146- Alternatives to pesticides -5- Trapping

ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES -5- TRAPPING

The use of traps is probably one of the oldest hunting methods, widely used by humans.

The principle is quite simple. It consists first of all, in knowing well the preyS, their rhythm of life, their habits, their food, their path of passage, their strengths and their weaknesses.

From there, traps are set, so that the prey is irresistibly attracted, or across its usual path of passage.

In any case, the purpose of trapping is usually the death of the animal, sometimes its capture to drive it elsewhere.

Modern agriculture has adopted this ancient technique to reduce or eliminate the damage of certain animals that are harmful to agricultural crops.

Personal picture

When we talk about trapping in agriculture, we think in the first place of rabbits and other rodents like voles. And it is true that we can use this technique to reduce their damage.

Some models of vole traps are for example marketed to be placed in the galleries, in order to use it to replace the usual poisoned baits.

It may seem cruel. Yet these modern traps are very effective and the death of the animal is almost instantaneous, avoiding its suffering much more than with the majority of traditional artisan traps or with poison baits.

In the end, the focus is on vertebrate control rather than population control.

And trapping has the merit of reducing the risk of killing non-target animals, such as their predators (raptors, snakes or carnivorous mammals) by indirect poisoning.

But this technique has mainly developed during the last 3 or 4 decades with the needs of crop protection against pest attacks.

The trapping technique is widely used for monitoring pest populations through the capture of individuals in a limited number of reference points. It allows the farmer to assess the evolution of the risk, and thus to implement the measures he has planned at the most appropriate time.

This technique is very widely used in IPM (integrated pest management) and integrated production and in organic farming to locate as accurately as possible the insecticides necessary for the protection of the crop.

The attractants used are either sexual pheromones (which I told you about in the previous chapter http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com/2019/03/145-the-alternatives-aux-pesticides-4.html) used in particular for the monitoring of Lepidoptera, numerous on many crops, either food-based attractants as used for Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), or obstacles, such as sticky strips to monitor mealybug larvae, or stained plates or strips of color (usually yellow or blue) for whiteflies or thrips. There are also colored traps or light traps for certain uses, as is the case for domestic mosquito trapping.

Picture: https://www.greenhousecanada.com/media/k2/galleries/31854/Thrip_image5.jpg

The design of the insect trap is also very important in its effectiveness, and depends both on the target pest and the bait employed.

In the case of flies for example, they must go in without having the possibility of going out. So we use the principle of the fish trap that is to say that once entered the trap, it is almost impossible for him to find the opposite way.

We will play on the shape of the trap, its color, transparency or opacity of the materials used.

Still in the case of the fly, it is attracted by the yellow color. Inside, we place an alimentary bait whose smell will guide it to the entrance hole, located on the yellow and opaque part. The top of the trap is made of transparent material. Once inside, the fly is attracted by the light, so towards the transparent part, and thus does not find the exit.

The same principle is used to capture wasps in gardens.

A pellet impregnated with insecticide, synthetic or natural depending on the case, kills the insect inside the trap. In some cases, it is the alimentary bait in itself, liquid, which will kill the insect by drowning. In other cases, the pheromone pellet is placed on a stuck plate from which the insect cannot escape.

Picture: https://www.edialux.fr/3942-tm_large_default/dome-trap-piege-a-guepes-.jpg

The same principle is used in the technique of mass trapping, which consists in using traps of the same type as for monitoring, but in very large numbers, with the aim of attempting to capture almost all the individuals present, thus avoiding the use of insecticides in direct contact with the crop.

The technique works well in some cases, bad in others.

In most cases, crop damage is produced by insect larvae. Therefore, adults should not be allowed to mate and reproduce.

Efficacy is generally good if you catch mostly females.

By cons, if the attractant catches mainly males, we cannot avoid that females, fertilized outside the plot to protect, come to lay their eggs on the sensitive crop.

As with the sexual confusion, mass trapping is based on a long and extensive scientific research work from which these techniques can be developed avoiding the use of pesticides in direct contact with the crop.

