Status and Potential of Bioprotection Products for Crop Protection

Status and Potential of Bioprotection Products for Crop Protection

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128210352000024?via%3Dihub

Pamela G. Marrone, PhD

Abstract

Biopesticides, also called biocontrol or more recently bioprotection products, have been used in agriculture and public health for several decades, starting with the microbial insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis. In recent years, bioprotection products are experiencing rapid growth as consumers demand transparency and sustainability of their food supply, leading to more restrictions on synthetic chemical pesticides. Also, bioprotection products have increased in efficacy, benefitting from modern tools of genomics, molecular biology, bioprocess development and novel formulations. Growth of bioprotection solutions is projected to continue at compounded annual growth rates of between 15-20% compared to low single digits for synthetic chemical pesticides. When integrated into crop production and pest management programs, bioprotection products can offer higher yields and quality, with additional benefits of exemption from residue requirements for easier export, delay in the development of pest resistance to chemicals, shorter field re-entry, biodegradability, lower carbon footprint, and low risk to non-target organisms, including pollinators. Challenges to faster adoption of bioprotection products is lack of awareness and education in how to deploy their unique modes of action in integrated programs and misperceptions of cost and efficacy.

Keywords: bioprotection, biopesticides, biocontrol, natural products, microbial control, Biopesticides

DEFINING BIOPESTICIDES

The US EPA defines biopesticides as pesticides derived from natural materials. There are three types: microbials, biochemicals and plant incorporated protectants (GMOs). Most other countries follow these categories, but some notable and large markets such as Europe¹, China and Brazil struggle with the requirements for low risk plant extracts and dead microbials containing complex mixtures of natural compounds, which individually do not have the same activity as the mixtures.

Microbials

Microbial biopesticides contain microorganisms (bacteria, insect viruses, fungi, actinomycetes, protozoa, etc.) that function as biocontrol agents, affecting the pest directly or indirectly through the compounds they produce. The most well-known and largest microbial biopesticide is of course Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), having been commercialized decades ago and still the most prominent product group on the market. The microorganisms regulated under the EPA’s microbial branch can be dead or alive. Examples include Marrone Bio Innovations’ bioinsecticides based on new species of bacteria, Chromobacterium subtsugae² and Burkholderia rinojensis³ and Valent Bioscience’s nematicide from Myrothecium verrucaria. Europe has initiated a program called the green products initiative through the Dutch Board for the Authorisation of Plant Protection Products and Biocides (Ctgb), which is designed to streamline and speed up the approvals on novel biopesticides such as Chromobacterium subtsugae. In reality, the process may not actually get products to market any faster because of the requirements to look at individual metabolites rather than the complex whole cell broths, which reflect the full efficacy.

Biochemicals

Biochemicals contain naturally occurring substances that control pests and plant pathogens. Substances include potassium bicarbonate, fatty acids, plant extracts (including essential oils), and pheromones for insect mating disruption. Only biochemicals that have a non-toxic mode of action to the target pest or pathogen are regulated as biopesticides. This causes confusion as to what can actually be registered as a biochemical biopesticide. Examples of nontoxic modes of action include induced systemic resistance and systemic acquired resistance for control of plant pathogens (knotweed, seaweed extracts), suffocation and desiccation (diatomaceous earth, oils), growth regulation (neem-based products) and mating disruption pheromones. Substances that are natural with a toxic mode of action are regulated as chemicals. Examples include the spinosyns and avermectin (produced in fermentation) and pyrethrins (extracted from a type of Chrysanthemum plant), which all have toxic modes of actions because they work specifically on the insect’s nervous system with some cross over to mammalian systems. Figure 1 shows examples of natural products that are all regulated as chemical pesticides because they either have a toxic mode of action (to the pest) or are modified synthetically and therefore are no longer nature identical, eliminating them from being regulated as biopesticides. Therefore, biopesticides are considered the least toxic and lowest risk pesticide category.

Figure 1. Pesticidal natural products and pesticides derived from natural products registered as chemical pesticides, not as biopesticides.

Plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs)

These are pesticidal substances produced by plants that contain genetic material added to the plant, often through genetic engineering. PIPs will not be discussed in this paper as they are generally not considered biopesticides although they are regulated in the same division at the US EPA as biochemicals and microbials.

MARKET FACTORS FOR BIOPESTICIDES (BIOPROTECTION)

The biologicals consulting firm Dunham Trimmer estimates the market for biopesticides between $3 and $4 billion or about 5-6% of the total global pesticide market⁴. They project compounded annual growth (CAGR) at 17% with the fastest growth in Latin America, North America and Europe comprising 67% of global biopesticide sales in 2020. Microbials are projected at 58% of the total market and bioinsecticides are the largest category dominated by Bacillus thuringiensis. Bionematicides are the fastest growing category sparked by market need due to loss of toxic chemical nematicides. Eighty percent of the use of biopesticides is on fruits and vegetables (17.6% share of total pesticides). Bioherbicides remain a small portion of the biopesticide sales as they are more difficult to develop with efficacy and cost of chemical herbicides, which comprise about 40% of the global crop protection market.⁵ If you remove herbicides from the tally, biopesticides comprise 8.3% of the pesticide market compared to 5.2% when herbicides are included.

The growth of biopesticides is due to a number of factors:

Better yields and quality in integrated programs. Biopesticides can perform as well as chemical pesticides on their own, particularly when measuring marketable yields. However, biopesticides are best used when incorporated into programs with other crop protection and cultural tools. Farmers rarely use anything stand-alone and typically mix and rotate a variety of pest management tools to get better results and to delay or stop pest resistance (see #3 below). Because of their unique modes of action, combinations of chemicals and biologicals often result in higher yields and better quality when compared to chemical-only programs. For example, Regalia® (an extract of giant knotweed) commercialized by Marrone Bio Innovations as a biofungicide, has shown an increase in yields and quality on several crops.⁶ In trials over the past several years, Regalia consistently yielded 775 kg per hectare more corn and 332 to 498 more kg per hectare in soybeans when combined with the leading chemical fungicides.

For controlling insect pests such as the navel orangeworm, which is becoming resistant to some commonly used chemical insecticides for almonds in California USA, use of mating disruption pheromones reduced insect damage and is becoming more a more common practice.⁷ Chemical pesticides are still used, especially in heavy pest years. In 2018 and in 2019, Venerate Bioinsecticide (based on Burkholderia rinojensis A396) from Marrone Bio Innovations increased control of navel orangeworm, Amyelois transitella, from approximately 50% for chemicals alone to above 90%, creating an estimated 20-fold return on investment (ROI) for growers (Marrone Bio Innovations’ unpublished data).

A breakthrough category for biologicals is seed treatments to protect crops at planting time from destructive insects, nematodes (roundworms that feed on the roots of plants) and diseases caused by plant pathogens. Microbial seed coatings (containing microorganisms such as Pasteuria, Bacillus firmus, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Marrone Bio’s Burkholderia rinojensis) stacked with chemical pesticides on the seed are now widely used on corn, soybean and cotton, and marketed by large agrichemical companies including Corteva, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, and Albaugh. The addition of these bacteria can increase yields above the chemical-only treatments and broaden the spectrum of control.

Better scientific tools. Biopesticides have better science behind them, which has led to better consistency and efficacy. New molecular tools aid in finding new strains and species of microorganisms with higher efficacy and spectrum. Sequencing microbial genomes leads to a better understanding of microbial physiology and active microbial metabolites. Startup companies such as Terramera, Crop Enhancement and Agrospheres have new technology to develop formulations with higher efficacy and stability. Other startups such as Pivot Bio are using synthetic biology to genetically manipulate or gene edit microorganisms for new functionality. Provivi and M2i have lower cost manufacturing of insect pheromones for mating disruption.

