European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 121, Issue 3, pp 303–312 | Cite as

Problems with disseminating information on disease control in wheat and barley to farmers

  • Lise Nistrup JørgensenEmail author
  • Egon Noe
  • Ghita C. Nielsen
  • Jens Erik Jensen
  • Jens Erik Ørum
  • Hans O. Pinnschmidt


Plant pathologists have traditionally worked in the area of clarifying and understanding the disease cycles of specific diseases, factors influencing epidemiology, yield loss potential and host-pathogen interactions in order to be able to minimise the disease risk, build warning systems or recommend specific control thresholds in relation to the application of fungicides. The decision support system Crop Protection Online (CPO) is an example of a threshold-based system that determines economically viable fungicide strategies. The system is based on using appropriate doses aimed at minimising the overall pesticide input. CPO is used widely by advisors and many of the thresholds are generally accepted and disseminated through newsletters. The national figures for the use of fungicides in cereals have shown a major reduction during the last 20 years and their use today is much in line with the level that can be achieved from using CPO as indicated from validation trials. The number of end-users among farmers has been stable at around 3% during the last 10 years (800–1,000 farmers). Major hurdles in increasing the number of users are believed to be: (1) the requirements for carrying out assessments in the field, (2) farm sizes getting larger, leaving less time for decision making for individual fields, (3) lack of economic incentives to change from standard treatments, (4) the failure of decision support systems to interact with other computer-based programmes on the farm, (5) the lack of compatibility of decision support systems with farmers’ ways of making decisions on crop protection in general, (6) the need for direct interactions with advisors. A sociological investigation into the farmers’ way of making decisions in the area of crop protection has shown that arable farmers can be divided into three major groups: (a) systems-orientated farmers, (b) experienced-based farmers and (c) advisory-orientated farmers. The information required by these three groups is different and has to be looked at individually from the end-user’s perspective rather than from the scientist’s perspective. New ways of entering the decision support system where specific field inspections are omitted and where regional disease data are relied on, have been investigated and tested in field trials. The results show possibilities for further developments in that direction, which might be one way of gaining more end-users.


Decision support system Disease thresholds Eco-sociological barriers Farmer types Winter wheat 


