Monitoring and fertigation are key to achieving the right timing of potassium applications.
Potassium is important to tomato vine health, fruit set and color. Recognizing where deficiencies may occur and correcting them is complex.
Deciding if Potassium Fertilization is Necessary The K ion is weathered from soil minerals and is held on negatively charged soil surfaces (the cation exchange capacity, or CEC). The plant’s ability to get the K it needs depends therefore on:
• Soil type and texture: Sandy soils have a low CEC and a limited capacity to supply and hold K, while heavy clay soils can limit water movement and root growth, meaning that while the soil may have sufficient K the tomato roots cannot access it.
• Root growth: Since K isn’t very mobile in most soils, plants with poor root systems will have less access to soil K, even if it’s in an available form.
• Presence of other cations: If other ions are too abundant, they interfere with the plant’s ability to take up soil K. If K makes up less than 2% of the soil’s CEC, plants risk being K-deficient.
Most southern Sacramento Valley tomato soils are not naturally potassium-deficient; however, levels can decrease over time.
Right Rate Tomatoes are heavy K feeders, and most of the K taken up goes to the fruit. A 50-ton crop can remove 200 to 300 pounds K per acre (4 to 6 pounds per ton; Hartz and Hanson 2009). If K fertilization is needed, a recommendation is to replace the K removed with the harvest. The economic rate may be less than this because the additional yield benefit often stagnates as the rate increases (Hartz and Hanson 2009). A general recommendation is 100 pounds K2O per acre (Hartz and Hanson 2009).
Most southern Sacramento Valley tomato soils are not naturally K-deficient; however, levels can decrease over time. In an ongoing project funded by CTRI, I am measuring soil biological, chemical and physical differences between fields which are coming into tomato for the first time in decades (e.g., after walnut) and nearby fields on the same soil type which have been in long-term tomato rotations. Across a range of soil textures (Yolo silt loam, Tehama loam and Brentwood clay loam), all ‘new’ fields contained more available K in the top 12 inches at planting than their ‘old’ counterparts (Fig. 1). The difference was greatest on the two lighter soils. These differences may not relate to crop yield as only one field is at the threshold at which drip-irrigated processing tomatoes are expected to respond to K fertilizer, but they suggest that even in high-K soils, annual rotations which include tomato measurably reduce K over time.
Figure 1. Extractable potassium in the top 12 inches of six drip-irrigated processing tomato fields just after planting. Composite samples were taken from five areas within each field, from within the wetting zone. ‘New’ fields were in their first year of tomato (following walnut) and ‘old’ fields had been in long-term tomato rotations. Local research suggests a yield response to potassium fertilizer is most likely at soil test values <200 mg/kg.
Questions about nutrient management in processing tomatoes? See the California Fertilization Guidelines at geisseler.ucdavis.edu/Guidelines/Tomato.html.
References
Hartz, T.K., Hanson, B., 2009. Drip irrigation and fertigation management of processing tomato . University of California Vegetable Research and Information Center.
Hartz, T.K., Johnstone, P.R., Francis, D.M., Miyao, E.M., 2005. Processing tomato yield and fruit quality improved with potassium fertigation. HortScience 40 (6): 1862-1867.
Widders, I.E., Lorenz, O.A., 1982. Potassium nutrition during tomato plant development. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Sciences 107 (6): 960-964.
Artificial intelligence tools support agricultural consultants by providing deeper insights into crop performance, soil health and weather variability (photo my Marni Katz.)
The future of agriculture is here, now, and it’s powered by technology, notably artificial intelligence (AI). From large drones that spray crop protectants and monitor crop health to autonomous equipment navigating undulating landscapes with various obstacles, to predictive models forecasting crop and animal production, a new wave of technology is transforming how modern production agriculture operates. For agricultural consultants, this digital revolution presents a complex and perhaps unsettling reality. On one hand, these powerful new tools hold the promise of streamlining tasks, enhancing data analytics and unlocking new levels of efficiency and positive net returns for clients. On the other hand, a quiet anxiety lingers. Could the same technology making ag consultants’ work easier be blindly relied on for ‘black box’ recommendations or perhaps even make their expertise obsolete?
In this article, we will explore this new landscape by asking a fundamental question: Is AI a new tool to be wielded by the modern consultant, a crutch to be wary of leaning on blindly or the ultimate pink slip waiting to happen? We’ll examine how AI is being used in the field today and what it means for the human element of ag consulting.
AI As a Powerful Ally, Not a Threat Preliminary, overarching statement: AI is a powerful tool, enhancing the ag consultant’s role. Far from a replacement, AI is rapidly proving itself to be a powerful tool that enhances, rather than diminishes, the ag consultant’s role. It’s an upgrade to the traditional toolkit, allowing for a level of insight and precision previously unattainable.
AI is transforming data analysis and predictive modeling. Consultants have always dealt with complex variables, including weather patterns, soil composition, variations in feedstuffs and market fluctuations. AI can process these vast data sets at a scale and speed that are simply beyond human capability. This allows consultants to move from reactive advice to proactive, data-based strategies. For example, an AI model can analyze years of yield data alongside weather forecasts to predict optimal planting dates with remarkable accuracy, offering a deeper, more reliable layer of intelligence for grower clients.
This enhanced analysis directly contributes to the continuing rise of precision agriculture. By integrating AI with technologies like drones and ground-based sensors, ag consultants can gain a micro-level view of their clients’ fields. AI-powered systems can identify nutrient deficiencies or pest infestations in specific zones of a field, enabling consultants to recommend highly targeted interventions for planting, fertilizing and irrigation. Smart collars on livestock collect and transmit data to a central system where AI can predict oncoming illness before human eyes detect it. This isn’t about automating the consultant’s job; it’s about giving them the ability to provide more precise and effective advice than ever before, optimizing resource use while enhancing production.
Finally, the most immediate benefit of AI is in efficiency and time savings. Many of the routine, time-consuming tasks that consultants face, such as data entry, basic reporting and compiling reports, can be automated by AI. By offloading these low-value activities, consultants are freed up to focus on what they do best: building strong client relationships, developing sophisticated long-term strategies and providing the nuanced, on-the-ground expertise that technology can’t replicate. In this sense, AI acts as a force multiplier, allowing consultants to scale their expertise and focus on the human element that remains central to their profession.
To discourage an overreliance on artificial intelligence and future-proof their careers, agricultural consultants must keep four uniquely human skills in mind that cannot be replicated: complex problem-solving, critical discretion and intuition, communication and relationship-building, and adaptability and lifelong learning.
