Home Blog

Stress Mitigation by Communicating with Plant Genes: A Letter to Crops

By
JW Lemons | CCA, CPAg, Verdesian Life Sciences
-
0
Major categories of biostimulants

Hello crops. Stress and potential damage are on the way. We have some extreme heat conditions headed our way. We know what is going to happen. Our reactive oxygen species (ROS) will react and develop an imbalance. What we can expect from this abiotic stress can influence our production. If severe enough and left unchecked, we could even see death of the plant. Hopefully our crop advisors and managers recognize the potential problem and communicate with us.

First, they need to understand ROS and the negative impact it can have on the crop. This includes cellular damage at varying levels, some as severe as plant death and some as mild as damage that might allow the plant to survive but can cause poor-quality fruit, nuts or vegetables to develop. High ROS levels can damage cell membranes (lipid peroxidation), nucleic acids (DNA) and proteins, leading to cell dysfunction and potential death.

Oxidative stress can be caused by the imbalance of ROS production. This can negatively impact plant growth, development and survival. Damage this year from the heat could seriously reduce flowering and crop set in the next season. ROS target DNA, RNA, proteins and lipids, disrupting their functions and causing cellular damage. It might be so mild that we think we are having a good crop year. The fact is, even a slight impact can reduce yield and quality so our full potential cannot be achieved.

ROS act as signaling molecules. These signals trigger transduction pathways so we can respond appropriately to abiotic and biotic stresses. ROS also become involved in regulating plant development, cell division, differentiation and elongation. Cell division directly affects fruit and nut size, leaf size and even bud size. The process of cell differentiation has many key roles in our plant development. Meristematic cells at the tips of roots and shoots can reduce elongation so branches can be short or not grow. Interference in root hair tips can reduce our ability to take up adequate nutrients.

Imbalance can prevent structural change in our cells so we cannot produce stronger cell walls for tree limbs to support our crop load or perhaps reduce a wheat crop stem’s ability to withstand wind or water weight, so we lose production through lodging. Some altered and prevented cell differentiation might reduce water transportation, nutrient storage and our defense.

Microbial biostimulant-induced mechanism for increasing abiotic stress tolerance

The Role of ROS in Photosynthesis, Gene Expression and Plant Defense
ROS can have both positive and negative impacts on photosynthesis. While excess ROS can damage photosynthetic components, they also play a role in signaling pathways that allow plants to acclimate to environmental changes and even serve as a form of protection against excess light. An excess of ROS could result in damage to the photosynthetic machinery. Damage to proteins, amino acid residues, lipid peroxidation and DNA could impair our efficiency, capture and electron transport.

ROS have positive roles such as chloroplast-nucleus signaling pathways. These pathways communicate changes in environmental conditions such as the high heat coming our way. They can signal high light stress and initiate our internal responses to protect ourselves. They are the trigger that signals pathways to allow us to acclimate to environmental stress like high light and drought. ROS communicate to us by modulating gene expression. We have defense mechanisms against biotic and abiotic stressors, including infections and pathogens.

Again, when this ROS balance is off it can seriously damage us. So how can our crop consultants help us? It is called communication. This communication can be achieved by a process called gene upregulation. In gene regulation, upregulation refers to an increase in the expression of a gene, leading to more protein production while downregulation refers to a decrease in gene expression, leading to less protein production. Essentially, upregulation “turns on” a gene while downregulation “turns off” a gene.

To explain, we have these examples: Increased expression is a higher level of transcription (RNA production) or translation (protein production) of a gene. More proteins are encoded by that gene. An upregulation can occur when a cell needs to produce more receptors to become more sensitive to a hormone. This can be triggered by signals within the cell itself or other cells as well as by environmental clues.

Downregulation involves lower levels of transcription or translation, which is the reverse of upregulation. Fewer proteins are therefore encoded. Now signals change so a decrease in production of receptors makes a cell less sensitive to that same hormone. Since the downregulation can be triggered by the same factors and the signals come from the same sources, upregulation and downregulation are two sides of the same coin.

Acid-related biostimulant-mediated mechanisms for increasing abiotic stress tolerance of plants

Upregulation
• Purpose: Increases the production of specific proteins often in response to stress or specific signals to promote adaptation and survival.
• Examples: Plants may upregulate genes involved in defense against pathogens (like R-genes in tomato and potato) or stress tolerance (like those involved in cold or heat stress).
• Mechanism: Can involve increased transcription (the process of creating mRNA from DNA) or increased translation (the process of creating protein from mRNA) or both.

Downregulation
• Purpose: Decreases the production of specific proteins, often to reduce the intensity of a particular process or to conserve resources.
• Examples: Plants may downregulate genes related to growth or development when facing stress, such as drought or nutrient deficiency.
• Mechanism: Can involve decreased transcription or translation or both, or by affecting the stability of the mRNA or the produced protein.

Regulation and Examples
• Regulatory genes: Many genes are involved in regulating the expression of other genes. These regulatory genes encode transcription factors that can bind to DNA and either activate or repress other genes influencing their expression levels.
• Stress response: Plants respond to environmental stresses like drought, nutrient deficiency or pathogen attack by upregulating defense genes and downregulating genes related to normal growth and development.
• Example of specific gene expression changes (pathogen response): Studies on tomato and potato R-genes have shown that a large portion of R-genes are upregulated in response to pathogens, indicating a defense response.

Extract-type biostimulant-induced mechanism for increasing abiotic stress tolerance

A consultant could recommend a biostimulant to aid in gene upregulation. Biostimulants can upregulate specific genes in plants, influencing various biological processes. For instance, they can increase the expression of genes related to photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, stress response and growth-promoting factors. Some of the ways biostimulants work are:
• Hormone-mimicking actions: Some biostimulants mimic plant hormones triggering the upregulation of specific genes involved in growth and development.
• Enzyme/protein function regulation: Biostimulants can influence the expression of genes coding for enzymes and proteins involved in various metabolic pathways leading to increased activity of these molecules.
• Transcriptional regulatory pathways: Biostimulants can interact with transcriptional regulatory networks influencing the binding of transcription factors to DNA and activating the expression of specific genes. Biostimulants can upregulate genes involved in photosynthetic processes leading to increased chlorophyll content and photosynthetic efficiency. Alfalfa-based protein hydrolysates have been shown to upregulate genes involved in nutrient uptake, such as phosphate and nitrogen transporters. Biostimulants can upregulate genes involved in stress tolerance like those involved in antioxidant defense and osmoprotection, helping plants cope with adverse environmental conditions like drought or salinity. Biostimulants can increase the expression of growth-promoting genes, leading to enhanced plant growth and development.

Overall, biostimulants act as signaling molecules that modulate gene expression in plants leading to improved growth, stress tolerance and quality traits. They come in many different forms: acids, microbials, extracts and others. The message I am sending with this letter to crops is that there is help. Through communication within the plant aided by the outside influence of biostimulants, we can protect ourselves against abiotic stressors as well as biotic stressors.

Table Olive Yields Benefit from a New Approach to the Age-Old Practice of Pruning

By
Elizabeth Fichtner | UCCE Farm Advisor, Tulare and Kings Counties and Carol J. Lovatt | Professor of Plant Physiology, Emeritus, Dept. of Botany and Plant Science, UC Riverside
-
0
Figure 1. Evaluation of flower buds (A) is not a good predictor of yield. Perfect flowers (B) contain male (stamen) and female (pistil) parts, whereas staminate flowers (C) contain only the male part. Only perfect flowers have the capacity to bear fruit (D).