Resistance management – Most of today’s chemical pesticides work via a single site of action, attacking one vulnerable metabolic pathway or process of the pest or plant pathogen. As such, insect and mite pests, weeds and plant pathogens arounds the globe have developed resistance to the major classes of chemical pesticides. Biopesticides typically have novel, complex and multiple modes of action; pests and plant disease-causing pathogens are less likely to evolve resistance to them. Therefore, in more than 60 years of commercial use, incidences of resistance are rare and have only occurred a few times over several decades.^8-10

Residue Management – Pesticide residues (MRLs – maximum residue levels) are regulated by individual countries and globally through the Codex Alimentarius, or Codex. Individual countries, food buyers such as retail supermarkets and branded food companies, have often imposed stricter limits on chemical residues and may dictate zero measurable pesticide residues. Biopesticides, due to their low risk to consumers, are typically exempt from residue tolerances (the amount of chemical allowed on the crop at time of harvest) and can be used right up to harvest. Using a biopesticide late in the season before harvest provides needed crop protection with the ability to export without rejection by the buyers due to unwanted residues.

Reduced risk and carbon footprint – Biopesticides generally affect only the target pests or plant pathogens and pose little risk to birds, fish, beneficial insects, pollinators, mammals and other non-target organisms. They also pose minimal risk to farm workers and home gardeners and, as readily biodegradable products, do not pollute air and surface and ground water. Many biopesticides, particularly fermented microbials and plant extracts, are manufactured using agricultural raw materials. Manufacturing waste can be used as fertilizer. Marrone Bio Innovations’ undertook an analysis of the carbon footprint of its three primary biopesticides and determined that their carbon footprint was substantially lower than competitive chemical pesticides as their manufacturing processes are not as fossil fuel intensive.

Labor flexibility - Biopesticides have short worker re-entry times, typically 4 hours, compared to many chemical pesticides that have re-entry intervals of days to weeks. In today’s tight farm labor environments, farmers can increase worker and grower productivity and reduce labor costs with faster biopesticide re-entry periods. Farmers and their workers can spray in the morning and be back the same day in the field or greenhouse to do other tasks such as harvesting or pruning.

Biopesticides can be used in organic production but are mostly used in conventional systems – Biopesticides are often perceived as only for organic production and not powerful enough for conventional growers. In fact, more than 70% of all biopesticides are used by conventional growers in integrated programs to improve pest management or when chemicals are not appropriate. As consumer demand for organic food exceeds supply, and organic food continues to be the highest growth food segment around the globe,¹¹ biopesticides, when used as part of an integrated pest management strategy, provide all categories of growers with maximum flexibility in meeting shifting consumer demands.

Chemical versus biopesticide development

The discovery of synthetic pesticides is challenging and expensive.It is estimated that companies must screen at least 140,000 chemicals to find one new, commercially acceptable, synthetic pesticide (Fig. 2).¹³ The discovery of new chemical leads has decreased since 2005 and it is increasingly more difficult to convert a new lead into a new product launch, as indicated by the trending decline in new product launches from 2000 to 2017 (Fig. 3).¹⁴ Since it now requires more than $280 million to develop one new synthetic pesticide (Fig. 4) and takes nearly 12 years, fewer new chemical active ingredients are being launched.¹²In contrast, the cost to develop a biopesticide is in the order of $3-7 million and takes approximately four years or less to get to market in the U.S.¹⁵The growth of biopesticides and their lower cost and time for development has driven large agrichemical companies to acquire biopesticide companies and products to use in integrated programs with their chemicals (Table 1). Most of the activity by these large companies is focused on adding biologicals to seed treatments, which is a multibillion-dollar market and growing rapidly.

Figure 2. Increasing number of compounds screened to find one new chemical pesticide.

Figure 3. Number of new chemical leads versus number of synthetic pesticide product launches.

Millions of dollars

Figure 4. Cost and time to discover and develop a new synthetic chemical pesticide.

Table 1. Acquisitions and joint ventures of biological companies by larger companies and agrichemical companies since 2009.

Company	Year Acquired/JV	Price (mil USD)	Acquirer or Partner	Technology
EcoFlora	2019	Not disclosed	Gowan	Plant extracts for crop protection
Tyratech	2018	Not disclosed	American Vanguard	Essential oils for crop protection
Ginkgo Bioworks	2018	$100	Bayer Crop Sciences	Synthetic Biology to create microbes that can enhance nutrient uptake
Rizobacter	2016 (50.01%)	Not disclosed	BioCeres	Microbial inoculants for soybean and others
Novozymes	2014	$300 into Novozymes	Monsanto	Biologicals joint venture Bio-Ag Alliance
Chr. Hansen	2013	Not disclosed	FMC	Microbial screening joint venture
Novozymes	2013	Not disclosed	TJ Technologies	Bacillus-based plant health products
Center for Agricultural and Environmental Biosolutions	2013	Not disclosed	FMC	Microbial endophyte discovery
Prophyta	2013	$35	Bayer	Fungi-based biopesticides
Devgen	2012	$523	Syngenta	RNAi, rice germplasm
AgraQuest	2012	$425 + $75 earnout	Bayer	Biofungicides, Bioinsecticide
Pasteuria	2012	$123	Syngenta	Bionematicide
Becker Underwood	2012	$1000	BASF	Seed treatments, biopesticides
Divergence	2011	Not disclosed	Monsanto	RNAi, chemical nematicide
EMD	2011	$275	Novozymes	Microbial inoculants
AgroGreen	2009	Not disclosed	Bayer	Bacillus firmus bionematicide

In addition, large companies have signed deals with smaller ones to gain access to technologies that they will distribute.

INVESTMENT IN BIOPESTICIDES

Table 2 shows the robust activity in 2017-2019 of investment into companies in biopesticide companies.

Table 2. Financing of biopesticide companies in 2017 through 2019.

Company	Investors	Size of Round ($Million)	Year	What They Do
AgBiome	The University of Texas Investment Management Company (UTIMCO), Fidelity Management and Research Company, Polaris Partners, ARCH Venture Partners, Innotech Advisers, Pontifax Global Food and Agriculture Technology Fund, and Monsanto Growth Ventures.	65	2018	Microbials for pest management
Agrospheres	Ospraie and Cavallo Ventures	4	2019	Encapsulation of biopesticides for better performance
Boost Biomes	Nimble Ventures, Viking Global Investors, Tencent	2.05	2018	Novel microbial biopesticide discovery platform
Marrone Bio Innovations	Ospraie, Waddell & Reed, Ardsley, Exponential & public	40	2018	Biologicals for pest management and plant health
M2i	ADM Capital, Eurazeo Growth, Téthys Invest, Creadev and France 2i fund	66	2019	Insect pheromones
Provivi	Pontifax Agtech, Tybourne Capital Management, Kairos Ventures, Spruce Capital, Lanx Capital, and BASF Venture Capital	85	2019	Insect pheromones
Semios	Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC)	9.9	2018	Digital ag tools+pheromone biopesticides
Terramera	Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) Ospraie and S2G Ventures	2.5 45	2018 2019	Formulation technology to improve biopesticides
Vestaron	Novo Holdings A/S. Novo Holdings joins continuing investors Anterra Capital, Cultivian Sandbox, Open Prairie Ventures, and Pangaea Ventures.	40	2019	Spider venom peptides as biopesticides

BIOPESTICIDE DISCOVERY AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

The author previously extensively described the discovery and development of biopesticides.¹⁶ Discovery screening has yielded several new species, novel compounds, and new uses of known compounds, resulting in development and commercialization of several biopesticide products. Companies such as AgBiome have used genomics to screen microorganisms based on their taxonomy and genetic sequences, while Marrone Bio Innovations has focused on screening by function and activity first followed by genetic sequencing on active isolates. Few companies characterize the natural product chemistry produced by the active microorganisms as it is technically complicated, time consuming and expensive. Marrone Bio Innovations has found that characterizing the compounds and optimizing them in fermentation has resulted in higher efficacy and consistency of the end product.¹⁶

Gene sequencing of microorganisms is relatively easy and inexpensive. The sequence provides information about which metabolites might be produced and better understanding of the microbial physiology, enabling more intelligent fermentation design for process development. Marrone Bio Innovations has been able to increase the active compound titers in fermentation by hundreds of fold. This increase was not thought to be possible without the use of synthetic biology.