Avoiding the AI Crutch Next, let’s caution about using AI as a “crutch,” the perils of overreliance. While the transformative potential of AI in agriculture is undeniable, there’s a growing concern that overreliance on these intelligent systems could turn a powerful tool into a limiting crutch. Ag consultants, with their deep-seated expertise and intuitive understanding of the land, face unique risks if they lean too heavily on AI without maintaining a critical perspective.
One of the primary dangers lies in deskilling and the erosion of critical discretion. If consultants become overly dependent on AI to process data and generate recommendations, they risk losing the nuanced, hands-on knowledge and critical discretion developed over years of practical experience. This ‘tacit knowledge,’ the ability to read subtle cues from the soil, the plants or the livestock that AI might miss, is invaluable. An ag consultant might accept AI’s output without fully understanding the underlying logic or questioning its assumptions, (‘black box syndrome’), potentially leading to suboptimal decisions if the AI encounters conditions outside its training data.
Furthermore, AI models are only as good as the quality and completeness of the data they are fed. In agriculture, data are often messy, inconsistent or biased, reflecting specific regions, farm sizes or conventional practices. If the input data are flawed, incomplete or not representative of a particular agribusiness’s unique conditions, AI’s recommendations can be inaccurate or even detrimental. Ag consultants need to remain vigilant in verifying data sources, understanding the limitations of the models and applying their human judgment to interpret and contextualize AI-generated recommendations. Without this critical oversight, an ag consultant might inadvertently base crucial advice on unreliable or inaccurate information.
Another significant challenge is the potential loss of the “human touch” and degradation of client relationships. Production agriculture remains inherently a relationship-driven industry built on trust, shared experience and personalized advice. While AI can automate tasks, it cannot replicate the empathy, understanding and trust that a human ag consultant provides. Overreliance on remote, data-driven interactions could diminish this personal connection with agricultural producers, who often value face-to-face discussions and the intuitive guidance that comes from an ag consultant who deeply understands their specific farm’s history, personnel, challenges and goals. The unique, localized and qualitative factors of agricultural production often require a level of contextual understanding that current AI struggles to grasp.
Finally, there are practical barriers related to cost and accessibility. Advanced AI tools often come with substantial upfront investments and ongoing operational costs. This can create a technological divide where smaller ag production entities or consultants with limited resources may struggle to adopt these solutions. As AI becomes an indispensable tool for effective ag consulting, those without access to it could be at a significant disadvantage, exacerbating existing inequalities within the ag sector.
From large drones that spray crop protectants and monitor crop health to autonomous equipment navigating undulating landscapes with various obstacles, to predictive models forecasting crop and animal production, a new wave of technology is transforming how modern production agriculture operates (photo courtesy GUSS Automation.)
The Fear of Replacement Lastly, let’s address the anxiety of replacement. Is AI coming for ag consultants’ jobs? The whispers of job displacement are perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the AI revolution for ag consultants. The fear of the pink slip is not entirely unfounded, as the landscape of basic ag consulting services is indeed changing.
We are already witnessing the rise of automated services and AI-driven platforms that can offer basic agricultural advice at a fraction of the cost. These platforms leverage vast data sets to provide generalized recommendations on planting schedules, fertilizer applications, pest identification or even total mixed ration formulations. For routine queries or farms with simpler needs, these automated solutions may present a competitive alternative to traditional human-led ag consulting, potentially capturing a segment of the market and putting pressure on ag consultants who primarily focus on data gathering or analysis.
However, this perceived threat is also a powerful catalyst for the ag consultant’s evolving role. Instead of viewing AI as a direct competitor, consultants should recognize it as an opportunity to elevate their value proposition. The future of ag consulting isn’t about being the data gatherer; it’s about becoming the master interpreter of that data. Ag consultants should shift from simply collecting information to synthesizing AI-generated insights with their unique understanding of local conditions, grower relationships and complex, multifaceted problems that AI cannot solve on its own. They must become strategists who translate complex AI outputs into actionable, human-centric advice and problem solvers who navigate unpredictable challenges that no algorithm can fully anticipate, what I have termed “management-actionable intel.”
Future-Proofing the Ag Consultant To truly future-proof their careers, ag consultants must embrace AI as a powerful accomplice, not a replacement. This requires actively engaging with AI tools, understanding their capabilities and limitations and integrating them seamlessly into their workflows. More importantly, it requires a focus on cultivating uniquely human skills that AI cannot replicate:
• Complex problem-solving: Addressing unforeseen challenges, integrating diverse variables that extend beyond typical data points and developing innovative solutions for nuanced, agribusiness-specific issues
• Critical discretion and intuition: Evaluating AI outputs with healthy skepticism, an experienced eye, understanding context and relying on years of accumulated knowledge and gut feeling
• Communication and relationship-building: Fostering deep trust with clients, actively listening to their concerns, articulating complex strategies in an accessible manner and providing empathetic support, qualities essential for genuine partnerships
• Adaptability and lifelong learning: Staying abreast of rapidly evolving AI technologies and agricultural practices, continuously expanding their skill set to remain relevant in a dynamic environment (e.g., joining a professional ag consultant organization)
By strategically leveraging AI for efficiency and insight while doubling down on their irreplaceable human attributes, ag consultants can not only survive but thrive in this new era, proving that the value of human expertise remains paramount.
The journey through the evolving role of AI in agricultural consulting reveals a clear path forward. Rather than an inherent threat or a weak crutch, artificial intelligence stands as a transformative force with the power to redefine the profession. We’ve seen how AI can vastly enhance data analysis and predictive modeling, enabling ag consultants to provide more precise and proactive advice. It automates mundane tasks, freeing up valuable time for high-value activities like strategic planning and client engagement.
The future of agricultural consulting undoubtedly belongs to those who embrace this technological shift and learn to effectively leverage AI. The future successful ag consultant will wield AI as a sophisticated tool to augment their existing skills, not allowing it to replace the fundamental human elements of their expertise. Ag consultants who view AI as a collaborative assistant, rather than a looming replacement, will be best positioned to thrive.
Ultimately, the true and enduring value of an ag consultant in the AI age will be found in their innate ability to synthesize cutting edge technology with their uniquely human expertise. This synergy, combining AI’s analytical power with human critical discretion, intuition, communication and complex problem-solving, will be the driving force behind resilient and profitable outcomes for their clients, ushering in a new and dynamic era for the profession.
Attractive prices may draw many producers to the same crop, leading to oversupply and depressed prices. Taking a balanced approach that accounts for expected costs, yields and market conditions will help make more informed decisions (photo by Vicky Boyd.)
