agrow.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com...Created Date: 4/24/2013 4:36:08 PM

Contents

Biopesticides acquire mainstream status

pages I-V

Biopesticide-related corporate deals

page VIII

NZ weed biocontrol successes page IX

Fungal phytotoxins reviewed pages X-XI

Biopesticide patent watch pages XII-XIV

Biopesticide Development in China

pages XVI-XVIII

Agrow’s LinkedIn biopesticide discussion

pages XX-XXI

Biopesticides

www.agrow.com

Biopesticides acquire mainstream statusA flurry of corporate activity in biopesticides by big crop protection companies has cast the spotlight on this sector. Sanjiv Rana examines the implications for the biopesticide sector

The intervening year since the publication of Agrow’s first annual biopesticide supplement in April 2012 has been an eventful one, to put it mildly. One could even venture to say that the past several months have transformed the biopesticide sector, firmly establishing it as an intrinsic part of the crop protection industry. Things have moved quite some way from Agrow’s proclamation last April that the sector was no longer considered fringe; when quite a few people within the biopesticide industry were still wary of the tag “snake oils”, and when the big crop protection companies were quite circumspect about their intentions regarding biopesticides and seemed to be merely testing the waters.

While most of the corporate activity during 2011 was focused on licensing deals, it shifted in 2012 to acquisitions with most big companies trying to gain access to technology to kick-start their biopesticide programmes.

Consider the flurry of activity among four of the Big Six since last April. In May 2012, Monsanto unveiled its biopesticide research initiative in the form of its RNA interference (RNAi)-based BioDirect technology. In July, Bayer CropScience set about acquiring US biopesticide company AgraQuest. The following month, Monsanto entered into a ten-year strategic alliance with US company Alnylam Pharmaceuticals to use Alnylam’s RNAi-based technologies in its BioDirect platform. The following

month, Syngenta acquired US biopesticide company Pasteuria Bioscience. The very next day, Agrow reported BASF’s acquisition of US biopesticide producer Becker Underwood. October witnessed Syngenta signing an exclusive global marketing and distribution deal with Danish company Novozymes to commercialise the Bacillus subtilis-based biofungicide, Taegro.

Deals continued into the

new year. Bayer started this year with a bang by acquiring German biopesticide company Prophyta. Syngenta followed that up with a regionally exclusive distribution deal with Italian agrochemical company Isagro for its Trichoderma asperellum and T gamsii-based biofungicide. And we are not even counting the deals and acquisitions sealed by medium-sized and smaller companies in different parts of the world (details on p VIII).

Do other biopesticide companies view these acquisitions as a threat?

While the big guns were busy wheeling and dealing, biopesticide industry stalwarts including US companies Marrone Bio Innovations (MBI) and Sumitomo Chemical subsidiary Valent BioSciences (VBC) were busy building production facilities for their respective products. In August, MBI acquired a facility and expects to begin production there this year. VBC began construction of its facility in 2012 and expects it to come on stream in spring 2014. VBC chief operating officer Mike Donaldson says that controlling the manufacturing process from beginning to end, rather than going to third-party toll manufacturing, is absolutely essential in maintaining the special requirements of a global biopesticide business, while continuously reducing cost. “Without dedicated manufacturing control, it will be difficult to maintain quality and control costs of biopesticides on a worldwide basis,” he explains.

MBI founder and chief executive officer Dr Pamela Marrone points towards many successful companies that were in existence before the current wave of mergers and acquisitions. “If you look in any mature industry, there are always new entrants with disruptive and new innovations who become successful,” she says. She explains that innovation and speed are key and it is not so easy to develop a biopesticide from scratch.

Dr Marrone says that MBI is in a “safe place” as it has products on the market, and in the pipeline, across all pest categories. A small biopesticide company built only around one technology does not possess enough clout with the channel and hence the only realistic exit strategy is to sell the company, she adds. “With a productive and efficient R&D, MBI has several new active ingredients that we are mixing and matching together and with chemicals,” Dr Marrone declares.

continued on page II . . .