Pruning is essential for sustaining orchard productivity, especially the yield of commercially valuable size (CVS) fruit. The main value of pruning is to open the canopy for light penetration. No light, no flowers, no fruit! Additionally, pruning allows for management of tree height and maintenance of space between trees and drive rows, thus facilitating harvest and pest control activities as well as promoting the rejuvenation of older trees. Finally, pruning to raise tree skirts may allow cold air to drain through the orchard and ensure that sprinklers are not wetting the low-hanging fruit, which may promote disease.

Pruning is also a well-known crop reduction tool for mitigating the negative effects of a heavy ON crop when alternate bearing (AB) occurs. Olive trees are prone to AB, production of a heavy ON crop one year followed by a light OFF crop the next. The ON crop is characterized by large yields with small size fruit that have reduced commercial value and typically mature late. Conversely, the OFF crop consists of large size fruit due to the low yield, which may not be cost effective to harvest. AB adversely affects the consistency of the fruit supply, thus having a negative economic impact on every step within the production chain from farm to consumer. Use of plant growth regulator sprays of naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) or pruning to reduce crop load during the ON year have shown promise in evening out olive production from year to year. However, implementation of these strategies for optimal results has remained elusive. We previously reported that “Olive Yields Benefit from a New Strategy Using Naphthaleneacetic Acid to Manage Crop Load” in the November/December 2024 issue of Progressive Crop Consultant. Here we report the results of field research sponsored by the California Olive Committee to answer the questions of when, how much and how frequently to prune Manzanillo table olive trees to reduce alternate bearing and generate better cumulative annual yields of CVS fruit.

When to Prune for Maximum Impact?
Pruning of tree crops is typically carried out in the winter when orchard management requirements are minimal and trees are more or less dormant, resulting in minimal vegetative regrowth. However, pruning at this time is compromised by the lack of knowledge as to whether the upcoming spring bloom and fruit set will be ON or OFF. Delaying pruning operations until bloom allows growers to evaluate the current season’s yield potential and adjust pruning intensity accordingly. Further delay of pruning until after bloom enables growers to evaluate fruit set before reducing crop production on pruned sections of the tree. Because more than 98% of olive flowers do not set fruit, assessing the abundance of flower buds alone (Fig. 1a) is not a good predictor of yield in some years. Olives have two types of flowers: perfect flowers containing both female (pistil) and male (stamen) flower parts (Fig. 1b), and staminate flowers (Fig. 1c) containing only male flower parts. The ratio of perfect flowers to male flowers is determined several weeks prior to bloom when environmental stresses induce a fraction of the pistils to abscise. Note that the base of the pistil is the ovary, which develops into an olive fruit. Thus, only perfect flowers have the potential to bear fruit. Fruit set is also influenced by climatic conditions at bloom. For example, heat during bloom in Manzanillo orchards limits pollen development, resulting in reduced fertility. In seasons characterized by heat during bloom, shotberries (Fig. 2a) (parthenocarpic fruit, i.e., fruit forming without syngamy and thus without a seed, which never fully develop) may be prevalent in Manzanillo table olive orchards.

Figure 2. Parthenocarpic fruit (A) called shotberries are common in Manzanillo olive in years characterized by heat or cold, wet weather at bloom. Pruning 28 days after full bloom (B) allows growers to evaluate fruit set before making pruning cuts that may limit returns in the current season.

To mitigate the impact of the current ON crop on the successive year’s crop, fruit removal should be completed before pit hardening, a phenological stage that occurs in July. After pit hardening, the current season’s crop suppresses summer vegetative shoot growth (both the length and number of shoots that develop). This limits the number of nodes (points of leaf attachment) available for floral bud development for next spring’s bloom. Conversely, pruning cannot be delayed too late into the summer. Pruning stimulates the tree’s production of gibberellins, plant growth regulators that may inhibit the transition of vegetative buds to floral buds, a developmental event that is initiated in late August through mid-September. Pruning approximately 28 days after full bloom (i.e., early June) (Fig. 2b) prevents the suppression of in-season vegetative shoot growth caused by the ON crop and allows sufficient time for dissipation of gibberellins prior to the transition to floral buds.

How Much Pruning Is Just Right?
Pruning both sides of the tree and topping during an ON-crop year makes sense only if selective pruning is done to balance floral and vegetative shoots to sustain the yield of CVS fruit. For table olive, evidence suggests that mechanical pruning on two sides of the tree, especially with topping, in a single year might be too severe, converting ON-crop trees into OFF-crop trees and the ON year into an OFF year, which turns the following year into an ON year. An alternate approach with less impact on yield is to prune only one side of an ON-crop tree to generate ON (unpruned) and OFF (pruned) sides of trees (Fig. 3), allowing for mitigation of alternate bearing at the tree and orchard level.

Figure 3. Eliminating crop on one side of the tree (A) allows for production of the crop on the alternate side of the tree (B). When carried out biennially, the result is more uniform total yields, increased yields of CVS fruit and reduced alternate bearing.

How Often Should You Prune?
To address this question, field research was conducted with Manzanillo olive trees to evaluate the influence of pruning 28 days after full bloom to one side of the ON-crop tree and then the other, either annually (side 1 in year 1 and side 2 in year 2) or biennially (side 1 in year 2 and side 2 in year 3), on total yield, yield of CVS fruit and the severity of AB over two ON/OFF cycles (four years). For each two-year ON/OFF cycle, ABI was calculated for total yield and yield of CVS fruit: ABI = (year 1 yield – year 2 yield)/(year 1 yield + year 2 yield), in which yield is kilograms of fruit per tree and the difference in yield between years 1 and 2 is expressed as an absolute value.

Starting with an ON-crop year, severity of AB for the ON-crop control trees in this research, based on alternate bearing index (ABI) where 0 equals no AB and 1 is complete AB (crop one year, no crop the next), was 0.94 for total yield. Pruning one side of the tree and then the other side annually reduced ABI 24% to 0.72, whereas pruning one side of the tree and then the other biennially reduced the ABI 50% to 0.47. There was no significant difference in four-year cumulative total yield across treatments. Taken together, the results indicate that for each year of the four-year period, total yields of trees pruned biennially were more uniform than trees pruned annually or not at all. More uniform annual total yields improve the economics of all steps in the supply chain from farm to consumer.

Yield of CVS fruit was determined only for the last three years of the experiment. Annual pruning of one side of the tree and then the other increased three-year cumulative yield of CVS fruit by 58% (a net increase of 25 kg per tree) and reduced ABI by 24% (ABI = 0.61) compared to the untreated ON-crop control trees (ABI = 0.80). In contrast, biennially pruning one side of the tree and then the other resulted in 2.7 times more CVS fruit (a net increase of 73 kg per tree over three years) and reduced ABI 54% (ABI = 0.37) compared to the ON-crop control trees over the same period. The increased and more uniform annual yields of CVS size fruit obtained with biennial pruning provide growers with greater, more reliable annual revenues. The results demonstrate the value of a year-long rest period between pruning events for achieving better economic returns in table olive orchards. We previously reported that the year of rest between biennial applications of NAA to one side of Manzanillo olive trees and then the other also increased yield of CVS fruit and reduced ABI compared to annual NAA treatment (“Olive Yields Benefit From a New Strategy Using Naphthaleneacetic Acid to Manage Crop Load,” Progressive Crop Consultant, November/December 2024).

Optimizing the pruning approach taken to manage crop load has significant potential for mitigating alternate bearing in table olive orchards and increasing yield of CVS fruit and grower income. Pruning 28 days after full bloom allows for fruit removal before suppression of the following year’s crop and gives growers an opportunity to evaluate fruit set prior to making cuts that will limit the current year’s production. The year without pruning reduces the cost of the biennial pruning strategy by 50% compared with annual pruning. To further reduce pruning costs, growers could opt to prune one side of the trees on either side of a drive row and then skip the next drive row to leave the other side of two rows of trees unpruned. This technique would facilitate orchard access in unpruned rows until woody debris is mowed and might reduce the costs of mowing by limiting the area serviced by the mower.

