Agricultural Practice in Poland Before and After Mandatory IPM Implementation by the European Union

Integrated pest management (IPM), a worldwide agricultural strategy, contains methods to control or manage agricultural pests and diseases in a more efficient way, and consequently, to obtain better quality raw materials for food production. The engagement and practice of farmers play a key role in the success of this strategy. Since January 1, 2014, Poland and other European Union countries have been obligated to apply the principles of IPM. This paper shows the results of surveys conducted in 280 randomly selected farms the year before and the year following mandatory IPM implementation. The aim of this study was to gather information about farmers’ knowledge of IPM and the most commonly used plant protection methods. Our results show that law regulations do not significantly change agricultural practice. Among the non-chemical methods farmers most often comply with are: implementing the agrochemical calendar, sowing healthy material, destroying volunteer plants, rotating crop, applying balanced fertilizer, plowing stubble and preventing excess nitrogen. Integrated plant protection is not possible without proper knowledge of diseases. This factor needs improvement in Poland. The average Polish farmer lacks the knowledge about basic cereal diseases such as powdery mildew or brown rust, though larger farm operators tend to be more knowledgeable. The results of this survey demonstrate the necessity to provide informative farmer training campaigns to promote on-farm application of IPM and to improve the knowledge of disease issues.


Introduction
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a strategy that encourages the reduction of pesticide use by employing a variety of nonchemical pest control methods to contain or manage pests below their economic injury levels [1]. The IPM programs implemented in various countries utilize all possible control strategies, including biological, cultural, chemical and ecosystem health techniques with the goal of reducing purchased inputs while maintaining the crop yield, its quality and profits [2][3][4]. The beginnings of integrated pest management took place in the United States in the 1960s as a response to the emerging environmental problems associated with the use of large amounts of chemical plant protection products [5]. Currently, IPM is the main paradigm in plant production approved by scientists, policymakers, international development agencies [6] and public opinion [7]. In recent years,

•
Prevention and/or suppression of harmful organism supported by non-chemical options like crop rotation, adequate cultivation techniques, use of resistant/tolerant cultivars, use of balanced fertilization, hygiene measures, protection and enhancement of beneficial organisms; • Harmful organism must be monitored; • Protection measures must be based on monitoring; • Biological, physical, and other non-chemical methods must be preferred to chemical method; • Pesticides should be specific and have minimum side effects; • Levels of applied intervention should be kept to a necessary minimum; • Anti-resistant strategy should be performed; • The success of plant protection measures should be implemented [13].
Following these guidelines, the Polish Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development introduced relevant regulations [14]. Collected in the Decree on Integrated Plant Protection, they cover all methods of plant protection against pests and focus on the use of pest controlling non-chemical methods such as: • crop rotation with appropriate sowing dates • agricultural technology, including mechanical operations • adoption of pest resistant plant varieties • application of fertilization, irrigation and liming • cleaning and disinfection of machinery and objects that could contribute to the spread of harmful organisms • promotion of preservation and improvement of the conditions for the development of beneficial organisms, such as pollinating insects and pests' natural enemies Chemical plant protection products should be selected in such a way as to minimize the side effects of their use, in particular the impact on beneficial organisms. The number of treatments and the number of measures should be as small as possible. Pesticides should be selected in such a way as to prevent the resistance of harmful organisms through alternating use of active substances. According to the plan the priority action provided through Ministry of Agriculture was to disseminate knowledge to all agents involved in plant protection, such as sprayer operators, advisors, and pesticide distributors. Professional advisors were trained first before passing the knowledge onto the farmers [15]. Changes were also introduced to the education system at agricultural schools. Students acquired knowledge consistent with integrated plant protection. The knowledge transfer was conducted through specialized training, preparing and disseminating research results and building an IT platform dedicated to integrated plant protection. In addition, integrated plant protection methodologies were developed [16] with guidelines for each crop species and established economic injury levels. Some steps were already implemented during the compulsory IPM period. An example is the website dedicated to monitoring pests which started operating in 2016, two years after IPM implementation. The resistance of plant varieties to pests was recognized by the Central Research Center for Crop Varieties which publishes the results of research on individual varieties [17]. Moreover, each of the professionals had to participate in a 14-to 24-h course. Training participants were obliged to complete the course and pass a written exam, and in return, received a certificate that was valid for the next 5 years. Moreover, they were required to undergo supplementary training every 5 years. A slot of 2.5 h of the training was dedicated to the integrated plant protection. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 mandated the implementation of the integrated protection principles but the details of the implementation were left to the member states. In Poland, monitoring and control of the implementation process is carried Sustainability 2020, 12, 1107 3 of 13 out through the Integrated Pest Management system operated by the State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service. As part of the control, the records of treatments from the current and previous years are analyzed, field cultivation control performed and samples of plants collected for analysis. Instructions are also provided to the farmers. At the beginning of the IPM rules, farmers were not penalized for their infractions and only recommendations for improvement were made. However, auditors have the right to impose a fine in cases where the regulations are grossly violated, e.g., when pollinating insects are endangered. In the sample record of plant protection treatments, the farmer must provide [18]: Non-chemical activities were, therefore, out of actual control, while the research presented in this paper mainly focuses on the two first principles of integrated pest management methods: prevention and suppression of harmful organisms by non-chemical means and monitoring of these organisms.
In Poland, agriculture is a significant sector of the economy. Plant production accounts for around 43% of the total agricultural production, which places Poland second in the EU in terms of arable land area [19]. Changes in Polish agriculture are continually taking place but the dynamics and direction of these changes are clearly differentiated regionally. The level and structure of agricultural production is governed, to a large extent, by climate and soil, as well as by economic and organizational conditions [20]. Implementation and adoption of IPM strategies can help reduce environmental and human health risks as well as pest management costs [21]. To successfully adopt IPM rules, appropriate awareness of farmers is crucial [22]. Correct diagnosis of plant development, plant conditions, and their relationship to diseases are the necessary farmer skills [23][24][25].
The aim of this paper was to explore practices and perspectives of farmers on the eve of the mandatory IPM implementation and also in the first year following its implementation.

Study Sites
The research was based on a survey conducted with randomly selected farms located in a major agricultural region of Poland called Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) in 2013-2014. It is worth noting that a well-developed food and dairy industry [26] are characteristic features of the Wielkopolska region. Around 60% of the total area is used for agriculture [27] where cereals such wheat (Triticum aestivum), triticale (Triticosecale) rye (Secale cereal), barley (Hordeum vulgare) and corn (Zea mays) are mainly cultivated. Among non-cereal crops, the most important are oilseed rape (Brassica napus), sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and potato (Solanum tuberosum) [28].
A number of interviews were carried out, of which 280 (93%) complete ones were chosen for the analysis. Incomplete questionnaires were not included in the study. The agro-industrial economy of Wielkopolska is characterized by modern farms that produce cereals and corn and also breed livestock. According to the General Agricultural Census [29], the number of farms in the region was 162.7 thousand in 2010. Over 116 thousand had area of less than 10 ha, over 29 thousand-10 to 20 ha  (Table 1).

Survey Methodology
The survey was conducted on both large-and small-scale farms in order to determine whether the size of the cultivated area had an influence on the chosen methods of plant protection. Survey questionnaires were filled out on-site by the interviewer who accompanied the farmer. A knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) survey was used and the standard pattern of questions was employed. The questions in first part of the survey concerned the profile of the respondents and included farm characteristics such as its size and cultivation area, type of crops, and knowledge of plant fungal diseases. In the second part of the questionnaire, the farmers were asked about the employed methods of plant protection, chemical as well as non-chemical. In addition, farmers were asked about the timing of treatments and the effectiveness of protection (defined on the basis of farm productivity and observations). The final part of the questionnaire concerned the farmers' knowledge of IPM. The survey data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel and a statistical analysis of the survey data was also performed with Statistica 13 software (Dell Software Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA). The chi-square test was used to determine differences between the survey years (p-values indicated whether the data were significantly different between years). Response trends were tested using Pearson's correlation. Responses in individual years may have come from the same or different farmers.