In the same way, the farmer must have a very good knowledge of the situation of the crop and the phytosanitary risks present.

These techniques are very selective and thus make possible to minimize the undesirable side effects of crop protection.

They are likely to grow strongly in the coming years.

Picture: http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00sSWaybQzJVrE/Yellow-Blue-Sticky-Trap.jpg

145- Alternatives to pesticides -4- Sexual confusion

ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES -4- SEXUAL CONFUSION

This name may seem barbaric or laughable for the uninitiated. Yet it is a real revolution in the concept of crop protection.

This technique, developed in the 1980s and first developed on vines and fruit production, was later extended to a large number of crops.

The principle is particular:

In lepidoptera, and in several other arthropods, males and females find each other for mating by olfactory signals released into the air.

Specifically, in the case of Lepidoptera, mature females produce a pheromone, a volatile substance that they release into the air, and which is intended to allow males to locate them.

Picture: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQi22pA6azFmZEuJgqBPgjBibapmADkD9NOcSjBeaxtIFzS9hu59hGwOl_w_bZA-qbwi3zVpbEElnoHWYvwnzKDk8CLUMmXpARgIa8APU5jR887Qz4prXkyeW2qFQ_fBJI5g87bPTVZnc/s1600/Polilla.jpg

Males have very sensitive olfactory receptors that allow them to locate the pheromone, and to follow the path to find the origin.

When the males find the females, the mating takes place, the females lay fertilized eggs from which the caterpillars, their larvae, will be born, which will feed on the crop by doing damage, until they are able to metamorphose to become breeding adults in their turn.

The technique of sexual confusion consists in diffusing in the fields to be protected, a large amount of sexual pheromone of the harmful insect, by installing a large number of diffusers.

Males are unable to follow a clear olfactory path. They do not find the females, the fertilization does not take place, so there are no eggs or larvae that can do damage to crops.

The crop is protected by preventing the harmful species from developing there.

In fact, this technique is not perfect because chance meetings can take place.

The species is not threatened, but its damage is negligible.

These chance meetings do not represent any agricultural risk, except in certain cases of very excessive (or invasive) presence of the pest. In these rare situations, it may be necessary to supplement the confusion with one or more insecticide sprayings, until the regulation of the populations is sufficient. It's usually pretty fast.

One of the problems of monocultures is the abnormal increase in certain phytosanitary problems, due to the concentration of a single plant species, which never occurs in Nature.

For this reason, among other things, the concern for the respect of biodiversity has become so important in recent years, as well as the many efforts made on farms.

Sexual confusion prevents the abnormal multiplication of the same species.

Picture: http://p9.storage.canalblog.com/93/26/529858/34083280.jpg

However this technique is operational for protection against certain insects, especially Lepidoptera, but there are still many against which the technique has not yet been developed.

The determination of the exact composition of the "pheromonal bouquet" of each species is a very long research task. Once determined, it is necessary to find the way to manufacture it, to develop an operational diffusion system (type of diffuser and density per hectare), then to test it to check its effectiveness, and its absence of side effects.

Side effects are usually negligible because each pheromone is specific to a single species, so that males and females can find each other, without the risk of crossing with other species.

In the 80s, I had the opportunity to participate development trials in orchards, in the south of France, of the first technique of sexual confusion against the Oriental fruit moth (Cydia molesta), by a pioneering Australian society. I can certify that it works.

The usual manipulation of the diffusers was that I was impregnated with pheromones, and I was followed by a troop of males, inevitably disappointed when they realized that I was only a vulgar human!

"I'm not the one you believe!"

Picture: http://www.forumphyto.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1203PheromoneBASF.jpg

It should be pointed out that, while this technique is a real alternative to the use of pesticides, it does not, in any way, respond to the stated desire of one part of the civil society to go out of synthetic chemistry.

Indeed, all licensed and available diffusers on the market are filled with synthetic pheromone, copy of natural pheromones (otherwise it would not work). This is called biomimicry. They are produced in chemical plants quite similar to all the chemical plants in the world.

