Tag: Agriculture

Oregano Essential Oil: A Natural Solution for Boosting Health and Performance in Organic Livestock

In organic livestock production, finding effective natural alternatives to synthetic inputs is both a challenge and an opportunity. Recently, I came across two compelling articles in Bovine Veterinarian magazine that shed light on the potential of essential oils—particularly oregano oil—as substitutes for synthetic feed additives like ionophores. The November/December 2024 edition featured Maureen Hanson’s article, “OREGANO: Not Just for Pizza Anymore,” which explored oregano essential oil as a natural alternative.1 Similarly, the March/April 2025 issue included Hanson’s follow-up piece, “Hello Essential Oils and Goodbye Ionophores?”2 These articles highlighted emerging research suggesting essential oils could be a potential livestock production enhancement and when you get two articles on the same subject you begin to notice!

Why Replace Ionophores?

Ionophores are antimicrobial compounds commonly used in conventional livestock production to manipulate rumen microbial populations. For example, monensin—a widely used ionophore—improves feed efficiency and daily weight gains by promoting favorable rumen fermentation. However, ionophores are prohibited in organic systems due to their synthetic nature and concerns about antibiotic resistance. Consumer demand for cleaner food has also prompted scrutiny of ionophore use in several countries.

For organic producers, this presents a challenge: how can we maintain or improve herd performance and health without compromising organic standards or animal welfare? This is where essential oils are gaining attention as viable alternatives.

Essential Oils Show Promise in Cattle

A recent study led by Dr. Jaymelynn Farney at Kansas State University3 evaluated the use of essential oils in stocker cattle diets. In this trial, 281 steers were divided into two groups: one group received minerals with an ionophore (monensin), while the other received minerals containing a proprietary blend of essential oils—including garlic, oregano, cinnamon, lemongrass, and capsaicin.

The results were strikingly similar:

  • Cattle fed essential oils gained an average of 2.13 pounds per day over 90 days.
  • Cattle fed ionophores gained 2.15 pounds per day.
  • Mineral intake and total weight gain were nearly identical between groups.

Interestingly, the essential oil mix was slightly less expensive than the ionophore mix. While no significant differences in cattle behavior were observed, Farney noted a mild increase in heart rate among cattle fed essential oils—a potential indication of vasodilation (increased blood flow), which is a known effect of certain essential oils.

Oregano – Origanum vulgare, also known as wild marjoram

Improving Calf Health with Oregano Oil

On the dairy side, a study conducted at Aristotle University in Greece4 investigated the use of oregano essential oil to combat diarrhea in newborn Holstein calves. Neonatal diarrhea is a common issue for dairy producers, especially those adhering to organic standards that restrict antibiotic use.

In this study:

  • Calves treated with a daily oregano oil drench for their first 10 days of life experienced fewer days with diarrhea.
  • Treated calves had lower overall diarrhea severity and shorter illness duration.
  • The need for antibiotics and supportive therapies was significantly reduced.

These findings are particularly relevant for organic dairy producers who often face challenges maintaining calf health without relying on conventional medications.

Practical Takeaways

So that you can get a general idea of the approximate amounts these studies are using when feeding oregano essential oil.

For Dairy Cows

Recommended dosage is 15 ml/day/cow for 28 days.

  • Product Price: A quart (946 ml) of Orego-Stim Liquid costs $35.
  • Daily Cost per Cow: 15 ml/946 ml × 35 = $0.550 per day per cow.
  • Total Cow Cost – 28 Days Treatment × $0.550/day = $15.54 per cow

For Dairy Calves

  • Product Price: A quart (946 ml) of Orego-Stim Liquid costs $35
  • Maintenance Dosage: 2 ml/day/calf mixed into milk until weaning.
  • Extra Support Dosage: 10 ml/day/calf for 10 days, followed by 2 ml/day/calf until weaning.