Results demonstrate the potential horticultural and economic value of this new approach to pruning table olive trees at 28 days after full bloom on one side of the tree and then the other biennially for evening out crop load to reduce AB across years and improve cumulative yield of CVS fruit over multiple years. The improved efficacy of pruning (or applying NAA) biennially is currently being tested for reliability in a second experiment in a new commercial orchard.

Crop Potassium Deficiency Under Challenging Conditions

By
Dr. Karl Wyant | Director of Agronomy, Nutrien, Lyle Cowell | Senior Agronomist, Nutrien and Dr. John Jones | Assistant Professor of Agronomy and Soil Fertility Extension Specialist, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
-
0
Figure 1. Drought maps for late July 2023 (left) and late-June 2025 (right) in the United States. Find your location on the map to see how drought may have impacted the growth and possible potassium uptake by your crop. Red shaded areas were particularly hit hard by dry conditions (sources: droughtmonitor.unl.edu and Climate Prediction Center).

Over recent growing seasons, we have observed and seen reports of potassium deficiency across our territories. While some blame the drought and dry soil conditions, we also know that many of our soils are continuing to show lower K supply levels. In this article, we will discuss how K deficiency can be forced by two interacting soil conditions: K soil supply and drought stress (e.g., low soil moisture) and what to do about it.

The Last Few Years
Drought stress was felt and seen across many acres in 2023 and 2025 (see the comparison by toggling between the 2023 and 2025 maps in Figure 1).

Dry soil can drive K deficiency because the K+ ions cannot move through the soil solution (the liquid phase) to be taken up via mass flow, nor can the ions move properly via diffusion to the root tips. Also, K-containing fertilizers may not properly dissolve and deliver nutrients to the crop when the soil is dry. A few of our agronomy peers advised that “K deficiency would resolve itself once the rains came in” during the 2023 drought; however, we also know that farm soils are becoming increasingly deficient in K. Some farms may have experienced soil conditions that promote K deficiency when the soil supply of K is low and drier than usual.

Growing Soil K Deficiency and Critical Values
We know that soil K deficiency is trending upward based on the analysis of more than 2 million soil samples across the U.S. and Canada (TFI 2020). This is due to several factors, including K soil removal rates in the harvested part of the crop that are outpacing the input rates of K back to the soil (e.g., from fertilizer). The “K budget” has been out of balance (K removals > K inputs) for many years, and, as a result, the percentage of soil tests that are prone to deficiency continues to increase year over year.

A critical level is tied to a specific nutrient metric in the soil on the X-axis (e.g., K ppm), and the corresponding yield is shown on the Y-axis. Many years of testing will reveal that there is a certain level of a soil nutrient that supplies optimum yield (100%). Below this point, crop yield may decrease quickly, and a fertilizer response is highly likely. Above this point, the crop does not respond, and the fertilizer cost may not justify the expected yield return.

So, what is driving the increased observation in K crop deficiency symptoms over recent years? Is it dry soil due to drought or low soil K levels? Read below for an explanation on how two factors (drought intensity × soil K levels) interact with each other to influence K uptake and crop yield.

Figure 2. Corn showing how drought and potassium supply can interact to influence crop performance in south-central Wisconsin. Site location (green star) and drought conditions are shown on the bottom map.

Some Explanation on Drought Intensity × Soil K Levels
In a recent social media post, Dr. John Jones from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign showed how drought and K supply can interact to influence crop performance (Fig. 2). In the post, Dr. Jones showed several photos of corn plots growing under different soil K levels and their average yield (poor K supply, left; okay K supply, middle; optimal K supply, right). These plots are in the same area and subjected to the same D3 extreme drought stress during the active growing season (see green star on map). The photos clearly show an interaction between drought intensity and soil K levels and their effect on yield.

Notice the differences in corn growth across the low K/drought stress and higher K/drought stress spectrum. Dr. Jones concluded crops grown in soils with optimal K levels or higher should perform better under lower soil moisture conditions than their K-deficient counterparts, assuming nothing else restricted crop growth. This is a great example of how drought conditions (e.g., soil moisture) can interact with soil K supply to produce an impact on crop growth.

The combination of drought and low soil K values (76 ppm Bray and 159 bushels per acre yield) led to a 95-bushels-per-acre yield loss relative to plots that had similar drought conditions but higher soil K values (127 ppm and 254 bushels per acre yield).

Figure 3. Corn potassium removal (left) and uptake (right) data show soil potassium supply and drought soil interaction in south-central Wisconsin.

Uptake and Removal Data
Dr. Jones, in a separate webinar, discussed the interaction of K supply on K uptake (Fig. 3, right) and K removal from the harvested portion of the crop (Fig. 3, left). The dark circles represent years when growing season precipitation did not deviate much from the 30-year average, and the open circles represent data from drier years. The corn crop shows higher total K uptake when soil moisture conditions are conducive to nutrient movement and uptake (dark marks, Fig. 3, right). On the other hand, nutrient movement and crop uptake are limited in dry conditions, and this is reflected in the graph (open circle, right graph). Since removal of K from the field moves in tandem with uptake, it is not surprising that a crop grown under dry conditions removes much less K relative to corn grown under more optimal conditions (Fig. 3, left). This becomes important for fertilizer budgets for the crop planted after the drought as some nutrients will still be available to drive crop growth in the next season.

Figure 4. Corn and soybean yield data and soil potassium supply and drought soil interaction in south-central Wisconsin (Bray-1 soil-test K 65 to 85 ppm).

Yield Data
So, what does the yield data tell us about how soil K supply and drought-stressed, dry soils interact? We can illustrate the interaction below with corn (Fig. 4, left) and soybean (Fig. 4, right). Wetter, more optimal years are marked by solid symbols, while crops grown under dry conditions are marked with open circles.

Key Takeaways
• At low soil K levels (red bar), the crops grown under optimal conditions can produce much higher yields than their drought-stricken counterparts, indicating a moisture limitation. This is not surprising. However, on the line for the dry years, yield responses to K fertilization differ, with corn requiring higher soil test K and soybean lower. This tells us that, under low soil moisture conditions, diminished K supply begins to affect yield in a major way and that K fertilizer applications should maintain priority in a crop nutrient management plan.

• On the other hand, keeping high levels of K in the soil beyond the optimum range (green bar) is not going to provide much “insurance” for yield (dry or wet year) relative to optimum K conditions. This region of soil test ranges does not support high probabilities of agronomic or economic returns to K fertilization; however, fields in this range may require K to prevent crop removal of K from pushing soil test levels too low over the long term.

• When considering how yields will respond near the critical concentrations of soil test K (yellow bar), notice how annual moisture fluctuations might be of more concern. In this range, large previous K removals or dry conditions may lead to observed deficiencies. The probability of yield responses to K fertilization is commonly double that of the green range, and goals should be to supply enough K to optimize yield and replenish removal if necessary. Notice the yellow bar is narrower than the others, requiring both accurate removal estimates and up-to-date soil test level numbers to watch closely.

Figure 5. Because soil potassium supply interacts with the dry conditions caused by drought, we can think about our potassium supply to the crop in three different ways.

Organizing Our Thoughts
Because soil K supply interacts with the dry conditions forced by drought, we can think about our K supply to the crop in three different ways (Fig. 5).

• Under optimal soil K and moisture conditions, excellent K uptake and yields can be achieved (green box).

• Under conditions with poor K supply and dry soil, a decline in crop performance and yield is expected due to the one-two punch of simultaneous K nutrient deficiency and unavailable soil moisture (red box).

