While Brussels and Washington D.C. are busy with the new government appointees and drafting new policies, it is a good use of my time to turn my ears to growers. It’s always a good time to listen to our customers but in our regulatory world, we sometimes get so busy that attention deviates from the core matter i.e. listening to our customers.

A question has been in the air for quite some time regarding the slow uptake of biocontrol on row crops in Europe, also called cash crops by some. There can be many reasons for this, including the regulatory hurdles on timelines and assessments’ uncertainty – though they are the same for specialty crops, I would leave such considerations out of this conversation today to focus on some other points we often miss as biocontrol manufacturers and product developers.

Talking to some row crop growers and associations in Europe, I gained interesting insights into some blockages faced by biocontrol and to address them during the product development stage by considering the available application equipment and the current agricultural practices.

During these conversations, I was listening and avoided any direct response or rebuttals unless there was a misleading statement that demanded immediate intervention, such as, “Biologicals don’t work; I have tried them.”

This statement was often heard in different forms of politeness. It was quite disturbing to listen to and the follow-up questions made me realize that growers do not distinguish between biocontrol products (or PPP) from soil amendments, biostimulants, and other products sold to them under the umbrella of “biological” products.

In the follow-up questions, it was clear that none of the products were biocontrol products and even the names of the products mentioned in the conversation were new to me. This is a huge problem for the entire industry, as it is undermining product adoption because “biological” products did not deliver on their extensive claims and promises. For most of us in the industry, sitting in our offices, the understanding of the different product categories in the marketplace seems to be clear, but it is not. At the grower level, all products are in the same bucket: biologicals. One bad experience is enough to make growers walk away from trying other biologicals.

At the core of the problem are emotions and a perception of risk that biologicals are riskier or less reliable than chemical control, particularly for high-value crops where losses can be costly.

Product Availability

Most formulations available in Europe and already registered as biocontrol (i.e. as Plant Protection Products in European jargon) have been developed with other uses and crops in mind. A quick win for applicants and manufacturers has been to use Mutual Recognition and label expansion to reach some row crop growers, but this approach does not always work. Very often, there is a need for a different formulation, developed from scratch, to address a particular use/crop and to fit into the growers’ application practices. Thus, we go back to the regulatory timelines to allow for such new formulations to be registered, i.e. several years to make the solution available and new data generation on a specific formulation.

For example: if a microorganism is delivered via a drip irrigation system to vegetables with 5–7-day spray intervals and you would like to extend it to wheat. There are probably one or two applications possible on wheat during the growing season which means the formulation and content of the microorganism would have to be adjusted from multiple application patterns to make it work on wheat. And this brings me to the agriculture practices and the current application window we are allowed to use.

Product Application
Common feedback received from growers of row crops was: “I can apply the product when I apply the herbicide, fertilizers, or at a later stage when spraying the fungicides mix.”

Some growers might have the possibility to apply in the furrow, but in Europe, such application is still limited in comparison with the US and other geographies. The practices and machinery used today is a limitation. Some biocontrol products might be applied along with herbicides on cereals, but not all. Understanding the current grower practices is fundamental to ensure that the biological product (biocontrol, biostimulant, or soil amendment) added into a tank mix will deliver its function.

This includes understanding the pre-planting practices and the soil structure and composition (particularly for microorganisms) to ensure value addition for growers i.e. the product is delivering on the label claims. If soil structure and composition have been altered by tillage, then the extent of the colonization of plants by microorganisms and its performance is questionable. A deep understanding of operations performed earlier on that soil is critical to ensure product performance, particularly for certain modes of action involving root colonization and products whose performance is dependent on soil properties (phys-chem properties, humidity, cover crops used, and soil microbiome).

Equipment Availability
In Europe, all equipment used for applying pesticides to row crops has been developed to deliver chemical-based products. The equipment available today is a limiting factor for the use of several biocontrol products: either the equipment is not there, the nozzles are not adequate, or the grower will not spray the crop at the time the biocontrol should be applied. Growers are unlikely to acquire special spraying equipment, and it can be difficult to fit into current spray methods/practices and spray parameters (pressure used, drift reduction, spray time, etc.) for certain field crops such as wheat, sugar beet, and even potatoes. A solution is needed to bridge this gap because the application is key for product efficacy. Farming machinery and agricultural practices are often not fully adapted to the specific requirements of biological control (biocontrol) products. To ensure the successful integration of biocontrol into modern farming, several adjustments and innovations are still needed.

