respondents (n=7; not all answered this question), mentioned the investment costs as the
main reason. The fear of taking risk due to lack of knowledge was another reason also selected
by 29 % of the respondents, while 43 % indicated “other” reasons, namely: “I have planned,
but the provider company went bankrupt”; “Phytosanitary issues”; “In Portugal, the option for
collecting the irrigation water is not yet reliable”.
Figure 1. Characterization of the production system, in terms of (a and b) production method, and (c) use of nutrient solution (open system: free drainage; CascadeReUse system: drain is collected and reused in secondary crops; closed system: recirculation of the drain in the main crop), from the inquired soilless cultivation growers (Question 1 -Appendix I; n=12).
AGRINUPES | 10
Figure 2. Frequency (%) of the reasons pointed out for not adopting a closed irrigation system (Question2 – Appendix I), from the growers inquired that chose at least one option (n=7).
In terms of production areas in greenhouse (Figure 3-a), tomato occupies 40.8 % of the total
greenhouse area from the farmers inquired, followed by strawberry, with 13.7 %, and flowers,
with 13.2 %, while 32.3 % of the total greenhouse area was occupied by other crops, which
included melon, vegetables and ornamental plants. When considering the crops produced in
open field alone (Figure 3-b), the main occupation of the soil was for ornamental plants (55.6
%), followed by vegetables (37.0 %), and cut flowers (7.4 %).
Figure 3. Crops from (a) greenhouse production and (b) open field production, per area, from the growers inquired (Question 3 - Appendix I; n=12)
3.2. Characterization of the irrigation system
Among the growers inquired, 83 % use drip fertigation, whereas 17 % use aspersion as
irrigation system (Figure 4-a). In the Spring-Summer period, a grower does on average 7.7
irrigations (SD=5.5) of 6.2 min long per day (SD=3.9 min). In the Autumn-Winter period the
100
43
29
0
20
40
60
80
100
Inv. costs Other Lack of knowledge
Nu
mb
er o
f re
spo
nd
ents
(%
)
Reasons for not adopting a closed irrigation system
AGRINUPES | 11
number of irrigations decreases, on average, to 2.5 irrigations (SD=2.9), of 6.1 min long per day
(SD=3.9 min) (data not presented in a graph), resulting in a water consumption of 1,001 hl day-
1 ha-1 (SD=1,798 hl day-1 ha-1, n=10), in average, while during the Autumn-Winter period the
value drops to 106 hl day-1 ha-1 (SD=110 hl day-1 ha-1, n=10). When asked about the origin of
the irrigation water used in their companies, 55 % of the growers said that they collect water
through boreholes, while 27 % collect water from wells, 27 % collect water from the rain, and 8
% mentioned other origin (“spring water”). The answer “Mains water” was not chosen by any
of the growers inquired (Figure 4-b).
Figure 4. Characterization of the irrigation system in terms of (a) type of system used, and (b) origin of the irrigation water. The graphs represent the frequency (%) that a given answer has been selected (being allowed to select more than one option). Frequency (%) of (a) the irrigation system used and of (b) the origin of the irrigation water, from the growers inquired (Question 8 - Appendix I; n=12).
Relatively to the strategy used for the irrigation needs, 75 % of the respondents said they
control empirically, based on experience, 58 % referred the control through drainage volume,
17 % by radiation and 17 % by temperature (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Frequency (%) of the methods used, by the growers inquired (n=12), for the control of the irrigation needs (Question 7 - Appendix I).
75
58
17 17
0
20
40
60
80
100
Empirically Drainage volume Radiation Temperature
Nu
mb
er o
f re
spo
nd
ents
(%
)
Control of the irrigation needs
AGRINUPES | 12
In quantitative terms, for the system drainage, the growers referred an average volume of 80
hl ha-1 (SD=60 hl ha-1), and 23.3 % (SD=9.4 %) of the total irrigation volume.
With regard to the control of the drained nutrient solution, 58 % of the respondents (n=12)
said to control the drainage, against 42 % which do not perform any control (Figure 6-a). All
the growers that said to control the nutrient solution measure the electrical conductivity (EC),
while 71 % of those growers control the pH, 43 % the volume of the drain, and none of them
control other parameter (Figure 6-b).