One of the common requests I have received from growers and other agricultural stakeholders in the Sacramento Valley is for insights into alternative crop options that are drought- and disease-resistant and have the potential to command higher prices. With high production costs squeezing profits for major crops like walnuts, almonds and prunes, and yields becoming increasingly uncertain due to weather and disease, it is no surprise that growers are showing increased interest in exploring new crop enterprises they can diversify into. A crop enterprise is a farm activity focused on producing a single crop commodity, like prunes, almonds or walnuts. A grower’s overall farm business operation includes all the enterprises they manage. Helping growers choose the right crop enterprise for their farm is key to that success.
This article draws on the PRIMER method designed by professors Tim Woods and Steve Isaacs of University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension. In no order of importance, PRIMER stands for: profitability, resources, information, marketing, enthusiasm and risk. Each factor comes with guiding questions to help growers assess whether a new farm enterprise is a good fit. The full PRIMER article provides detailed worksheets and factor-specific questions to support deeper evaluation when selecting a new farm enterprise (see resources). This article highlights some of the basic, yet essential questions that are often overlooked. If a grower answers more “yes” than “no” or “maybe,” they are a good candidate to pursue options further in a detailed analysis.
Profitability Unless the operation is intended as a hobby, assessing profitability is a necessary step before adopting any new crop enterprise. Profitability is not just about high market prices; it also depends on yield potential and production costs. For commodities like orchard crops that take over a year to generate revenue, an investment analysis may be necessary to determine if they can realistically generate enough returns to cover the expected initial and ongoing production costs. Upfront or initial investments, such as planting, land acquisition or irrigation systems, are expenses needed to get started. Measures like net present value, which considers the time value of money and the size of the stream of returns over time, can help evaluate whether the long-term returns will be worth the investment. Some high-value crops may appear attractive due to strong market prices but come with significant costs that can quickly erode margins. Market conditions may play a role. Attractive prices may draw many producers to the same crop, leading to oversupply and depressed prices. Taking a balanced approach that accounts for expected costs, yields and market conditions will help make more informed decisions.
Resources A new crop enterprise may require a different set of resources, such as land, labor, equipment and buildings. When current resources can be leveraged, the risk of entering a new venture is significantly reduced. Growers should be realistic about what they already have and what they are willing or able to invest in to avoid costly surprises. Additionally, lenders may be hesitant to provide financial support for large capital investments for untried alternatives.
Information Access to relevant information is essential when considering a new crop enterprise. While the internet has expanded access to agricultural knowledge, the abundance of information requires careful filtering to identify trustworthy sources and details relevant to your specific situation. Without accurate and applicable information, even the most promising crop enterprise can lead to costly missteps. Research-based insights shared through workshops, field days and newsletters from Cooperative Extension services have long been a trusted resource for helping California growers make informed decisions. Additionally, talking to other growers with firsthand experience can provide valuable real-world perspective.
Marketing Successfully growing a new crop is only the first step; growers also need to sell it profitably. Thus, marketing must be integrated into decision-making from the start, not addressed only after harvest.
A good marketing plan is just as important as a good production plan. Building relationships with potential buyers and understanding their preferences is critical to meeting market demands. Researching buyer preferences can help identify unique product features that enhance market appeal. Growers should also evaluate which available marketing channels, be it direct sales, contracts, wholesale, retail or cooperative marketing, best align with their business goals as prices can vary significantly across channels. For crops that must be sold to processors or handlers, growers should understand their requirements, including contract terms, and whether they are accepting new growers.
Enthusiasm Enthusiasm can fuel the determination needed to overcome challenges, pursue new knowledge and push a new enterprise toward success. However, it is important to balance passion with objectivity. While strong emotional ties may drive commitment, they can also cloud judgment and lead to decisions that overlook practical or financial realities, even for experienced managers. That is why it is essential to clearly identify both the reasons for pursuing a new crop enterprise and the reasons for choosing not to during the evaluation stage. Pairing these reflections with a list of specific, measurable and attainable goals can help clarify your motivations and answer the key question: Why do I want to do this? That said, many growers today are asking about new crop options not out of excitement but out of necessity because current options don’t seem profitable due to high production costs and low prices. This shift in motivation is entirely understandable and important to acknowledge. Even if enthusiasm is not a main driver, taking the time to reflect on goals and expectations remains a valuable part of the grower’s decision-making process.
Risk Agriculture involves many sources of risk and uncertainty, whether from production, markets, finances, legal or personal factors. When evaluating a new crop enterprise, it is important for growers to ask: What are the key risks involved, and how am I prepared to manage them? A sound decision-making process identifies the major risks and considers how they can be mitigated. Some examples of risk management strategies are diversification, insurance, marketing contracts and credit reserves. Keep in mind that the more unusual or unfamiliar a crop enterprise is to a grower’s region, the greater the potential risk.
Exploring new crop enterprises can be a good strategy for growers looking to adapt to rising costs, market shifts and environmental challenges. However, choosing the right enterprise involves more than identifying a high-value crop price; it requires careful evaluation of goals, resources and risk tolerance. The PRIMER method offers a practical starting point, guiding growers through key considerations: profitability, resources, information, marketing, enthusiasm and risk. Taking time to ask the right questions about these factors upfront can help growers avoid mistakes and build a stronger foundation for long-term success.
Resources
Woods, T., & Isaacs, S. PRIMER for Selecting New Enterprises for Your Farm. University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. Agricultural Economics Extension No. 00-13 August 2000 Link: https://agecon.ca.uky.edu/files/ext2000-13.pdf
A soil moisture sensor (not visible) and its datalogger installed in a grapevine with grassed alley. Soil moisture sensors are also helpful for managing regulated deficit irrigation or partial rootzone drying, which are irrigation techniques that have been shown to improve grape quality and improve water use efficiency in grapevine production (all photos by T. Oker.)
Grapevines are thought to be a relatively drought-tolerant species. However, in commercial production, they are usually irrigated to increase yield and profitability. The crop water requirements for grapevine varies by region. Through years of research, grapevine crop water requirements for different climatic regions have been determined and are generally well understood. In the San Joaquin Valley, for example, grapevines require between 24 to 36 inches of water each season. Knowledge of how much water grapevines need at each growth stage during the season is key to efficient irrigation management. This is called irrigation scheduling in irrigation parlance. There are various approaches to irrigation scheduling. A common method is to track the soil water budget by accounting for precipitation, irrigation and evapotranspiration.
Soil moisture sensors offer a more direct way to estimate the amount of water in the soil at a given time, an attribute that makes them helpful for irrigation management. At the most basic, they are used to continuously track soil moisture status such that when the moisture level drops below a certain value (known as management allowable depletion), the irrigation system is turned on to replenish the soil profile.