©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com I

Biopesticides

Valent BioScience’s Mike Donaldson says that dedicated manufacturing is essential in maintaining the special requirements of a global biopesticide business

Mr Donaldson echoes that confidence. “VBC is currently the largest single company dedicated to the development, manufacturing and commercialisation of a diverse portfolio of biorational products on a global basis,” he says. The company sells products in 95 countries around the world, having expanded its product offering beyond “just biopesticides” to a category it defines as “biorational” products, which includes not only traditional biopesticides but also plant growth regulators (PGRs). The product range allows it to participate in all market segments from seed treatment to post-harvest products. He points towards its recent acquisition of US post-harvest treatment specialist, Pace International, as a step towards further expansion. He also highlights the company’s manufacturing facility that is being built completely based on ongoing cash flow returns of VBC, “a key indicator of our sustained success in this segment”.

So how do biopesticides figure in the strategic plans of these companies?

“Overall, we see chemical and biological pesticides as complementary,” says BASF’s Functional Crop Care senior vice-president, Juergen Huff. He points to Becker Underwood’s existing biopesticide products for seed treatment such as its BioStacked technology that enables it to combine inoculants, growth enhancers, biofungicides and polymers on crop seeds. “This combination will provide excellent protection for high-value seeds and yield gains for the grower,” explains Mr Huff.

BASF says that future applications of biologicals in row crops will not be limited to seed treatments. The company plans to continue to focus its R&D on biopesticide products for seed treatment as well as for field use. It says that in addition to the BioStacked technology for seed treatment, Becker Underwood

already provides biopesticides for field use, such as the bioinsecticide, BroadBand (Beauveria bassiana strain PPRI 5339), which is registered for the control of red spider mites (Tetranychus spp), thrips, whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci) and diamondback moths (Plutella xylostella) on specified field crops, or the bionematicide, PL Gold (Paecilomyces lilacinus strain BCP2), a second-generation ovicide product for the control of parasitic nematodes.

Bayer outlines its strategic focus as one of offering farmers integrated crop solutions based on seeds, chemicals and biologicals. The company says that although the highest growth rate of biopesticides has been observed in fruits and vegetables, there are additional growth opportunities in broad-acre crops such as oilseed rape and maize.

Syngenta has a similar view and sees field applications in row crops as potential future uses for biopesticides. It does caution, however, that such use would depend on the product (with its biological performance and technical aspects) as well as the target pest or disease it aims to control, at commercially viable costs for the farmer. The company views biopesticides as important additions to its integrated solutions for growers. It does not exclude their potential solo use where it makes sense, but believes that the majority of uses will involve complementary, sustainable chemical technologies as well.

MBI points out that one of the advantages of using biopesticides on row crops is that their application in combination with chemicals affords greater yields than the use of chemicals alone. It highlights its field results on soybeans and maize, which show that the biofungicide, Regalia (Reynoutria sachalinensis extract), adds 3-5 more bushels/acre when combined with a strobilurin fungicide as a foliar spray. It says that it is selling Regalia this year for this purpose. Dr Marrone also points towards combinations of biopesticides. “We expect to develop multiple ai bioherbicides, bioinsecticides and biofungicides,” she says.

VBC says that biopesticides (for seed protection) and biorationals (for in-season foliar applications and physiological seed enhancement) are becoming important components of many seed management programmes in both horticultural and arable crops. “In most cases, based on the limited spectrum of either protection or of physiological responses of these products, they will be used in combination with conventional chemistry,” says Mr Donaldson.

The company points out the opportunity of creating proprietary mixtures utilising its existing and pipeline products. It has a global patent portfolio of over 175 patents related to biorational products, formulations and uses for both stand-alone and combination biorational products.

Do biopesticides have sufficient efficacy to be able to be launched separately as products?

BASF believes that biologicals will have a meaningful role to play in helping growers to protect and boost their yields. It points out the challenges, such as limited shelf-life, that arise out of dealing with living organisms, but it sees a high potential for future innovation in these areas. “We expect to see biologicals in the market with sufficient efficacy as stand-alone products as well as biologicals tailored for applications in combination with classic chemistries,” the company adds.

II www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Biopesticides

. . . continued from page I

BASF’s Juergen Huff views chemical and biological pesticides as complementary

Bayer highlights the use of biopesticides in a variety of scenarios offering varying degrees of efficacy. Some are designed for speciality production models. Other biologicals/chemicals, such as Votivo (Bacillus firmus + clothianidin), can be used alongside chemical crop protection products (in tank mixes or alternation programmes) to deliver comparable performance to standard crop protection products. Still others, including Serenade Soil (Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713), compete very effectively against chemical crop protection products in terms of disease control and yield benefits.

Syngenta says that the performance of biopesticides has improved over the years and they can be launched as individual products. When used in combination with chemicals, high-quality seeds and established good agronomic practices, their performance can be significantly enhanced, it adds.