Results
In our questionnaire, we provided farmers with 13 examples of agro-technical methods used by farmers to reduce the pressure of pests and their harmfulness and asked the farmers which methods they used on their own farm in the year before and one year after the mandatory IPM implementation. Seven of the methods were found to be popular among farmers and their use did not change after the introduction of IPM in Poland ( Figure 1). The most popular included: sowing plants at the optimum agro-technical time, sowing healthy seed, destroying volunteer plants, crop rotation, balanced fertilization applications, plowing system and the prevention of nitrogen leaching. IPM-compliant methods, such as the growing of resistant varieties, spatial isolation of cultivated plants, destruction of plant bridges, early sowing and the cultivation of early varieties were less popular among farmers. There were no significant statistical differences between years for any of the methods, except for the spatial isolation of winter and spring wheat (p < 0.01). In the first year of IPM implementation, this method was used less frequently than a year earlier.
We assessed the importance of production scale for the application of IPM practices. Differences in the application of methods related to integrated production were visible between the farms of various sizes: the application of IPM practices increased with increasing farm size ( Figure 2). In both years of the survey, the proportion of applied practices in all farm size groups (p < 0.001) where similar, except in farms with area of 11-20 ha. We assessed the importance of production scale for the application of IPM practices. Differences in the application of methods related to integrated production were visible between the farms of various sizes: the application of IPM practices increased with increasing farm size ( Figure 2). In both years of the survey, the proportion of applied practices in all farm size groups (p < 0.001) where similar, except in farms with area of 11-20 ha.   We assessed the importance of production scale for the application of IPM practices. Differences in the application of methods related to integrated production were visible between the farms of various sizes: the application of IPM practices increased with increasing farm size ( Figure 2). In both years of the survey, the proportion of applied practices in all farm size groups (p < 0.001) where similar, except in farms with area of 11-20 ha.  Cereal crops were the main plant group in each farm group, regardless of the year or farm size. However, the proportion of cultivated cereals in each farm size group was higher in 2014 compared to 2013 ( Figure 3). In 2014, the proportion of farms that cultivated root crops decreased in every farm size group though the tendency to cultivate root crops on the larger farms continued. The proportion of farms that cultivated other plants in 2013 was significantly higher than in 2014 in the two groups of farms: >30 ha and <10 ha.
In our questionnaire, farmers were asked to recognize the most common plant fungal diseases that affected grain production in Poland. Farmers' knowledge of the majority of plant fungal diseases had increased by the second year. Blumeria graminis, a fungus that causes powdery mildew on grasses [30][31][32], was the most successfully recognized disease (Figure 4). The recognizability of this fungus may be enhanced by the characteristic white bloom that appears on the leaves of plants and from the frequency of disease occurrence. Brown rust (Puccinia recondita) was ranked second; 65% of farmers were able to identify this disease in 2013 and 74.6% in 2014. Eyespot (Oculimacula yallundae) was ranked third: 40% of farmers had knowledge of this disease in 2014-13% higher than in the previous year. Knowledge of tan spot disease (Pyrenophora tritici-repentis) and fusarium ear blight In our questionnaire, farmers were asked to recognize the most common plant fungal diseases that affected grain production in Poland. Farmers' knowledge of the majority of plant fungal diseases had increased by the second year. Blumeria graminis, a fungus that causes powdery mildew on grasses [30][31][32], was the most successfully recognized disease (Figure 4). The recognizability of this fungus may be enhanced by the characteristic white bloom that appears on the leaves of plants and from the frequency of disease occurrence. Brown rust (Puccinia recondita) was ranked second; 65% of farmers were able to identify this disease in 2013 and 74.6% in 2014. Eyespot (Oculimacula yallundae) was ranked third: 40% of farmers had knowledge of this disease in 2014-13% higher than in the previous year. Knowledge of tan spot disease (Pyrenophora tritici-repentis) and fusarium ear blight (Fusarium spp.) had decreased by the second year. In 2013, 40.7% of farmers were able to describe tan spot disease while in 2014, only 32.3% were able to do so. Similarly, 22% of farmers were able to describe fusarium ear blight in 2013 and only 14.6% in 2014. Less than 20% of farmers demonstrated knowledge of snow mold disease (Microdochium nivale) and the other grain crop diseases.   In our questionnaire, farmers were asked to recognize the most common plant fungal diseases that affected grain production in Poland. Farmers' knowledge of the majority of plant fungal diseases had increased by the second year. Blumeria graminis, a fungus that causes powdery mildew on grasses [30][31][32], was the most successfully recognized disease (Figure 4). The recognizability of this fungus may be enhanced by the characteristic white bloom that appears on the leaves of plants and from the frequency of disease occurrence. Brown rust (Puccinia recondita) was ranked second; 65% of farmers were able to identify this disease in 2013 and 74.   We closely examined the ability of farmers to recognize powdery mildew, brown rust and eyespot ( Figure 5). We observed that as farm size increased, so did farmers' knowledge of crop diseases. In 2013, 76.6%, 85% and 100% of farmers with farm size < 10, 21-30 and > 30 ha respectively, were knowledgeable of powdery mildew. In 2014, 70.6%, 77.3% and 81.3% of farmers with farm size < 10, 21-30 and > 30 ha respectively, were knowledgeable of brown rust.
As farm size increased, the proportion of farmers using foliage protection was also higher; 100% of farms > 10 ha used a seed dressing in 2013. In 2014, we observed an increase in the use of fungicide Sustainability 2020, 12, 1107 7 of 13 concomitant with increased farm area; there was a strong correlation of over 0.5 for both years and for the two techniques ( Figure 6). We closely examined the ability of farmers to recognize powdery mildew, brown rust and eyespot ( Figure 5). We observed that as farm size increased, so did farmers' knowledge of crop diseases. In 2013, 76.6%, 85% and 100% of farmers with farm size < 10, 21-30 and > 30 ha respectively, were knowledgeable of powdery mildew. In 2014, 70.6%, 77.3% and 81.3% of farmers with farm size < 10, 21-30 and > 30 ha respectively, were knowledgeable of brown rust. As farm size increased, the proportion of farmers using foliage protection was also higher; 100% of farms > 10 ha used a seed dressing in 2013. In 2014, we observed an increase in the use of fungicide concomitant with increased farm area; there was a strong correlation of over 0.5 for both years and for the two techniques ( Figure 6). Chemical control was the most common method of protection used by the farmers (Figure 7). In both years, all the surveyed farmers used chemical methods for plant protection regardless of the area under cultivation. From among non-chemical methods, farmers chose the agro-technical method combined with the cultivation method more often than the agro-technical method alone. In 2013, eyespot ( Figure 5). We observed that as farm size increased, so did farmers' knowledge of crop diseases. In 2013, 76.6%, 85% and 100% of farmers with farm size < 10, 21-30 and > 30 ha respectively, were knowledgeable of powdery mildew. In 2014, 70.6%, 77.3% and 81.3% of farmers with farm size < 10, 21-30 and > 30 ha respectively, were knowledgeable of brown rust. As farm size increased, the proportion of farmers using foliage protection was also higher; 100% of farms > 10 ha used a seed dressing in 2013. In 2014, we observed an increase in the use of fungicide concomitant with increased farm area; there was a strong correlation of over 0.5 for both years and for the two techniques ( Figure 6). Chemical control was the most common method of protection used by the farmers (Figure 7). In both years, all the surveyed farmers used chemical methods for plant protection regardless of the area under cultivation. From among non-chemical methods, farmers chose the agro-technical method combined with the cultivation method more often than the agro-technical method alone. In 2013, Chemical control was the most common method of protection used by the farmers (Figure 7). In both years, all the surveyed farmers used chemical methods for plant protection regardless of the area under cultivation. From among non-chemical methods, farmers chose the agro-technical method combined with the cultivation method more often than the agro-technical method alone. In 2013, farmers with farms > 20 ha selected the combination of those two methods more often, while farmers with smaller farms selected only the agro-technical method. farmers with farms > 20 ha selected the combination of those two methods more often, while farmers with smaller farms selected only the agro-technical method.

Discussion
To ensure that the effects of IPM implementation are successfully achieved, it is essential that the knowledge of IPM is expanded and that the decisions that farmers make with regard to plant protection are supported. Knowledge is the key to achieving the same level of crop yields with reduced use of chemical plant protection products [33]. In Poland, their usage exceeded 1.1 kg per ha in 2001-2012-a figure that was less than 50% of the European average (2.78 kg). Poland consumes less plant protection products than France, Germany or UK. Those most commonly applied are herbicides (0.69 kg), followed by fungicides (0.37 kg) and insecticides (0.06 kg). Poland is still a developing country and for this reason, the demand for chemicals in agriculture will continue to grow. At the same time, there is debate in the international arena over the withdrawal of a large number of active substances. Depending on the crop and cultivation technology, this withdrawal may result in increased production costs (some active substances will not be permitted by law in the future, therefore, the production costs may increase) and decreased quality and quantity of yield [17]. Golinowska et al. [34] analyzed the costs of large-scale farms in 2006-2012 and noted that the use of plant protection products (in kilograms of active ingredient per ha) increased for each of the crops grown on the farm. For wheat, the use increased from 1.6 kg ha −1 in 2006 to 2.28 kg ha −1 in 2012, and for oilseed rape, it increased from 1.8 kg ha −1 in 2006 to 2.46 kg ha −1 in 2012. During our study period, the number of treatments increased from three to six in the case of wheat, and from five to ten for oilseed rape. Despite the use of a growing number of plant protection methods and increased number of treatments, the unit cost of plant protection products per hectare showed a downward trend. In surveys conducted in California [35], strong correlations between the use of IPM practices and farmers age, education and household size were found. Farm income, the type of land ownership and farming experience did not affect the answers provided by the respondents. Young farmers under 50 years of age were more willing to implement IPM practices but awareness of IPM increased in conjunction with higher levels of education. The size of farm determined how IPM practices were implemented. Work by Shennan et al. [35] showed that IPM was extensively used on farms < 4 ha and on farms > 400 ha, but was used least often on farms 4-40 ha in size. Similar results were obtained in our study, which showed that the use of IPM practices in Poland takes place mainly on the larger farms. Furthermore, farmers' awareness of plant fungal diseases and the use of non-chemical methods of plant protection were significantly greater in the larger farms. In contrast, Kruszyński et al. [36] reported that only 34%

Discussion
To ensure that the effects of IPM implementation are successfully achieved, it is essential that the knowledge of IPM is expanded and that the decisions that farmers make with regard to plant protection are supported. Knowledge is the key to achieving the same level of crop yields with reduced use of chemical plant protection products [33]. In Poland, their usage exceeded 1.1 kg per ha in 2001-2012-a figure that was less than 50% of the European average (2.78 kg). Poland consumes less plant protection products than France, Germany or UK. Those most commonly applied are herbicides (0.69 kg), followed by fungicides (0.37 kg) and insecticides (0.06 kg). Poland is still a developing country and for this reason, the demand for chemicals in agriculture will continue to grow. At the same time, there is debate in the international arena over the withdrawal of a large number of active substances. Depending on the crop and cultivation technology, this withdrawal may result in increased production costs (some active substances will not be permitted by law in the future, therefore, the production costs may increase) and decreased quality and quantity of yield [17]. Golinowska et al. [34] analyzed the costs of large-scale farms in 2006-2012 and noted that the use of plant protection products (in kilograms of active ingredient per ha) increased for each of the crops grown on the farm. For wheat, the use increased from 1.6 kg ha −1 in 2006 to 2.28 kg ha −1 in 2012, and for oilseed rape, it increased from 1.8 kg ha −1 in 2006 to 2.46 kg ha −1 in 