Besides wide usage by growers in the United States, soil moisture sensors are also extensively used in irrigation research, and many studies have shown that they can help with water savings. For example, a recent study in southern Italy showed water savings between 10% to 17% by utilizing a soil moisture sensor-supported irrigation decision support system. Soil moisture sensors are also helpful for managing regulated deficit irrigation or partial rootzone drying, which are irrigation techniques that have been shown to improve grape quality and improve water use efficiency in grapevine production. In places like California’s Central Valley, where spring rain usually replenishes the soil with moisture, some water savings could be realized by delaying the onset of irrigation. However, to know how much water has been retained in the soil, one would need a device like a moisture sensor.
Drilling of a hole for installing a soil moisture sensor using a power drill. In circumstances where drilling a precise hole is challenging, an installer should make a slurry using soil drilled out of the hole and then pour the slurry back into the hole before (or while) installing the probe.
Soil Moisture Sensor Technology This article discusses the main soil moisture sensing technologies available to growers. In the market, there are several brands of soil moisture sensors that are suitable. Disregarding brand, most of these moisture sensors are based on the measurement of either soil moisture tension or the dielectric constant of the soil.
Soil moisture tension is basically a measure of the force with which water is held within the soil. Tensiometers, which measure soil moisture tension and are well known in the irrigation community, are one of the oldest soil moisture sensing technologies. Another common moisture sensor that is based on measurement of soil tension is the resistance block (sometimes called gypsum blocks), which measures the electrical current through the soil, which is then translated into soil tension. Tensiometers and resistance-block devices typically report soil moisture status in units of centibars, or bars, or megapascals, which are not readily translatable to soil water amounts. However, vendors of such devices often provide further information to translate the tension readings to estimates of the amount of water in the soil. Compared to other common soil moisture sensors, basic tensiometers have a narrow measurement range (0 to 100 centibars) and therefore should be cautiously used, especially in light-textured soils like sands. At a soil water tension of about 85 centibars or above, there is a high risk of a tensiometer malfunctioning. This limitation has been overcome in more recently developed advanced tensiometers, which have wider measurement ranges.
There are two common types of devices based on the measurement of soil dielectric constants. These are TDRs (time domain reflectometry) and FDRs (frequency domain reflectometry). Basically, the dielectric constant is the measure of a nonconducting material to conduct an electromagnetic wave. The dielectric constant of a soil is dependent on the amount of water it contains. TDRs and FDRs typically report soil moisture in terms of volumetric water content (VWC) percentage, which, compared to tension devices, is a more direct measurement, considering that the goal in irrigation management is to know how much water is in the soil. VWC is basically the amount of water in a unit volume of undisturbed soil at any given time.
These days, many soil moisture sensor vendors offer cloud-data services as an optional addition to the hardware. Typically, these services involve processing and uploading the soil moisture data on user-friendly online platforms, where a client can access their soil moisture data through smartphones, tablets or computers, making real-time data available any time it is needed.
‘It is very important that moisture sensors are installed such that they make good contact with the surrounding soil.’
Soil Moisture Installation in Grapevines Installing soil moisture sensors in grapevines is not markedly different from how it is done for other crops. It is important to install the soil moisture sensor close to the plant to get data that is representative of plant water use. For grapevines, it is reasonable to install the moisture sensor within 1 to 2 feet from the base of the trunk of the vine. This is because the highest root density is close to the base of the trunk of the plant.
Although mature grapevines are known to be able to extract moisture from depths of 5 feet or even more, as reported by a recent study conducted in Lodi, Calif., for irrigation management purposes, monitoring soil moisture to a depth of at least 4 feet is reasonable. For vineyards with cover crops, moisture sensors could also be installed between rows to monitor water use of the cover crop so that it can be accounted for in irrigation application amounts. This is especially important in vineyards that maintain cover crops during the period of grapevine peak water demand.
Generally, it is advisable to install more than one soil moisture sensor in a vineyard. A grower can use a soil map to guide their decision on where to install sensors. Field-scale soil maps are available for much of the continental United States. An additional factor to consider is to ensure sensors are installed at locations where there are healthy grapevines (i.e., grapevines expected to reflect the true water use across the orchard).
It is very important that moisture sensors are installed such that they make good contact with the surrounding soil. This is especially important for sensors that have an oblong architecture and thus must be installed into drilled holes. In circumstances where drilling a precise hole is challenging, an installer should make a slurry using soil drilled out of the hole and then pour the slurry back into the hole before (or while) installing the probe.
It is important to note that most commercially available soil moisture sensors estimate water in a small volume of soil that immediately surrounds the probe. Considering that soil texture naturally varies greatly in the field, both horizontally and vertically, the way water redistributes itself within the soil following irrigation is not homogeneous. It is therefore important to evaluate the reported soil moisture data after installation to ensure the data reported is related to wetting and drying periods and patterns.
Soil moisture sensors are an integral part of the suite of options that growers can draw from as they seek to improve their water use efficiency. Also, with advancements in digital agriculture, soil moisture sensors will remain key for gathering data that is used for ground-truthing and optimizing water use across various agricultural production systems.
Resources
Garofalo, S. Pietro, Intrigliolo, D. S., Camposeo, S., Alhajj Ali, S., Tedone, L., Lopriore, G., De Mastro, G., & Vivaldi, G. A. (2023). Agronomic Responses of Grapevines to an Irrigation Scheduling Approach Based on Continuous Monitoring of Soil Water Content. Agronomy, 13(11), 2821. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112821
McCarthy, M.G., Loveys, B.R., Dry, P.R. and Stoll, M. (2000). Regulated deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying as irrigation management techniques for grapevines. Water Reports, 22. https://www.fao.org/4/y3655e/y3655e00.htm#TopOfPage
Peacock, B. (). Water Management for Grapevines. University of California, Tulare County. Pub. IG1-95. https://ucanr.edu/sites/default/files/2011-03/82035.pdf
Wilson, T. G., Kustas, W. P., Alfieri, J. G., Anderson, M. C., Gao, F., Prueger, J. H., McKee, L. G., Alsina, M. M., Sanchez, L. A., & Alstad, K. P. (2020). Relationships between soil water content, evapotranspiration, and irrigation measurements in a California drip-irrigated Pinot noir vineyard. Agricultural Water Management, 237, 106186. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2020.106186
California produce continues to rank among the safest in the world, with 97% of tested fruits and vegetables showing no or minimal pesticide residues, according to the state’s 2023 monitoring report (photo by Neal Kinsey, Kinsey Agricultural Services.)