• Not surprisingly, it is the subtle areas of these two endpoints where we need to pay the most attention (yellow boxes). Under the two interacting conditions of dry soil and soil K supply, the system can tilt to a yield-limiting direction very quickly (Fig. 2). This is where proactive planning and management are important. When these conditions are observed, irrigation can be turned on (Fig. 2, lower right box) or prescriptive fertilizer applications can be made (Fig. 2, upper left box).

Next Steps
Drought intensity and soil K levels interact with each other to influence K uptake and crop yield. However, there is some nuance to the relationship that is worth some consideration. As we move into soil sampling season, it is important to run a “systems check” to help explain any observed K deficiency this year and to also calibrate future K applications. Dr. Jones makes the following notes:

• Optimum soil test K levels should supply sufficient nutrients in dry conditions (water stress is restricting other physiological processes.)

• Adding supplemental K may only supply a response in low-testing soils.

• Variable in-field K deficiencies may indicate low soil test K or “troublesome” soils (great opportunity to zone soil sample and apply K where it is needed most).

• Crop removal values will be affected by drought and generally leave K “behind” that can be used by the next crop. Consider this for future fertilizer plans and adjust application rates accordingly.

• Consider soil conditions (particularly abnormally dry) when interpreting soil pH and K soil test results; they may deviate from when moisture is sufficient.

For more information on agronomy topics, including drought and K-related topics, please visit nutrien-ekonomics.com.

References
Jones, J.D., Laboski, C.A., Arriaga, F.J. (2023). Soil Fertility Challenges in a Dry 2023. 2023 Badger Crop Connect Meeting. Univ. Wisconsin-Madison.

The Fertilizer Institute. 2020. Soil Test Levels in North
America: Summary Update.

Resources
Potassium and Drought: A Two-fold Water Uptake Problem (Agvise Laboratories)

Nutrient Uptake Considerations Under Drought (nutrien-ekonomics.com)

Sowing a Seedbed for Success: The Role of Business Planning for Crop Consultants

By
Russell D. Morgan | Certified Agricultural Consultant, Morgan Agricultural Consulting Services
-
0
Developing a business plan is essential for independent crop consultants managing multiple clients across varied crops. The right strategy can turn agronomic knowledge into a resilient enterprise (photo by Julie Johnson.)

As a professional crop consultant, you leverage your education, training, experience and insights to assist your clients to improve their productive efficiency, mitigate production risk and thereby improve profitability of their businesses. But what about your business? You spend innumerable hours working in your business, but what do you spend working on your business?

For crop consultants, success extends far beyond the field’s edge. While expertise in agronomy, pest management and soil science is the foundation of the profession, a robust business plan is an essential framework that transforms technical knowledge into a thriving and resilient enterprise. A well-conceived business plan serves as a critical roadmap, guiding consultants from a mere practice to a professional operation, ensuring long-term viability and growth in an increasingly competitive agricultural landscape.

A comprehensive business plan does more than simply outline goals and objectives; it provides a clear and actionable strategy for achieving them. For a crop consultant, this blueprint is instrumental in navigating the unique challenges and opportunities of the industry, from the seasonality of work to the imperative of staying at the forefront of agricultural technology. It should be a living document, regularly reviewed and updated. Its core components should be tailored to the specific nuances of providing agronomic advice and services.

Russell D. Morgan, co-founder of Morgan Agricultural Consulting Services, is a certified agricultural consultant who has spent his career helping fellow consultants build resilient and profitable businesses. His expertise bridges agronomy and strategic business management (photo courtesy R.D. Morgan.)

1. Defining Your Value Proposition: More Than Just Advice
At the heart of any successful business is a clear understanding of the value it provides. For a crop consultant, the value proposition goes beyond simple recommendations. It’s about demonstrating a tangible positive net return for the farm client. A strong business plan will articulate this clearly. Are you focused on maximizing yield, optimizing input costs, promoting sustainable practices or a combination of these? Your value proposition should clearly answer the question, “Why should a grower hire you over another consultant or even merely relying upon their own knowledge?” This section of the plan should detail the specific outcomes and benefits clients can expect.

2. Services Offered and Specialization
The business plan must meticulously outline the services provided. This could range from basic soil sampling and analysis to comprehensive, year-round crop management programs. Consider creating tiered service packages to cater to different farm sizes and needs. This section should also address any areas of specialization. Do you have expertise in a particular crop, irrigation management, precision agriculture technologies, regenerative agricultural practices or organic certification? Highlighting a niche can be a powerful differentiator in the market.

3. Market Analysis and Client Acquisition
A thorough understanding of the target market is crucial. The business plan should identify the types of farms and growers you aim to serve. What is the acreage, crop type and technological adoption level of your ideal client? Furthermore, this section needs a detailed client acquisition strategy. How will you reach potential clients? This could involve:
• Networking: Build relationships with local growers, agronomists and industry suppliers.
• Digital presence: Create a professional website and use social media to share valuable content and testimonials.
• Referrals: Develop a system to encourage referrals from satisfied clients.
• Thought leadership: Speak at local agricultural events or write articles for trade publications.

4. Operations and Technology
How will you deliver your services efficiently and effectively? The operational plan should detail your periodic activities, including scheduling, data management and reporting to clients. A critical component for the modern crop consultant is the integration of technology. Your business plan should outline your strategy for utilizing farm management software, drone technology, sensor data and other precision agriculture tools. This not only enhances the quality of your recommendations but also demonstrates a commitment to innovation.

5. Financial Projections and Strategy
A solid financial plan is the ultimate measure of a business’ health. This section should include:
• Startup costs: If you are just beginning, detail the initial investment required for equipment, software, insurance and marketing.
• Pricing structure: Clearly define your fees, whether they are on a per-acre, hourly or project basis.
• Revenue forecasts: Project your income based on your target number of clients and service packages.
• Expense budget: Account for all potential costs, including vehicle maintenance, software subscriptions, professional development and insurance.
• Cash flow management: Address the seasonality of income and plan for periods of lower activity.

Technology integration, including drone imagery and precision software, supports modern crop consulting operations. Consultants who adapt and plan ahead are better equipped to meet the evolving demands of agriculture (photo by M. Lies.)

The Tangible Benefits of a Well-Laid Plan
The effort invested in creating a comprehensive business plan yields significant returns for a crop consultant. It provides a clear sense of direction, transforming a passion for agriculture into a structured and profitable business. A well-articulated plan is also an invaluable tool for securing financing from lenders who want to see a clear path to profitability and risk management.

Ultimately, a business plan empowers crop consultants to be proactive rather than reactive. It allows them to anticipate market trends, identify new opportunities and make informed decisions that will not only benefit their own bottom line but also contribute to the success and sustainability of the growers they serve. In an industry defined by constant change, a solid business plan is the steady hand that guides the modern crop consultant toward a prosperous future.

But developing and implementing a comprehensive business plan is not commonly loaded into a crop consultant’s skills toolkit. How does a crop consultant get this mission accomplished or where can they acquire the needed skills? There is commercial interactive software available to assist in stepping through the processes. There are agricultural consultants that specialize in business development and business management. Check out the directory of the American Society of Agricultural Consultants. There are options for professional training in this area. A firm of which I am a co-founder (MACS Academy LLC) offers a course, Agricultural Consulting Practice Management, which covers business plan development among several pertinent topics. Choose the path that best fits you/your business.

Yellow Triangular Trap is the Most Effective for Monitoring Pacific Flatheaded Borer in Walnuts

By
Jhalendra Rijal |Ph.D., UCCE Area IPM Advisor, Northern San Joaquin Valley and Samaneh Sakaki, Ph.D. | UCCE Associate IPM Research Specialist, Stanislaus County
-
0
Pacific flatheaded borer damage symptoms on walnut trees include oozing sap, frass beneath bark, larval tunneling, and “D”-shaped adult emergence holes (photo by J. Rijal.)

Over the past decade, Pacific flatheaded borer (PFB) has transitioned from a sporadic, stress-associated pest to a resurging threat in California walnut orchards. The adult stage of PFB is a ~0.5-inch beetle of the Buprestidae insect family. They lay eggs on the wood during the summer. After hatching, the larvae, “borers,” feed on the cambium layer first and slowly progress internally toward the pith as they grow. One of a few flatheaded borer species reported in California, PFB (Chrysobothris mali) is the primary species causing damage to walnuts. As the name suggests, this species is native to the Western states and commonly found in Oregon, Washington, Utah, Idaho and California.

PFB has multiple host crops, including major tree crops and other hardwood trees. However, the outbreak we have witnessed in the Central Valley in the last several years has shown that walnut is likely the most susceptible tree crop host. PFB infestations were typically associated with young orchards or trees suffering from stress, sunburn or pruning wounds. However, in recent years, infestations have increasingly been reported in well-maintained and mature trees, on unexposed branches and in orchards with no obvious nutritional or water stress situations. This behavioral shift is potentially due to increased stressors in trees resulting from droughts and other environmental changes, as well as the increased abundance of walnut trees serving as hosts. Since PFB has become a serious concern in recent years, growers and PCAs are still largely unaware of the infestation’s symptoms until it reaches a high level, at which point it is very difficult to manage the pest. PFB damage symptoms are most noticeable in the fall and winter and include oozing brown sap from limbs and trunks, sawdust-like packed frass beneath the bark, cream-colored larvae under bark (summer) or in sapwood (fall/winter), flagged and broken branches and twigs due to larval tunneling, and “D”-shaped adult emergence holes on the bark surface.

Field Observations and Regional Focus
We have observed increased pest pressure and damage to walnuts throughout the Central Valley; however, our research has been more focused in the northern San Joaquin Valley region. The outbreak of PFB was reported in several orchards in the area in 2018. Since then, we have been studying to gain a deeper understanding of this pest’s biology, phenology and control options. Pruning out the infested branches with larvae inside, painting the young plants to reduce sunburn damage, and applying a few selected insecticides during the summer are different ways to manage this pest. Although it is difficult to control in just one to two years if the infestation is heavy in the orchard, combining these methods can be effective in reducing pest pressure and damage over time. In this article, we report the findings of our recent study on the monitoring of PFB in walnut orchards.

Trapping Study
Integrated pest management (IPM) of any insect pest starts with utilizing good detection and monitoring tools. Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of traps with varying colors and shapes in monitoring the PFB insect group (i.e., Buprestid beetles) in forest and nursery systems. A closely related species, the appletree flatheaded borer (Chrysobothris femorata) is the major pest of young nursery trees in the southeastern United States and is attracted to purple-colored triangular traps.
In a 2023 study, we found PFB beetles were also attracted to ground-installed purple triangular traps in California walnut orchards. However, the effectiveness of the trap was not as high as reported for the appletree flatheaded borer in the east.

Figure 1. Different color triangular traps used in trapping studies.

In 2024, trap color studies were conducted in two walnut orchards with a history of damage from PFBs. Six different colors (green, red, yellow, black, gray and purple) of triangular traps were evaluated for their attractiveness to the PFB. The triangular traps were prepared by folding a corrugated plastic panel into a long (4-foot-tall) triangle shape and installed in the ground using a support stake (Fig. 1). Each side of the triangle measures approximately 4 inches in width. The trap is designed to mimic the appearance of a tree trunk. The outer surface of the trap was made sticky by applying TAD Insect Trap glue to retain the captured beetles. The traps were arranged in a completely randomized design with four replications. The same experimental setup was used in both orchard locations. Traps were installed with a spacing of five trees between treatments (colors) in a row, and a gap of three rows was maintained between replications. Traps were installed in April and remained in place through September. Traps were checked, and PFB beetles were collected and recorded weekly.

Figure 2. Adult Pacific flatheaded borer captures by trap color in two walnut orchards during the 2024 season. Yellow and red triangular traps captured significantly more beetles than other colors. No beetles were captured in purple and green traps.

Results from Orchard 1 showed yellow and red triangular traps captured significantly more adult beetles than any other colors. The purple trap capture was not statistically different from that of green, black or gray traps (Fig. 2, top). Similarly, in Orchard 2, yellow and red traps outperformed the other colors. There was not a significant difference in captures between gray and black traps. No beetles were captured in purple and green traps throughout the season (Fig. 2, bottom).

Figure 3. Weekly captures of Pacific flatheaded borer adults on red and yellow traps in two walnut orchards during the 2024 season. Yellow traps captured more beetles early in the season, while red traps recorded the highest overall captures. Peak activity occurred in mid to late June.

While assessing the seasonal activity of PFB adults, yellow triangular traps captured more beetles in the early part of the season (i.e., the first three weeks of May) in both orchards. Although the red trap captured the highest number of adults in both Orchard 1 and Orchard 2, the yellow trap still appeared to be more consistent in capturing the beetle throughout the season, especially in the early part of the flight (Fig. 3). The peak capture was recorded in the second week of June at Orchard 2 and in the third week of June at Orchard 1.

Since PFB has become a serious pest in many walnut orchards, it is crucial to conduct regular scouting of the orchard and identify damage as early as possible. Our trapping study found yellow and red triangular traps made of corrugated plastics are the most effective in capturing PFB beetles. The design and color found effective in this study can be used by PCAs and growers for monitoring PFB in walnut orchards. Future research should aim to develop commercially available, more user-friendly versions of these traps. Additionally, future research will explore the potential to improve their effectiveness by pairing the traps with new attractants.

Monitoring Citrus Mealybug in California’s Central Valley: A Key to Developing Informed Management

By
Sandipa Gautam, Ph.D., | Area Citrus IPM Advisor, Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kern Counties
-
0
Figure 1. Citrus mealybug adult female with egg sac. Amber colored eggs are loosely held by cottony flint (all photos courtesy S. Gautam.)

Citrus mealybug, Planococcus citri, has become an increasing concern for citrus growers in California. This pest feeds on plant sap on all parts of plants, including flush, twig and fruits, reducing tree vigor and affecting yield. Mealybug produces copious amounts of honeydew while feeding, which is discharged on leaf and fruit surfaces where sooty mold grows. Mealybug infestations may also lead to serious ant invasions as sugar-feeding ants tend mealybugs and protect them from natural enemies, interfering with biocontrol efforts. Regular, early season monitoring is essential for detecting initial infestations and implementing timely control measures.

Citrus mealybugs are soft, oval, flat, distinctly segmented insects covered with white mealy wax, giving them a dusted-in-flour appearance. Females lay eggs in egg sacs loosely held by white cottony flint (Fig. 1). Crawlers, when hatched, are yellowish in color but soon develop a waxy covering once they start feeding. Adult females are 3 to 5 mm long and wingless with pinkish bodies covered in white mealy wax. Males are winged and take a longer time to develop than females.

California’s Central Valley has approximately 75% of the state’s citrus production acreage. Mealybugs are increasingly becoming a difficult pest to manage and are expanding in acreage and have been reported in all citrus varieties grown in the Central Valley. Mealybugs are not only a direct pest that causes yield and cosmetic damage to fruit but also a phytosanitary concern for exports to markets such as Korea, China and Australia, where zero-tolerance policies apply.

Effective monitoring of mealybug enables:
• Early detection to prevent population outbreaks
• Timely control decisions, reducing overall pesticide usage
• Accurate pest history tracking for developing long-term sustainable management methods

When to Monitor?
Monitoring should begin in early spring (March/April) and continue through postharvest (November to March). While mealybugs are most active during summer and fall, warm microclimates in orchards can support winter reproduction, especially if average daily temperatures stay around 60 degrees F.

