BAW Congress 2023

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

I thoroughly enjoyed the BAW Congress in Rio. It was an excellent place to see what is happening in biologicals in Brazil.  We have a number of lessons from Brazil, where most biologicals are used on row crops versus other world areas, where the use is on specialty crops. It takes a speedy regulatory process and dedicated local/regional extension advisors to help implement the products based on their unique modes of action.

That said, it was a global conference, attended by people from all over the world. The rapid pace of change in the world and in agriculture is breathtaking; it’s about finding partners, as no one can do it alone. What struck me was the diversity in the industry now, so different than when I started. It is so refreshing to see the next generation of leaders (and so many women) with such dedication and motivation to impacting the planet in a positive way. The innovation continues with new startups forming and existing ones making progress, but the bar is higher now with so many companies in the industry. Your technology needs to be differentiated from others with a clear value proposition to the farmer.  Integrated programs were discussed at length, as the advantages for resistance and residue management and overall better season long results are clear and becoming accepted.

I look forward to next year in Raleigh, North Carolina, home of my alma mater, North Carolina State University with a fantastic Plant Sciences Center run by Adrian Percy, our co-host for the 2024 meeting.

PAM’S REFLECTION

Biologicals Have Arrived!

I recently also attended the Salinas Biological Summit where I spoke about the current landscape for biologicals, touching on the market, business models, criteria for an MVP (Minimum Viable Product), farmer perceptions and adoption, new innovations and how to understand them. I talked about the ongoing problems how biologicals are tested – standalone using protocols designed for synthetic chemicals versus ones based on biologicals’ modes of action and in integrated programs.  Candid discussion about how to test biologicals continued throughout the two days of the Summit and afterwards on LinkedIn. The conversation was even more relevant given the recent report that was published by North Dakota State University Extension “Performance of Selected Commercially Available Asymbiotic N-fixing Products in the North Central Region.” This report generated a lot of discussion and analyses, for example,  AgTech Biologicals might be having a Bad Week by Shane Thomas of Upstream Insights. Trials were conducted at Purdue University, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, Kansas State University, The Ohio State University, Michigan State University, University of Kentucky, North Dakota State University, University of Minnesota, and the University of Nebraska. They tested Envita® (Azotic), Utrisha® (Corteva), ProveN (Pivot Bio), ProveN 40 (Pivot Bio) and MicroAZ® (Terramax).

Their conclusions were the following:

“Sixty-one site years of N rate trials with and without the use of biological N fixing products were conducted in corn, spring wheat, sugar beet and canola in 10 states within the North Central Region of the U.S. Of the 61 site-years, 59 site-years had no yield increase with use of the product over N rate alone. Two site-years in corn had yield increases due to product use over the N rates alone. Given the low rate of positive benefits to the use of these products, growers should be skeptical of products that claim to provide asymbiotic/non- symbiotic N-fixation for the purpose of allowing a farmer to decrease fertilizer N rate. It is good for farmers to be curious; however, the wise grower needs to test products of interest on their own farm in a replicated manner and search for un-biased data on product performance before using them on whole fields. A recently published primer on how one might conduct on-farm research is provided in Thompson et al., 2022.”

So, let’s look closer at what they did:

NDSU

1. Four N rate trials were conducted on corn, with and without Envita and Utrisha applied at specific N rates. The trials were constructed as a randomized complete block with 10 treatments and four replications.
2.  One N-rate trial was conducted at the NDSU North Central Research Extension Center near Minot, ND on corn in 2022 using MicroAZ as a seed treatment or a foliar application.
3.  A trial was conducted at the NDSU North Central Research Extension Center near Minot, North Dakota, in 2020 on corn with and without Envita applied as a foliar spray at V2-3,
4.  At Minot, at the NDSU North Central Research Extension Center, an N rate trial was conducted in spring wheat with Envita as a foliar spray.
5.  A trial was conducted near Minot, North Dakota, using Envita in one or two foliar applications to canola.

The trials summary did not say how large the trial plots were and only specified the number of replicates (=four) for trials in a) above. In some cases, zero or lower rates of N were used in the trials but in other cases, the inoculants were added to the normal rate of N. It is well known that small plot trials are not that good at determining efficacy for yield data. My observation here is that the number of trials, the number of replicates and plot sizes (assuming these were 50-foot row type of trials) as well as the inconsistency in the N use rate protocols, it is difficult to make any conclusions from these trials. What was the objective of the trials? To see yield increase at normal rates of N or at reduced N? There needs to be more trials, the trials need to be much larger and there needs to be more replicates per treatment. What was the soil fertility? Did these soils already have good fertility? The weather? Soil types? Soil moisture? Differences among plots and sites?

University of Illinois:

N rate trials with and without Envita were conducted in 2021 near Monmouth, Illinois.A ProveN seed treatment on corn was also examined in a strip trial near Marion, Illinois. Three strips of corn with ProveN seed treatment were compared to yields with untreated seed, with N rate of 160 pounds N/acre as the base N rate. They did not report the number of replicates nor the size of the strips. Again, this is not enough trials and I assume the strips too small to make any good conclusions.