Daily Cost per Calf

  • Maintenance: 2 ml/946 ml × $35 =$0.074 per day per calf
  • Extra Support: 10 ml/946 ml × $35 = $0.37 per day per calf

Total Cost for Weaning Period (56 days)

  • Extra Support Dosage: 10 days at $0.370/day = $3.70
  • Maintenance Dosage: Remaining 46 days at $0.074/day = $3.40
  • Total Cost: $3.70 + $3.40 = $7.10 per calf      

Replacing Monensin with Oregano in Grower Diets

Another study by researchers in China5 examined oregano essential oil as a replacement for monensin in grower diets for weaned Holstein bulls over a 240-day trial. Bulls fed oregano oil achieved weight gains comparable to those fed monensin. However, when both oregano oil and monensin were administered together, performance decreased—suggesting an antagonistic interaction between these two compounds.

This finding underscores the importance of using oregano oil as a standalone tool rather than combining it with synthetic additives (monensin).

Why This Matters for Organic Producers

These studies offer promising insights into how essential oils can support health and productivity in organic livestock systems. Specifically:

  • Essential oils naturally promote rumen fermentation.
  • They help reduce disease pressure, such as calf diarrhea.
  • They align with consumer preferences for natural products.
  • When derived from non-synthetic sources, they comply with USDA organic regulations.

Additionally, the Kansas State trial demonstrated that essential oils can be cost-effective compared to conventional feed additives like ionophores. However, it’s important to note that outcomes may vary depending on factors such as livestock species, diet composition, management practices, and sourcing of essential oils.

Considerations Before Adopting Essential Oils

While these findings are encouraging, producers should approach essential oils with careful consideration:

  • Efficacy: Results may vary depending on formulation quality and livestock conditions.
  • Cost: Although some trials suggest cost savings, market variability could affect affordability.
  • Regulatory Compliance: Ensure that any essential oils used meet USDA organic certification requirements.
  • Potential Risks: High doses or improper formulations could lead to toxicity or unintended interactions with other feed components.

Further research is needed to fully understand how essential oils perform across diverse production systems, but these results do hold promise!

Where to Learn More

If you’re interested in experimenting with essential oils in your operation, here are a few extra resources:

  • Calsamiglia et al., 2007. “Essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation.” Journal of Dairy Science.6
  • Greathead, 2003. “Plants and plant extracts for improving animal productivity.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society.7

References:

  1. Hanson, Maureen. “Oregano: Not Just for Pizza Anymore.” Bovine Veterinarian, November/December 2024. ↩︎
  2. Hanson, Maureen. “Hello Essential Oils and Goodbye Ionophores?” Bovine Veterinarian, March/April 2025. ↩︎
  3. Farney, J.K., et al. (2025). “Effects on Stocker Steer Performance While Consuming Essential Oil or Ionophore Minerals.” Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, Vol. 11: Iss. 1. ↩︎
  4. Katsoulos, P.D., et al. (2017). “Evaluation of the in-field efficacy of oregano essential oil administration on the control of neonatal diarrhea syndrome in calves.” Research in Veterinary Science, 115:478-483. ↩︎
  5. Wu, J., et al. (2020). “Dietary supplementation with oregano essential oil and monensin in combination is antagonistic to growth performance of yearling Holstein bulls.” Journal of Dairy Science, 103(9):8119-8129. ↩︎
  6. Calsamiglia et al., (2007). “Essential oils as modifiers of rumen microbial fermentation.” Journal of Dairy Science ↩︎
  7. Greathead, (2003). “Plants and plant extracts for improving animal productivity.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. ↩︎

What the Haney Test Revealed: Biological Benefits of Cover Crops in Action

Over the past few weeks, I’ve written about what cover crops like Sunn Hemp, Tepary Bean, and Cowpea leave behind in the soil and how their nutrient contributions stack up in standard soil tests. But it wasn’t until we looked at the Haney Soil Test results from March 2025 that we could truly see the biological influence each of these summer cover crops had on the soil. In this post, I’m sharing new insights drawn from those results and why I believe every grower should consider this test when evaluating cover crop performance.

Why the Haney Test?

Unlike standard chemical soil tests that only measure nutrient availability, the Haney Test adds a biological lens. It measures microbial respiration (CO₂-C), available organic nitrogen (Haney N), and gives an overall Soil Health Score. These indicators help us understand how biologically active the soil is and how much of the nutrients are likely to cycle into plant-available forms.

For organic and sustainable systems, this is vital. We’re not just feeding the crop—we’re feeding the soil.

All Plots Started Equal

Just to set the stage: all test plots had a rye cover crop terminated in early spring 2024 and were kept bare and weed-free through summer. The only difference among plots came when Sunn Hemp, Tepary Bean, or Cowpea was planted in August 2024. The check plot remained bare.

The Biological Winners and Stragglers

Here’s what the Haney Test results (click here to see reports) show:

  • Sunn Hemp had the highest CO₂-C (43.21 ppm), strong Haney N (74.74 lbs/ac), and the highest Soil Health Score (9.41). It fed the microbes and left behind a soil system ready to cycle nutrients. If you’re planting a high-demand crop like corn or grain sorghum, Sunn Hemp sets the table biologically.
  • Cowpea followed closely with a CO₂-C of 32.08 ppm, Haney N of 71.50 lbs/ac, and a Soil Health Score of 7.80. Reliable, balanced, and consistent—it’s a solid choice for improving soil function while conserving moisture and nutrients.
  • Tepary Bean, despite good forage quality and tissue N content (3.02%), showed low microbial activity (CO₂-C of 13.75 ppm) and the lowest Soil Health Score (6.43). It may decompose slower or produce compounds less favored by microbes. That’s not necessarily bad—it might serve longer-term fertility, but it’s not the best option for short-term nutrient release.
  • Check Plot (bare fallow) showed high mineral N (83.73 lbs/ac) and decent CO₂-C (37.14 ppm), but that’s misleading. There was no cover crop to feed soil life or cycle nutrients—just unutilized residuals from last year. Long term, this approach does not build soil health.
  • Click here to read a summary report – Summary of Soil Samples

What This Means for Growers

The biological boost from a cover crop can be measured and managed. Without the Haney Test, we’d only be guessing how much nitrogen or biological activity remains from cover cropping. We tell growers: don’t plant blind—use this test to make more informed fertility and management decisions.

Sunn Hemp again proved why it’s a leading summer cover crop for southern systems. Cowpea is a great second choice when water is limited or biological stimulation is still desired. Tepary Bean may have a role in longer rotations but isn’t the best for quick turnover systems.

Final Thought

We use cover crops for more than just erosion control. They’re engines of soil biology, nutrient cycling, and resilience. The Haney Test gives us a dashboard to read those engines.

If you’re not already using it, this is your sign: test for biology, not just chemistry.

Read more:

Personality Plus: Building Resilient Organic Dairy Cows from Day One

I take the Bovine Veterinarian Magazine and appearing in the March/April 2025 edition (picture below) was this interesting article on dairy calf personality by Maureen Hanson. The article rang all kinds of “bells” for me because organic dairy production requires more than just certified feed and pasture. It demands a different kind of cow—one that can thrive with lower intervention, recover from stress without antibiotics, and mature into a productive milking animal under the constraints and values of organic systems. Maureen Hanson wrote her article based on a 2024 peer-reviewed study from the University of Kentucky (Journal of Dairy Science, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2023-24257)1 and this study offers a compelling new tool for organic dairy production: personality-based calf selection.

Bovine Veterinarian – March/April 2025

Calf Personality Predicts Future Performance

In the study, 49 Holstein calves were assessed using a series of behavioral tests designed to evaluate their responses to novelty and stress. Through principal component analysis of their behavior, researchers identified three personality traits:

  • Fearful: slower to approach novelty, more time spent being alert but not engaging
  • Active: higher movement across all tests, more physical exploration
  • Explorative: more interaction with objects and environment, less time inactive

These traits were then statistically correlated with detailed data from automatic calf feeders and wearable accelerometers tracking feeding behavior and activity. The results were striking:

  • Active calves consumed more starter grain, reached intake benchmarks earlier, and had significantly higher average daily gain (ADG) across all periods.
  • Explorative calves, surprisingly, had lower starter intake and lower ADG specifically during the weaning period.
  • Fearful calves showed no consistent associations with feed intake or growth but were clearly slower to engage with novel environments—a potential early marker for stress sensitivity.

Implications for Organic Dairy: Observation is Prevention

Organic systems are built on the foundation of preventive health, yet many dairy owners and managers are disconnected from the earliest stages of calf development. Calf rearing is often delegated to extremely capable managers but often few of the decision-makers (probably you since you are reading this) spend the time to observe how calves respond to their first illness, their first separation, or their first group housing experience.

This study confirms that those early responses matter. Calves that are more active adapt better to weaning and start feeding more quickly, leading to stronger growth and rumen development—two key goals in organic dairy management. Explorative behavior, meanwhile, may suggest curiosity but could signal greater sensitivity to changes, especially during stressful transitions.

You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Observe

The beauty of this research is that it doesn’t require high-tech tools to be useful. Yes, wearable accelerometers and automated feeders give precise measurements, but a skilled observer can spot:

  • Calves that hesitate or vocalize excessively when encountering new objects or people
  • Calves that walk their pens often versus those that stand still
  • Calves that seek out grain early versus those that delay

Even 20 minutes per pen per day, using a simple observation sheet for behavior categories like “explores new object,” “approaches person,” or “walks pen,” could help identify high-potential calves for organic dairy production systems.

A Call to Action for Organic Dairy

Early-life behavior should become part of calf selection and culling decisions in organic systems. Just as we select against structural flaws or poor production genetics, we should begin identifying calves whose temperament makes them a poor fit for organic environments. Resilience (something of extreme importance in organic dairying) is not just physical; it is behavioral.

These steps can help producers:

  • Reduce calfhood mortality and illness
  • Improve long-term health and lifetime milk production
  • Target breeding decisions for greater resilience
  • Stay within the boundaries of organic treatment rules

The goal isn’t just healthier calves. It’s to create a herd that is biologically compatible with organic practices. Personality is not just a curiosity. It’s a management tool. And for organic dairy, it might be one of the most important ones we haven’t been using.

Appendix: Early-Life Calf Behavior Observation Checklist

Use this tool I developed during the first 10–14 days of life (or whatever fits your operation) to assess each calf’s temperament and adaptability. Score each behavior during structured (regular) observation sessions or low-stress test scenarios (not when moving to a new pen!). Click: Calf Behavior Tool

Observation CategoryBehavior DescriptionScoring Notes
Novelty ApproachTime to approach a new object (e.g., colored bucket, ball) placed in pen1 = avoids; 2 = cautious/slow; 3 = approaches/touches; 4 = immediate interest
Response to HumanReaction when person enters pen or stands nearby1 = flees or hides; 2 = freezes; 3 = moves away calmly; 4 = approaches or investigates
Pen MovementGeneral movement over 10 minutes1 = mostly stationary; 2 = some walking; 3 = walks frequently; 4 = constant movement
Play BehaviorJumps, kicks, head butts, or frolics1 = none; 2 = rare; 3 = moderate; 4 = frequent
VocalizationsCalf vocalizes when alone or during change (e.g., feeding or handling)1 = silent; 2 = occasional; 3 = frequent; 4 = constant/loud
Feeder InterestTime to discover starter grain or milk feeder1 = delayed; 2 = average; 3 = quick; 4 = immediate curiosity

Score each calf twice during the observation window to account for variability. Calves with consistently high scores in movement, feeding curiosity, and play behavior may be more biologically suited to organic dairy systems. Those with consistently low or fearful responses may require extra care—or may be poor candidates for organic retention.

  1. Woodrum Setser, D., Proudfoot, K., Costa, J.H.C., Marchant-Forde, R.M., Bewley, J.M., & Cantor, M.C. (2024). Individuality of calves: Linking personality traits to feeding and activity daily patterns measured by precision livestock technology. Journal of Dairy Science, 107(5), 4512–4527. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2023-24257 ↩︎

GMO Testing in Organic Cotton: What Farmers Need to Know

Organic cotton farmers work hard to maintain their certification, ensuring that their crops are grown without synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or prohibited inputs. Even when farmers follow organic practices to the letter, GMO contamination can still occur!

Let’s take a closer look at how GMO testing works, what the results mean, and why the final decision on certification can sometimes feel arbitrary.

How is GMO Contamination Measured?

GMO testing in Seed Cotton (raw cotton including fibers and seeds) is performed using real-time PCR analysis, a widely used method to detect genetic modification markers in cotton DNA. The gin will take samples of your seed cotton and submit those samples to their Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) Certifier. The GOTS Certifier will submit those samples to a lab, usually OMIC which will then run them for GMO presence. The results are then submitted back to the GOTS Certifier. Here are some things that are being investigated.

  • Standard Limit of Quantification (LOQ): 0.1% GMO content – This is the most commonly used threshold for accurately measuring contamination.
  • More Sensitive Tests: Some advanced labs claim they can detect levels as low as 0.01%, but I have not seen this as an industry-standard threshold for Seed Cotton testing. But you could see this from European labs!
  • Anything above a 0.1% is detectable and reported as such as you can tell from this test sheet with all the names removed!

Here is another test with some different results.

What the Test Results Mean

  • This sample contains GMO markers including Bt toxin (Cry1Ab/Ac) and herbicide resistance (otp/mepsps).
  • p35S, pFMV, and tNOS confirm genetic modification.
  • Organic certifiers would likely reject this cotton since GMO elements were clearly detected.
  • If contamination was unintentional, an investigation might be needed to determine if the cotton can still qualify for certain supply chains.
MarkerDetected?GMO Trait Significance
SAH7 (Cotton Gene)✔ YesConfirms valid cotton DNA
Cry1Ab/Ac (Bt Toxin)✔ 1.44%Indicates Bt Cotton (Insect Resistance)
otp/mepsps (Glyphosate Resistance)✔ 0.47%Possible Roundup Ready Cotton (Herbicide Resistance)
p35S (CaMV Promoter)✔ 1.93%Common GMO activation switch
PAT (Glufosinate Resistance)❌ Not DetectedNo Liberty Link herbicide resistance
pFMV (FMV Promoter)✔ 1.91%Used for GMO gene activation
tNOS (Terminator)✔ 3.27%Common GMO terminator sequence
GM Elements (General GMO Presence)✔ YesConfirms GMO modification detected

Now What Happens?

What happens when an organic cotton sample tests positive for GMOs? That really depends on a lot of different things, and this is where farmers can get frustrated. I have provided you with some sample test results but usually you won’t even see these results. At this point the GOTS Certifier for the Gin has your test results. This is a small list of what they do:

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) Says:

  • No intentional use of GMOs is allowed.
  • If contamination is detected, the GOTS certifier launches an investigation instead of outright rejection.
  • If the farmer can prove they used verified non-GMO seed and followed organic practices, then there is a strong possibility that they may still be approved.

GOTS Certifier Reaches Out

The next step is for the GOTS Certifier to reach out to your Organic Certifier at the farm level. Because a “red flag” is now waving, your certifier is going to be looking at your Organic System Plan (OSP) with a fine-toothed comb! They will be looking at your cottonseed information, at your field and field locations, at every record you submitted to determine if there is anything that might have caused a “voluntary” versus “involuntary” contamination. You will probably know that something is up either by just a notice of an investigation or possibly a full-blown visit. Either way, they (your certifier) are trying to find out why the raw seed cotton is showing up with detectable levels of GMO.

Most of the time there is absolutely nothing you did to cause a detectable limit of GMO in your seed cotton. We might call this an “Act of God” because no one knows why it happens. The planting seed tested good, the field was good and there is no drift. No one knows what happened or why and so you get a clean bill of health. The system is designed with some flexibility because there can be an “Act of God” and to be honest I am glad to recognize that God is Sovereign even over cotton fields and cotton farmers!

On the other hand, it can sometimes be identified as a wrong bag of planting seed picked up, a wrong module or bale marking, or some other contamination issue along the way. Elevated levels of GMO in your raw seed cotton will throw up all kinds of red flags and could lead to a non-compliance, rejected organic cotton and a microscopic look at all other aspects of your organic operation! Let’s hope we don’t go there……

What Can Farmers Do?

  • Test early and often. If you suspect contamination, conduct your own tests before sending cotton to market. Newsletter Article Page 2
  • Maintain strong records. Prove that you sourced verified non-GMO seed and followed organic protocols.
  • Work with a certifier who understands the realities of farming. Some certifiers are more flexible in their investigations than others or ask the right questions instead of just assuming you are wrong.
  • Improve segregation. Make sure that cotton stays separate at every stage, from harvesting to ginning.

Final Thoughts

Organic farmers face an uphill battle when it comes to avoiding GMO contamination. Even with perfect compliance, your cotton test results can find GMOs, and certification decisions often depend on factors beyond the farmer’s control. Don’t panic and be willing to go the extra mile to find out why. Your organic certifier has their neck on the line too as does your ginner and we all want you to succeed. As we are at the very start of a new crop year do all you can now to stay out of this “mess” later!

