{"id":30265,"date":"2025-10-30T08:18:58","date_gmt":"2025-10-30T08:18:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/biocontroltechnologies.com\/integrated-control-and-rational-use\/"},"modified":"2026-02-27T11:31:38","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T10:31:38","slug":"integrated-control-and-rational-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biocontroltechnologies.com\/en\/2025\/10\/30\/integrated-control-and-rational-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Integrated Control and Rational Use"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Integrated Control and Rational Use:<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

From agronomic knowledge to product catalog<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Integrated Pest and Disease Management as a starting point<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Introduction to the problem<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Integrated Pest <\/em>and Disease Management (IPM)<\/strong>, as defined by Royal Decree 1311\/2012<\/strong>, was born to promote a sustainable use of phytosanitary products<\/strong>. Its objective is to reduce dependence on chemical treatments<\/strong>, prioritizing prevention<\/strong>, observation<\/strong> and informed technical decision-making<\/strong>. <\/p>

In essence, IPM<\/strong> represents the balance between agronomic efficiency and sustainability<\/strong>, combining the use of multiple tools<\/strong>: inputs<\/strong> (fertilizers, biostimulants and phytosanitary products), good agricultural practices<\/strong> (irrigation, fertilization), the use of pollinators<\/strong>, sensors<\/strong> and different control methods<\/strong>, both chemical and biological<\/strong>. All these tools must be applied rationally<\/strong> and based on agronomic and scientific knowledge<\/strong>. <\/p>

In recent years, however, some market players<\/strong> have used this technical framework as a business argument<\/strong>, disassociating the practice from the principle that gives it meaning. These are products and companies<\/strong> that, under the pretext and cover of the terms “integrated” or “biotechnological”<\/strong>, present themselves as innovative, but lack scientific validation or reproducible results<\/strong>. These products are often accompanied by a discourse characterized by the use of scientific terminology that is empty of content and not very rigorous<\/strong>. <\/p>

In other words: it is not the GIP-IPM model that has failed<\/strong>, but the commercial interpretation<\/strong> that some companies make of it to sell their products.<\/strong><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\n<\/svg>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\n<\/svg>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

When \"integration\" becomes an excuse<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Products without technical or scientific validation<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The growth of biotech agriculture<\/strong> and the demand for sustainable solutions<\/strong> have generated a veritable explosion of products on the market<\/strong>: biostimulants, biofertilizers, natural extracts, inducers, “biotech” complexes<\/strong> or consortia of microorganisms<\/strong>. Some are promoted as part of “integrated” control strategies<\/strong>, but without due validation<\/strong> through technical trials<\/strong> to support their real efficacy<\/strong>. <\/p>

A clear example is found in some products registered as biostimulants<\/strong> that use terminology typical of phytosanitary products<\/strong>: “disease control”, “improvement of plant health”, “effective against…”. However, these products have not gone through a phytosanitary registration process<\/strong>, which would require demonstrating their efficacy, recommended dosage and safety<\/strong> under real application conditions<\/strong>. <\/p>

Therefore, we can state without any doubt<\/strong> that the claim or commercial message<\/strong> used in many of these cases is, to say the least, misleading<\/strong>. It cannot be assured that the product is effective or efficient<\/g>, nor that the recommended doses are correct<\/g>. Nor is it known if it presents phytotoxicity<\/strong>, or if it can be harmful to auxiliary fauna, the environment, the health of the applicator or the end consumer<\/strong>. These factors, although they may seem secondary, are critical for a correct and sustainable agronomic practice<\/strong>. <\/p>

Instead of reinforcing the philosophy of IPM<\/strong>, this trend has distorted<\/strong> it. Technical concepts and scientific terminology<\/strong> have been incorporated into the discourse to lend credibility<\/strong>, but are not supported by experimental evidence<\/strong>. <\/p>

Thus, the term “integrated”<\/strong> has become an umbrella term<\/strong> for both good practices based on science<\/strong> and bad practices based on marketing.<\/strong><\/p>

This confusion<\/strong> has direct consequences<\/strong>: the farmer<\/strong> no longer distinguishes between what is scientifically validated<\/strong> and what simply “sounds good”.<\/strong>
The result is a loss of confidence<\/strong>, an overload of treatments<\/strong> and an increase in costs with no return.<\/strong><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Commercial pseudoscience: the noise of the marketplace<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

How brands communicate to sell<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A significant part of the new products<\/strong> that reach the agricultural sector are expressed in pseudoscientific language<\/strong>, full of technicalities<\/strong> that promise extraordinary results: “enzymatic activators”,<\/em> “microbiome enhancers”<\/em> , “bioinducer complexes”,<\/em> “controlled symbiosis”,<\/em> among others.<\/p>

However, behind these terms, the label content often lacks a solid scientific basis<\/strong>: it is based on non-reproducible studies<\/strong>, generic mechanisms of action<\/strong> or, directly, there are no trials with statistical data<\/strong> to support the label content and technical recommendations for use<\/strong>.<\/p>

The problem is not the use of technical language<\/strong>, but the lack of rigor that should underpin it<\/strong>. When scientific communication<\/strong> is used only as a commercial wrapper<\/strong>, the credibility<\/strong> of all biotechnological innovation<\/strong> is eroded<\/strong>. <\/p>

This pseudoscience generates three negative effects:<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Technical misinformation<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The farmer loses judgment in the face of a confusing offer.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Value degradation<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Products with and without evidence are equated in the discourse.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Unjustified costs<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Management costs increase without real agronomic improvement.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The result is that the farmer ends up distrusting<\/strong> the whole range of products: both those that have demonstrated efficacy<\/strong> and comply with the registration processes<\/strong>, and those that have not demonstrated effectiveness<\/strong> and are marketed under unauthorized categories<\/strong>.<\/p>

Rational use<\/strong>, on the other hand, is built on transparency<\/strong>: demonstrating and explaining<\/strong> what a product does, for what specific use<\/strong>, how it works<\/strong> and under what conditions<\/strong> it has demonstrated its efficacy. An authorized product<\/strong> is always accompanied by a clear, technical and honest message<\/strong>. <\/p>

Two pillars of rational and responsible use:<\/strong><\/p>

  1. Validate the efficacy of the recommended dose<\/strong>, always the lowest possible with maximum efficacy<\/strong>, in real field conditions<\/strong> where it will be applied.<\/li>
  2. Validate the safety of the product<\/strong>, ensuring that it is not harmful to the environment or to people<\/strong>.<\/li><\/ol>

    \ud83d\udcda F or more information<\/strong>, we recommend you to read the articles published in spring about the phytosanitary registration process<\/strong>:<\/p>