When asked if they have any reservoir for the drained nutrient solution, the answers were
equally distributed with 50 % answers “Yes” and 50 % answers “No” (n=12; Figure 7-a).
In relation to the coating material of the reservoir (Figure 7-b), 50 % said to have metallic
reservoir, 33 % plastic reservoir and 17 % mentioned other coating material (“concrete
reservoir”). Among the growers that have at least one reservoir, 83 % have a closed reservoir,
whereas only 17 % have open ones (Figure 7-c). On average, the growers have 1.8 reservoirs
(SD=1.2 units), of 734 hl (SD=824 hl) of average capacity, and all of them were referred as
being waterproof (data not presented in a graph).
Figure 6. (a) Frequency (%) of control of the drained nutrient solution (Question 10 - Appendix I; n=12), and (b) frequency (%) of the parameters evaluated from the drain (Question 10.1 - Appendix I; n=7). EC: electrical conductivity.
AGRINUPES | 13
3.3. Characterization of the PPP
The major pests and diseases mentioned by the respondents as the most relevant ones, as well
as the active ingredients of the phytopharmaceuticals to control them are shown in Table 1
(Appendix II). Concerning the frequency of application of the PPP, 58 % of the growers do
weekly applications, while 8 % do biweekly applications. Other frequency of application was
mentioned by 50 % of the respondents, that gave five different answers, as “whenever
symptoms appear”, “three-day intervals”, “monthly”, “semi-annually” and “annually”. The
method of application is mainly pulverization (91 %), followed by irrigation (27 %).
Figure 7. (a) Frequency (%) of existence of reservoirs for the drained nutrient solution (Question 11; n=12), and characterization of the reservoirs, in the case of existence (n=6), in terms of frequency (%) of (b) the coating material and (c) being open or closed (Question 11.1).
Figure 8. Frequency (%) of (a) application of Plant Protection Products (PPP) and (b) their method of application by the respondents (Questions 15 and 16; n=12).
AGRINUPES | 14
4. Final considerations and conclusions
While performing the questionnaires we felt that the questions directly related to
environmental impact, namely the use of PPP and potentially polluting substances caused
some embarrassment to the respondents, since they were afraid that we were hiding the real
purpose of this questionnaire. Although they mentioned that they only used the authorized
PPP, it gave us the impression that some growers might have not been totally honest in that
respect. Moreover, regarding the list of the used PPP by the growers (Table 1), this is not
completely coincident with data available in official sources (Table 2).
In general, we find the number of growers inquired satisfactory in terms of soilless production
of tomato, strawberry and cut flowers. Nevertheless, it is intended to continue the work for
the next months, inquiring more growers (particularly in the West region) and possibly
reaching other regions of Portugal, namely Alentejo and Algarve.
The results corroborate the need to develop methodologies that allow growers a recurrent
assessment of the potential of reuse of water, encouraging them to implement production
systems in which the drainage is re-used (closed systems or ‘CRUs’).
AGRINUPES | 15
Appendix I
Framework This study is being carried out by the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto (FCUP). It is part of the European research project 'AGRINUPES' (http://www.agrinupes.eu/) and its main objective is to characterize the Portuguese hydroponic and semi-hydroponic systems (i.e. on substrate) with special focus on the management of fertigation and application of phytopharmaceutical products in order to optimize the efficiency of these systems and to reduce the environmental impact. For this purpose, questionnaires are being conducted to national growers that produce in greenhouse soilless cultivation systems. Thereafter, the nutrient solutions will be sampled (at different points in the system) for further nutrients’ and phytopharmaceutical products’ analysis. The data from the questionnaires and drained solutions will be analyzed anonymously, i.e. without identification of the grower where the samples have been collected. Only the characteristics of the production systems and the variables under analysis will be linked. The final results will be communicated to the interested growers. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Date: _____________________ Sample/form code:___________
Questionnaire
A. Characterization of the company and grower (information that will only be available to the FCUP coordinator) Company name: Click here to enter text. Location: Click here to enter text. Grower´s name: Click here to enter text. Grower´s age: Click here to enter text.