Formulation is critical for biopesticide performance. A number of new companies have cropped up with technologies to enhance biopesticide performance. Terramera has launched an enhanced neem bioinsecticide, claiming better efficacy. Agrospheres uses Bacillus micelles to by providing better shielding and slower, sustained release of biopesticides. Crop Enhancement also has a proprietary formulation technology to improve biopesticides. Understanding of the natural product chemistry has allowed Marrone Bio Innovations to develop formulations that maximize the effectiveness and stability of the compounds produced by the microorganisms or plants.

COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL VS BIOPESTICIDE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS MODELS

When a chemical pesticide is launched it has ten to twelve years and close to $300 million USD in development costs behind it. Thousands of field trials and demos have been conducted, the manufacturing process and formulations are perfected and global regulatory approvals are issued or pending. Peak sales in the hundreds of millions are expected in three to five years. Companies quickly maximize revenues before expiration of any patents protecting the chemistry behind the products.

For a biopesticide (figure 5), often developed by smaller companies without the deep pockets of multi-billion-dollar companies, a different “capital-lite” model is applied, which could be called the ‘Innovate at Speed’ or ‘Agile Innovation Model.’ Because of the long safety history of biopesticides, short development time and favorable regulatory process, a small company can quickly enter the market with its first version of a biopesticide by placing the product with early adopter grower customers targeted to a select group of crops and pests. This targeted placement provides valuable early insight from customers, can fill growers’ unmet needs, and provides the company early revenues to reinvest in subsequent versions. Because the first version may have only a U.S. label with a few crops and uses, peak sales do not occur as quickly as with a chemical pesticide and may takes several years longer, as more uses and crops and international approvals are achieved over time and as resources permit. Understanding the differences in business models is important for crop consultants and other key influencers such as university extension specialists for proper expectations of the information known.

Figure 5. “Innovate at speed” business model for biopesticide market launch

BARRIERS TO ADOPTION OF BIOPESTICIDES

Lack of awareness and understanding of the modes of action. There is often a lack of awareness and understanding of biopesticides by agronomists, growers, crop consultants and key influencers such as university and government researchers. As such, biopesticides are pigeon-holed into “organic only,” where synthetic chemical pesticides cannot be used. Biopesticides are often not used properly based on their unique modes of action. The established rules on integrated pest management (IPM) often do not apply. For example, traditional IPM calls for knocking down pests after a critical threshold or economic injury level (EIL) is reached. But biopesticides such as Marrone Bio’s Grandevo should be applied before the pests reach an EIL because the product stops feeding in less than one minute, affects reproduction, has no knockdown effect and will not knock down high populations. Therefore, it is critical to educate the manufacturers’ sales teams, end users and key influencers on how to use the product early before pest populations increase. Or if pest populations are already high, start with another insecticide that has contact activity with more knockdown effects, followed by the product with effects on feeding, pest development and fertility. Incorporated into programs, these novel biopesticides can be very successful in conventional programs for resistance and residue management and to increase the efficacy of chemicals.

Efficacy testing as if they are chemicals. The single biggest barrier to adoption and growth of biopesticides is the fact that they are often not tested based on understanding their modes of action. Biopesticides are usually tested stand-alone with comparisons to the best mixtures of chemical pesticides using evaluation criteria for chemical pesticides. Stand-alone data are important to generate, but that is not the end of the story. Biopesticides excel in rotations and tank mixtures and in programs can often increase growers’ bottom lines with better yields and quality. For example, insecticide testing schemes in the greenhouse and field are often designed to test contact insecticides that kill in 48 hours. There are many instances where biological insecticides are sprayed and rated like chemicals. Test protocols including observations of plant damage, yield and quality should be incorporated into testing regimens, rather than just pest tallies in 24 to 48 hours post treatment and area under the disease progress curve. For example, Chromobacterium substugae (Grandevo^â)¹⁵ stops feeding in less than one minute and reproduction is reduced, but pest mortality is slow – typically in seven to ten days. Care should also be taken to use the proper water volume as too much can reduce efficacy by washing off the effective dose of the biopesticide. Some commonly used adjuvants can reduce efficacy (http://cesantabarbara.ucanr.edu/files/187633.pdf). Well-designed and carefully implemented test protocols can maximize the efficacy of a product with a unique mode of action like this. Even when the control is equal to the chemical program (no improvement in efficacy), the added benefits of resistance and residue management, shorter worker re-entry and zero-day pre-harvest intervals can make a compelling value proposition to growers.¹⁶