What to Monitor and How?
Mealybug overwinters as adults and eggs (within the egg sacs). Early in the season, look for mealybug egg sacs/adults inside the tree canopy on trunk and inner branches or between fruits. Use a hand lens to inspect for crawlers and first instars. They intersperse via wind, or by ants, birds or equipment. As the season progresses, mealybug moves to young fruit and infests fruit.

Early season (January to March)
• Mealybugs overwinter as adult females and eggs.
• Focus monitoring in protected areas (e.g., deep canopy, bark crevices, inside fruit clusters).
• Use a hand lens to inspect for egg sacs and first instars.

Spring to early summer (April to June)
• Crawlers hatch and begin dispersing via wind, ants or machinery.
• Monitor trunk, scaffold limbs and new flush for early populations.
• Begin pheromone trapping for male activity.

Summer to fall (July to December)
• Populations move onto developing fruit.
• Mealybugs feed on calyx and peduncle, sometimes clustering around fruit stems.
• In high-pressure areas, they may spread across the entire fruit surface.
• Multiple overlapping generations may be present by fall.

Pheromone trapping: a valuable tool
For early detection, especially in orchards with no
known infestation:
• Install pheromone trap cards (Fig. 2) in mid-canopy
(one trap per 10 acres).
• Begin trapping in April and replace lures every five weeks.
• Interpret with caution as catches may reflect nearby orchard activity as well as local emergence.

Figure 2. Citrus mealybug trap card with a septa lure.

Hotspots to monitor
• Ant activity zones: Ants often lead to hidden mealybug clusters.
• Wind machines: Areas beneath may harbor infestations due to insect dispersal.
• Previously infested trees: Key indicators of localized reinfestation.

If your orchard currently does not have citrus mealybug, it may be difficult to determine where infestation starts. In that scenario, you can do the following:

Use a pheromone lure and a trap card to monitor for citrus mealybug males, one card in the middle of the orchard per 10 acres. Change lures every five weeks. Begin monitoring in April (Fig. 2). Be mindful because flyers may come from nearby orchards.

‘Mealybug infestations may also lead to serious ant invasions… interfering with biocontrol efforts.’

Check any areas with ant activity near the wind machines for any signs of mealybug activity as ants and birds can carry and relocate citrus mealybug.

If your orchard has a history of infestation, it is a good idea to begin monitoring those previously infested trees. Because mealybugs move to different parts of the plants as the season progresses, monitoring is season-dependent.

Figure 3. Citrus mealybug males on trap cards shows that the activity in the season started in early April. Currently, second-generation males have started flying.

What is Happening with Citrus Mealybug Populations in The Central Valley?
Recent monitoring across five
Central Valley orchards provides
the following insights:
• First male flights: Detected in early April, peaking by the third week of April (Fig. 3).
• Current (mid-June) population: Dominated by egg-laying females on fruit peduncles and inner canopy branches (Figs. 4 and 5).
• Second-generation male flight: Now beginning. We have started catching males on the traps. Adult and egg-producing females are present as of June 9, 2025.

Figure 4. Citrus mealybug adult at the arrowhead. Photo taken April 30, 2025.
Figure 5. Citrus mealybug adults on fruit peduncle. Also note ants near mealybug. Photo taken June 9, 2025.

Citrus mealybug has become an increasingly complex pest of citrus in California’s Central Valley, with implications for tree health, fruit marketability and yield loss. A seasonally adjusted, site-specific monitoring plan can be helpful in staying ahead of population growth and ensuring effective, reduced-risk pest management.

Incorporating Biofungicides in Fungicide Rotation for Powdery Mildew Control: Why, How and What to Consider

By
Tian Tian | UCCE Viticulture Farm Advisor, Kern County
-
0
Rotational and tank-mix programs incorporating biofungicides demonstrated comparable powdery mildew control to conventional synthetic-only treatments under moderate disease pressure (all photos by T. Tian.)

The sulfury smell on our shirts in the spring signals a new season and the battle with powdery mildew (PM), arguably the most important and expensive disease to control in the vineyard. The causal pathogen, Erysiphe necator, has a high productive rate and short generation time. Since it infects succulent tissues of grapevines, including young shoots, green berries and rachis, preventative practices like fungicide sprays typically begin at bud break and last until veraison or even beyond. Insufficient PM management results in scars on the berry, compromising fruit quality, reducing market value and increasing risks of bunch rot during fruit ripening. Given the large canopy of vines grown in the San Joaquin Valley and favorable weather conditions for PM development, fungicide applications become a must.

Successful PM control relies on effective fungicide rotation and thorough spray coverage. In conventional vineyards, we depend heavily on sulfur and synthetic fungicides. While sulfur is affordable and resistance has not been observed, its residual effects can wear off within five to seven days, requiring frequent applications to keep the vineyard clean. Synthetic fungicides, on the other hand, convey benefits of high efficacy and long residual effects. However, their site-specific modes of action increase the risk of resistance with repeated use of the same active ingredient. Widespread resistance of FRAC 11 fungicides (QoIs) in PM has been confirmed in California vineyards, particularly in table grapes. The resistance of FRAC 3 (DMIs) is often suspected, though we still lack sensitive and reliable molecular methods to quickly confirm field observations. Note that poor spray coverage accelerates resistance development because fungi that survive the sublethal exposure have a greater chance to develop natural tolerance and genetic mutations.

In addition to sulfur and synthetic fungicides, biofungicides became popular in the last few decades. Though they have mainly been used in organic systems, there is increasing interest in adopting biofungicides for PM control in conventional vineyards, aligning with California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap for California. Biofungicides can be roughly separated into four categories: plant extracts and oils, mineral-based oils and compounds, bacterial or fungal strains, and metabolites of fungi or bacteria. Compared to synthetic fungicides, they offer shorter reentry and preharvest intervals. They are subject to a lower risk of resistance development, owing to their diverse mechanisms. While their residual activity is generally shorter, biofungicides are ideal complementary tools in conventional programs for enhanced disease control and resistance management.

While their residual activity is generally shorter, biofungicides are ideal complementary tools in conventional programs for enhanced disease control and resistance management.

Results from Field Trials (2022-24)
From 2022 to 2024, we examined the efficacy of incorporating biofungicides into PM control in table grape vineyards. These trials involved rotating or tank-mixing biofungicides with synthetic fungicides applied between bloom and two weeks post-veraison. The efficacy of those programs was compared to a conventional synthetic program that used wettable sulfur, sulfur dust, copper and mineral oils prior to bloom, and synthetic fungicides afterward. All fungicides were used at label rates. The incidence and severity of PM in clusters were evaluated pre-veraison and at veraison.

Trial 1: Plant extract rotation
In the first trial, a plant extract-based product was integrated into a synthetic fungicide rotation. The conventional synthetic program involved pre-bloom applications of wettable sulfur followed by rotational applications of Luna Experience (fluopyram + tebuconazole), Switch (cyprodinil), Vivando (metrafenone) and Torino (cyflufenamid) every 14 days between bloom and veraison. In the other treatment, Problad Verde (Banda de Lupinus doce), a plant extract product, was applied at bloom and veraison to replace synthetic fungicides without changing the spray interval. Both programs demonstrated comparable efficacy in reducing PM incidence and severity in a Flame Seedless vineyard under moderate disease pressure (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. The efficacy of two fungicide program on powdery mildew control in a Flame seedless vineyard in 2022. The control vines were not sprayed after bloom. The incidence and severity of powdery mildew in clusters were evaluated at veraison.