B. Characterization of the production system 1. Which production system do you use?
1.1. In greenhouse ☐
Mixed (In greenhouse and open field) ☐
1.2. Hydroponics ☐
Semi-hydroponics (on substrate) ☐
1.3. Open system (drainage is not collected) ☐
‘CascadeReUse system’ (drainage is collected to use on secondary crops) ☐
Closed system (with recirculation of the nutrient solution) ☐
2. If you haven´t implemented a closed system, what is/are the reason(s)? (You can select
more than one).
Investment costs ☐
Fear or taking risk due to lack of knowledge ☐
Other ☐ Click here to enter text.
AGRINUPES | 16
3. Which are the products produced?
Greenhouse Click here to enter text.
Open field Click here to enter text.
4. Which are the production areas?
Greenhouse Click here to enter text.
Open field Click here to enter text.
C. Characterization of the irrigation system
5. Which irrigation system do you use? Click here to enter text.
6. On average, how many times are the crops irrigated per day in each season? (if you prefer you can differentiate by crop):
Seasons Nº of irrigations Duration of each irrigation
Spring-Summer Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
Autumn-Winter Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.
7. How do you control the irrigation needs? (you can select more than one)
Empirically based on experience ☐ Based on drainage volume ☐ Based on radiation ☐
Temperature ☐
8. What is/are the origin(s) of the irrigation water? (you can select more than one)
Borehole ☐ Pumped from a well ☐
Rain ☐ Mains water ☐
Other ☐ Click here to enter text.
9. How much water on average do you use on the daily irrigation?
9.1. Spring-Summer Click here to enter text.(liters per day per hectare) Autumn-Winter Click here to enter text.(liters per day per hectare)
9.2. Drippers flow Click here to enter text.(liters per hour)
9.3. Number of drippers Click here to enter text.(units per hectare)
10. Do you control the drained nutrient solution?
No ☐
Yes ☐
AGRINUPES | 17
10.1. If you answered yes, which parameters do you evaluate?
Volume ☐ Which is the target volume Click or here to enter text and/or the percentage Click here to enter text. of the drainage of your system
Electrical conductivity (EC) ☐ Which are the reference values Click here to enter text.
pH ☐ Which are the reference values Click here to enter text.
Other ☐ Click here to enter text.
11. Do you have any reservoir for collecting the drained nutrient solution?
No ☐
Yes ☐
If yes,
11.1. What type of reservoir? (you can select more than one)
11.1.1. Metallic reservoir ☐
Plastic reservoir ☐
Other ☐
11.1.2. Open ☐
Closed ☐
11.1.3. Waterproof pond ☐
Non-waterproof pond ☐ Comments: Click here to enter text.
11.2. How many reservoirs do you have? Click here to enter text.
11.3. What is the average retention time of the nutrient solutions in the reservoir(s)? Click here to enter text.
11.4. What is the total capacity of the reservoir(s)? Click here to enter text.
12. Do you disinfect the drained nutrient solution?
No ☐
Yes ☐
12.1. Have you already done in the past?
No ☐
Yes ☐
AGRINUPES | 18
12.1.1. Why did you quit doing it?
Equipment malfunction ☐ High costs ☐ Other ☐
12.2. Which method do you use for disinfection?
UV ☐
Ozone ☐
Sodium hypochlorite ☐
Other ☐ Click here to enter text.
D. Characterization of the phytopharmaceutical products 13. What are the main pests and diseases on your farm?
Pests: Click here to enter text. Diseases: Click here to enter text.
14. What phytopharmaceuticals you use? Click here to enter text. 15. What is the frequency of application? (You can select more than one)
Weekly ☐ Mention the products and for which pests/diseases: Click here to enter text.
Biweekly ☐ Mention the products and for which pests/diseases: Click here to enter text.
Other ☐ (Specify) Mention the products and for which pests/diseases: Click here to enter text.
16. What is the application method used? (you can select more than one)
Irrigation ☐
Pulverization ☐
Other ☐ 17. What is the yearly turnover of your company (optional)? Click here to enter text. €
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLABORATION!
Are you interested in knowing the overall results of this study?
No ☐
Yes ☐
E-mail address: Click here to enter text.