Go to market strategy. Small startup biopesticide companies typically focus their resources to obtain their first biopesticide registration. Once the product is registered – a license to sell – companies often underestimate the challenges of gaining product adoption. The agrichemical market is crowded and very competitive, especially in the biofungicide and chemical fungicide and seed treatment categories. A small one-product company has challenges to gain the attention of the distribution channel who serves as the gatekeeper for the grower relationships. In addition, there are other gatekeepers including university extension specialists, pest control advisors and crop consultants. Establishing a high-performance sales organization and technical specialists to create demand at the grower level to pull-through the distribution channel is expensive. It is a challenge for a small startup company to find sales representatives that can quickly learn to sell knowledge-intensive biopesticides with a heavy educational component in a relationship oriented market. One strategy, which Marrone Bio Innovations has used, is to develop a portfolio of products across the full range of customer needs (insect, nematode, plant disease control and crop stress reduction). This provides more strength with both the distributor and the grower. Companies bringing products to market, whether chemical or biological, see faster adoption when filling unmet needs. For example, faster adoption may occur with an effective bioherbicide (especially for organic production) or an effective and safer fumigant. This compares to coming to market with another biofungicide for powdery mildew and leaf spots, which is a very crowded market segment.

Another possibility is to partner with a large agrichemical company to do the sales and marketing of a biopesticide product. This takes careful consideration since the profit margin will be reduced by having another entity along the chain to the farmer. In theory, higher volumes should make up for lost margin, but experience by many small companies has found that this is not always the case. Large companies have extensive experience that may or may not be relevant to selling biopesticides, which typically require more customer education and training than chemicals. For large scale row crops, partnering with a larger company may be the best model as it takes a large sales force to access hundreds of millions of hectares of cereals, cotton, corn and soybeans.

Some new startup biological and agtech companies (for example, HarvestPort, Farmers Business Network, Indigo Ag, and Semios) are bypassing the distributor by going direct to the grower. Will this direct model scale up successfully? Time will tell whether status quo will continue, or disruptive, innovative new entrants with roots outside of agriculture will change the difficulty of accessing the grower via distribution.

WJAT IS THE FUTURE FOR BIOPESTICIDES?

Technology

We are in the very early stages in the application of technology to biopesticides and pest management. Data and precision technology are being applied on the farm to increase yields by understanding soil types, soil and crop water variances, crop varietal effects, weather and microclimates, the microbiome, pest movement and population dynamics, among others. Smart sprayers and robotics will improve the application of pesticides for better efficacy and fewer non-target effects. While there are certainly some pest and disease-specific degree-day models developed at universities and government institutes to predict pest and plant pathogen populations, pesticides are still largely applied on a calendar basis. Because timing of a biopesticide application is so critical based on their unique modes of action and need to spray early, better scouting and pest/disease population prediction tools will make biopesticide application timing more efficient and effective. Artificial intelligence, vision systems, sensor and drone-based systems to record pest populations in the field in real-time can reduce or eliminate manual scouting. Infrared sensors can assess how well a pesticide application has reduced pest populations. For example, the Canadian company Semios uses mini cameras to monitor and quantify the populations of pest moths in response to mating disruption pheromones. Sensor based pheromone puffers release specific amounts of pheromones depending on the pest populations. The pest monitoring and pheromone dispensing tasks that were previously highly labor intensive in the field are now are done by computer in an office. The Australian company RapidAim uses the very latest in Internet of Things sensor technology to take the guesswork out of pest management, providing real-time information of insect pest detection in orchards. Biopesticide adoption will increase substantially as technology, data and pest management are integrated into holistic systems the reduce time and increase predictability and consistency.