The ecosystem where row crops are cultivated Even though Europe does not have big farms compared to other parts of the world, row crops are grown on the fields with fewer possibilities to rotate crops and boost crop diversity in those fields. This lays on economic growth – agriculture is an economic activity, even if sometimes people forget about it – and the growers shall have the right to a dignified life from their work and farms’ output. This is where governmental mechanisms, such as the CAP* (Common Agriculture Policy) are necessary, and in need of adjustments, to deliver on the future: to ensure growers’ livelihoods, food security, and the health of soils and ecosystems. It is frankly not possible with the current CAP mechanisms and crop prices.

What can we do?
Machinery producers need to be engaged in this conversation to know different types of biocontrol product applications when developing new machinery for the growers or adapting existing ones. We need to keep engaging with our industry associations, such as the IBMA and BPIA, to ensure policymakers understand what needs to be done and the difference they can make to support growers at different levels — at the policy officer level as well as at a political level. Everybody can contribute at every decision level. Together, we can build the future and safeguard a healthy food production system that is profitable for growers.

Addressing these barriers requires education, financial incentives, machinery adaptation, improved regulatory frameworks, and more field research to demonstrate the long-term benefits of biocontrol.

The Against Arguments
One argument against biocontrol heard on various occasions was “They are too expensive compared with what I am using now.”

Pricing is a matter of time, competition, the uptake of new users, and the scale-up of production. Yes, today, some products are out of reach for certain crops, but this can change as we move on with the uptake of products and the growth of the market size. As more users engage and companies enter the market, this hurdle will fade away for most biocontrol products. Of course, when limited sources are available for certain materials, this could have a contrary effect. The usual impact of economies of scale on pricing will not hold across all technologies.

What’s next
Transitioning to biocontrol in row crops requires changes in crop management practices, which can be disruptive. This is not a revolution, and nobody will win by disrupting the backbone of our food security: the growers.

Biocontrol agents may be sensitive to other pest management tools, such as chemical pesticides or fertilizers, making their integration into the IPM program rather complex. Many growers are still unfamiliar with how biocontrol agents work, or the specific conditions needed for their success, and a lot of dialogue is required (but not sales pitches — they can be more damaging than helpful for the uptake of biocontrol).

Today limited knowledge is available on integrating biocontrol with existing pest management practices at the grower level, especially under European conditions. Part of the problem is the unavailability of the products in the market. Another part of the problem is that the development for row crops is being driven by soybeans, corn, and cotton (in the Americas), leaving European crops such as sugar beet and wheat lagging in terms of experimental development and real-world experience, i.e. field use on the IPM programs.

Some small yet notable steps in the right direction include the EU granting millions of euros for field development under the IPM practices, and the EU Horizon Project tackling the uptake of biocontrol on row crops and its integration on disease/pest management programs for sugar beet and potatoes. The project, named SAGROPIA, involves academia, R&D Centers, growers, and industry, and aims to spark the dialogue between the different groups to provide some answers on how best to integrate biocontrol solutions into growers’ practices for row crops.

More of these IPM programs will be needed to move away from the “one solution solves all” mindset and financing mechanisms to support such multi-actor approaches to tackle the challenges of a particular crop cycle and providing multiple solutions, in a program, in which biocontrol will play a crucial role.

(*) The EU Common Agriculture Policy: CAP overview – European Commission
(**) EU Horizon Project SAGROPIA: Homepage – SAGROPIA

Disclaimer: the text expresses solely the personal thoughts and views of the author on the topic and do not necessarily reflect views, opinions, or positions of any organization to which the author is affiliated.
Author: Dr. José Carvalho is currently Europe Regulatory Lead for Certis Biologicals (aka Certis USA L.L.C), Chair of the IBMA Microbial Professional Group and member of the IBMA Council.