APIX Biosciences NV announces new advances in Honeybee Nutrition
WINGENE, Belgium, Aug. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Belgian agri-technology company APIX Biosciences NV, active in Europe and the United States, proudly announces the publication in Nature, by APIX Biosciences’ Scientific Founder Prof. Geraldine Wright and her team, on the production of plant-sterols in a yeast synthetic biology platform and the role of these phytosterols in honeybee nutrition (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09431-y). APIX is pleased to have acquired and integrated this technology in its portfolio of technologies.
“Sterols are one of many nutrient classes honeybees require in their diet. This publication describes how to genetically engineer yeast to make phytosterols. Experiments feeding these yeasts to honeybees shows that the presence of these sterols can improve their reproduction,” says APIX Biosciences’ Chairman Thierry Bogaert. “This confirms and extends the work that APIX Biosciences NV published last May in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B using these phytosterols produced through chemical synthesis (https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.3078)”.
APIX Biosciences NV, a privately held life sciences company based in Belgium, has developed a complete Pollen Replacing Feed for honeybees to mitigate the recurring shortages of adequate pollen to feed honeybees, a livestock that is essential for the pollination of many crops. Large-scale field tests in winter survival trials by leading commercial beekeepers show that the APIX feed reduces colony mortality by 50% compared to diets that are current standard practice. The APIX Pollen Replacing Feed offers beekeepers and growers of crops that are pollinated by honeybees a fundamental solution to the chronic undernutrition of bee populations.
“The Pollen Replacing Feed that APIX Biosciences has exhaustively field tested and that it targets to launch in the USA in 2026 does not use the synthetic biology technology developed in the publication published in Nature today,” comments Jan Bogaert, CEO APIX Biosciences.
“APIX Nutrition llc, a wholly owned subsidiary of APIX Biosciences NV, was proud to be industrial partner of this research via BBSRC iCase grant (BB/M011224/1),” concludes Jan Bogaert, CEO of APIX Biosciences. “APIX Biosciences continuously adds to its portfolio of ingredients, tools and technology and continuously invests in improving its Pollen Replacing Feed over time.”
About APIX Biosciences NV
APIX Biosciences is a Belgian agri-technology company headquartered in Wingene Belgium, with operations in Europe and the United States. The company has developed an advanced, science-based Pollen Replacing Feed product for honeybees. This offers a fundamental solution to the chronic undernutrition of bee populations in North America and Europe—an important factor in the decline of pollinators. In doing so, APIX Biosciences is contributing to sustainable beekeeping and global food security.
Class Lectures: March 30 – April 1, 2026
Field Trips: April 2 – 3, 2026
Class lectures will be held in the UC Davis Conference Center. Field trips will be in the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast of California.
Instructors of the School are professionals with extensive experience on principles and
practical applications of microirrigation for resourceefficient crop production.
What you will learn:
Technical aspects of water delivery systems to allow for successful adoption and management of microirrigation systems
Soil-water movement and soil-plantwater relations with microirrigation
Microirrigation systems design, operation, maintenance, automation, and performance evaluation
Methods and tools for microirrigation scheduling
Managing microirrigation for different crops (field and agronomic crops; vegetable crops; berry crops; fruit crops; nut crops; vineyards)
Chemigation and fertigation
Salinity management with microirrigation
Attending this school will provide:
3 days of practical class lectures on principles and implementation of microirrigation systems and management practices for crop production
2 days of field demonstration visits (one day in the San Joaquin Valley for modernized irrigation delivery systems, and fruit and nut crops; one day in the Central Coast for vineyards, vegetable crops, and berries)
Questions? Please contact:
Daniele Zaccaria – UC Davis: dzaccaria@ucdavis.edu
Mary Ann Dickinson: maryann@dickinsonassociates.com
John Deere Partners With the Reservoir to Accelerate High-Value Crop Innovation
MOLINE, Illinois— John Deere (NYSE: DE) announced today the start of a strategic collaboration with the Reservoir, a California-based agricultural technology on-farm incubator platform that brings together grower networks and deep tech R&D studios to accelerate innovation in high-value crop (HVC) agriculture.
The partnership links John Deere’s innovative world-class agricultural technology and equipment, and deep grower relationships with the Reservoir’s startup residents, field testing platforms and commercialization support. Through this collaborative effort, John Deere and the Reservoir aim to help HVC growers adopt new solutions that help them do more with less by addressing labor shortages, increasing efficiency and improving long-term sustainability.
“We view high-value crops as an important growth area for agriculture, and an area where innovation is needed and can have a direct, measurable impact on growers’ resilience and productivity,” said Sean Sundberg, business integration manager at John Deere. “This partnership gives us a front-row seat to the next generation of agricultural technology, and an opportunity to work alongside growers and entrepreneurs to ensure future solutions are practical, scalable and built to last.”
Through the agreement, John Deere becomes the exclusive original equipment manufacturer to the Reservoir, granting branding opportunities across the Reservoir’s Salinas facility and future locations. John Deere will have access to early stage startups, co-developed R&D programs and curated field days for technology demonstrations.
“John Deere’s investment in the Reservoir is a vital strategic step toward making sure specialty crop growers have a fighting chance amid our industry’s labor shortage,” said Walt Duflock, senior vice president of innovation at Western Growers. “The California agricultural technology landscape will thrive thanks to this kind of collaborative effort.”