  1. Anonymous (2006a). Bekœmpelsesmiddelstatistikken. Denmark: Miljøstyrelsen.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous. (2006b). A thematical strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides [(COM 2006 372].Google Scholar
  3. Bankina, B., & Priekule, I. (2003). Experience of using reduced dosages of fungicides for cereal disease control in Latvia. DIAS report no. 96. Proceedings of the Crop Protection Conference for the Baltic Sea Region, April 2003, Poznan, Poland, pp. 130–140.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, D. H. (1998). Decision Support System for Arable Crops (DESSAC): An integrated approach to decision support. The 1998 Brighton Conference, Pest & Diseases. British Crop Protection Council, pp. 239–246.Google Scholar
  5. Czembor, J. H., Horsozkiewicz-Janka, J., & Nierobca, A. (2003). Testing of Danish decision support system in protection of winter wheat in Poland during 2001–2003. DIAS report no. 96. Proceedings of the Crop Protection Conference for the Baltic Sea Region, April 2003, Poznan, Poland, 165.Google Scholar
  6. Detlefsen, N., & Jensen, A. L. (2001). Variety selection for winter wheat, sortsvalg. In J. Steffe (Ed.), Proceedings from the third European conference of the European federation for information technology in agriculture, food and the environment, June 18–20, Montpellier, France. Vol. 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
  7. Hagelskjær, L., & Jørgensen, L. N. (2003). A web-based decision support system for integrated management of diseases and pest in cereals. EPPO Bulletin, 33, 467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, J. G. H., Secher, B. J. M., Jørgensen, L. N., & Welling, B. (1994). Thresholds for control of Septoria spp. in winter wheat. Plant Pathology, 43, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henriksen, K. E., Jørgensen, L. N., & Nielsen, G. C. (2000). PC-plant protection – a tool to reduce fungicide input in winter wheat, winter barley and spring barley in Denmark. Brighton Crop Protection Conference. Pest and Diseases, 835–840.Google Scholar
  10. Jørgensen, L. N., Hagelskjær, L., & Nielsen, G. C. (2003a). Adjusting the fungicide input in winter wheat depending on variety resistance. BCPC conference on Crop Science and Technology, Glasgow, 1115–1120.Google Scholar
  11. Jørgensen, L. N., & Kudsk, P. (2006). Twenty years’ experience with reduced agrochemical inputs. HGCA R&D conference, Lincolnshire, UK. Arable crop protection in the balance profit and the environment, 25–26 Jan. 2006, 16.1–16.10.Google Scholar
  12. Jørgensen, L. N., & Nielsen, G. C. (2003b). Septoria control using threshold-based systems and fungicides. Global insights into the Septoria and Stagonospora diseases in cereals. In G. H. J. Kema, M. van Ginkel, & M. Harrabi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on septoria and stagonospora diseases of cereals (pp. 49–61), 8–12 Dec. 2003, Tunis.Google Scholar
  13. Jørgensen, L. N., Nielsen, G. C., & Henriksen, K. E. (2000). Margin over cost in disease management in winter wheat and spring barley in Denmark. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference. Pest and Diseases, 655–662.Google Scholar
  14. Jørgensen, L. N., Noe, E., Langvad, A. M., Jensen, J. E., Ørum, J. E., & Rydahl, P. (2007b). Decision support systems: barriers and farmers need of support. EPPO Bulletin, 37, 374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jørgensen, L. N, Noe, E., Langvad, A. M., Rydahl, P., Jensen, J. E., Ørum, J. E., et al. (2007a). Vurdering af Planteværn Onlines økonomiske og miljømæssige effekt. Bekæmpelsesmiddelforskning fra Miljøstyrelsen nr. 115 (English summary).
  16. Jørgensen, L. N., & Olsen, L. V. (2007). Control of tan spot (Drechslera tritici-repentis) using host resistance. Tillage methods and fungicides. Crop Protection, 26, 1606–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jørgensen, L. N., & Pinnschmidt, H. (2004). Yield effects and control of powdery mildew in winter wheat in the presence of septoria. Proceedings of the 11th International Cereal Rusts and Powdery Mildews Conference, Norwich, England.Google Scholar
  18. Jørgensen, L. N., Secher, B. J., & Nielsen, G. C. (1996). Monitoring diseases of winter wheat on both a field and a national level. Crop Protection, 13, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kleffmann-Farmstat (2005). Statistical data on pesticide use in DK (Company data).Google Scholar
  20. Langvad, A. M., & Noe, E. (2006). (Re-)innovating tools for decision-support in the light of farmers’ various strategies. In H. Langeveld & N. Röling (Eds.), Changing European farming systems for a better future – new visions for rural areas (pp. 335–339). The Netherlands: Wageningen.Google Scholar
  21. McCown, R. L. (2002). Probing the enigma of the decision support system for farmers: Learning from experience and from theory. Agricultural Systems, 74, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noe, E., & Halberg, N. (2002). Research experience with tools to involve farmers and local institutions in developing more environmentally friendly practices. In K. Hagedorn (Ed.), Environmental co-operation and institutional change. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Röhrig, M. (2006). online plant protection information in Germany. Abstract from EPPO conference on computer aids for plant protection. Wageningen, 17–19 Oct. 2006.
  24. Rydahl, P. (2003). A web-based decision support system for integrated management of weeds in cereals and sugarbeet. EPPO Bulletin, 33, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rydahl, P., Hagelskjær, L., Pedersen, L., & Bøjer, O. Q. (2003). User interfaces and system architecture of a web-based decision support system for integrated pest management. EPPO Bulletin, 33, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Secher, B. J. M., Jørgensen, L. N., Murali, N. S., & Boll, P. S. (1995). Field validation of a decision support system for the control of pests and diseases in cereals in Denmark. Pesticide Science, 45, 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Semaskiene, R., Tamosiunas, K., & Dabkevicius, Z. (2003). Experience of using reduced dosages of fungicide for winter wheat in Lithuania. DIAS report no. 96. Proceedings of the Crop Protection Conference for the Baltic Sea Region, April 2003, Poznan, Poland. 123–129.Google Scholar
  28. Verret, J. A., Klink, H., & Hoffmann, G. M. (2000). Regional monitoring for disease prediction and optimisation of plant protection measures: The IPM Wheat Model. Plant Disease, 84, 816–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Volk, T., Johnen, A., Newe, M., & Meier, H. (2003). ProPlant – The online consultation system on crop protection in cereals, rapeseed, potatoes and sugar beet: Experiences with cereal disease control in the region and possibilities for regional adaptations. Crop Protection Conference for the Baltic Sea Region, April 2003, Poznan, Poland, pp. 103–113.Google Scholar
  30. Weber, M. (1922). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Los Angeles: Roxbury (US), 1998.Google Scholar
  31. Zadoks, J. C. (1983). An integrated disease and pest-management scheme, EPIPRE, for wheat. Ciba Foundation Symposia, 97, 116–129.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© KNPV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lise Nistrup Jørgensen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Egon Noe
    • 2
  • Ghita C. Nielsen
    • 3
  • Jens Erik Jensen
    • 3
  • Jens Erik Ørum
    • 4
  • Hans O. Pinnschmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Integrated Pest ManagementUniversity of AarhusSlagelseDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agroecology and EnvironmentUniversity of AarhusTjeleDenmark
  3. 3.The Danish Advisory ServicesSkejbyDenmark
  4. 4.Faculty of Life Sciences, Food and Resource Economics InstituteUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations