Developing a comprehensive management programme for cabbage stem flea beetle in oilseed rape (Invitation to Tender)

1. Introduction

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) is a non-departmental Government body, funded by levy income from farmers, growers and others in the supply chain, and managed as an independent organisation (independent of both commercial industry and of Government). The role of the AHDB is to help improve the efficiency and competitiveness of various agriculture sectors within the UK. Our purpose is to help our farmers, growers and industry to succeed in a rapidly changing world.

As AHDB is funded in this manner, value for money is paramount, we welcome suppliers who can offer innovative and cost-efficient solutions to meet our needs, whilst also offering superlative service that will enable us to create a world-class food and farming industry. Solutions should look to help us not only reduce costs but increase business flexibility, lift productivity, bring people together to collaborate, innovate and drive change throughout. Further information about AHDB can be found here: https://ahdb.org.uk/

Cabbage stem flea beetle (CSFB) remains the primary cause of crop loss in winter oilseed rape (WOSR), with huge areas of the national crop lost most years.  Research to identify effective integrated pest management (IPM) programmes for the pest is critical so that growers have the confidence to grow robust WOSR crops.  This AHDB and industry funded project aims to build on a range of AHDB, government and industry funded projects to support WOSR growers.  Alongside the levy funding committed by the AHDB Cereals and Oilseeds sector council, a number of industry partners are also contributing to this work, including United Oilseeds, Limagrain UK, Openfield Group Limited, Bayer CropScience Limited and Corteva Agriscience UK Limited.

2. Background

Crop losses to CSFB in the last decade have led to a lack of confidence in growing WOSR.  Average WOSR yield in England in 2024 was 2.7 t/ha, down from 3.9 t/ha in 2015.  The area of WOSR sown in 2024 was the lowest since 1983.  The UK has shifted from being a net exporter of OSR to being a net importer in recent years. In 2012/13, the UK imported around 30 Kt and exported 724 Kt of rapeseed; compare that with 2023/24, when the UK imported 744 Kt and exported just 32 Kt. This season (2024/25) the UK is expected to import around 875Kt, due to the smaller domestic crop outweighing a projected drop in crushing demand, according to the latest AHDB Oilseeds market outlook.  

The primary reason for losses to CSFB is ineffective chemical control due widespread resistance to pyrethroid insecticides, the only insecticides registered for use against the pest in the UK.  A series of AHDB and Defra funded projects has improved understanding of risk factors, crop tolerance, CSFB’s life cycle and cultural control strategies.  However, significant knowledge gaps remain.  Equally, effective knowledge exchange and uptake on farm of completed research is lacking. 

3. Tender Objectives

This research will need to:

• Provide reliable, data on field performance and optimal timing of novel insecticides /biopesticides, including synergists to counteract resistance to pyrethroids.
• Extend the suite of cultural control methods available to farmers.
• Provide guidance on effective implementation of cultural controls, including stacking interventions to optimise management programmes.
• Produce guidance on the role of cover crops as trap crops and their destruction to prevent them becoming a source of CSFB.
• Generate data to underpin decision support systems (DSS).
• Produce guidance on natural enemies and how to improve their activity.
• Disseminate research findings throughout the life of the project.
• Develop a comprehensive management programme for CSFB.

4. Scope and Approach

This project will focus on the below five broad areas, with associated KE. 

Work package (WP) 1: Testing novel treatments

Growers lack effective treatments to respond to CSFB infestations.  Several novel insecticides and biopesticides have shown promise in controlled environment (CE) work (e.g. AHDB project SR 58).  However, translating these results to the field has been challenging, often due to difficulties in determining optimal treatment timing.  This WP will test a range of products in randomised, replicated field trials to evaluate the performance of products to control CSFB adults, eggs and/or larvae in field conditions. Applicants are expected to source products, which may include new insecticides, botanicals, entomopathogenic fungi, entomopathogenic nematodes and synergists that counteract insecticide resistance.  An agreement is in place for the testing of a seed treatment in all trials in 2025/26 and 2026/27 in this WP (treated seed will be provided).  Trials in 2027/28 and 2028/29 may also feature the seed treatment pending further discussion.  A minimum number of treatments will be required for trials to go ahead in this WP. 