In fact, given the amount of pheromones needed for this technique to work, it's totally inconceivable to extract it from breeding females.

But this technique represents in my opinion a real revolution in the way of conceiving the phytosanitary protection of crops:

We don't try to kill the insect, we try to prevent its population to reach levels of presence that turn it into a nuisance.

It's totally different, and it opens the door to a real change of thought.

We don't need to protect a crop that is not threatened.

But we must be able to prevent aggression from occurring.

This paradigm shift opens the door to other techniques, more natural than sexual confusion, and seeking a similar result in other ways.

We will talk about it again.

Picture: http://agrobonsens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/confusionsexuelle-3.jpg

143- Alternatives to pesticides -3- Pesticides

ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES -3- PESTICIDES

Can we substitute pesticides with other pesticides?

Not only is it possible, but it's even currently the most frequently used by organic farmers and the easiest for them.

Personal picture

Let's see that.

When it's talked about pesticides, society usually only thinks about synthetic pesticides. It's rarely talked about pesticides allowed in organic farming, yet quite numerous, and whose adverse effects are not necessarily negligible. Toxicity for soils, for fish, for bees, endocrine disruptor effects, the consequences of their use often has little to envy to synthetic pesticides. The only fundamental thing that differentiates them is their natural and not synthetic origin.

Many people also think that organic farming is a way to reduce the "power" of the big multinationals of agrochemistry. This is a big mistake, since it's already several years since, feeling the wind turn, they have massively invested in the research for biological solutions for the plant protection.

For example, one of the most important organic insecticides in the world, and currently one of the most widely used pesticides, independently of the crop method, is spinosad (whose toxicity to bees is well known and widely documented), was discovered in 1985, then produced on a large scale by the American agrochemical giant Dow Chemical (now also owner of Dupont). The production of this pesticide, produced by bacteria, is done in ultramodern factories, far from the romantic image of the manual manufacture of pesticides based on plant decoctions.

In the same way, the extraction of natural pyrethrins used in organic farming is based on an intensive industrial production in monoculture using synthetic pesticides on a large scale, also far from the philosophy of organic farming (http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com/2017/04/104-natural-vs-synthetic-4-about.html).

Picture: http://www.purchasecontrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/botanical-resources-australia-testimonial.jpg

Of course, there is also an important work of homemade pesticides, usually plant extracts or fermentations. Their effectiveness is highly variable, as it depends on the manufacturing conditions (temperature, light, quality of the water used, concentration in active ingredients of plants, know-how of the preparator, etc.).

Some manufacturers, generally local or national companies, rarely multinationals, offer formulated products on the basis of these same plants, which have the advantage of providing the farmer with a certain guarantee of homogeneity and a high degree of ease of use.

But I think the most interesting thing in this field is the research, by many companies, big or small, universities and research institutes, of alternative solutions from Nature to substitute synthetic pesticides.

Nature (especially plants, fungi and bacteria) continues to surprise us with its great creativity in the solutions it has developed to defend itself against external aggressions. (http://culturagriculture.blogspot.com/2015/09/52-lesprit-des-plantes-2-autodefense.html).

Scientific research continues to make discoveries that show that our diet is heavily loaded with natural toxins of great diversity, and that many of these toxins can have interesting agricultural uses.

Picture: https://cultivateur-en-herbe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ortie-e1542718252914.jpg

Thus, several studies (the most famous is American, dated 1999, by Professor Bruce Ames and his team, from the University of Berkeley https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cpdb/pdfs/Paracelsus.pdf) tried to analyze and quantify the natural toxins present in our diet.

The results are very surprising, and are mostly contrary to popular belief: we consume about 10,000 times more natural toxins daily than synthetic pesticide residues.

By the way, this study is 20 years old. Since then, crop protection techniques have evolved, molecules have been modernized and their use rates have been significantly reduced.

Based on my own residue analysis, which I started in 1997, I estimate that the amount of residue on food has been reduced by 10 to 20 times since that time. On the other hand, our foods have not changed much and most probably maintain similar levels of natural toxins.