 

University of Minnesota:

N-rate trials on corn, with and without ProveN were conducted in 2019 and 2020. In 2019, trials were located near at Lamberton and Rosemount. In 2020, the trials were repeated at Becker and Waseca. The size of the plots and replicates were not specified.Two trials in sugarbeet were conducted in 2020 near Crookston and Wood Lake, Minnesota. Again, the number of reps and plot size was not listed.  The N-fixation products in the trial were Bio Red® and Bio Mate® (Biovante) applied together in furrow.

An on-farm trial using Envita in-furrow at planting was established in 2022 near Le Sueur, Minnesota. The treated strips were organized in a 3X2X4 factorial, with three N rates, two Envita treatments (with and without labeled rate of Envita), and four replications. Each strip consisted of twelve 30-inch rows the length of the field (which was??).

Again, I would not make any conclusions from these trials as there are not enough total trials and reps and for most, the size of the plots too small.

Purdue

Envita was applied to corn with long-term no-till management in an N rate trial at the Northeast Experiment Station in Indiana, between Fort Wayne and Columbia.

University of Missouri

Field trials (one per year) were conducted near Novelty, Missouri, on corn, using Envita in-furrow, ProveN or ProveN 40 in-furrow (ProveN 2020 and 2021; ProveN 40 2022) and Utrisha post-applied. Instinct NXTGEN (nitrapyrin, Corteva Agrisciences, Indianapolis, IN) was also applied as impregnated urea. The number of reps and the plot sizes were not specified.

Michigan State University

A corn trial was conducted near Mason, Michigan, using N rates with and without Envita, Utrisha and ProveN 40.

Kansas State University

An N rate trial was conducted in 2020 with and without ProveN near Manhattan, Kansas, in 2020.

University of Kentucky

Field trials on corn were conducted in 2020 near Princeton, Kentucky, on Crider and Sadler soils. The one trial included N rates with and without Utrisha applied as a post-application directed by the label. In this case they looked at two different soil types. There was a site by N rate by Utrisha interaction on grain yield.

The Ohio State University N rate trial with

An N rate trial with Utrisha was conducted in corn in 2022 with and without Utrisha applied at V6 in 2022 near Hoytville, OH. For each of the above universities starting with Purdue, one trial per year is not enough to make conclusions!

University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska on-farm research, N rates with and without ProveN or ProveN 40 .On-farm replicated research trials of N rate with and without ProveN or ProveN 40 were conducted in Nebraska on corn in 2021 and 2022. This was 5 locations in 2022 and 3 in 2021, They varied the irrigation methods in the trials (Pivot, gravity and none) but then rolled up all the trials in their conclusions. “The cumulative results of the Nebraska studies over two years found that corn using N rates without ProveN or ProveN 40 yielded 234 bushels/acre and yield with ProveN or ProveN 40 yielded 235 bushels/acre.”

I would have liked to see the trial data broken out rather than presented cumulatively given the differences in treatment regimens (application methods, irrigation and starter fertilizers). But it is good they had some trials with 6, 7 and 10 reps and that these were on-farm trials.

This Extension Bulletin “Performance of Selected Commercially Available Asymbiotic N-fixing Products in the North Central Region” opens up more questions than it answers.

Did the companies have input into the protocols? I know researchers want to appear independent from the companies, but with biologicals, it is never advisable to test products, especially new ones, without talking in detail to the company’s product/field development/technical service people and agreeing on the protocols.

The number of trials and replicates and trial plot sizes in most cases are too small to reliably make any conclusions. Yield trials require larger blocks, acres in size. P<0.05 is often too strict given the variability we see in soil type, weather, etc. Computing at <0.1 can be useful. In most of these trials however, being more lenient on the stats would not have made a difference but I would expect that larger plots, more trials and replicates would have provided more robust data.

Rolling up trials from different locations, application rates, irrigation regimes, different N fertilizers into one cumulative mean and reporting a large number of trials (“61 site years”) does not provide any insight into what factors may be influencing the products’ performance. What was the soil fertility at the start of the trial?

So, based on my comments above, is the researchers’ summary statement (see above) fair? Mostly!

Here is how I would have stated it:

[Without input from the companies selling these products], “N rate trials with and without the use of biological N fixing products were conducted in corn, spring wheat, sugar beet and canola in 10 states within the North Central Region of the U.S. in 2021-2022. Of the 61 site-years, 59 site-years had no yield increase with use of the product over N rate alone. Two site-years in corn had yield increases due to product use over the N rates alone. For any biological nutrient or biostimulant product, growers should ask the companies what field data (internal and external) they have behind their products, what are the mechanism of action and science behind the products, under which conditions and methods do the products work best and where they do not, and which other farmers have had good results with the products. It is good for farmers to be curious; however, the wise grower needs to test products of interest on their own farm in a replicated manner preferably in 5-to-20-acre blocks compared to their standard program before using them on whole fields. A recently published primer on how one might conduct on-farm research is provided in Thompson et al., 2022.”

The companies in these trials are not just startup companies eager to grow their revenues and gain grower adoption to please their investors. Both Pivot Bio and Azotic have gotten traction on the ground with growers. Terramax has been around a long time and has a good business with loyal customers. Corteva and other large companies conduct hundreds of trials over multiple years before putting their name on a product. So, the key here, is to understand the gap between the university trials and the companies’ data. I have given some suggestions above as to the reasons for the gap. We will continue to see new biological innovations coming to market and it behooves all of us, whatever our affiliations, to work together to solve growers’ problems and enhance the sustainability of farming systems.