Healthy Soils

There is a movement to healthy soils, climate-smart and regenerative agriculture. The US Department of Agriculture https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/soils/health/

and California Department of Food and Agriculture https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/healthysoils/ have healthy soils initiatives. We are just beginning to understand the role of the soil, rhizosphere and phyllosphere microbiome and the relationships to healthy plants, but the common wisdom is that microbial diversity is indeed related to a healthier plant. Biopesticides fit well with these initiatives as they can enhance soil health by the addition of colonizing microorganisms that provide plant disease control, nutrient uptake enhancement and increased plant growth.

Marrone Bio Innovations conducted a study of the change in microbiome of the soil after treatment with a biofumigant based on the fungus, Muscodor albus strain SA13¹⁷. In a microbiome study, analysis of the community structure pre-treatment and post-treatment showed that this Muscodor albus did not eliminate the beneficial microbial community present in these soils while reducing incidence of soilborne fungal diseases. This is a significant finding as traditional methods of fumigation are known to significantly reduce (or eliminate) alpha-diversity and shift the dominant microorganisms within the community.

Regenerative Agriculture

Regenerative agriculture is a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds, and enhances ecosystem services. Regenerative agriculture aims to capture carbon in soil and aboveground biomass, reversing current global trends of atmospheric accumulation. See https://regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/. https://modernfarmer.com/2018/04/practicing-regenerative-agriculture/. Biopesticides fit well in regenerative and ecologically based systems as they are low risk and can enhance soil and plant health. Farmers frequently ask for help to integrate all the tools they have – crop varieties, healthy soil practices, crop rotation, cover crops and other cultural practices along with biological inputs to create holistic, resilient systems. More public research should be dedicated to on-farm systems integration versus single factor research and stand-alone pesticide testing.

CONCLUSIONS

When incorporated into pest management programs, biopesticides can provide benefits that customers are increasingly recognizing, such as soil and plant health, residue and resistance management, shorter worker re-entry, and low risk to beneficial organisms, including pollinators. Most important, however, is that biopesticides can make conventional programs better, increasing yield and quality compared to chemical-only programs. Biopesticides meet consumer demands for health and wellness. GM crops and chemical pesticides currently dominate pest management programs and are largely seen as essential requirements to feed the world. Restrictions on chemical pesticides are expected to continue and resistance has become a factor in the deployment and sustainability of GM crops. As such, biopesticides can be the third leg of crop protection inputs, and over time can increase the output, resilience and sustainability of IPM programs. As such, biopesticides will continue to grow well into the future at a pace that exceeds chemical pesticides.

BIOPESTICIDE RESOURCES

12.1 The Bioproducts Industry Alliance (BPIA), http://www.bpia.org created in 2000, is dedicated to fostering adoption of biopesticide technology through increased awareness about their effectiveness and full range of benefits to a progressive pest management program. The BPIA members typically meet twice per year, rotating locations in Washington, DC, Sacramento, CA and Ottawa Canada. Committees. The BPIA Regulatory and Government Affairs Committees are active in insuring that regulations remain transparent and meet statutory timelines for approvals.

12.2 The International Biocontrol Manufacturers' Association (IBMA) http://www.ibma-global.org is the worldwide association of biocontrol industries producing microorganisms, macroorganisms, semiochemicals and natural pesticides for plant protection and public health. IBMA was created in 1995 to represent the views of these biological control producers, which are mainly small companies with limited resources: Manufacturers, research organizations, extension services, consultants, distributors, all contribute to the development of biocontrol and participating in IBMA activities. IBMA actively seeks to form a global federation of likeminded regional associations and has already formed a working link with BPIA in North America. IBMA holds an annual member meeting in October in Basel, Switzerland.