Trial 2: Bacillus-based rotation
The second trial evaluated the rotation of Bacillus-based products with synthetic fungicides. The conventional synthetic program utilized copper, sulfur and mineral oils pre-bloom, followed by a 14-day rotational schedule of Luna Experience, Switch, Vivando and Elevate 50 WDG (fenhexamid). In the other treatment, synthetic fungicides were replaced by Double Nickel (Bacillus amyloliquefaciens) and Aviv (Bacillus subtilis) at bloom, bunch closure and veraison. Considering the potentially shorter residual activity of the Bacillus products, the spray interval for this treatment was reduced to seven days (e.g., Switch applied seven days after Double Nickel at bloom). Compared to the conventional program, adding Double Nickel and Aviv to the rotation offered a small improvement in PM control (Fig. 2). It may be associated with the additional spray in the second treatment. Thus, in the second year of the experiment, we tested a similar program but kept the spray interval the same for both treatments. Results suggested comparable PM control efficacy between those two programs (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. The efficacy of two fungicide programs on powdery mildew control in a Thompson seedless vineyard in 2023 (first year) and 2024 (second year). The control vines were not sprayed after bloom. The incidence and severity of powdery mildew in clusters were evaluated at veraison in the first year. In the second year, additional evaluation was conducted two weeks prior to veraison (pre-veraison).

Additional tank-mix trials
In the two other trials,  one or two fungicides, including Oxidate 5.0 (hydrogen peroxide and peroxyacetic acid), Cinnerate (cinnamon oil and potassium oleate) and Instill O (copper sulfate pentahydrate), along with Avivand Double Nickel, were tank-mixed with synthetic fungicides in each spray. The spray interval was every 14 to 21 days between bloom and veraison. These tank-mix programs demonstrated comparable efficacy in reducing PM incidence and severity to the conventional synthetic program. No phytotoxicity was observed. However, these findings are preliminary. The viability of Bacillus bacteria in specific tank mixes with synthetic fungicides as well as potential phytotoxicity issues requires further investigation.

Overall, our findings suggest incorporating biofungicides into conventional fungicide programs, either through rotation or tank mixing, can achieve similar PM control efficacy as programs relying solely on synthetic fungicides post-bloom. Integrating fungicides with complementary mechanisms may offer benefits, such as reducing the risk of fungicide resistance development and providing greater flexibility in preharvest fungicide applications. We are continuing our research and looking forward to providing the industry with updated information on effective PM management strategies.

The author would like to thank Consolidated Central Valley Table Grape Pest and Disease Control District and industry collaborators for funding support. 

Discussion of research findings necessitates using trade names. This does not constitute product endorsement, nor does it suggest products not listed would not be suitable for use. Some research results involve use of chemicals which are currently registered for use or may involve use which would be considered out of label. These results are reported but are not recommended by UC for use. Consult the label and use it as the basis of all recommendations.

How Living Algae is Transforming Sustainable Agriculture: The Chlorella vulgaris Breakthrough

By
Dr. George Taylor | EnSoil Algae
-
0
How Living Algae is Transforming Sustainable Agriculture: The Chlorella vulgaris Breakthrough

Soil is the source and catalyst for all life-nourishing substances that plant and animal life need for sustenance, and the more life in soil, the better crops and animals who consume them will thrive.

The use of biostimulants in agriculture has gained significant traction due to their potential to enhance yields, improve soil health and reduce dependency on chemical fertilizers. Biostimulants like humic and fulvic acids, protein hydrolysates, compost and inoculants, and kelp or seaweed extracts have surged in usage across all crop types and continents. Research proves that all of them bring some benefits, but none of them deliver all the known benefits derived by biostimulants since extensive research began in the 1970s, except for one: live cell green algae, namely Chlorella vulgaris, literally Latin for “common green.”

Chlorella vulgaris is the most ubiquitous freshwater algae found globally, and there is evidence that it was used by ancient cultures in Africa, Mesoamerica and Asia to increase crop production because growers knew that increased fertility would occur by planting near freshwater river deltas and lakes after flooding events.

Microscope image of Chlorella vulgaris, photo courtesy of Andrew Shuler, Enlighted Soil Corp.

These living green microscopic organisms, capable of surviving in soil, are a building block of life and what sets this biostimulant apart from all others because it stimulates the biology that is already in soil.

Extensive research worldwide and field trials have proven that this is of paramount importance in the potency and efficacy of biologicals for significantly boosting soil organic matter (SOM) and microbial biomass, enabling every scientifically recognized benefit attributable to biostimulants to be realized:

  • Improved SOM, plant fertility and microbial mass
  • Increased leaf chlorophyll content resulting in increased photosynthetic capacity
  • Enhanced plant growth and increased yield across a wide variety of crops
  • Reduced dependence on chemical fertilizers (NPK)
  • Enhanced plant resistance to abiotic stresses such as drought, heat and salinity
  • Potential increased resistance to plant pathogens due to improved plant vigor

Soil biodiversity is the key to improving nutrient cycling and plant fertility for increasing productivity while saving on inputs and increasing profits. Published research has shown live green algae, uniquely Chlorella vulgaris, to be a particularly effective biostimulant, having a significant impact on soil microbial activity, plant growth and overall farm ROI.

A Breakthrough in Living Biostimulant Technology

Historically, the challenge of maintaining live algae viability during storage and transport has hindered their widespread use. Green algae, like most plants, are usually dependent on photosynthesis to maintain life. They die when placed in dark storage.

Living organisms feed themselves in one of two ways: producing their own food via photosynthesis, like green plants and algae, or by finding it outside of themselves, like animals and bacteria. Those that photosynthesize are called autotrophs (auto = self, troph = feeding), while those organisms that scavenge or hunt for food are called heterotrophs (hetero = other). There is a third category known as mixotrophic, an organism that can switch between autotrophic and heterotrophic metabolism.

Scientists with EnSoil Algae™ have now introduced a breakthrough formulation of mixotrophic Chlorella vulgaris, which can photosynthesize in light and consume organic material in darkness. This allows them to remain viable during transport and storage for 6 to 12 months. This patent-pending technology does not use any commercial or laboratory gene-altering techniques. It does not rely on genetic modification, as the heterotrophic pathway is already present in green algae. This technology activates that pathway to produce mixotrophic chlorella.

Moreover, live cell green algae is an endophyte acting as a transport vehicle for soil microbes and chlorophyll. A research study by Dr. James White of Rutgers University demonstrated a symbiotic relationship between EnSoil Algae™, plants and endophytic soil bacteria. Algae cells attract and carry bacteria into plant roots, delivering chlorophyll and promoting growth of root hairs.

Reducing Synthetic NPK, Increasing Yields and Crop Quality

One of the most important benefits of living green algae is that it can be used to lower synthetic nitrogen inputs. “Where will the nitrogen come from,” people ask? The answer is that living green algae amplifies nature’s process of extracting nitrogen from the air and converting it into ammonium compounds in the soil. One gram of healthy soil contains some 10 billion bacteria, fungi and other organisms that work together to make this conversion. Live cell green algae accelerate the process of nitrogen fixation.

In addition, rhizospheric bacteria produce weak acids that solubilize soil-bound phosphorus, making it available to plant root systems. This especially happens when these bacteria are stimulated by Chlorella vulgaris. Soil testing using the Haney Soil Test after the first application has even demonstrated excess nitrogen after harvesting, nitrogen that is available for the next season.

Squash in field, photo courtesy of Clemson University

This means growers can reduce their use of synthetic NPK fertilizers to produce quality crops with higher nutrient density. Known as phytochemicals, such as carotenoids, polyphenols and alkaloids, these nutrients are critical for healthy function of organs, strengthening the immune system and preventing chronic disease.