This would lead us, assuming my estimate is correct, to a proportion of 100,000 to 200,000 times less synthetic pesticide residues than natural toxins absorbed daily in our diet.

I close this parenthesis to tell you that, for what interests me today, these studies are especially interesting to show us that the plant world contains a large number of natural molecules extraction possibilities that could be used in agriculture, with effects fungicide, insecticide, repellent, nematicide and even, in some cases herbicide.

The same Bruce Ames study teaches us, for example, that a cup of coffee contains more than 1,000 chemical compounds and natural toxins.

Picture: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180214172633-faf-coffee-mug-exlarge-169.jpg

Very recently (the publication dates from February 1st, 2019), it was discovered that there may be a biological alternative to the highly hyped and highly hated and highly controversial glyphosate https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467- 019-08476-8.

This molecule, a sugar previously unknown, is produced by a bacterium, Synechococcus elongatus, which makes it a biological alternative, with a mode of action very similar to glyphosate, which would be a guarantee of versatility and efficiency.

It would be especially a real solution to the difficulties of weed control, one of the big problems badly solved of the organic agriculture.

It remains to be seen whether this molecule will correct the "defects" of glyphosate, and in how many years the farmer will be able to freely dispose of this new natural molecule.

Many natural pesticides exist, based on plant extracts for the most part: nicotine, natural pyrethrins, neem oil, nettle fermentation, citrus seed extract, garlic extract, lavender extract, tomato leaf extract, chili extract, rotenone, cinnamon extract, vegetable oils, etc.

Some are readily available to farmers, others are handcrafted, and others are subject to bans or restrictions on environmental or health problems.

Picture: https://www.terre-de-jade.fr/images/Image/Image/DYNVEO/cannelle-ceylan-titre.jpg?1548358850480?1548358863918

In short, organic pesticides have a bright future ahead of them. It remains pesticides, with disadvantages similar to synthetic pesticides, but their natural origin is that their use is allowed to farmers, and does not pose a state of soul to fundamentalists of organic. The general ignorance of their side effects on health and on the environment either.

They have a big advantage for farmers: there is no fundamental change in the techniques and methods of production. It can maintain the same work habits by substituting synthetic pesticides with their biological equivalents.

The only downside right now is the lack of biological solutions in many cases. It is likely that thanks to the huge investments in scientific research around the world, new developments will continue to emerge at a rapid pace.

We will see later that other techniques can represent a profound challenge to farmers' habits.

The future must logically consider all available techniques.

Even if great progress is being made, I still think that it is very regrettable and harmful to want to deprive agriculture, at least until there are real alternatives, effective solutions, currently well-known and not very problematic if they are well used, only for an ideology that is not based on any tangible or demonstrated reality.

And we have no illusions, recent or current work that studies large declines in insect or bird populations will not improve with the ban on synthetic pesticides. Natural pesticides will have very similar side effects when used on a very large scale. One can only hope, but without proof for the moment, that their biodegradability will be faster, and still, not those of mining origin, unavoidable in organic, like sulfur or copper.

Picture: http://www.dvdream.ch/album/photo/Chile/Nord/Chuquicamata_mine_de_cuivre.JPG

142- Alternatives to pesticides -2- The crop monitoring

ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES -2- THE CROP MONITORING

We can't really classify the crop monitoring as an alternative to pesticides, but I decided to make it the starting point of this series because it's the foundation of Integrated Pest Management, and of phytosanitary protection in organic farming.

None of the methods, techniques, and novelties that will come into it, will develop or function properly without this fundamental step.

Picture: http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/styles/affichage_pleine-page_790x435/public/etudiant-agroecologie-champs-15104_297.jpg?itok=D8Y6nX4W

Any crop monitoring implies the integration of a rarely commented and yet essential aspect for a modern, productive, respectful, healthy and sustainable agriculture: the knowledge.

Sustainable agriculture is an agriculture of science and knowledge.