Application timing is likely to be critical for some products.  Applicants are expected to liaise with manufacturers to identify optimal application timings and conditions.  Applicants should propose trial designs and means of ensuring optimal application conditions and timings are identified and achieved, e.g. this may include a requirement for different application timings for different products and/or individual products having multiple application timings in different trial treatments.  The applicant should also describe proposed assessments methods, taking into account any EPPO guidelines and recommendations elsewhere, e.g. AHDB project SR 58. 

Objective: Identify novel treatments that are effective in the field and their optimal application timing.

Budget: £104,000 (inclusive of VAT)

Work package 2: Cultural control

Management of CSFB currently relies on cultural control to mitigate CSFB damage (e.g. sow date, companion crops etc).  Several AHDB, industry and government funded projects (e.g. AHDB PR 623, AHDB project 21120185, Defra project CH0220) have made significant progress in this area, but further work is needed to better understand the control provided by understudied methods and improve control provided by previously studied methods.  This WP will focus on field trials to test and demonstrate new options at scale:

1. Understudied methods: These include cultivating rape crop stubble soon after harvest, establishment methods, low seed rates, organic amendments and defoliation. For example, cultivating rape crop stubble soon after harvest has been investigated in Defra project CH0220 but further work is needed to in terms of within-field replication, impacts on nearby WOSR crops and natural enemies (see WP4).  Approaches that increase crop tolerance to larval feeding, e.g. low seed rate, cultivar selection, are also of particular interest.  The applicant is asked to describe the cultural control methods they propose to test and are welcome to propose other cultural control methods that are not mentioned here, although some methods are now thought to be well understood, e.g. companion crops and sow date. 
   
   
2. Trap crops: Trap crops can be an effective means of reducing CSFB pressure by drawing the pest away from cash crops.  Leaving volunteer OSR has been shown to reduce CSFB in nearby crops (AHDB PR 623) but further work may be needed to optimise the approach.  Sowing borders or strips of trap crops has also been shown to reduced CSFB pressure.  A further area of interest is the role that brassica cover crops have as a trap crop and as a potential source of CSFB the following year.
   
   Applicants are asked to propose means of further testing trap crops as means of managing CSFB.  They are also asked to determine the role of brassica cover crops as trap crops and a source of CSFB, generating guidance on the management of cover crops and their destruction in regards CSFB management. 
   
   
3. Stacking IPM: The benefits of combining control interventions (‘stacking’) has been demonstrated for other pests, weeds and diseases for which resistance issues have made chemical control unreliable, e.g. blackgrass. While some work has looked at the benefit of stacking IPM for CSFB, further work is needed.  Note that proposed work for this element may include novel treatments identified in WP1 and seed treatments. 
   
   Applicants are asked to describe and justify proposed trials, trial designs and assessment methods.  For example, plot trials may not be a suitable trial design for some cultural control approaches.

Objective: Identify effective cultural control programmes that minimise CSFB risk to farmers, increasing confidence in growing WOSR. 

Budget: £220,000 (inclusive of VAT)

Work package 3: Data to underpin decision support systems (DSS)

DSS play an increasingly important part in IPM.  For CSFB, their role may be critical, including in guiding the use and timing of novel treatments (WP1) and cultural controls (WP2), and informing risk from CSFB larvae (so improving confidence in within season investment in crop protection and nutrition).  However, reliable data to parameterise DSS is lacking.  Applicants are asked to propose and justify work to fill knowledge gaps and generate data for DSS parameterisation.  Examples include work on adult migration, egg hatch, larval development and larval impact.  Work could include controlled environment (CE) work, field trials and surveys.  Data generated using field studies are considered preferable to CE work to ensure relevance to field conditions. 

An element of this work should also include monitoring of adult migration, with an expectation of providing AHDB with data within two working days of each assessment so that CSFB pressures can be disseminated to industry rapidly.  Bayer CropScience Limited have offered up to 15 MagicTraps for use in this work, though the use of water traps would be expected to be used for at least some sites where MagicTraps are deployed to assess how the two methods compare.  Note that the development of DSS does not fall into scope of this project.

Objective: Generate suitable datasets on key CSFB life-history traits (e.g. adult migration, egg hatch and larval development) to enable the development of effective DSS. 