Last month, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released its annual produce monitoring report for 2023. The report showed about 97% of fruits and vegetables sold in California either had no detectable pesticide residues or had residues well below federal health-protective limits.
DPR collected and tested more than 3,500 unwashed produce samples from across the state. Each sample was analyzed for up to 500 types of pesticides and related compounds. Under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules, a sample is considered illegal only if pesticide detections exceed strict health-protective “tolerances.”
Highlights from the 2023 Residue Monitoring Program include:
• 39% of samples had no detectable pesticide residues at all.
• 58% had residues, but all were below EPA tolerance levels.
• 3% of samples had illegal pesticide residues.
• Of 1,059 produce samples labeled “grown in California,” less than 1% had illegal residues.
• Of the 96 samples with illegal residues, 83% were from imported produce.
• Of 379 organic samples, 98% met all pesticide requirements.
Understanding the Results At first glance, “97% safe” sounds impressive, but what does that actually mean? The “97% safe” is the combination of the 39% with “no detectable” and 58% with “residues below EPA tolerances.” To explain it well to friends, neighbors or concerned customers, let’s take a look behind the numbers and unpack a few of the key points.
First, consider the 39% of produce with no detectable pesticide residues whatsoever. Because of advances in science, “no detectable” means more than it did a generation ago. Testing technology has advanced so much that laboratories no longer measure only in parts per million. Now, they regularly are looking for detection residues in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.
To put that in perspective:
• One part per billion is the equivalent of a single drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool (about 10,000 gallons).
• One part per trillion is like that same drop of water in 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
So when a test says, “no detectable pesticide residue,” it means that even at these incredibly sensitive detection levels, nothing was found.
The next category, 58% of produce with residues below EPA tolerances, also deserves a closer look. EPA pesticide tolerances are not casual estimates; they’re the result of years of rigorous scientific review. To set a tolerance, the EPA examines:
• The toxicity of the pesticide
• How and how often it’s applied
• How much might remain on the food at harvest
Only after confirming there is a “reasonable certainty of no harm” does the EPA set a tolerance limit. These limits are intentionally conservative, often 100 times lower than the level at which any health effect might occur.
Pesticide residue testing technology has advanced so much that laboratories no longer measure only in parts per million. Now, they regularly are looking for detection residues in parts per billion or even parts per trillion.
California Grown: Even Better If we look only at produce grown in California, the results are even stronger.
Out of more than 1,050 California-grown samples, over 99% had either no detectable residues or legal levels. Illegal residues were found in just 0.3% of samples. That is a rate so low it’s almost impossible to demonstrate on a chart.
In fact, California-grown produce routinely tests about 10% safer than comparable European Union produce, even though the EU is often held up as a gold standard for food safety.
This is not accidental. California’s growers, consultants, commodity groups and pesticide enforcement agencies have invested heavily in education and compliance programs. While California is known for leading the way in environmental policy, this report makes it clear that the state is also leading in pesticide safety and food protection.
How DPR Chooses What to Test The DPR’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program doesn’t just test the most pristine produce from farmers markets. Its approach is deliberate, and they have a clear target. Sampling focuses on:
• Produce that is frequently eaten by infants and children
• Produce likely treated with pesticides listed under Proposition 65 as carcinogens or reproductive toxins
• Produce that reflects consumption patterns across diverse ethnic and socioeconomic groups
• Produce with a history of illegal residue detections
• Produce imported from countries with past violations
Because of this targeted approach, the program’s results tend to identify potential problems rather than avoid them. Even so, the data shows that California produce remains overwhelmingly safe. In plain terms, California is ensuring that not only more affluent Californians are safe, but populations and communities who have historically been underrepresented are ensured safe and healthy produce. This proactive strategy should increase, not decrease, consumer confidence.
We should applaud DPR, CDFA and the California Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) for their conscious effort to ensure that all sensitive population demographics have access to safe fruits and vegetables.
What Happens When a Violation Is Found When illegal pesticide residues are found, DPR takes quick action. DPR immediately quarantines the produce to stop it from being sold. Investigators also trace its path through the distribution chain, contacting wholesalers, retailers and distributors to make sure no unsafe produce remains in circulation.
Businesses with repeated violations are enrolled in the Repeat Residue Offender Program, where they undergo compliance interviews and must make operational changes to prevent future violations. They get three months to implement improvements; afterward, they are placed on a 12-month probation. Further violations during that period can lead to more serious enforcement actions.
If the contaminated produce comes from a California farm, the county CAC investigates. They can order the destruction of the crop and recommend additional penalties. These measures send a clear message: California will not tolerate unsafe food in its marketplace.
‘In California, the chances of finding illegal pesticide residues on locally grown produce are less than
one-third of 1%.’
Why This Matters for Everyone The agricultural community often understands these statistics instinctively. But outside the industry, many people are unsure what “safe” means or don’t understand what’s behind the statistics in the context of pesticides. And frankly, science can be difficult to explain. Some of us may not be comfortable talking about the results to avoid having to try to explain what’s behind these numbers.
By understanding the science and protocols behind these findings, growers, consultants and food safety advocates can help shift that perception. “Safe” here is not a vague reassurance; it’s a data-backed, progressive statement grounded in some of the strictest testing and enforcement standards in the world.
The reality is that California’s system works:
• Testing is frequent, sophisticated and targeted.
• Enforcement is swift and uncompromising.
• Education and prevention are built into agriculture’s culture.
This is good news for growers and a trust-building story for consumers.
Spread the Word Growers, consultants, industry groups and local officials can help the public understand what these results mean by sharing the context behind the numbers. Clarify that “no detectable residues” means none, even when measuring a single drop of water in 20 swimming pools. Discuss how EPA tolerance levels are designed to protect even the most vulnerable populations, such as infants, pregnant women and historically underrepresented populations.
And highlight the fact that in California, the chances of finding illegal pesticide residues on locally grown produce are less than one-third of 1%. That’s not just a good number; it’s an extraordinary achievement.
California agriculture sustains the state, the nation and much of the world. Reports like this one confirm what the industry has known for a long time: Our produce is abundant, diverse and among the safest anywhere. That’s something to celebrate and, even more importantly, to share.
Nitrogen fixing trial using Xanthobacter autotrophicus, a nitrogen-fixing microbe. On the left are X. autotrophicus-applied tomatoes. The control plot on the right saw no nitrogen-fixing microbes applied (all photos courtesy Kula Bio.)
In 1905, German scientist Fritz Haber successfully synthesized ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen gas, an inert form of nitrogen resistant to chemical and biological reactions. Shortly thereafter, BASF chemist Carl Bosch built upon Haber’s work to facilitate large-scale ammonia synthesis, and the process was dubbed Haber-Bosch N fixation. Although synthetic N fixation was initially developed for chemical weapons production, the technology was soon turned toward fertilizer manufacturing.