The knowledge of the crop first, its physiological cycle, its climatic adaptation, its agronomic requirements, its nutritional needs, its sanitary and physiological sensitivities, its compatibility with surrounding crops, etc.

The knowledge of the soil, which is the vital support of the crop, in order to take into account the potential susceptibility factors (pathogens, risks of nematodes, radicular asphyxia, etc.), and to know the nutritional contributions of the soil to the crop (including the risk of deficiencies).

The knowledge of adverse risks, especially climate risks, diseases, pests.

The knowledge of crop protection auxiliaries (insects, fungi and predatory vertebrates), which will be useful in helping to solve specific problems of the crop.

The knowledge of the environment of the growing areas, to know what help it can bring us (favorable areas for the development of some auxiliaries for example), or what constraints it assumes (the proximity of illuminated areas may increase the presence of some nocturnal Lepidoptera, harmful to crops for example), and what the farmer will have to do, or not to do in order to take into account this environment while getting the best possible result of his activity.

It should be noted that this level of training and knowledge, now recognized as the essential starting point for any evolution of agricultural production towards virtuous practices, is a recent (and not yet fully generalized) achievement in the most developped countries (from the second half of the 20th century), and still to be acquired in much of the world. Agriculture universally remains as one of the most backward sectors of human activity and the world economy, in education, training and development.

Picture: Issiaka Konate (ARAF - Dogon Plateau), Mali

Once this knowledge has been acquired and the crop put in place, the farmer will have to implement a process, often complex, which will allow him to put his crop in the most favorable conditions for its development and production, both in terms of quality in quantity.

One of the key points will be the protection of the crop against diseases and pests.

-       He has first to implement all available means to prevent health attacks from occurring. It's prophylaxis. This will be the removal of contaminated remains from previous or adjacent crops, pruning, cleaning of surrounding areas, etc.

-       He will then implement observation systems, so as to detect attacks as early as possible. It's monitoring. It's the setting up of monitoring traps, observation protocols, counting, climatological recordings, etc.

-       He will link observations and counts with reference levels called "nuisance thresholds", which vary according to the crop, the region, the type of parasite and the time. He will determine in this way from what moment a present threat becomes really dangerous and presents an economic risk. This is the notion of intervention threshold.

-       At the same time that he observes the populations of pests, he observes the presence of predators of all types. They are insects, mites, fungi or vertebrates (birds, snakes, carnivores) that feed on different risks present on crops. Their presence can greatly reduce or even completely eliminate the threat of a pest population. It's the use of auxiliary organisms.

-       He will choose the intervention method on a case by case basis. He will use pesticides, natural or synthetic, choosing them for their effectiveness, their side effects and the risks to the environment and health, when no other means will solve the problem. This is the intervention decision.

Each crop, each period of the physiological cycle, each type of climatic conditions will require a suitable response.

Picture: http://www.iscamen.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/dencidad2-680x333.jpg

Monitoring of population levels of diseases and pests and their auxiliaries allows deciding the best intervention technique, if it is needed, and its optimal timing.

THE CHOICE OF PRODUCTS

When I started in agriculture in the early 1980s, the available phytopharmacopoeia included a large number of highly versatile synthetic molecules. When you sprayed against an attack of aphids, all that was present (Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and other harmful or useful insects) was also eliminated. The respect for equilibrium was not on the agenda, and anyway it would have been difficult to try, because none of available and allowed pesticides, or almost, was selective.

Gradually, more and more specific products appeared, reducing the versatility, therefore the risks of "cleaning" untimely.

It must be pointed out, however, that at the same time certain problems have appeared, or reappeared, often known as described in the old treaties, but hitherto generally controlled by the versatility of phytosanitary products.

The information to the farmer has also increased a lot.

Until the 1990s, he knew only the risk for the user (and often only partially), and the time to use before harvest.

Gradually, the farmer has received ever more comprehensive information about health, the environment, and the conditions of use.

With improved measurement techniques and lower costs, pesticide residue controls have become more widespread. Standards for each product and type of food have been established.

The most versatile products have been banned for the most part.

