Inspection method for spray rate controllers in Flanders (Belgium)

In Belgium, the inspection of sprayers is performed by official and mobile teams ruled by two inspection authorities. The management of the inspection is done by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Public Health and the Environment (FAVV). In the Flemish region the inspection is delegated to the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of sprayers was started up in 1996 and the 6th inspection cycle (2011-2012-2013) is currently running. In the past decade the number of sprayers equipped with a spray rate controller, increased significantly. In the first inspection cycle (1996-1997-1998), only 4.58% of the sprayers were equipped with a spray rate controller in Flanders. In the fifth inspection cycle (2008-2009-2010), this percentage increased significantly to 20.37%.As the original inspection method for spray rate controllers showed some lacks and was time consuming, ILVO developed a simple and reliable method for testing rate controllers used on field and orchard sprayers

An overview of the defects on tested field sprayers in Belgium

contribution to session 5 Member States shall establish certificate systems for mutual recognition of the certificates (according article 8/6

An overview of the defects on tested orchard sprayers in Belgium

In Belgium, the inspection of sprayers is performed by official and mobile teams ruled by two regional inspection authorities, ILVO and CRA-W. The management of the inspection is done by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Public Health and the Environment (FAVV). Inspection authorities need to have an ISO 17020 certification, consequently the Belgian inspection is completely independent and objective. FAVV delegates the inspection to one inspection service per region (one for the Walloon part and one for the Flemish part). In this way inspection results are centralized and easily consultable. The inspection results are a very useful tool to have an overview of the general condition of the Belgian sprayers. Those results can be helpful when advising on changes in legislation. They can also be used as an instrument to advise fruit growers and farmers how to improve their spraying machines, r what points they have to pay attention to when buying a new or second-hand machine. Therefore, a detailed overview is made of the inspection results on orchard sprayers for the 5th inspection cyclus (3 years: 2008-2009-2010)

An overview of the compulsory inspection of sprayers in Belgium

Poste

The inspection of soil-disinfection equipment in Belgium.

In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of field and orchard sprayers was already started up in 1995. At that time, there were only inspection protocols available for those two types of sprayers. From 2008 on, two new inspection protocols were developed: one for greenhouse sprayers and one for soil-disinfection machines. Those inspection protocols were added to the Belgian legislation and implemented since 2011. The inspection protocol for greenhouse sprayers was mainly based on the two existing protocols (field and orchard sprayers) as the working principle of those machines was similar.Soil disinfection machines used on Belgian territory needed another approach because of the differences in pressurising and application technique compared to classical spraying machines. Soil disinfection machines use a closed tank containing the vaporous disinfectant. The tank is pressurised by a compressor or a diving cylinder. As concerns the injector side of those machines there are different possibilities. Some are using a manifold with restrictor plates or a small tap per injector, others use narrow tubes towards the injectors, and sometimes nozzles are used. As one can see, there are no standard inspection methods available for those types of machines. Neither a standard spray pattern measurement, nor a separate pressure and nozzle testing is possible on most of those machines. On top there are some important safety aspects that need special attention due to the hazardous products used. The Belgian inspection protocol was almost completely developed in-house and makes it possible to inspect soil-disinfection machines in an accurate, safe and economical way

Methodology of the biological risk classification of animal pathogens in Belgium

The biological hazards posed by micro-organisms have lead to their categorisation into risk groups and the elaboration of classification lists. Current classification systems rely on criteria defined by the World Health Organization, which cover the severity of the disease the micro-organism might cause, its ability to spread and the availability of prophylaxis or efficient treatment. Animal pathogens are classified according to the definitions of the World Organization of Animal Health, which also consider economic aspects of disease. In Europe, classification is often directly linked to containment measures. The Belgian classification system however, only considers the inherent characteristics of the micro-organism, not its use, making the risk classification independent of containment measures. A common classification list for human and animal pathogens has been developed in Belgium using as comprehensive an approach as possible. Evolution of scientific knowledge will demand regular updating of classification lists. This paper describes the Belgian risk classification system and the methodology that was used for its peer-reviewed revision (with a focus on animal pathogens)