Are existing formulation technologies suitable for biopesticides?

A lack of formulation technologies specifically designed to meet the special needs of biopesticide products is often cited as one of the factors hindering their wider usage. “For biopesticides to truly become mainstream global products, active ingredients must be developed along with formulations that provide attributes specific for the biopesticide industry,” explains Mr Donaldson. This can only come from experience dealing with these types of products in real world commercial environments, he adds.

Dr Alan Baylis, owner of UK consultancy Nuvistix Innovation and author of Agrow’s forthcoming report on biopesticides, says that formulation needs to take into account not only that efficacy will be particularly dependent on environmental conditions, but that it will also be necessary to ensure stability of living organisms in distribution and storage. A related issue would be that packaging might need to provide gas and water

exchange. Also, farmers would generally want to use the same application equipment as for chemical products.

Dr Alan Knowles, director at UK consultancy Form-AK and author of Agrow’s forthcoming report on formulations, feels that there may be synergy in some cases between chemical pesticides and biopesticides as suitable mixtures may also help to overcome resistance problems. “However,

formulation of mixtures may not be straightforward in many cases,” he cautions. He says that stability issues need to be researched.

Among formulation objectives for biopesticides, Dr Knowles lists: maintaining stability of the ai during processing and on storage and application; protecting the ai against degradation or loss of effectiveness on exposure to UV light; maintaining viability and effectiveness of the ai in the presence of other formulation components, especially for living organisms; and improving effectiveness of the ai under low humidity conditions, especially for living systems.

Biopesticide formulations are normally aimed at providing special attributes to this product category that include enhanced stability of a biological based ai, as well as providing good plant coverage that allows for maximum efficacy in the field, Mr Donaldson further explains. Without product stability, it is difficult to have a truly global product that can be used in multiple markets. And without good coverage, products that rely on coverage for efficacy, such as biopesticides for plant protection or other biorational products such as PGRs, will not perform in a predictable and consistent way, he adds.

BASF stresses this point as well, saying that because biologicals contain living organisms, specific fermentation and formulation technologies are required to cope with and overcome various challenges, such as in the area of shelf-life, quality or broad applicability. It says that Becker Underwood has in-depth experience in fermentation and formulation technologies for biologicals and that the combination of the two companies’ technologies would open up many untapped innovation options. “We will continue to expand our technology base in this area, as it is crucial for growers’ continued success worldwide,” adds Mr Huff.

Bayer points towards Prophyta´s patented solid-state fermentation technology and strong expertise in the formulation of living fungal spores, use of which will help it bring new solutions to market. The company also highlights its long-time formulation expertise and the potential for future products.

Syngenta says that while formulations for biologicals have significantly improved over the last few years, it believes that

continued on page IV . . .

II www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com III

Biopesticides

UK consultancy Form-AK’s Dr Alan Knowles feels that formulation of mixtures of chemical pesticides and biopesticides may not be straightforward in many cases

UK consultancy Nuvistix Innovation’s Dr Alan Baylis says that formulation needs to ensure stability of living organisms in distribution and storage

there is still plenty of room for further innovation. The company is applying its extensive formulation expertise, built over decades, to innovative biological formulations, it says.

Have there been changes in user perceptions in terms of efficacy and cost of biopesticides?

The use of biopesticides in combination with conventional pesticides and improvement in formulations are expected to help alleviate some of the negative perceptions about the products among growers. “The perception of efficacy and cost effectiveness is improving but there are still lingering perceptions that biopesticides are not as strong as chemicals and are higher priced,” admits Dr Marrone.

Mr Donaldson says that changing the sometimes negative perception about cost and efficacy of biopesticides is a slow process and can only be done through credible public relations and awareness campaigns from the selling companies and actual positive use by existing and new customers. He says that increased participation by larger, credible companies, has led to an informed message being projected to the marketplace that is factual with claims that can be consistently verified. He complains about some unrealistic claims being made by some market participants that slow the conversion to a positive perception.

Do biopesticides face an easier regulatory approval process?