12.3 IR-4 (USDA program housed at Rutgers University) http://ir4.rutgers.edu/biopesticides.html

The primary objective of the IR-4 Biopesticide and Organic Support Program is to further the development and registration of biopesticides for use in pest management systems for specialty crops or for minor uses on major crops. IR-4 has an efficacy grant program that researchers can apply to get funds to do early field trials with biopesticides and also to demonstrate their performance in IPM programs. IR-4 has a searchable biopesticide label database. Through its many years of registering biopesticides and supporting biopesticides through its efficacy and other educational initiatives, IR-4 has been instrumental helping educate users and researchers about the best use of biopesticides and their benefits in IPM programs. IR-4 has a close collaboration with BPIA. See Braverman, Michael, Why Use Biopesticides in an IPM Program. http://www.ipmcenters.org/ipmsymposiumv/sessions/51_Braverman.pdf

REFERENCES

Frederiks C and Wesseler JHH, A comparison of the EU and US regulatory frameworks for the active substance registration of microbial biological control agents. Pest Manag Sci 75:87-103 (2019).

Asolkar R, Namnath J and Marrone P, Chromobacterium formulations, compositions, metabolites and their uses. US Patent 9259007 (2016).

Cordova-Kreylos AL, Fernandez LE, Koivunen M, Yang A, Flor-Weiler L and Marrone PG, Isolation and characterization of Burkholderia rinojensis sp. nov., a non-Burkholderia cepacia complex soil bacterium with insecticidal and miticidal activities. Applied Environ Microbiol 79: 7669–7678 (2013).

Dunham W and Trimmer M, Biological Products Around the World, Bioproducts Industry Alliance Spring Meeting & International Symposium (BPIA.org). (2018).

Phillips McDougall, The global agrochemical and seed market industry developments (2018).

Su, H, Regalia^â Bioprotectant in plant disease management. Outlooks Pest Manag 23: 30-34 2012.

Higbee BS, Burks, CS and Cardé RT, Mating Disruption of the Navel Orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Using Widely Spaced, Aerosol Dispensers: Is the Pheromone Blend the Most Efficacious Disruptant? Journal of Econ Entomol: 110: 2056–2061 (2017).

Tabashnik BE, Cushing NL, Finson N and Johnson, MW, Field development of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae. J. Econ. Entomol 83:1671-1676 (1990).

Berling M, Blachere-Lopez C, Soubabere O, Lery X, Bonhomme A, Sauphanor B and Lopez-Ferber M, Cydia pomonella granulovirus Genotypes overcome virus resistance in the codling moth and improve virus efficiency by selection against resistant hosts. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:925-930 (2009).

Sauer AJ, Schulze-Bopp S, Fritsch E, Undorf-Spahn K and Jehle JA, A third type of resistance to Cydia pomonella Granulovirus in codling moths shows a mixed Z-Linked and autosomal inheritance pattern. Appl Environ Microbiol 83:1036-17 (2017).

Cernansky R, We don't have enough organic farms. Why not? National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/future-of-food/organic-farming-crops-consumers/ (November 20, 2018).
Phillips McDougall, The cost of new agrochemical product discovery, development and registration in 1995, 2000, 2005-8 and 2010 to 2014 (2016).
Agranova Ag Chem New Compound Review, Agranova Vol. 36. 150 p (2018).
Marrone, PG, The market and potential for biopesticides, in Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities. ed. by Gross AD, Coats JR, Duke SO, and Seiber JN, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 1172. pp 245–258 (2014).
Marrone, Pamela G. Pesticidal natural products – status and future potential. Pest Manag Sci 2019; 75: 2325–2340. (2019).
Glare T, Caradus J, Gelernter W, Jackson T, Keyhani N, Kohl J, Marrone P, Morin L and Stewart A. Have biopesticides come of age? Trends in Biotechnol 30:250-258 (2012).
Pierce B, Hill D, O’Neal M, Vasavada A, Marrone P. Comparative metagenomic analysis of soil community structure after treatment with Ennoble^tm, a novel bio-fumigant. ISME Annual Meeting (2019).