2012. During our study period, the number of treatments increased from three to six in the case of wheat, and from five to ten for oilseed rape. Despite the use of a growing number of plant protection methods and increased number of treatments, the unit cost of plant protection products per hectare showed a downward trend. In surveys conducted in California [35], strong correlations between the use of IPM practices and farmers age, education and household size were found. Farm income, the type of land ownership and farming experience did not affect the answers provided by the respondents. Young farmers under 50 years of age were more willing to implement IPM practices but awareness of IPM increased in conjunction with higher levels of education. The size of farm determined how IPM practices were implemented. Work by Shennan et al. [35] showed that IPM was extensively used on farms < 4 ha and on farms > 400 ha, but was used least often on farms 4-40 ha in size. Similar results were obtained in our study, which showed that the use of IPM practices in Poland takes place mainly on the larger farms. Furthermore, farmers' awareness of plant fungal diseases and the use of non-chemical methods of plant protection were significantly greater in the larger farms. In contrast, Kruszyński et al. [36] reported that only 34% of farmers were able to give a definition of integrated plant protection. Their study also indicated that IPM knowledge among farmers was dependent on the size of the farm but in contrast to our study, they Sustainability 2020, 12, 1107 9 of 13 reported that farmers with larger farms had a lower knowledge of IPM. Education level of the farmers was positively correlated with their IPM knowledge: IPM awareness increased at higher education levels. Research by Kruszyński et al. [36] showed that the majority of agricultural producers had a negative attitude towards the use of IPM on their farms.
Income from agricultural production is critically dependent on the price of agricultural products. When prices are persistently high, farmers use more fungicides to achieve and maintain high crop yields. When prices drop, farmers use a reduced volume of plant protection products and thus, crop yields automatically decrease. Agricultural product prices are an important factor influencing the actions of farmers [37]. In 2013, wheat prices were very high at €250 per ton of grain (WGT 2016) and the large accrued profits encouraged farmers to invest in fungicides in the following year while simultaneously increasing their knowledge of the common diseases of the crop. In our study period, there was a significant increase in the knowledge levels of the diseases that occur during the cultivation of cereals. Weather during the growing season has a decisive influence on the development of fungal diseases, and can be very diverse in subsequent years, determining the occurrence of various diseases with different intensities [38]. The year 2013 was conducive to the development of fungal diseases in cereals; rainfall and high temperatures in May contributed to the development of most pathogens. In this study, some farmers did not appear to have substantial knowledge of the fungal crop diseases that may appear during crop growth, despite the critical impact that these diseases have on the quantity and quality of the crop yield. Powdery mildew disease was the only disease that farmers were able to diagnose 100% in both years of the study.
One approach to prevent the occurrence of disease in cereals is the use of non-chemical methods. These include crop rotation, compliance with deadlines for agronomic crop cultivation and sowing, as well as sowing healthy seeds [39]. In the surveyed farms, compliance with agronomic deadlines, healthy seed sowing, destruction of volunteer plants, balanced fertilization applications and the prevention of excessive nutrient loading (particularly nitrogen) were the most frequently chosen methods. To a lesser extent, farmers benefited from solutions such as the delay in sowing, destruction of intermediate hosts or the use of resistant cultivars. Larger farms usually focus on the production of high-quality materials, use modern techniques to protect plants, and thus use more active substances compared to smaller farms. In Poland, a large proportion of crop market is taken by grain, including wheat, which makes it difficult or impossible to implement a suitable crop rotation in practice.