This partnership brings together John Deere’s leadership in building next-generation agricultural technology ecosystems with the Reservoir’s ability to connect startups, growers and technologists in real-world production environments. By pairing John Deere’s advanced precision ag and automation capabilities with the Reservoir’s on-farm R&D team, the collaboration creates a powerful platform for developing, testing and scaling solutions that address the most pressing challenges in HVCs. This collaboration unites innovation infrastructure with a thriving network of founders, growers and ag labor innovators, signaling a shared long-term commitment to strengthening the productivity, efficiency and sustainability of HVC production in California and beyond.
Founded in 2024, the Reservoir connects startups, growers, and technologists to develop and test solutions for HVCs in real-world production environments. John Deere and the Reservoir found alignment through their shared commitment to advancing agricultural crop productivity, combining Deere’s advanced equipment and grower relationships with the Reservoir’s field-based R&D and deep tech network.
“At the Reservoir, we’re focused on accelerating innovation for HVCs and the long-term sustainability of California agriculture,” said Danny Bernstein, CEO of the Reservoir. “John Deere brings trusted technology, technical expertise and a real commitment to grower support and strength. This partnership strengthens the foundation we’re building and helps unlock the next generation of ag technology in service of our food system.”
The collaboration further underscores John Deere’s broader U.S. commitment to invest more than $20 billion in domestic manufacturing over the next decade. By deepening innovation partnerships in key agricultural regions like the Salinas Valley in California, John Deere is advancing U.S. and global food production efficiency while creating high-quality jobs and maintaining leadership in agricultural technology.
ABOUT JOHN DEERE
It doesn’t matter if you’ve never driven a tractor, mowed a lawn, or operated a dozer. With John Deere’s role in helping produce food, fiber, fuel, and infrastructure, we work for every single person on the planet. It all started nearly 200 years ago with a steel plow. Today, John Deere drives innovation in agriculture, construction, forestry, turf, power systems, and more.
The Reservoir is a startup incubator and venture capital fund focused on helping agtech startups succeed where agriculture happens—in the field. Reservoir Farms is the world’s first on-farm robotics incubator, starting in the Salinas Valley and expanding to other key regions like the Central Valley. Reservoir Ventures backs startups solving real problems in high-value crops. By combining R&D space, hands-on grower input, and early-stage capital, the Reservoir helps turn promising ideas into tools for the growers who feed the world.
Apollo Ag Technologies’ Kevin Rost says consultants can help California growers prepare for the 2026 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act compliance deadline by guiding technology adoption, improving data collection and encouraging participation in local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (photo courtesy Xavier Mascareñas, California Department of Water Resources.)
With California’s 2026 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) compliance deadline fast approaching, some growers remain uncertain about what is required and how to prepare. Consultants have an opportunity to guide growers through both the technical and strategic steps needed to meet the regulations.
“Compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act is a critical conversation that everyone in the ag industry should be having right now,” said Kevin Rost of Apollo Ag Technologies. “We can’t defend ourselves or create strategic plans without measuring.
“The basics are prioritizing field level monitoring and installing flow meters and soil moisture probes. We have a lot of good tools right now. We have companies like Swan Systems and Apollo who have irrigation scheduling and tracking tools to help improve efficiency that way.”
For consultants, recommending and helping implement these tools can be the first step in guiding growers toward compliance. Rost said such monitoring allows growers to become more efficient for that specific field, soil type and crop, while also creating evidence for regulatory defense.
“It also becomes evidence. We need to have accurate records to be able to defend ourselves against regulation and be compliant with regulations,” he said.
Rost said real-time technologies, such as flow meters, soil probes and pressure switches, help growers remotely track water use and system performance, while NDVI imaging and drone data can detect real-time crop stress. Automation in both irrigation and fertigation, he added, boosts efficiency, reduces labor and provides records growers can use to defend their practices.
“I’ve seen grower operations where they’re setting up a command center almost,” Rost said. “They have a designated person monitoring these types of technologies. We also have NDVI and drone imaging now that are popular and useful to detect real-time crop stress based on these practices.
“The next step would be to automate the fertilizer injections along with the water so that it’s all efficient. It’s recorded. You can analyze the data, find ways to become more efficient.”
Consultants can also help clients build a strong presence in local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) processes. Rost stressed that grower participation is essential but often lacking.
“I’d really like to see more participation from growers,” he said. “If we’re not at the meetings and sharing our concerns and our plans and what’s working real time for the farmer, honestly your voice is just not going to be in.
“Rather than just letting the GSAs develop whatever, the GSAs actually rely on the grower data. The more we can participate, I think it’s going to be better.”
Rost acknowledged that mistrust between growers and agencies can make collaboration difficult. Consultants can help bridge this divide by fostering communication and explaining how GSA decisions affect farm operations.
“It does take time,” Rost said. “It does take time to learn these things, train your staff, get all the bugs worked out and get your actual irrigation planning and scheduling so precise that you can handle restrictions. You don’t want to jump in at the last minute. We’ve got to have time to prepare ourselves and to experiment and to make improvements over time, and we’ve been missing that boat, I think.”
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.
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 sustainingorchard 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.