Dr Marrone says that regulatory requirements are getting more burdensome rather than better. She says that often a non-reduced risk chemical takes less time to get through the US EPA than most new biopesticide ais. She complains that registrants often find new non-standard requirements added very late in the process within days of the approval due date, forcing re-negotiations of statutory approval dates, making the process very unpredictable. “We are required to submit a file cabinet drawer of data to the EPA, while a chemical requires a truckload. It should not take more time to review a file drawer of data,” she complains. Dr Marrone says that the reason for the passage of the PRIA (Pesticide Registration Improvement Act)

by the US Congress was to provide predictable timelines. “The unpredictability is a killer for small companies. Indeed, we know companies that have gone out of business, millions of dollars of revenues and hundreds of jobs lost,” she says.

Mr Donaldson expresses a similar thought, saying that as many biopesticides have particular toxicological attributes that inherently put them in a category of reduced risk, it is important to take these characteristics into account when establishing registration regulations. “But over the years, the degree of stringency surrounding the registration of biopesticides has been increasing, just as it has with conventional chemistry,” he says. That poses questions about how much a company can spend on a biopesticide registration when viewed against the market opportunity and return on investment.

Philip Kessler from Swiss company Andermatt Biocontrol talks about similar problems in the EU where high investments and uncertainties could be killing factors to registration of biopesticide for niche markets. He gives the example of Andermatt’s baculovirus-based bioinsecticide, Capex (Adoxophyes orana granulovirus), the EU approval process for which took eight years after the submission of the registration dossier in 2004. He places the costs of registration of Capex in the EU at €850,000-950,000 ($1.1 million-1.2 million), which included: costs for the OECD data package at some €700,000 ($907,000); cost for consultants at €25,000 ($32,000); fees for the rapporteur member state, Germany, including provisional approval also at €25,000 ($32,000); costs for efficacy trials in member states at €50,000-100,000 ($65,000-130,000); and expected costs of mutual recognition from Germany to other member states within the central zone again at €50,000–100,000 ($65,000-130,000).

Mr Kessler feels that, in hindsight, it did not make commercial sense for the company to get the product registered in the EU given the fluctuating annual market for Capex of €50,000-200,000 ($65,000-260,000). In addition to a shorter evaluation period, he calls for better transparency and communication between regulators and industry. He gave a thumbs up to the EU project started in 2008 under guidance document SANCO 0235/2008 for the registration of baculoviruses, dubbed REBECA. It involved better communication with authorities at member state and Commission level.

Mr Donaldson highlights the niche nature and fragmented markets for biopesticide products while cautioning that as regulatory requirements go up, the availability of biopesticides will be limited by this. He stresses the need for the industry to be involved with the regulators.

Dr Venkatesh Devanur, managing director of Indian biopesticide company Agri Life, talks about the regulatory situation in India, which has traditionally been favourable towards biopesticides. But changes in the regulatory system have meant that

. . . continued from page III

IV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Marrone Bio Innovations’ Dr Pamela Marrone says that regulatory requirements are becoming increasingly burdensome

Biopesticides

biopesticides are evaluated in the same way as chemical ais. Registrations of new biopesticides have fallen drastically during the past year even as over 400 registrants lost authorisations because of the change in policy. “Small and medium-scale companies will find it hard to remain in the market,” he says.

outlook

Indications are that the frequency of acquisition and deal-making activity will continue. Bayer was among the first of the big companies to profess its intentions of including biopesticides in its strategic planning by acquiring Israeli company AgroGreen’s Bacilllus firmus-based bionematicides, BioNem and Votivo, in 2009. A B firmus-based bionematicide

seed treatment was among the six ais that the company earmarked for launch by 2012 with combined peak annual sales of €1,000 million ($1,280 million).

“The acquisition of AgraQuest gave us a strong position in bacterial-based biologics, while the acquisition of Prophyta means we have a strong platform for fungal-based biologics,” Bayer says. It expresses openness to further investments

and collaborations to support its growth strategy. The company adds the caveat that opportunities would need to add value to its presently established Biologics platform comprising its AgraQuest and Prophyta assets, expertise and know-how.

Syngenta echoes the sentiment, saying that it is always open to adding technologies or products to expand and enhance its portfolio. It will “carefully evaluate” interesting opportunities and decide on the appropriate next steps.

BASF points towards its Functional Crop Care unit as one of its main growth fields. The unit, which includes seed treatments and biopesticides, was created at the beginning of the year after the Becker Underwood acquisition. BASF says that it acquired the biopesticide company because its portfolio is an excellent complement to BASF’s seed treatment and Functional Crop Care portfolio. “In order to extend our technology basis in this strategically important area, we will continue to broaden our interdisciplinary work within R&D as well as leverage external partnerships and consider potential acquisitions,” says Mr Huff.