Organic Sorghum Resources (update)

Sorghum’s natural characteristics and compatibility with organic farming principles indeed make it an excellent crop for organic cultivation. While some traits like drought tolerance and non-GMO status are shared with conventional sorghum, these characteristics synergize particularly well with the goals and methods of organic agriculture, offering distinct advantages.

Click a link below to scroll down!

Post Updated 3/12/25

  1. Sorghum’s Advantages
  2. Buying seed?
  3. Sorghum Varieties
  4. Forage Sorghum Varieties
  5. Sorghum Sudan Grass Varieties
  6. Sorghum Seed Companies
  7. Other Resources (just click to see)

Sorghum’s Advantages

  • Drought Tolerance: Sorghum’s inherent drought tolerance makes it an ideal crop for organic systems, which prioritize water conservation and efficient use.
  • Low Fertilizer Needs: Sorghum’s ability to thrive in less fertile soils matches well with organic farming, which relies on natural fertility management rather than synthetic fertilizers.
  • Natural Resistance to Pests and Diseases: Sorghum’s inherent resistance to many pests and diseases minimizes the need for synthetic pesticides, making it easier for organic farmers to manage their crops.
  • Versatility in Use: Sorghum can be utilized in a variety of ways (grain, syrup, fodder) which allows organic producers to cater to diverse markets (food, feed, sweeteners) under organic labels.
  • Contribution to Soil Health: Sorghum’s deep rooting system can improve soil structure and increase water infiltration, beneficial effects that are particularly valued in organic systems focused on long-term soil health.
  • Crop Rotation and Diversity: Sorghum fits well into crop rotations, a cornerstone of organic farming, helping break pest and disease cycles and improving soil health without relying on chemical inputs.
  • Consumer Preference for Non-GMO: Even though there is no GMO sorghum on the market, the strong consumer preference for non-GMO products benefits organic sorghum producers, as their products are guaranteed to meet this demand.
  • Growing Demand for Organic Grains: The increasing consumer demand for organic products extends to grains, including sorghum, for both human consumption and organic animal feed.
  • Carbon Sequestration: Sorghum’s growth habit and biomass production can contribute to carbon sequestration, aligning with the environmental sustainability goals of organic farming.

While many of sorghum’s traits benefit both conventional and organic systems, its natural resilience, low input requirements, and versatility make it particularly well-suited for organic agriculture. These characteristics help organic sorghum producers minimize reliance on external inputs, align with organic principles, and tap into a growing market demand for organic products.

Buying seed?

The number of seeds per pound in sorghum varieties can vary significantly depending on the specific variety and the size of the seeds. Generally, this range can be broad, reflecting differences in genetics, breeding objectives, and end use (grain, forage, or specialty types). Here’s a general overview:

  • Small-Seeded Varieties: Can have as many as 16,000 to 18,000 seeds per pound.
  • Large-Seeded Varieties: May have fewer seeds per pound, typically ranging from 12,000 to 15,000 seeds per pound.
  • Forage sorghums and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid types tend to have larger seeds compared to grain sorghum varieties. The seeds per pound can range from 10,000 to 14,000 for forage types, with sorghum-sudangrass hybrids often on the lower end of this scale due to their larger seed size.

Sorghum Varieties

The varieties listed below are some planted by current organic growers. We are in the process of getting a better list together and will post them here!

These varieties are listed along with their respective websites for more detailed information. Company listings are down below and your source for qualified salespeople. Check with your certifier before buying any sorghum seed especially if the variety is not sold as organically produced. Since we do not have many organic, locally adapted sorghum varieties producers typically buy conventionally produced varieties without seed treatments.

