Pestic. Sci. 1977, 8, 311-319

A Farmer’s Approach to the Socio-economic Aspects of Crop Protection“

Henry R. Fell

Worlaby House, Worlaby, Brigg, Lincolnshire

The period since 1945 has been one of extraordinary development in British agri- culture. A period during which the science of Crop Protection has advanced from practically nothing to where it is today-an accepted and essential part of everyday farming. The speed of these developments has put pressure on the industry and on the individual farmer. At the same time the economic climate of the 1960’s has sharpened the search for efficient, low-cost production. The farmer has no choice but to use every weapon in his armoury. Safeguards against misuse of chemicals seem to be basically satisfactory up to the point of sale. There is, however, the basic point of whether the food producer has grown to be too dependent on chemical control, whilst neglecting good husbandry, which may be both cheaper and more effective.

1. Introduction

The years since 1945 have seen a period of extraordinary development in agricultural technology: nowhere has this been more true than in British agriculture. During this time our agricultural industry-this term including all the service elements as well as the actual producer-has moved farther and faster than any other nation’s agriculture, with the possible exception of Holland. Furthermore, agriculture has a great deal to be proud of when its achievements are compared with those of other industries.

During this same period, crop protection and pest control, as workaday components of the farming scene, have been created from virtually nothing. Let us recognise the gulf that exists between then and now. Pre-1945, the science of crop protection consisted of sending “an owd boy to tent the pigeons”! On reflection, perhaps I haven’t chosen a very good example-all we have done with pigeon control is to replace the “owd boy” with gas bangers. But to take another example, there was plenty of good wold land in North Lincolnshire in 1945 that was virtually unfarmable due to infestation with charlock. It would indeed be difficult to assess the extent of the benefit that MCPA as a weedkiller has brought to the British housewife.

The fact is that there has never been any comparable period in the history of World agriculture, either from the point of view of extent or speed of development. It would be just cause for some astonishment if these changes had been effected without some problems arising.

The British Public has, of course, been aware that something was happening, without being quite sure what it was and, in the process, has developed a split personality. Thus it has an individual conscience about the use of chemicals in the countryside, about pollution, about artificiality, about what is loosely called the quality of life. Running alongside this, there is a collective demand for a wide variety of food at the lowest possible price and at the highest possible quality; quality, however, having many different definitions.

The man in the middle of this developing conflict is the farmer. Stuck out in the public view as seen from the car window, what he does and what effect it has on the countryside is a matter of

0 Presented at the Plenary Session of the Conference Economic and social values in the assessment of crop pro- tection andpest ronrrof methods, at Stirling 1913 organised by the Pesticides Group, Society of Chemical Industry.

311

378 H. R. Fell

general comment and concern. Most people nourish a desire to farm and regard the farmer’s life with considerable envy. Yet, it is astonishing how little the lay public knows of howa farm business works and what the pressures are within it.

So I presume that is why I am here in this rather awesomely distinguished company-sandwiched between two professors and one doctor-so that you may see what one looks like and for you to judge howone of them thinks. I would, however, remind you that there is no such thing as a typical farmer-I suppose that I am as atypical as they come.

2. The background to agricultural development

The assumption underlying this conference is that we have a problem. And that we ought together to examine the particular and perhaps partisan interests of the main participants-the farmer, the public, the pesticide manufacturer, and the government. A look at the programme suggests that we are going to get a lot of specific information from each camp. And maybe Professor Wilson will see it as his job to present us with a balance sheet.

It is my strong belief that you will never solve any complex problem satisfactorily unless you understand all the underlying causes and effects that have led up to it. I propose, therefore, to cover as briefly as I can the reasons why British agriculture has developed in the way it has.

We talk about development; what in fact we have passed through is no less than a revolution. Judged over 28 years it has been almost incredible-more so during the 1960’s when the pace quickened markedly. The action was widespread, whether in the realm of chemicals, fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides; plant and animal breeding; the progress of mechanisation, almost complete in arable farming and even making great strides in livestock production. But most of all, it was evident in the replacement of men-both farmer and employee-by technology.

The spur to this technical revolution has been economic and political pressure. The need to find a compromise between the political necessity for cheap food, and the belatedly recognised essential to maintain a viable agriculture in the United Kingdom led to the 1947 Agriculture Act, the 1948 Agricultural Holdings Act and their successors. Government was involved, not at a distance, but deeply so in decision-making concerning the balance and quantity of production off British farms, in the February Price Review.

Thus, British farming has experienced its “squeeze”, rising costs countered by technical progress leading to increased production. And each leap forward in technical progress was used at the February Price Review as a means of keeping farm prices to as low a level as possible.