Suddenly, the essential nutrient most limiting to crop production became available in abundance, and the world’s food supply soared. Haber-Bosch N fixation revolutionized agriculture, but the readily available N fertilizer came at a cost to surface and groundwater resources. Excessive nitrate in farm water runoff disrupts aquatic ecosystems, and nitrate leached down the soil profile to aquifers renders well water unsafe for human and livestock consumption. Increasingly stringent water quality regulations motivate growers to look for new N management practices, and recent research suggests that beneficial N-fixing bacteria could provide a valuable solution.
Synthetic N fixation is a relatively new and disruptive human technology, but microorganisms have relied on biological N fixation for millennia without endangering the surrounding environment. Several types of bacteria, including the well-known rhizobia associated with legumes, convert atmospheric N into plant-available ammonium N. Most ag professionals are familiar with leguminous rhizobia, but there are many other types of bacteria that can contribute N to a wider range of crops.
N-fixing bacteria can be categorized into three main groups: symbiotic, associative and free-living species. Symbiotic N-fixing bacteria live inside plant cells, usually within special organs like root nodules. Associative bacteria live on plant surfaces or in interstitial spaces, while free-living bacteria inhabit rhizosphere soil but do not require direct contact with plant roots. Bacteria in each category fix N for their own use, and plants nearby benefit from the excess. Symbiotic bacteria directly deliver N to the plant, while associative and free-living organisms release bioavailable N at variable rates, depending on soil N concentration and other environmental conditions.
Nitrogen-fixing microbes like Xanthobacter autotrophicus live in the root zone, converting nitrogen from the air into a plant-available form.
Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixers Symbiotic N-fixing bacteria form a mutually beneficial relationship with plants by providing ammonium in exchange for a carbohydrate-rich energy source. Symbiotic N-fixing partners include rhizobia with legumes, Frankia with alder, and cyanobacteria with cycads. Rhizobia and their leguminous hosts are well researched and commonly used in agriculture, contributing between 80 to 300 pounds N per acre when effective nodulation is achieved. Individual rhizobia species and strains are adapted to coexist with specific legumes, and some partnerships are more effective than others. For example, Sinorhizobium meliloti provides alfalfa with 200 to 300 pounds N per acre, meeting most if not all the crop’s growth requirement. Conversely, garbanzo beans colonized with Bradyrhizobium japonicum receive just 25 to 80 pounds N per acre through atmospheric fixation. Biological N fixation potential is usually high in legumes but depends on successful nodulation and favorable environmental conditions. Rhizobia depend on their plant host for survival, so conditions that stunt crop growth, such as drought, extreme temperatures or pathogen pressure, will also reduce N fixation. Growers can get the best chance at maximizing N fixation by inoculating seeds with the right rhizobia strain to match their crop. Select a formulation that includes a sticker with a carbohydrate food source to keep the bacteria well fed and close to the seed until roots have grown enough to enable nodulation. Inoculants should be stored at room temperature out of direct sunlight and applied to seed less than 24 hours before planting to maintain viability.
‘…it is clear that under the right circumstances, [nitrogen]-fixing bacteria can help growers produce healthy crops and offset [nitrogen] fertilizer requirements.’
Associative Nitrogen Fixers Legumes accommodate rhizobia by growing nodules to host the bacterium, but other crops can benefit from biological N fixation without changing their physiology. While symbionts like rhizobia live inside plant cells, associative microbes colonize the surfaces of roots and foliage or live in interstitial spaces between plant cells. Many of these N fixers associate primarily with grasses, such as wheat, corn and rice, but some may be compatible with a wider range of plant types. Researchers have observed that associative bacteria such as Azospirillum, Bacillus and Gluconobacter can provide roughly 20% to 25% of the N requirement in both corn and rice. One study showed that inoculating corn with Pseudomonas and Bacillus megaterium resulted in equal crop dry weight and chlorophyll concentration as applying 33% N fertilizer. Sugarcane colonized by Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus may receive an even higher N supply at over 150 pounds N per acre, according to a report from North Dakota State University. Research investigating the biological links between associative bacteria and corn found that a particular variety grown in Mexico promotes microbial colonization and N fixation by excreting mucilage on aerial roots to attract associative microbes and create the anaerobic environment required for N fixation. These observations generate interest in breeding crop varieties better adapted to facilitate biological N fixation and reduce reliance on N fertilizer.
As roots grow, nitrogen-fixing microbes like Xanthobacter autotrophicus grow with them, continually colonizing roots to maintain proximity to active nutrient exchange zones.
Free-Living Nitrogen Fixers N-fixing bacteria that live in the soil and do not require direct contact with plants can also offset N fertilizer requirements, given the right environmental conditions. N fixation requires anaerobic conditions because the key nitrogenase enzymes involved in the process cannot function in the presence of oxygen. Most free-living bacteria successfully fix N in saturated soils or when they find anaerobic microenvironments in otherwise aerated soil. Several types of bacteria including Clostridium, Herbaspirillum and Azospirillum thrive in flooded soils such as rice paddy fields, fixing enough N for their own use while meeting some of the crop’s N demand as well.
Not all free-living N fixers require a field. Bacteria in the genus Azotobacter live in aerated soils and fix atmospheric N even in an oxygen-rich environment. Azotobacter chroococcum, A. vinelandii and other aerobic species are available as soil inoculants. Studies suggest that they usually fix around 20 pounds N per acre per year, but one study reported a much higher N fixation rate of over 50 pounds per acre per year. Sometimes these bacteria fix more than enough N for their own use, allowing plants to share the excess. More N is released as bacterial populations die and turn over, allowing other soil microorganisms to mineralize the N stored in their bodies into plant-available forms.
Free-living soil bacteria may not provide as much plant-available N as symbiotic and associative bacteria, but they benefit plants in other ways. Azotobacter and Azospirillum species are well known for stimulating crop growth by secreting plant hormones such as cytokinins, gibberellins and indole acetic acid. These beneficial bacteria also induce plant stress defense mechanisms and aid in pathogen suppression. Some free-living bacterial inoculants available on the market may provide biostimulant effects that justify application in their own right and outweigh the benefit of N fixation alone.