Forage Sorghum Varieties

Sorghum Sudan Grass Varieties

Sorghum Seed Companies

Richardson Seeds

DynaGro Seed (Nutrien Ag Solutions)

MOJO Seed

Sorghum Partners, S&W Seed Company

Scott Seed Co

  • 114 E New York St. or PO Box 1732, Hereford, TX  79045
  • Office: 806-364-3484
  • Coby Kreighauser
  • Mobile: 806-683-1868
  • coby@scottseed.net
  • Chuck Cielencki
  • Mobile: 806-683-1868
  • chuck@scottseed.net

Supra Ag International

  • 10808 S River Front Pkwy, Suite 3039, South Jordan, UT 84095
  • Office: 801-984-6723
  • Sales: 806-292-0031
  • info@supra.ag
  • Chris Hendrickson
  • chris@supra.ag

Warner Seeds

Integra, Wilbur-Ellis

LG Seeds

Golden Acres

Innvictis Seed Solutions

Alta Seeds by Advanta

DeKalb (Bayer)

BH Genetics

Other Resources (just click to see)

Biopesticides and Biostimulants: Innovation, Challenges, and Growth

Introduction

Biopesticides and biostimulants are at the forefront of organic agriculture, offering natural solutions for pest control and plant health. While these products have gained popularity, the industry faces both opportunities and challenges as it evolves. This post explores the similarities and differences between biopesticides and biostimulants, their regulatory landscape, and what the future holds for these technologies.

Defining Biopesticides and Biostimulants

First let’s look at Biopesticides

Biopesticides are derived from natural materials, including microorganisms, plants, and minerals, to control pests and diseases. They function through competition, antibiosis, or physiological disruption of target organisms. Biopesticides as a category are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as is detailed below!

Types of Biopesticides:
  • Microbial Biopesticides: Contain beneficial bacteria, fungi, viruses, or protozoa that suppress pests (e.g., Bacillus thuringiensis Bt for caterpillar control).
  • Biochemical Biopesticides: Utilize plant extracts, pheromones, and essential oils to affect pest behavior or physiology. For example, Thyme oil or Neem oil would fit this category.
  • Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs): Genetic material introduced into plants, such as Bt proteins in genetically modified (GMO) crops. These are not to be used in organic production but are considered a biopesticide.

This image above is from the EPA website for Biopesticides. Click on the image to go to the website and check on a biopesticides registration!

How a Company Determines the Need for EPA Approval for a Biopesticide

A company developing a new biopesticide must determine if its product falls under EPA regulation by assessing the active ingredient, intended use, and mode of action. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) mandates that any substance intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating pests must be registered as a pesticide with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A company should ask the following questions to assess if its product qualifies as a biopesticide requiring EPA registration:

  1. Does the product actively control pests, pathogens, or weeds?
    • If the product claims direct pest suppression, it is a pesticide and requires EPA approval.
    • If it only enhances plant health without targeting pests directly, it may qualify as a biostimulant and not require EPA registration.
  2. What is the mode of action?
    • If the product kills, inhibits, or repels pests, it is considered a pesticide.
    • If the product works by stimulating plant defenses or improving nutrient uptake, it may not require registration.
  3. Is the active ingredient a known biopesticide or plant extract?
    • If the active ingredient is a microorganism, plant extract, or biochemical compound known to suppress pests, it likely needs EPA registration.
    • The EPA maintains a list of registered biopesticide active ingredients, and companies should check if similar compounds are already registered.
  4. Are pesticidal claims being made on the label?
    • If the product claims pest control properties (e.g., “kills fungi,” “controls insects”), it falls under FIFRA jurisdiction and requires EPA registration.
    • If the product only states benefits like “enhances plant vigor” or “improves root growth,” it may avoid registration.

Biostimulants

Biostimulants enhance plant growth, stress tolerance, and nutrient efficiency without directly targeting pests or diseases. Unlike biopesticides, they do not require EPA registration, leading to a highly unregulated market.

That said as a disclaimer there are many biostimulants that do a good job at preventing, controlling or managing for pests in crops. They can have a dual function even though they don’t have an EPA registration – a definite grey area!

Key Categories of Biostimulants:
  • Microbial Biostimulants: Beneficial bacteria and fungi that improve nutrient uptake and plant stress resilience.
  • Seaweed and Plant Extracts: Natural compounds that stimulate plant metabolism and root development.
  • Amino Acids and Humic Substances: Organic molecules that enhance soil health and nutrient availability.
  • For a complete look at biostimulants check out this post and the many different types available. Biostimulants: The Next New Frontier

This chart above (just click on it for a larger image) shows how an ISR system works in the plant. Many biostimulants are classified as ISR’s because they are used to stimulate a plant’s defense mechanisms against many pest and environmental problems. This “primed” state may last the life of a plant or more than likely needs to be reinforced through multiple applications.