Budget: £200,000 (inclusive of VAT)

Work package 4: Natural enemies

Several species have been identified as important natural enemies of CSFB, including ground beetles (e.g. Trechus quadristriatus) and parasitic wasps (e.g. Tersilochus microgaster and Microctonus brassicae).  However, understanding of their impact on CSFB, the impact of crop management on them, and means to encourage their activity is lacking.  This is particularly the case for M. brassicae.  Applicants are asked to propose work (e.g. CE trials, field trials and surveys) to improve understanding of the impact of natural enemies on CSFB (both lethal and sub-lethal) and the impact of crop and farm management on their populations and activity.  Work that interacts with work in other WPs is welcome.

Objective: Develop a clear understanding of the impact of key natural enemies on CSFB control and how to encourage their populations and activity.

Budget: £101,500 (inclusive of VAT)

Work package 5: Innovation

The possibilities for CSFB research are considerably greater than described above.  This WP is an opportunity for applicants to propose innovative work to improve CSFB management or the uptake of control methods by growers.  Note that this WP will only be funded if the proposed work is considered to be of significant value.   

Objective: Investigate entirely novel control options or means of testing methods on a wider scale.

Budget: £40,000 (inclusive of VAT)

Knowledge exchange

Delivery of change in practise on farm as a result of the findings of this research is a key component of the work. To ensure that the industry can put findings into practice during the lifetime of the project, substantial annual knowledge exchange activity is expected.  Annual and final project reports and a grower summary of the final report will be required along with participation in our annual project monitoring exercise. Further information and templates for these reports can be found at AHDB Cereals & Oilseeds research report templates.  Note that a template for the grower summary is not currently available, but this will involve a grower-friendly summary of the project findings, likely in no more than 15 pages.  Applicants should propose other knowledge exchange activities, which may include presentations at AHDB events (e.g. Monitor Farm meetings and the Agronomy Conference), demonstration trials, short videos and articles. Co-location of trials could be considered for an opportunity to conduct trial visits should results warrant demonstration, but this is not essential.  AHDB plan to work with the successful applicants to exploit opportunities to work alongside the AHDB Strategic Farm and Monitor Farm network to ensure the change in practise at farm level is achieved during the delivery of this project.  Communications should be agreed in liaison with AHDB, ensuring that the outcomes of the research clearly recognise the support of levy and industry funding. 

Objective: Ensure research fundings are disseminated effectively so that farmers and agronomists can put them into practice.

Budget: £44,000 (inclusive of VAT)

5. Project Duration, Budget, and Collaboration

The total budget for this work is £709,500, inclusive of VAT over 4 years and 6 months.  Note that, as AHDB is engaging with other organisations to build future collaboration in this area, funding may increase during the lifetime of the project.  AHDB reserve the right to reallocate funding between WPs during the lifetime of the project.    

The earliest date of commencement for work funded as a result of this call will be 12 July 2025.

Research Partnership Approach

Joint proposals from two or more contractors are acceptable and encouraged where there is added value. AHDB may, if it is deemed desirable, request applicants to form a consortium to work together. There should be one organisation designated as the lead organisation for the Research Partnership which is responsible for project management and delivery. The group size should be manageable. Prospective partnerships can comprise both research institutes and industrial partners, be multi-disciplinary, and draw on a range of research experience for a number of crops. Therefore, the group does not necessarily need to have a history of working together previously. Further, priority will be given to the applicants with in-kind and or cash funding from the industry.

6. Structure/format of submission

Applicants should complete the large proposal form, referring to the guidance notes to aid completion. Completed application forms should be submitted to research@ahdb.org.uk no later than noon on 11 June 2025.

On submitting a proposal, please ensure you have read and accepted our terms and conditions, these are available on our website here under the “Standard agreements” heading. Any organisation receiving funding from AHDB shall comply with the terms and conditions specified in the Research Funding Agreement. AHDB will not be held responsible for any expenses or losses incurred by applicants in the preparation of an application(s).

AHDB reserves the right to not proceed with any application or, if appropriate, to request applicants to form a consortium to work together to deliver a programme of activities.  AHDB also reserve the right to not proceed with all work packages.  

An evaluation panel will assess submissions in line with the scoring criteria and weightings in section 7 to decide the best outcome for this research project. The selection will be an open and fair competition according to AHDB’s procurement policy, which complies with EU state aid rules.