Research into biological N fixation in agricultural crops still has a long way to go, but it is clear that under the right circumstances, N-fixing bacteria can help growers produce healthy crops and offset N fertilizer requirements. Regulatory pressure to cut back on N use, as well as high fertilizer prices, motivates growers and consultants to look for new N management tools, and beneficial bacterial inoculants are worth serious consideration. Successful colonization and N fixation depend on field conditions and the degree of compatibility between microbial strain and crop type. Look for inoculants that have been tested on your crop and inquire about the bacteria’s tolerance to temperature, soil pH, moisture and ag chemicals. Further research and field trials are needed to improve consistent efficacy, but biological N fixation has the potential to become an important tool in crop production and environmental protection.
References
Aasfar A, Bargaz A, Yaakoubi K, Hilali A, Bennis I, Zeroual Y and Meftah Kadmiri I (2021) Nitrogen Fixing Azotobacter Species as Potential Soil Biological Enhancers for Crop Nutrition and Yield Stability. Front. Microbiol. 12:628379. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.628379
Evers GW. Cool Season Legume Nitrogen Fixation. Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center at Overton. Retrieved 7/31/25. https://overton.tamu.edu/faculty-staff/gerald-wayne-evers/cool-season-legumes/nitrogen-fixation/
Guo K., Yang J., Yu N., Luo L., and Wang E. (2023). Biological nitrogen fixation in cereal crops: Progress, strategies, and perspectives. Plant Comm. 4, 100499.
Mahmud K, Makaju S, Ibrahim R, and Missaoui A. (2020). Current Progress in Nitrogen Fixing Plants and Microbiome Research. Plants. 9, 97. doi:10.3390/plants9010097
Rethwisch M. (2024) New/Recent Nitrogen Fixing Bacteria Products for Agriculture. University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources, Imperial County Agricultural Briefs. 27:1.
Science History Institute. (2025, July 29). Fritz Haber. Scientific Biographies, Science History Institute. https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/fritz-haber.
Yuja, S. 2023. Nitrogen-fixing organisms for sale? North Dakota State University Impact Stories. Jan 22, 2023. https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/ag-hub/impact-stories/nitrogen-fixing-organisms-sale
Rimsulfuron applications in early March resulted in about a 50% reduction in johnsongrass weed coverage and biomass that lasted past the end of the study, which was in early May (all photos by R.J. Hill.)
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepenseL.)is a perennial grass weed that has troubled California weed managers since the late 19th century, particularly in perennial systems where mechanical control options are limited. Johnsongrass infestations can be difficult to eradicate because the plant spreads through underground stems called rhizomes and abundant seed production from mature plants. Johnsongrass seedlings resemble corn seedlings and grow rapidly. Flowering stalks can reach six feet above ground and can produce hundreds of seeds each. Dormant seeds can survive for at least six years, and some seeds can survive ingestion by birds and mammals. Herbicides are the main tools used to manage johnsongrass in orchards and vineyards. Many preemergent herbicides can control johnsongrass seedlings but are ineffective on perennial plants. However, the discovery of glyphosate has led to powerful systemic herbicides that can provide good control of seedlings and those troublesome johnsongrass rhizomes. Despite this being the case, johnsongrass is still not easily eradicated once it has a strong foothold.
Are There Any Herbicide Resistance Concerns? Glyphosate herbicides like Roundup are the primary tools used to eradicate pesky johnsongrass infestations, and efficacy has been reliable in California. However, elsewhere in the United States and worldwide, several cases of glyphosate resistance have been identified. In all cases of glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass that have been published, the reduction in control is due to a reduced effect of the herbicide on roots rather than the foliage. This happens because the herbicide applied to the leaf or stem is not transported into the roots and rhizomes in the quantities that would normally be expected. So in a resistant population, the aboveground portion of the plant can be fully controlled, but the rhizomes are relatively unaffected. This type of resistance is rather insidious and can be difficult to detect. Again, this phenomenon has not been identified in California johnsongrass populations, but weed managers ought to keep in mind that this species has a proclivity toward this form of resistance.
‘Only plots that received rimsulfuron in spring had any significant reduction in johnsongrass coverage or biomass.’
Post-Emergent Herbicides for Johnsongrass Control Resistance management principles like herbicide rotation and tank mixing should be followed even when resistance has not been identified or suspected, so we should review the options available for chemical control of johnsongrass.
Three groups of herbicides are available for systemic post-emergent control of johnsongrass:
• Glyphosate-based herbicides (Group 9)
• Grass-selective herbicides like clethodim and fluazifop (Group 1)
• ALS inhibitors like rimsulfuron (Group 2)
Many growers I’ve spoken to utilize glyphosate and grass-selective herbicides to control johnsongrass in their orchards, but ALS inhibitor use specifically on johnsongrass in orchards and vineyards is not common. Research trials I installed this summer indicate all three of these herbicides can be similarly effective for post-emergent applications, though rimsulfuron was not as consistent as the others, an effect that is likely dependent on the size of the johnsongrass at treatment. Though glyphosate gave the best above-ground kill of the three, by the end of the trial (60 days after treatment) no differences in johnsongrass weed coverage or biomass was identified between treatments.
Though I received inconsistent results from my post-emergent rimsulfuron treatments, ALS inhibitors like rimsulfuron are interesting herbicides because they often have both soil residual activity and post-emergent activity. Soil residual herbicides, also called preemergent herbicides, can act on weeds as they begin to germinate, killing the plants when they are at their most vulnerable stage. In orchards and vineyards, rimsulfuron herbicides (e.g., Matrix, Revolt, Hinge) are often used in combination with other soil residual herbicides like indaziflam (Alion), flumioxazin (Chateau) and oxyfluorfen (Goal) during the winter months, allowing long-term control of annual weeds far into the growing season. In other crops like processing tomatoes, rimsulfuron herbicides are applied for their post-emergent activity and realize little of their residual potential due to the absence of rainfall to activate the herbicide in the soil. Rimsulfuron herbicides are commonly labeled for use to control johnsongrass seedlings, but my recent research results have demonstrated that these herbicides also have suppressive effects on established johnsongrass populations when applied at particular timings.
These pictures, taken in April 2025, are 45 days after rimsulfuron and glyphosate treatments and 75 days after oxyfluorfen and fluridone treatments. Rimsulfuron is shown here exhibiting a strong suppressive effect on perennial johnsongrass when applied soon before or just after the resumption of growth from belowground rhizomes. Preemergent treatments applied in winter show no added benefit in this field, suggesting most of the effect here is on established johnsongrass, not seedlings.
What Preemergent Activity Does Rimsulfuron Have on Established Johnsongrass? To provide better recommendations on how to best use rimsulfuron and other residual herbicides to target johnsongrass, I established a set of trials in prune and walnut orchards in Shasta and Tehama counties in winter and spring 2025. I had two primary goals:
• Test if early spring rimsulfuron applications were effective for control of johnsongrass.