This chart above (just click on it for a larger image) shows how an SAR system works in the plant. In many cases an SAR developed biostimulant will also be labeled with EPA as a biopesticide simply because it does control specific pests in the plant while boosting the plants defense mechanisms.

Similarities Between Biopesticides and Biostimulants
  • Both are used in sustainable and organic agriculture to reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals.
  • Derived from natural sources, including microorganisms and plant extracts.
  • Improve overall plant health, either through disease suppression (biopesticides) or enhanced resilience (biostimulants).
  • Can be combined with conventional or organic inputs in integrated pest and crop management (IPM/ICM).
FeatureBiopesticidesBiostimulants
Primary PurposeControl pests and diseasesImprove plant growth and resilience
MechanismDirectly targets pests/pathogensEnhances plant physiological processes
RegulationSubject to pesticide regulations (EPA, OMRI)Less regulatory oversight, often considered soil amendments
Mode of ActionAntibiosis, competition, parasitismHormonal stimulation, nutrient uptake efficiency
ExamplesBacillus subtilis for fungal disease controlSeaweed extracts for drought tolerance

Industry Challenges and Regulatory Considerations

One of the biggest challenges in the biostimulant industry is the lack of clear regulations. While biopesticides undergo rigorous EPA evaluation, biostimulants can be marketed with minimal oversight. This has led to the proliferation of products with unverified claims, making it difficult for growers to differentiate effective solutions from ineffective ones.

Government agencies are actively considering regulatory frameworks for biostimulants to ensure quality control without stifling innovation. The Biostimulant Industry Alliance and other trade organizations are working to establish scientific standards and promote best practices.

Market Trends and Future Outlook

Despite challenges, the biopesticide and biostimulant markets are poised for significant growth. Market research predicts a continued rise in demand due to increasing consumer preference for organic and residue-free crops. Additionally, advancements in microbial formulations and AI-driven precision agriculture will enhance the effectiveness of these products.

Data and Charts from Industry Sources

1. Projected Market Growth of Biopesticides and Biostimulants (2020-2030)
  • Data Source: Market research reports from MarketsandMarkets, Mordor Intelligence, and Research and Markets.
  • Methodology: Extrapolation of market size based on reported CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) values of 12-15% for biopesticides and 13-16% for biostimulants from recent industry reports.

References:

  • MarketsandMarkets (2023). Biopesticides Market – Global Forecast 2028.
  • Mordor Intelligence (2023). Biostimulants Market Analysis & Forecast 2028.
  • Research and Markets (2023). Trends in Agricultural Biologicals.
2. Investment Trends in Biostimulant Research and Development (2015-2025)
  • Data Source: Reports from AgFunder, FAO, and OECD on global agricultural input investments.
  • Methodology: Estimation based on reported investments in biologicals, venture capital funding for agri-tech startups, and projected R&D budgets from industry leaders.

References:

  • AgFunder (2023). Investment in AgTech and Biostimulants.
  • FAO (2023). Sustainable Agriculture and Innovation Trends.
  • OECD (2022). Trends in Agricultural R&D.
3. Adoption Rates of Biostimulants Across Different Crop Sectors
  • Data Source: Surveys and adoption studies from USDA, European Biostimulant Industry Council (EBIC), and International Biostimulants Forum.
  • Methodology: Aggregated adoption data from industry reports and regional case studies, indicating highest adoption in vegetable and fruit production, with lower adoption in ornamentals.

References:

  • USDA (2023). Adoption of Biostimulants in U.S. Crop Production.
  • EBIC (2023). European Biostimulants Market Report.
  • International Biostimulants Forum (2022). Global Trends in Biological Crop Inputs.
4. Regulatory Differences Between Biopesticides and Biostimulants
  • Data Source: Regulations from EPA, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and USDA Organic Program.
  • Methodology: Comparative analysis of regulatory frameworks governing product registration, scientific validation, and market oversight for biopesticides versus biostimulants.

References:

  • EPA (2023). Biopesticide Registration Guidelines.
  • EFSA (2023). Regulatory Framework for Biostimulants in the EU.
  • USDA (2023). Organic Input Standards and Market Oversight.