And because EnSoil Algae™ is applied at lower rates and at a much lower cost than synthetic NPK, growers can realize savings of 20% to 50% in fertilizer costs. This enables them to increase their profitability in year one while improving the health of their soil, increasing yields and improving the nutritional content of their crops.

Biostimulants like Chlorella vulgaris make sense because they can lead to significantly improved agronomic and economic outcomes. They enable growers to realize a much better return on investment that compounds over time as increased SOM and organic nutrient cycling improve water retention, plant health and resiliency. This allows for reduction in irrigation and crop protection inputs.

To learn more, download the 72-page Growers Report with research data and trials across a wide variety of crop types, soils and regions. Or come meet Jessica Murison, jessica@ensoilalgae.com at the Progressive Crop Consultant Conference in Visalia, September 24th and 25th.

EnSoil Algae™ is a product of Enlightened Soil Corp., a South Carolina public benefit corporation, ensoilalgae.com.

Thinking About Smarter Irrigation Strategies for California Avocados

By
Taylor Chalstrom
-
0
New irrigation calculators based on local weather data aim to simplify water scheduling for California avocado growers seeking to boost efficiency (photo by Ali Montazar, UCCE.)

At the recent UCCE Avocado Irrigation Workshop in San Diego County, industry experts, crop consultants and growers gathered to address one of the most pressing challenges in avocado farming: irrigation efficiency. The meeting presented Danny Klittich of Mission Produce Inc. shared firsthand insights from groves across the state, highlighting common issues and emerging solutions as well as opportunities for crop consultants to assist growers.

“I think one of the biggest challenges in avocado growing is water management,” Klittich said, “and trying to manage how many hours are applied and the frequency with which it is applied, and then doing that without the tools in the field to have any feedback is difficult.”

He noted many growers are still making irrigation decisions based on rigid routines rather than real-time data. “[Some growers are] just doing six hours twice a week or 24 hours once a week, and not having some type of soil moisture sensor or tree sensor to really have feedback. Is it too much? Is it not enough?”

New Tools for Growers

To address these pain points, new tools and resources are being developed to help growers simplify their decision-making and become more precise.

“The California Avocado Commission is funding a project with Cooperative Extension to build out a simple irrigation calculator based on weather data to give a better estimate for people,” Klittich said. “So they can know how many hours they need to irrigate without having to go do all the math, pulling data out of CIMIS, trying to figure out what all the different correction factors and things are. Just really simplifying things.”

In addition to this calculator, he mentioned ongoing efforts to improve crop coefficients and other input variables that influence irrigation calculations. “I think that’s really where we’ve doubled down.”

For growers ready to invest more deeply, Klittich pointed to the availability of more advanced platforms. “There are so many great paid services that incorporate multiple-sensor packages, where you can purchase multiple sensors and then utilize those for making crop decisions.”

Understanding Soil’s Role

Klittich also emphasized how soil characteristics complicate irrigation planning. “Soil has an obvious interaction with irrigation. It’s how much water we can hold in the root zone. But also, there are innate problems with soil, with limiting layers and percolation rates. All of those have to be taken into account when we’re designing our irrigation management plan.”

Importantly, he clarified water use doesn’t necessarily change with soil type. What changes is how much water the soil can store. “A healthy tree on sandy soil and a healthy tree on heavy soil use the same amount of water. The problem is we can just hold less water in the sand than we can in the heavy soil.”

Actionable Recommendations

For consultants advising growers on next steps, Klittich’s advice is straightforward: Start with basic feedback tools.

“If you don’t have any soil moisture sensing technology, there’s huge return on investment to having just one sensor in the field to tell you if the soil’s too wet or too dry and how deep your irrigations are going,” he said. “I think that is a must in every operation.”

He also encouraged growers to make use of existing public data. “Every grower has access to the CIMIS stations that are a California statewide system. However, there’s not always a station close by, but you can use that data to then influence your irrigation calculations.”

Combining those tools can significantly improve accuracy. “Getting an idea from CIMIS of how much you might need to irrigate and then using a soil sensor to make sure that you didn’t irrigate too much or too little can really make a huge difference above just guessing six hours, eight hours, because the weather was what it was last week.”

Check out the full conversation with Klittich in a recent MyAgLife YouTube video.

BioLumic Brings Food-System Pioneers to Scientific Advisory Group, Deepening World-Class Expertise in Light-Programmed Seed Traits

By
Press Release
-
0
BioLumic is a U.S.- and New Zealand-based agricultural biotechnology company using light signaling as a programming language for plants.

Champaign, Illinois – July 15, 2025 – BioLumic, the only agricultural biotechnology company that programs seed traits using light, today announced the appointment of Dr. Howard-Yana Shapiro, distinguished senior fellow at CIFOR-ICRAF, and Dr. Jeremy Hill, chief science & technology officer at Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, to its Scientific Advisory Group.

Dr. Shapiro and Professor Hill join founding members Professor Mark Tester – internationally renowned for pioneering the science of salt-tolerant crops – and Dr. John Bedbrook, former DuPont Vice President and inventor on more than 50 plant-biotech patents. Together, the four advisors bring a uniquely diverse mix of agronomic and biotechnology discovery for world-leading innovations.

“Bringing on Howard and Jeremy strengthens an advisory team with a proven track record of scaling breakthrough science from lab bench to global impact,” said Steve Sibulkin, CEO of BioLumic. “Their insights will accelerate the impact of our light-signal xTraits™ platform, helping ensure it delivers meaningful value for farmers, industry, and the planet—while advancing a more resilient food system.”

BioLumic’s patented xTraits™ platform delivers precisely timed UV-light signals to activate plants’ own gene-expression pathways. The result is double-digit gains in yield, quality, and resilience in a fraction of the time and cost of conventional trait development, and all without altering DNA. Advanced programs in corn, soybeans, rice, and forage crops are already under way with multiple partners, including food production companies, charitable entities, and leading seed companies.

New Scientific Advisory Group Members:

Dr. Howard-Yana Shapiro is a 50-year crop-science pioneer who led global agriculture initiatives at Mars, Inc., and founded the African Orphan Crops Consortium, which is working to improve 101 nutrient-dense crops critical to food security across Africa. He has driven scientific efforts that combine biodiversity, nutrition, and equitable access to high-performing crops.

“I am excited to support BioLumic’s pioneering work in using light to naturally enhance plant performance,” said Shapiro. “Harnessing the power of biology and light opens up powerful new pathways for crop productivity and resilience traits.”

Professor Jeremy Hill brings decades of experience in science, technology, nutrition and sustainability across the entire farm-to-consumer dairy value chain. As Fonterra’s Chief Science & Technology Officer, and former President of the International Dairy Federation, he helped lead the development of international greenhouse gas and nutrition frameworks for agriculture and food systems. In 2020, Prof. Hill was awarded the Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the dairy industry and scientific research in the Queen’s Birthday Honours.

“BioLumic’s innovation sits at the nexus of science, sustainability, and food system transformation,” said Hill. “I look forward to contributing to BioLumic’s efforts to shape the future of sustainable agriculture.”

BioLumic’s Scientific Advisory Group brings deep expertise across plant science, trait commercialization, global food systems, and sustainability.

About BioLumic
Founded in 2013, BioLumic is a U.S.- and New Zealand-based agricultural biotechnology company using light signaling as a programming language for plants. Its patented xTraits™ technology unlocks non-GMO genetic expression traits to enhance yield, composition, and crop resilience through a one-time, light-based seed application. BioLumic traits are scalable, fast to develop, and easily integrated into existing seed systems. Learn more at www.biolumic.com or contact info@biolumic.com.

Media Contact
Sara – AgTech PR for BioLumic
sara@agtechpr.com

123...40Page 1 of 40
-Advertisement-



EDITOR PICKS

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©