Can the latest farm technology help manage fungicide spend this spring?

Early disease protection or a more cautious start? With tighter margins and shifting disease pressure, many growers are reassessing fungicide strategy. Agrii Digital Technology Farm trials are exploring how new tools and better data can support more precise decisions.

Spring fungicide decisions often involve a balancing act. Protect crops early and thoroughly, or hold back and risk disease pressure building later.

This season the decision may feel sharper than usual. Commodity prices remain under pressure, while disease risks are evolving. Many varieties remain vulnerable to yellow rust, and earlier drilling dates increase the potential for septoria development.

The question for many growers is whether new technologies can help refine fungicide decisions. Better disease monitoring, improved data and targeted applications could potentially optimise spend without compromising yield.

Testing technology through Digital Technology Farm trials

Agrii’s Digital Technology Farm (DTF) programme is now in its third year. The trials bring together new monitoring tools, agronomic insight and on-farm comparisons to assess how technology can support decision-making.

Lucy Cottingham, Digital Agronomy Development Manager at Agrii, says the trials combine several information sources before building a fungicide programme.

“The variety that is sown gives us an understanding of what the disease pressure might be. We also utilise the Contour platform disease risk tool, which uses a traffic light system to indicate the risk of different wheat diseases at a given time.”

 

Using spore detection to track disease risk

The trials also included the use of BioScout, a smart spore trap designed to monitor airborne fungal disease pressure directly within the crop.

The device captures fungal spores carried by wind. Inside the unit, spores are collected on sticky tape and analysed using a microscope and artificial intelligence to identify disease species automatically.

“Combining the information from BioScout on which diseases were detected, alongside the disease risk indication in Contour and our own field observations, gave us the basis for building the fungicide programme.”

 

Adjusting fungicide strategy based on conditions

Last spring’s dry conditions influenced the programme. Disease pressure remained lower than expected early in the season, allowing the team to reduce fungicide inputs at the T0 and T1 timings.

Instead, the early approach focused more on crop health and resilience using a combination of plant nutrition and biological support.

The programme included the plant health elicitor Innocul8 alongside micronutrient applications. These products aim to support plant physiology and stimulate defence responses rather than directly targeting pathogens.

As the season progressed, however, disease pressure changed.

Yellow rust became active in the crop, prompting a shift back to a more conventional fungicide strategy. The programme moved to an SDHI and azole mix at T2, followed by a prothioconazole and tebuconazole mix at T3.

Learning from a dry season

One key lesson from the trial related to late-season crop management under dry conditions.

“One of the learnings from the dry season last year was that we didn’t necessarily get the benefit of pushing late green leaf area retention because the crop droughted out by the time you would expect to see the benefit.”

In other words, protecting late leaf layers does not always translate into yield if the crop runs out of moisture before grain fill completes.

Yield response and overall programme cost

Across the season, the overall cost of the fungicide programme in the trial area ended up similar to the farm’s standard approach.

While fungicide inputs were reduced early on, the inclusion of biostimulants and nutritional products balanced out the financial difference.

The key result was crop performance. The Digital Technology Farm trial area yielded 0.8 tonnes per hectare more than the farm standard.

Lucy attributes this improvement to stronger crop health overall. Micronutrient support, Innocul8’s stimulation of the plant’s hypersensitive response and a two-layered variable rate nitrogen strategy all contributed to improved performance.

What this means for fungicide decisions this spring

The trials highlight an important point. Technology does not remove the need for agronomy decisions, but it can strengthen them.

Combining disease modelling, spore detection and field observation helps refine timing and understand risk earlier. This may allow fungicide inputs to be adjusted when conditions allow, while still protecting yield where disease pressure increases.

As more farms begin integrating digital tools with agronomic insight, these systems are likely to become another valuable layer in crop protection decision making.