Image: https://cdnmedia.eurofins.com/spain/media/130410/eurofins-division-agro-testing.jpg?width=1365&height=304

While it is true that until the end of the 1980s it was usual (but not systematic) for farmers to spray by schedule, without really worrying about the presence of diseases or pests, let alone auxiliaries, it's no longer the case today, for several reasons:

-       The level of training and knowledge of farmers has risen sharply.

-       The improvement of technical support to farmers by public, private or cooperative-type structures also makes it possible for less-educated farmers to progress.

-       Social pressure around sustainable agriculture with minimal impact on health and environment has literally exploded in recent years.

-       Concern about the impact of farming practices by the farmers themselves has risen sharply.

-       The legislation is tightening each year a little more, both on pesticide authorizations and conditions of employment, and controls and sanctions also, at least in rich countries.

-       Supermarkets, which control the majority of consumer markets in industrialized countries, oblige their suppliers to follow and comply with specifications that are currently very focused to health and environmental risks. Controls are numerous and penalties are severe.

-       The cost of phytosanitary protection is high, and significant savings are possible (in comparison with a systematic schedule spraying program) thanks to a good management.

-       Many biological or very specific pesticides are appearing on the market, with specific technical requirements that request very precise conditions of use, but which allow the farmer good technical results without the risk of residues.

Picture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2EMntZXEAEBrcS.jpg

It's also important to note that the pest thresholds used in the 1980s and 1990s had to be revised in most cases because of the evolution of available solutions.

Indeed, when the farmer had very versatile products with a significant shock effect, he could wait for harmful attacks to reach relatively high levels.

Today it's very different, because solutions rarely have a powerful shock effect, forcing the farmer to anticipate.

The philosophy of protection is no longer to "let grow up and clean everything up", but rather to "prevent the problems from gaining momentum", which would make them very difficult to solve.

This paradigm shift also has a very direct impact on how the farmer focuses on protecting his crops, because he knows that if he is not able to avoid the development of some problems, the economic consequences can be extremely serious.

In short, the monitoring of the crop has long been an important technical point for the farmer.

With the many changes of recent years, it has become a real working method that occupies an essential place in the protection of the crop, and in obtaining a satisfactory technical result.

Yes, if it is true that crop monitoring is not, in itself, an alternative to the use of pesticides, it's however a key factor in the success of the crop with a minimum of pesticide interventions.

Picture: https://www.weaversorchard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/IPM-027-960x600.jpg

141- Alternatives to pesticides -1- Why?

ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES -1- WHY?

My previous article gave me the idea of ​​this new series, very important to face all challenges facing modern agriculture, in a context of societal demands for the reduction or even the prohibition of synthetic pesticides, and the need to maintain a highly productive agriculture that respects the environment and the health of consumers and users.

Picture: https://www.rustica.fr//images/shutterstock-130000133-recoupee-l750-h512.jpg

It seems interesting to me to take a look at what exists to replace them.

Because we will not make a sufficiently productive agriculture without means of phytosanitary protection. Although it is true that certain crops, under certain conditions, can be produced without any pesticide, the vast majority of agricultural production has an indispensable need for means of control and pesticides, whatever their origin, so that the production is sufficient, the farmer's income too, and that food safety is guaranteed to the consumer.

I remind you that I radically oppose a ban on synthetic pesticides.

It's an intellectual scam to let an uninformed, naive and manipulated public think that agriculture can live without pesticides.

It's also an intellectual scam to suggest to the same public that non-synthetic solutions exist to replace all synthetic pesticides in all crop situations.

It's still an intellectual scam to make this same public believe that all that is natural is good, and that a natural pesticide is better than a synthetic pesticide. You can see it in my series "Natural vs. Synthetic".

Finally, it's an intellectual scam to suggest, as is still the case for a large proportion of consumers, that organic farming does not use pesticides. Communications are systematically made on the same model, where it says "without pesticide" and is returned with an asterisk to a note written in small characters and at the end of the text "synthetic". 

