Back to All Performance Assessments 
Image copyright: © Mary Burrows, Montana State University/via Bugwood.org (CC BY 3.0 US)
Wheat
Denmark
Comparison of Current Conventional Practice with an IPM approach for the control of Fusarium head blight (FHB) in wheat
Performance assessment
To demonstrate effective control of Fusarium head blight (FHB) by combining cultivar mixtures and biological control agents.
| Common name | Scientific name | Pest type |
|---|---|---|
|
Fusarium head blight |
Fusarium spp. |
Fungal diseases |
Standard practice:
0.75 l/ha Balaya (100 g/l mefentrifluconazole and 100 g/l pyraclostrobin) and 0.5 l/ha Propulse (Fluopyram 125 g/l and Prothioconazol 125 g/l)
at BBCH 37-39 and BBCH 55-61, respectively.
ADOPT-IPM solution:
Integrating cultivar mixture and the application of microBCA (LaLSTOP [1×109 Clonostachys rosea])
Experimental design:
Split plot with two factors (A: Cultivar; B: Fungicide)
Factor A: Cultivar mixture
Cultivar mixture consisting of Sheriff, Rembrandt, and Informer
Sheriff alone
Informer alone
Rembrandt (susceptible standard)
Factor B:
Untreated
Standard practice
Adopt-IPM solution
Replications
Three replicate plots per treatment
Plot size
20 m²
3×4 design
Trial Duration
1 October 2024 – 31 July 2025
Location
Address: Forsøgsvej 1 4200, Slagelse, Denmark
GPS Coordinate: 55.32534 °N, 11.39129 °E
Randomization Procedure
Treatments will be completely randomized in each plot. Randomization will be done with ARM software.
Sample Size Justification
Plot size is standard for fungicide efficacy trials and demonstrations.
Data collection
Disease severity data will be recorded at weekly intervals following the EPPO standard.
Grain yield is measured for each plot. A sample of 1 kg per plot is sampled for quality analysis.
Statistical Methods
A range of statistical methods, both parametric and non-parametric will be considered and the most suitable method will be used to analyse the data.
Overall Performance
Packages are compared by their Performance (displayed in the bar charts and summarised by the Utility score) and their Pesticide Load Index (PLI). Higher Performance/Utility and lower PLI indicate more favourable results.
Compare Packages
| Package | Utility | Pesticide Load Index |
|---|---|---|
|
Baseline |
92% |
0.13 |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
58% |
0.00 |
Summary
The overall utility of the Current Commercial Practice (CCP) and the ADOPT packages were very different. This was primarily due to the greater damage i.e. crop loss and the higher cost of the biopesticide alternative. Other contributing factors were less developed supply chains and lack of familiarity with the use of the biopesticide. These last two elements would likely improve with greater use although the key elements of crop loss and cost of product would still be highly constraining on adoption. The relatively modest PLI and societal cost values would be unlikely to change growers approach to growing at this stage.
Performance by indicator
Compare Packages
| Package | Utility |
|---|---|
|
Baseline |
98% |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
50% |
Notes
Crop losses were judged to be substantially higher in the ADOPT package and were therefore thought to be a major consideration as to whether the package was adopted in preference to the current commercial practice.Compare Packages
| Package | Utility |
|---|---|
|
Baseline |
74% |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
74% |
Notes
Both packages performed equally well in terms of health and safety.Compare Packages
| Package | Utility |
|---|---|
|
Baseline |
98% |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
50% |
Notes
In CCP, pesticide costs are generally low considering the savings to be made. The cost of the biopesticide is considerably higher on a per hectare basis and therefore a less attractive option.Compare Packages
| Package | Utility |
|---|---|
|
Baseline |
74% |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
74% |
Notes
The overall performance of the two packages was judged to be the same although there were slight differences in the values and the certainty around them.Compare Packages
| Package | Utility |
|---|---|
|
Baseline |
98% |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
74% |
Notes
The CCP was judged to perform slightly better than the ADOPT because the use of biopesticides was unfamiliar and requirements for optimal application were different requiring applicators to learn new skills which takes time.Compare Packages
| Package | Utility |
|---|---|
|
Baseline |
92% |
|
ADOPT-IPM |
58% |
Notes
In CCP, little coordination was required as supply chains well established and products easily available. The availability of the biopesticide was less good as it is not widely stocked and supply chains are not fully established. As use increases these issues are likely to decrease.Pesticide Load Index (PLI)
| PLI Sub-Indicator | Baseline | ADOPT-IPM | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human Health | 0.09 | 0 |
Pesticide Load Index (PLI) is calculated based on the toxicity and the amount of the active ingredient(s) applied as part of each package. A higher PLI indicates higher risk to the relevant sub-indicator (human health, ecotoxicity or environmental fate). Scale from 0-1.5, with 0 being no impact and 1.5 being the highest impact. CCP Societal costs €3.74/ha For the full breakdown of pesticide load and costs, from the Pesticide Impact Explorer tool developed by Aarhus University, click here. |
| Ecotoxicity | 0.18 | 0 | |
| Environmental Fate | 0.12 | 0 |