The only possible response to this sort of situation was to increase economic efficiency. The result has been that the country now has a streamlined and efficient industry. This then is the environment in which today’s farmer operates. It isn’t helpful to lament that it is an artificial one, true though that may be. It is even less helpful to regret that the modern farmer is a business man and not a peasant; and moreover a business manwith huge sums of capital invested in his business. If he is to survive and prosper, then he must respond to the pressures put upon him. Within very narrow limits, he will have to pay the same for his raw materials, and he will receive the same price for his saleable end product as all his other competitor farmers. Only quantity, i.e. yield, will materially affect his prosperity. A high yield he must achieve, and quickly, if he is to remain solvent.

This Conference might come to the conclusion that by and large there is no problem. That in the field of chemical crop protection adequate safeguards exist; and that there is no cause of concern, either economically or socially about the present situation. On the other hand, if it were to be accepted that modern agricultural practice involved risks that were in any way unacceptable, and that there was, therefore, justification for restrictive legislation, then it must be recognised that society as a whole has helped to fashion the problem and it must not, therefore, expect the farmer to bear the cost of solution on his own.

3. The attitude of an individual farmer

First of all let me say that I feel satisfied that the safeguards which are operated by the Ministry

Socio-econornic aspects of crop protection 319

of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) are good and adequate. This must go for the majority of my fellow farmers-few of whom are sufficiently qualified scientifically to make a judgment. We would all say-let’s have testing and monitoring which is first rate.

Furthermore, in those areas of production where I have direct contact with food processing, e.g. in the production of peas for freezing, I am impressed by the quality control imposed by the processors. This puts high priority on control of the field use of chemicals, whether for weed, disease or pest control. I have reason to believe that this applies equally to other processing firms and other vegetables.

It is perhaps just worthwhile thinking for a moment about the public’s relationship with the pea. Frozen and packeted-f uniform size, and tenderness and without blemish-it is a very good product and in a highly convenient form. It is also the most popular vegetable. The public would not buy, even if the farmer could afford to produce, peas in the pod. Apart from the in- convenience of the pod as a package, the public would not put up with the poor quality of the product.

But perhaps all this skates round the essential question that you will expect me to answer: “Am I happy with the amount and variety of chemicals that I put on my crops, and are there any means whereby this could be reduced?”

I think really that the answer to this falls into two parts. Firstly-if I have got a problem, e.g. wild oats in a corn crop, a potentially heavy weed infestation

in potatoes or sugar beet, virus-carrying aphids on beet or potatoes, midge on peas; or if I am growing a mildew-susceptible variety of barley; then economically there isn’t any argument. I’ve just got to do something about it.

Secondly-is the question of whether I individually, or the industry collectively, can do anything in the way of prevention.

It is undeniably true that economic pressures, to say nothing of certain misguided short-term Governmental policies in the 1960’s, have forced a degree of specialisation on British farming that is not altogether desirable. Specialisation has very many attractions, notably economy of scale and concentration of management expertise. But there are prudent limits. For instance, the increase in the national cereal acreage, particularly in the West has led to the explosion in cereal diseases. The high proportion of cereals on any one farm has contributed to soil structure problems and to the increase in wild oat populations.

So, when asked if farming’s dependence on the chemical industry can be reduced, I would say “Yes, to a certain degree, by a return to more balanced systems of farming involving livestock integration with the cropping policy. A return to rotational farming-and in fact, this is hap- pening.”

But don’t let us delude ourselves that the magic word “rotation” is going to restore British agriculture to a state of pristine purity-for the simple reason that such a state of purity just doesn’t produce the goods.

4. Conclusion In conclusion, let me re-emphasise that British agriculture has passed through a period of develop- ment that has been quite unprecedented. And it is a great tribute to the mature judgment of those involved-whether MAFF, peripheral industry, or the indhidual farmer-that this period has produced so few problems of any magnitude.

In facing the future, we ought to be aware of two features that will become of increasing pro- minence. The first is that the pressures arising from public interest in things rural will become very real. These pressures will quite frequently be illogical and indeed contradictory. However, whether sound or illogical, we in farming must learn to live with this situation. It is our duty to make sure that, at every stage, the discussion is based on sound information and not on prejudice. The second is that we may well be facing a decade of acute world food shortage. Our agriculture over the past decade has been fashioned and guided to produce a certain quantity of food at the most economic cost. It could be that we shall have to reverse this trend in a hurry. Perhaps I ought to have been talking to the title of “A Farmer’s Approach to the Socio-economic Aspects of Maximising Crop Production”.