Monsanto’s RNAi-based BioDirect biopesticide platform focuses on products for weed, insect, and virus control. The company says that early testing under the BioDirect programme for glyphosate-resistant weed control indicates that it can be used with glyphosate to target weeds and provide a broader spectrum of control on problem weeds.

Dr Devanur feels that the involvement of the larger companies has provided biopesticides the credibility that they had been lacking all these years. The move will lead to consumers taking the concept of biopesticides more seriously.

Dr Marrone says that having big companies sell biopesticides does give the sector more credibility with channel partners and key influencers like university researchers.

Mr Donaldson concurs, saying that because of the increased interest from major multinational agricultural companies, there has come an increased promotion of the biopesticide category by companies who have a lot of credibility and market access capabilities. This will help to increase the positive perception of biopesticides at the key influencer and customer standpoints.

He emphasises the lack of new biopesticide ai technologies that can provide broad-based solutions approaching the spectrum of those of conventional chemicals as a limiting factor. But he feels that the consolidation of the biopesticide industry can provide increased focus on capabilities for discovery activities, as well as development of new products that could not be justified by smaller companies.

Agrow will continue to monitor developing trends through the rest of the year and provide you a detailed insight in the next annual biopesticide supplement. Hasta la vista!

EU regulationsIn the EU, biopesticides are covered by the EU agrochemical registration Regulation (1107/2009), which does not have any specific provision favourable to biopesticides in the form of an easier approval process. Article 22 of the Regulation covers low-risk ais, which have an authorisation period of 15 years and a faster approval process than for higher risk ais with a 120-day timeframe for evaluation by the zonal rapporteur member state. The Regulation favours the inclusion of low-risk ais in crop protection products by facilitating their placement on the market. But biopesticides are not considered low-risk by definition. To be considered such, they would need to fulfil the criteria listed in point 5 of Annex II of the Regulation. The industry feels that the approval process for biopesticides could be facilitated if new criteria were set for them as low-risk ais.

IV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com V

Agri Life’s Dr Venkatesh Devanur feels that the involvement of the larger companies has provided credibility to biopesticides

Biopesticides

MBI Highlights

MBIMarrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBI) is a leading global provider of bio-based pest management and plant health products for the agricultural crop protection and water treatment markets. Comprised of naturally occurring microorganisms and plant extracts, MBI’s effective and environmentally friendly products provide improved plant health, crop yield, and quality while managing pesticide resistance and residues. MBI's crop protection products are primarily applied in conventional production programs with chemical pesticides, and are suitable for

organic operations as well. The company is also addressing new markets where there are no available conventional chemical pesticides or whether the use of such pesticide is not desirable or permissible because of health and environmental concerns.

With the global population soaring, the world’s food production by the year 2050 will need to double according to current estimates. Protecting crops and improving yields will require new product solutions that not only control pests, but also address consumer and legislative concerns focused on health and the environment. MBI’s bio-based pest management products (line of biopesticides) are part of this solution. They are exempt from conventional chemical residue

tolerances, limit the development of pest resistance, have low toxicity, and pose low risk to non-target organisms including mammals, birds, fish, and beneficial insects.

MBI’s award-winning fungicide and bactericide, Regalia®, is currently sold in North America, Latin America, and select European countries, treating foliar and soil diseases of food and ornamental crops. Grandevo®, the company's EPA-approved insecticide, was named "Best New Biopesticide" by Agrow in 2012 and represents the first new cross-spectrum microbial insecticide to enter the market in nearly 50 years. Aiding in resistance management, providing long-lasting control of chewing and sucking insects and mites, and featuring a flexible application window, Grandevo is paving the way for new, innovative uses of microbial insecticides in modern pest management.

Further expanding its crop protection portfolio, the company recently received EPA approval of a novel bioherbicide, and has submitted another cross-spectrum insecticide to the EPA. As part of its growth strategy, MBI is entering into strategic agreements to distribute its crop protection products to markets outside of its core sales territory of high-value specialty crops in the US.

MBI discovers new products through its efficient, proprietary discovery and development platform and by in-licensing select technologies. MBI has developed both a portfolio of EPA-registered biopesticides and a pipeline of new bio-based products in early and late stages of development, including herbicides, insecticides, and nematicides. All of MBI’s offerings address the growing global demand for effective, safe, and environmentally responsible products.