AGRINUPES | 19
Appendix II
Table 1. Overall characterization of the 12 growers inquired in terms of exploited crops, diseases and pests observed in their farms, and active ingredients included in the phytopharmaceutical products utilized.
Grower code
Main crop(s)
Greenhouse area (ha)
Diseases Active ingredients used for
diseases* Pests Active ingredients used for pests Secondary crops
1 Rose 1.59 Powdery mildew Myclobutanil,
difenoconazole and trifloxystrobin
Mites and thrips Dimetoate, methiocarb, acrinathrin,
formetanate, spinosad and abamectin
Gerbera, tulip, chrysanthemum,
cryptomeria, gladilium and lilium
2 Strawberry 1.02 Powdery mildew and
botrytis Boscalid and pyraclostrobin Mites
Spinosad, abamectin, milbemectin and clofentezine
Muskmelon, tomato, onion, garlic, pepper and lettuce
3 Strawberry 1.67
Powdery mildew and botrytis
Sulfur Mites, thrips, aphids
and whiteflies -
4 Carnation 1.60
Fusarium sp. and Alternaria sp.
Fosetyl-alumininum Mites and thrips Spinosad, abamectin, bifenazate,
methiocarb, clofentezine, hexithiazox and metomil
-
5 Strawberry 0.08
Powdery mildew and botrytis
Sulfur Mites, thrips and
aphids Pymetrozine -
6 Tomato 1.00 Mildew
Dimethomorph, pyraclostrobin and folpet
Tomato leafminer - -
7 Rose 0.50
Mildew, powdery mildew and botrytis
Sulfur Mites, thrips, aphids
and whiteflies - -
8 Tomato 4.50
Mildew and bacterial infections (Pseudomonas sp. and Xanthomonas p.)
Copper Whiteflies and thrips Spinosad Lettuce, cabbage, pepper,
courgette and pumpkin
9 Ornamental
plants 2.50
Mildew, botrytis and Phytophthora sp.
infections
Fosetyl-alumininum, pyrimethanil, mefenoxam, metalaxyl and folpet
Mites and whiteflies Chlorpyrifos, iImidacloprid, hexithiazox and abamectin
-
10 Tomato 10.00
Botrytis and Fusarium sp. infections
Sulfur, thiophanate-methyl, Boscalid, pyraclostrobin
Cyprodinil and fludioxonil
Tomato leafminer and whiteflies
Spinosad, thiamethoxam, flonicamid and acetamiprid
-
11 Tomato and strawberry
1.00 - - Whiteflies and
aphids -
Pepper, eggplant, melon, pepper, lettuce, arugula,
basil, cress, coriander, thyme and mint
12 Strawberry 1.00
Powdery mildew and botrytis
Azoxystrobin, Iprodione, fenhexamid, boscalid and pyraclostrobin
Mites, thrips, aphids and whiteflies
Fenpyroximate
-
* Growers have just referred the commercial name of the product
AGRINUPES | 20
Appendix III
Table 2. Most used plant protection products in Portugal.
Fungicides (64 % of sales)
Sales amount (ton)
Tendency
Sulphur 6719 up
Mancozebe - dithiocarbamates 649 down
Copper sulphate 376 up
Copper oxychloride 363 up
Folpet N-(trichloromethylthio)phthalimide 331 up
Tirame dimethyldithiocarbamate 154 up
Pesticides
Chlorpyriphos (organophosphorate – 86 % of the sales) 215 up
Dimethoate 80 down
Most recent data 2010 www.drapc.min-agricultura.pt/base/documentos/vendafitofarm2010.pdf
*Other very used plant protection products (but there are no quantification) in protected cultures
Under use in all European countries**
Azoxystrobin fungicide yes
Lamba-cyalotrin pesticide yes
Cyromazine pesticide no protected cultures only
Pirimicarbe pesticide no
Abamectin pesticide no information
Mancozebe pesticide yes
Deltamethrin pesticide yes
Flonicamid pesticide no protected cultures only (tomato included)
* http://www.agromanual.pt/xeo/file/XEOCM_Document/57981/file/USO5%20MENORES%202016.PDF
**http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/Reports/321.htm
