1. Presentation

Characterization of the technique

Description of the technique:

Ludovic Dubois	SRAl Nord Pas-de-Calais	ludovic.dubois(at)agriculture.gouv.fr	Lille (59)
Laurence Fontaine	ITAB	laurence.fontaine(at)itab.asso.fr	Angers (49)
Marc Délos	DRAAF-SRAl	marc.delos(at)agriculture.gouv.fr	Toulouse (31)
Julien Halska	INRA	julien.halska(at)grignon.inra.fr	Dijon (21)

Spam prevention: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @

Bioagressors (spores of fungi, seeds of weeds, etc.) can be spread by harvesting or soil tillage tools. One way to guard against this risk is to harvest last the plots or zones within plots that are infested (often the headlands). During harvest, the blower power of the combine harvester should be limited and the rear of the machine should not be directed towards an adjacent plot.

Implementation period On established crop

Technique is more effective if implemented systematically.

Spatial scale of implementation Farm

Territory

The relevant territorial unit consists of all the plots on which the considered tool moves. It may possibly be larger than the farm (CUMA, loans and exchanges of equipment).

Application of the technique to...

All crops: Easily generalizable

Precision for some crops:

Beet: avoid transporting soil to plots not contaminated by rhizomania.

Durum wheat, Winter wheat, Spring wheat, Spelt, Einkorn (Small spelt): Against common bunt (see do not harvest and destroy the crop), against ergot delay harvest, against virus of mosaic of cereals.

Carrot: avoid transporting soil to plots not contaminated by soil parasites.

Bean, Green bean: Sclerotinia, avoid transporting soil to plots not contaminated by soil parasites.

Alfalfa: against verticillium wilt, to be confirmed.

Potato: against nematodes, avoid transporting soil to plots not contaminated by soil parasites.

Grassland, Winter rye, Winter triticale, Spring triticale: against ergot delay harvest.

All soil types: Easily generalizable

All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable

Regulation

2. Services provided by the technique

3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system

"Environmental" criteria

Effect on air quality: Increasing

phytosanitary emissions: DECREASE

GHG emissions: NEUTRAL

Effect on water quality: Increasing

pesticides: DECREASE

Other: No effect (neutral)

Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease

As this technique contributes to reducing treatments and the products concerned are likely to pollute water.

Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease

As this technique contributes to reducing treatments and the products concerned are likely to pollute air.

Fossil energy consumption: no effect (neutral)

GHG emissions: no effect (neutral)

"Agronomic" criteria

Productivity: Increasing

Product quality: Variable

It is possible that the harvest order linked to this preventive measure conflicts with harvest constraints related to product quality and/or maturity. In this case, tools can be cleaned before resuming work in less or non-contaminated plots.

Soil fertility: No effect (neutral)

Water stress: No effect (neutral)

Functional biodiversity: No effect (neutral)

Other agronomic criteria: Variable

Risk of spreading herbicide-resistant weeds: Decrease

This technique can also be applied to plots or plot zones infested by resistant weeds to limit their spread.

"Economic" criteria

Operational costs: No effect (neutral)

Mechanization costs: No effect (neutral)

Margin: No effect (neutral)

"Social" criteria

Working time: No effect (neutral)

Peak period: Variable

Work organization constraints: Increase

This preventive measure adds a constraint in work organization.

Possibility to hire a contractor: Decrease

It may be difficult to ask a service provider to respect such a constraint.

Observation time: No effect (neutral)

4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms

Favored bioagressors

Organism	Impact of the technique	Type	Details

Disadvantaged bioagressors

Organism	Impact of the technique	Type	Details

Favored Auxiliaries

Organism	Impact of the technique	Type	Details

Disadvantaged auxiliaries

Organism	Impact of the technique	Type	Details

Favored climatic and physiological accidents

Organism	Impact of the technique	Details

Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents

Organism	Impact of the technique	Details

5. For further information

Technical notebook. Wheat bunt
-Fontaine L. and Hédont M. (ITAB); Caron D., Bernicot M.H., Robin N. (Arvalis); Fougereux J.A., Collin F. (FNAMS); Maurice R. (Regional Chamber of Agriculture of Pays de la Loire); Mercier F. (RSP)

ITAB, Technical brochure, 2007

link to the brochure

Integrated technical itineraries for winter soft wheat in Picardy
-Mischler P. (Agro-Transfert RT); Lieven J. (CETIOM); Dumoulin F. (CA Oise); Menu P. (CA Somme)

Chambers of Agriculture of Picardy, Agro-transfert - Alternatech, INRA, Picardy Region, Technical brochure