Wireless flow-sensor to inspect spray rate controllers

In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of sprayers was already started up in 1996 and the 8th inspection cycle (2017-2018-2019) is currently running. The inspection of sprayers is performed by official and mobile teams ruled by two inspection authorities and the management is done by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Public Health and the Environment (FAVV). In the Flemish region the inspection is delegated to the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). In the past decade the number of field crop sprayers equipped with a spray rate controller increased significantly. In the first inspection cycle (1996-1998), only 4.58% of the field crop sprayers were equipped with a spray rate controller in Flanders. In the 7th inspection cycle (2014-2016), this percentage increased significantly to 26.92%. As the original inspection method for spray rate controllers showed some lacks and was time consuming, ILVO developed a simple and reliable method to test rate controllers on field crop and orchard sprayers.In Belgium, the mandatory inspection of sprayers was already started up in 1996 and the 8th inspection cycle (2017-2018-2019) is currently running. The inspection of sprayers is performed by official and mobile teams ruled by two inspection authorities and the management is done by the Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Public Health and the Environment (FAVV). In the Flemish region the inspection is delegated to the Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO). In the past decade the number of field crop sprayers equipped with a spray rate controller increased significantly. In the first inspection cycle (1996-1998), only 4.58% of the field crop sprayers were equipped with a spray rate controller in Flanders. In the 7th inspection cycle (2014-2016), this percentage increased significantly to 26.92%. As the original inspection method for spray rate controllers showed some lacks and was time consuming, ILVO developed a simple and reliable method to test rate controllers on field crop and orchard sprayers

Routine induction in late-term pregnancies : follow-up of a Danish induction of labour paradigm

Objectives For many years, routine elective induction of labour at gestational week (GW) 42+0 has been recommended in Denmark. In 2011, a more proactive protocol was introduced aimed at reducing stillbirths, and practice changed into earlier routine induction, i.e. between 41+3 and 41+5 GW. The present study evaluates a national change in induction of labour regime. The trend of maternal and neonatal consequences are monitored in the preintervention period (2000-2010) compared with the postintervention period (2012-2016). Design A national retrospective register-based cohort study. Setting Denmark. Participants All births in Denmark 41+3 to 45+0 GWs between 2000 and 2016 (N = 152 887). Outcome measures Primary outcomes: stillbirths, perinatal death, and low Apgar scores. Additional outcomes: birth interventions and maternal outcomes. Results For the primary outcomes, no differences in stillbirths, perinatal death, and low Apgar scores were found comparing the preintervention and postintervention period. Of additional outcomes, the trend changed significantly postintervention concerning use of augmentation of labour, epidural analgesia, induction of labour and uterine rupture (all p<0.05). There was no significant change in the trend for caesarean section and instrumental birth. Most notable for clinical practice was the increase in induction of labour from 41% to 65% (p<0.01) at 41+3 weeks during 2011 as well as the rare occurrence of uterine ruptures (from 2.6 to 4.2 per thousand, p<0.02). Conclusions Evaluation of a more proactive regimen recommending induction of labour from GW 41+3 compared with 42+0 using national register data found no differences in neonatal outcomes including stillbirth. The number of women with induced labour increased significantly. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ

Disruption of physiological labour : a population register-based study among nulliparous women at term

Objectives: Current labour practices have seen an acceleration in interventions to either initiate, monitor, accelerate, or terminate the physiological process of pregnancy and childbirth. This study aimed to describe and analyse the use of interventions in childbirth in Denmark over almost two decades (2000–2017). We also examined the extent to which contemporary care adheres to current international recommendations towards restricted use of interventions. Study design: A national retrospective Danish register-based cohort study including all nulliparous women with term births with singleton pregnancy and a foetus in cephalic between the years 2000 and 2017 (n = 380,326 births). Multivariate regression analyses with adjustment for change in population were performed. Main outcome measures: Induction of labour, epidural analgesia, and augmentation of labour. Results: Between 2000/2001 and 2016/2017, the prevalence increased for induction of labour from 5.1% to 22.8%, AOR 4.84, 95% CI [4.61–5.10], epidural analgesia from 10.5% to 34.3% (AOR 4.10, 95% CI [3.95–4.26]), and augmentation of labour decreased slightly from 40.1% to 39.3% (AOR 0.84, 95% CI [0.81–0.86]). Having more than one of the three mentioned interventions increased from 12.8% in to 30.9%. Conclusions: The number of interventions increased during the study period as well as the number of interventions in each woman. As interventions may interfere in physiological labour and carry the risk of potential short- and long-term consequences, the findings call for a careful re-evaluation of contemporary maternity care with a “first, do no harm” perspective