To be convinced of this, it suffices to observe the European progress of the biopesticide market:

Picture: https://www.mordorintelligence.com:81/images_db/RD_Images/bio.PNG

Even if I am certain of what I have just explained to you, I am also convinced that the organic movement has the great merit of obliging the whole agricultural sector to question itself, to change the way it looks at its own activity, to look for alternatives to the most negative aspects, in particular concerning the impact on the environment and the health risks.

It is therefore very interesting to know the alternative methods available or in development. Even though I am convinced that a pesticide-free farming is impossible, I am also convinced that it is possible to greatly reduce its use.

Many researchers around the world are trying to find solutions, because the removal of synthetic pesticides would have serious consequences for the productivity of agriculture, the increase in hunger in the world, and even the health risks of our food. One of all consequences would be a likely sharp increase in the cost of food, severe financial hardship for farmers in the affected areas, and some, often difficult to assess, risks of food insecurity. Roughly, we can estimate that the availability of food will be more difficult to maintain stable.

Dear readers of rich countries, don't worry. You will always have to eat. You are lucky, like me, to live in a solvent country, the target of choice for export, one of those destinations that will never be lacking in food because you can afford to pay for it.

But people in developing countries are likely to suffer much more from food difficulties than ever before, since the export of food could become an essential source of income for states and farmers.

Picture: https://www.lejecos.com/photo/art/default/6598359-9952984.jpg?v=1399383591

New methods are especially attracting the attention of multinationals and some startups, determined to take advantage of a huge cake on the horizon, the massive supply of food to rich countries.

And that's normal.

There is a real need.

Changing mentalities, first in developed countries and then progressively in developing countries, is pushing agriculture towards organic production, or at least towards less pesticide greedy production.

Actually, it's not exactly that. Regardless of the method of production applied, and even while it is true that there are ways to reduce the pressure of attacks of many diseases and pests, the fact remains that crops will remain more or less sensitive to them.

In order to avoid excessive production losses, the farmer will implement all available means to avoid potential damage.

Organic farming forbids everything that is not of natural origin (with few exceptions), without guaranteeing the safety of the technique used, nor even the environmental risks it presents, as it is the case for copper or neem oil, or by the production of natural toxins by deficiency control of fungal diseases.

Picture: https://observatoire-des-aliments.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ergot_cereales_IMG_1434.jpg

The conventional farmer no longer has any interest in using pesticides blindly. They are expensive, even very expensive, and they can have side effects on the crop itself, as is the case with pyrethroids with mites, which promote the development of other phytosanitary problems which in turn will require the use of more pesticides.

The two main directions of production, organic or conventional, thus come together on the bottom of the problem: any intervention in the fields has side effects and undesirable consequences.

Nothing is ever benign, whether using a respectful technique or a natural pesticide, or using a synthetic pesticide.

The subject of this new series is precisely to list the techniques and methods available to avoid the use of pesticides, especially synthetics.

On some crops, non-synthetic alternatives do not currently allow sufficient production.

But it will come, I don't know when or how, but it will come.

In the meantime, any ban not correctly prepared by the prior existence of a confirmed alternative solution, will have serious consequences on disponibility of food.

The likely forthcoming ban on glyphosate could prove disastrous, especially for virtuous production methods such as conservation agriculture, with a result exactly opposite to that sought after.

The ban on neonicotinoids, whose effects on bees are questionable and controversial, will also have serious consequences for some crops.

Picture: https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/agriculture/image_large

It would be better to place priorities, without bias, without ideology, according to indisputable scientific criteria, and to promote the search for solutions to resolve these priorities.

Many works are in progress or have already resulted. I will present them in several chapters of this series, and I will publish a new article every time an innovation deserves to be talked about.

In next chapters of this series, I will talk about the evolution of knowledge about pests and diseases, as well as the behavior of plants against these aggressors, pesticides of natural origin, living useful organisms that avoid the use of pesticides, the influence that the farmer can have on plant self-defense capabilities, the use of pheromones, the influence of biodiversity on parasite risks, genetic research etc.

See you soon.