• Determine whether treatments were primarily affecting seedlings or established populations.
In winter (early February), I applied preemergent herbicides, including either fluridone (Brake On!, 43 fluid ounces per acre) or oxyfluorfen (Goal 2XL, 5 pints per acre) as well as an untreated control, to account for any seedlings that might germinate through the duration of my trials. In spring (early March), I applied either rimsulfuron (Revolt, 2 or 4 ounces per acre) or glyphosate (Roundup Powermax 3, 2 pt/A) just before or after shoot emergence from underground rhizomes. Glyphosate was used as a control treatment to account for any post-emergent activity of rimsulfuron on emerged shoots to evaluate only the soil residual effects of rimsulfuron. Very little plant material was available for direct absorption of herbicide through leaf tissue at the spring timing, so this is not a preferred use of glyphosate but was simply used as a more suitable control than untreated johnsongrass. Glyphosate can be very effective in the spring but requires adequate leaf material for absorption into the plant. All together four trials were installed, at three different locations. All treatments were accompanied by a half inch of rain within a week of application, washing the herbicide off thatch and leaves and down into the soil.
Rimsulfuron is shown here exhibiting a strong suppressive effect on perennial johnsongrass when applied soon before or just after the resumption of growth from below-ground rhizomes. Rates of 4 ounces per acre were much better than 2 ounces per acre and the addition of glyphosate on average gave very little benefit, likely due to incomplete johnsongrass emergence at the treatment timing.
In all cases, the rimsulfuron treatments were responsible for most of the weed control in these plots. Plots that received winter preemergent treatments were only marginally different from plots that were untreated in the winter, if followed by glyphosate in the spring. Only plots that received rimsulfuron in spring had any significant reduction in johnsongrass coverage or biomass. This suggests the effects of rimsulfuron observed on johnsongrass populations were not primarily from soil residual effects on seedlings but that the perennial rhizomes themselves were affected. Winter treatments added additional johnsongrass control when combined with rimsulfuron only in two of the four trials, and this effect was seen later in the spring as seedlings began to germinate.
The primary takeaway from this research was that rimsulfuron applications in early March resulted in about a 50% reduction in johnsongrass weed coverage and biomass that lasted past the end of the study, which was in early May. This was a reduction relative to the control treatment with glyphosate alone, suggesting post-emergent absorption of rimsulfuron is likely not the primary mechanism of control but rather activity in the soil. Rates of 4 ounces per acre were much more effective than 2 ounces per acre, and the addition of glyphosate to the tank mix seemed to slightly increase efficacy.
These results are not a silver bullet for johnsongrass management but can fit in with an integrated management plan. Glyphosate and grass-selective herbicides provide consistent mid-season control and should be used to keep established johnsongrass from setting seed. Burndown herbicides like glufosinate (Rely) or mechanical control can also be utilized to prevent seed setting. Rimsulfuron herbicides seem most effective in early spring just before or after shoot emergence followed by adequate rain or irrigation. It is likely that the window of opportunity for this type of application will persist for much of the spring, but this will take further research to determine. With these considerations, it still takes a good deal of diligence to eliminate a well-entrenched johnsongrass infestation. If you have concerns about herbicide resistance, be sure to reach out to your local UCCE farm advisor.
Using precision ag and weather data, reliable advisers turn information into clear actions that manage risk and improve profit.
Dear consultants,
What an exciting time to be in agricultural consulting! While our industry faces its share of challenges, from water management to evolving regulations and fluctuating input costs, I see tremendous opportunities for consultants who are ready to expand their value proposition.
The evolution happening in our field is remarkable. Growers today are looking for more than technical expertise; they want strategic partners who understand both the agronomic and business sides of their operations. This shift opens opportunities for consultants willing to broaden their skillset and deepen their client relationships.
Here’s what I find most encouraging: Every recommendation we make has the potential to create significant value. When you develop a pest management plan or suggest a nutrition program, you’re directly impacting your client’s success. The consultants who are thriving are those who can articulate this value clearly, connecting their recommendations to measurable outcomes and return on investment.
Consultants who pair agronomy with business needs and explain ROI become the strategic partners growers rely on (all photos by M. Lies.)
We’re living in a golden age of agricultural data. From precision agriculture tools to weather monitoring systems, we have access to information that previous generations could only dream of. The key is learning to transform this wealth of data into actionable insights that help growers make confident decisions. I’m seeing more consultants master this skill every year, and their clients are taking notice.
What hasn’t changed, and what never will, are the fundamentals of great client relationships. Reliability, clear communication and genuine care for your clients’ success remain the foundation of sustainable consulting practices. The consultants building lasting businesses are those who show up consistently and communicate proactively.
Building a strong professional network continues to pay dividends. The most successful consultants I know maintain connections across the agricultural spectrum, from input suppliers to processors, from fellow consultants to industry associations. These relationships don’t just provide valuable market intelligence; they create opportunities to deliver enhanced value to clients.
Your professional reputation is one of your most valuable assets, and the good news is it’s completely within your control. Speaking at industry events, sharing insights through writing and actively participating in agricultural organizations all contribute to building credibility and attracting quality clients.
“Growers today are looking for more than technical expertise; they want strategic partners who understand both the agronomic and business sides of their operations.”
The business mindset is becoming increasingly important in our profession. Whether working with large commercial operations or smaller family farms, successful consultants are those who understand the economic pressures their clients face and can balance agronomic recommendations with practical business considerations.
Looking ahead, I’m optimistic about our industry’s future. Growers will always value professionals who help them improve profitability, manage risk and achieve their operational goals. The consultants who combine technical expertise with business acumen, who build trust through reliability and who continuously invest in their professional development are the professionals who will lead our industry forward.
The opportunities are there for those ready to seize them. Let’s make the most of this exciting time in agricultural consulting.
When a tank runs dry at 5 a.m. or a line gets cut overnight, your phone lights up. Many of those emergencies are preventable with basic monitoring and a few smart alerts, tools most growers can adopt without an overhaul. That’s why Farmblox created five free, 5-minute mini-webinars you can recommend today. Each video covers one practical fix with no IT required and aligns with the guidance you already give in the field.
Pick one pain point: chronic runout tank, hard-to-check block, or a theft-prone spot.
Pilot one monitor and set one threshold they’ll act on.
Send one alert (text/email). Tune if it’s noisy.
Review in a week: Did it prevent a runout, save a trip, or clarify a set? If yes, expand only where it pays.
Why five minutes?
Because your and your growers’ time is tight. Each video is focused, copyable, and designed to be forwarded with a one-line note: “Start here: 5 minutes.”
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.