7. Evaluation and award of contract

All submitted proposals will be reviewed by research representatives within AHDB, and the respective Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee, and possibly co-funders. If required, external peer reviewers may be sought. The selection will be an open and fair competition according to AHDB’s procurement policy, which complies with EU state aid rules.

Evaluation of proposals will be on the following basis:

8. Proposal submissions

 Submissions to be made electronically:

 Submissions will remain unopened until after the closing date and time has passed.

9. Timetable

Please note these timescales are approximate and may change.

A project initiation meeting will be held between the successful bidder and the project funders at the commencement of the contract.  Additional meetings will be held as required for progress updates.

10. Terms/conditions of participation

Research and KE funding | AHDB terms and conditions shall apply to any contract awarded as a result of this request for quote.

If you have specific questions relating to this call, please email research@ahdb.org.uk. All Questions & Answers will be published to ensure transparency.

As part of the open tender process, AHDB cannot discuss specific programme details prior to proposal submission.

If you have any questions relating to this tender please contact:

11. Questions and Answers

Question: We note that a number of industry partners are contributing to this work: (including United Oilseeds, Limagrain UK, Openfield Group Limited, Bayer CropScience Limited and Corteva Agriscience UK Limited). Is there any information available to applicants about what they are contributing especially “in kind” so that applicants can embed this into their delivery plan? Do these organisations need to be listed in section 1.9?

Answer: The only in-kind contribution committed so far is the provision of up to 15 MagicTraps by Bayer CropScience Limited.  Organisations that have already committed contributions (those given in the Introduction) do not need to be listed in Section 1.9 of the proposal document.

Question: Given the short time frame to get further industry commitment, are AHDB happy with expressions of indicative support and/or willingness to engage for the lifetime of the project?

Answer: Expressions of indicative support and/or willingness to engage for the lifetime of the project by industry partners would be acceptable.  We would expect these to confirmed by the end of June 2025.

Question: I note that further funding may be available pending AHDB discussions with other organisations.  If this is the case, is there any detail on the requirements of these organisations alongside the AHDB priorities described in the tender?

Answer: The co-funders confirmed as of 9 May are listed in the call information.  Please propose work to the requirements outlined in the research call.

Question: I note that there is no final report from the recent AHDB Cabbage Stem Flea Beetle project, would it be possible to see such a report even if it is still confidential?

Answer: The final report in the AHDB project ‘Reducing the impact of cabbage stem flea beetle (CSFB) on oilseed rape in the UK’ may not be published before 11 June 2025.  In its place, an interim summary of the report will be published asap.

Question: We’re very interested in the tender titled “Developing a Comprehensive Management Programme for Cabbage Stem Flea Beetle in Oilseed Rape” (Ref: 21120245) but are not fully familiar with the AHDB tendering process. Could you please clarify whether applicants are expected to deliver the entire programme if they tender or whether it’s possible to tender for specific work packages, such as WP1?

Answer: Applicants cannot submit a proposal for individual work packages.  However, they are welcome to form a consortium to work with other research organisations and submit a proposal that covers the entire programme.

Question: Are we eligible to tender as a start-up?

Answer: Start-ups are eligible to tender.

Question: Would testing novel products in controlled environments (work package 1) be within the scope of this call?

Answer: Unfortunately, this would fall outside the scope of this project.  This work package is focussed on testing novel treatments in field trials. 

Question: Regarding the seed dressing, can you please confirm to help with costings as to whether it would need to be crop destruct? 

Answer: Please assume that all novel treatments in WP1 will require crop destruct.

Question: The number of treatments required in WP1, does this apply in 2025-26 and 26-27 when the seed treatment is available or only afterwards?

Answer: The treatment number requirements apply in all years. 

Question: What is the minimum number of treatments required in WP1? 

Answer: The number of treatments in WP1 will be decided upon discussion with the project steering group once the project commences.  Applicants are encouraged to propose treatment numbers for these trials to suit their budget, while remaining within the budget allocated to this WP.  A minimum of six treatments (including an untreated control and industry standard) is expected.  Note that part of the value for money for scoring will include consideration of the WP to provide levy payers with the maximum number of credible options possible.  Also treatments can differ between and within years.