Farmers of smaller farms often do not have sufficient crop protection knowledge and, therefore, use fewer pesticides. In contrast, larger producers are sufficiently knowledgeable of plant protection products and are generally well educated. At the same time, these farms use more pesticides [40]. Surveys have confirmed this trend; awareness of farmers of IPM methods and their usage rises in conjunction with increased farm area. Nave et al. [41] described three plant protection strategies that farmers generally apply. In the first strategy, producers restrict the use of plant protection products and at the same time, use practices that reduce pest pressure. This strategy allows farmers to achieve average profits (gross margin), but are profitable when direct payments are taken into account. In the second strategy, farmers use the average number of plant protection products and have the highest rate of economic returns. Regardless of the price of wheat, they achieve the best economic results. In the third strategy, farmers use intensive crop protection to achieve high crop yields. Differentiation in the system of plant protection depends not only on economic factors but is also strongly related to the farmers' environment and motivation. The producers that utilize the third strategy are the least concerned about the public opinion and they need to reduce the use of chemical plant protection products. The amount of plant protection products used, and the method employed were not dependent on the size of the farm. Instead, the relationship was determined by the motivation of the farmer; those who had children and were also landowners, tended to be more concerned about the future and, as such, used a smaller amount of chemical products.
Research examining the economic aspect of the application of IPM practices mainly focuses on the analysis of the budget allocated to the pesticides used without taking into account other factors.
In the US, farmers who chose to voluntarily use IPM techniques were less risk-sensitive. Among them, those with large irrigated farms and using their own family as employees constituted a larger share. In addition, local conditions and cultivated plants [42] had an impact on the use of IPM. Similar conclusions were also drawn from studies carried out on coffee farmers in Colombia. On the other hand, the authors of other studies report that the size of the farm does not affect the practices adopted by farmers and it may be influenced by experience and scale of production, which nevertheless often translates into the size of the farm [43].
Farmers derive their knowledge of crop production from different sources [44]. Agricultural advisors play a major role. The more factors involved in agricultural activities, the greater the chance that they will implement the action deliberately. To increase the correct application of IPM techniques, more attention should be devoted to the form in which farmers would like to receive knowledge about selected issues, courses and methods of their training. Their current practice should also be taken into account when indicating possible changes [45]. Plant protection product labels, the seller of the plant protection products and external consulting firms also play important roles. Depending on the knowledge sources that farmers consult, their opinion of environmental protection and the negative consequences associated with the use of plant protection products are shaped differently [46]. In many cases, the farmers do not understand the risks associated with the use of plant protection products [47]. This is confirmed by the results of our research, in which farmers' awareness of crop disease is low. This demonstrates a lack of ability to use economic injury threshold levels, which are the basis for the use of IPM. However, there is a trend of increasing awareness by producers in this field. Farmers' decisions are often based on scientific knowledge but also on the experience and knowledge gained in crop cultivation under specific conditions [48].
On the one hand, the farmer is obliged to use Integrated Plant Protection under which non-chemical methods should be chosen first, while the control system focuses exclusively on the correct use of chemical methods. In addition, the control system is mainly oriented to verify the documentation kept by the farmers-it does not check such elements as correct crop rotation or for use of resistant varieties. While using chemical plant protection products, the farmer must somehow prove the need for application and then provide the effectiveness of the treatment.
Advisors and knowledge disseminators play a big role in this. They should know the local environment well and be able to interact with farmers. An in-depth understanding of culture and values is essential if teaching is to succeed. Only then can the farmers successfully learn and practice IPM [49]. Recommended methods of information transfer should be a combination of radio and television programs [50].