• Founded 2006

• Bio-based pest management and plant health products for agricultural crop protection and water treatment

• Commercial products: Regalia® fungicide, Grandevo® insecticide, Zequanox® aquatic molluscicide

• Herbicide received EPA approval; EPA approval pending for a second insecticide; several more products in the pipeline including herbicides, insecticides, nematicides, and algaecides

�• Over 180 patents pending in the U.S. and abroad

• Primary use in conventional agricultural, turf, ornamental and greenhouse IPM programs; also organic certifications

• Products improve plant health and quality, and help improve yield

• Products boost efficacy of traditional pesticides and provide alternative treatments to improve resistance management programs

• Dual strategy of early stage in-licensing and internal development

ADVERTORIAL

Contact Info:

(p) 530.750.2800 (e) [email protected] www.marronebioinnovations.com

At Marrone Bio Innovations, our mission is to discover, develop, and market breakthrough biopesticides for managing weeds, pests and plant diseases.

Grandevo®, our new cross-spectrum insecticide, was named the 2012 Best New Biopesticide by Agrow. It joins Regalia®, our soil and foliar biofungicide, that won the same distinction in 2010. Both Regalia and Grandevo deliver efficacy equivalent to synthetic pesticides to strengthen integrated pest management programs, reduce residues, and help improve quality, plant health, and yields.

Committed to meeting the needs of growers today and tomorrow, Marrone Bio Innovations continues to develop a growing pipeline of new crop protection products.

Visit us at www.MarroneBio.com for more information. Marrone Bio Innovations, Regalia, and Grandevo are trademarks of Marrone Bio Innovations. ©2013 Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.

And we deliver time and again.

Biopesticide-related corporate deals (May 2012 onwards)

US pesticide development company Vestaron raised $10.2 million for the continued development of biopesticides based on spider venom toxins.

Italian agrochemical company Isagro’s US subsidiary, Isagro USA, appointed US biopesticide firm AgraQuest as distributor for the biofungicide, Bio-Tam (Trichoderma asperellum strain ICC 012 + T gamsii strain ICC 080), for agricultural crops in the US.

Swiss biopesticide company Andermatt Biocontrol acquired a 24.9% share of German biopesticide company AbiTep.

Bayer CropScience agreed to acquire US biopesticide company AgraQuest for $425 million plus milestone payments.

The Japanese CBC group acquired Italian biopesticide company Intrachem Bio Italia.

US biopesticide company Marrone Bio Innovations acquired a manufacturing facility in Bangor, Michigan.

Monsanto entered into a ten-year strategic alliance with US pharmaceutical company Alnylam Pharmaceuticals to use Alnylam’s RNAi-based technologies in its BioDirect biopesticide platform.

Dutch bioproducts company Koppert Biological Systems opened a branch in South Africa in a joint venture with its former distribution partner, Vista Verde.

Syngenta acquired US biopesticide company Pasteuria Bioscience for $86 million, with additional deferred payments of up to $27 million.

BASF acquired US specialty products company Becker Underwood in a deal worth $1,020 million.

US biopesticide company BioWorks entered into a non-exclusive Canadian distribution agreement with CanHorta Canadian Horticulture Alliance.

Syngenta and Danish company Novozymes signed an exclusive global marketing and distribution agreement to commercialise the Bacillus subtilis-based biofungicide, Taegro.

US agrochemical company Gowan signed an exclusive agreement with Czech biopesticide firm Biopreparáty to commercialise its Pythium oligandrum-based biofungicide,

Polyversum, in the NAFTA region.

Arysta LifeScience and French sustainable agricultural technology company Laboratoires Goëmar agreed two deals to develop each other’s biopesticide and biostimulant products. Arysta acquired exclusive rights to Goëmar’s Natural Protect technology related to the biopesticide, VacciPlant (laminarin), and Physio Activator biostimulant technology in central Europe and in the CIS countries. Goëmar received access to Arysta’s biopesticide and biostimulant products in France and other countries in western Europe.

Sumitomo Chemical’s US biopesticide and biorational products subsidiary, Valent BioSciences, agreed to acquire the US post-harvest treatment specialist, Pace International, for $65 million.

2013Bayer agreed to acquire German biopesticide company Prophyta.

Marrone Bio Innovations appointed Canadian agrochemical company Engage Agro’s US subsidiary, Engage Agro USA, as the exclusive marketer of MBI’s biofungicide, Regalia PTO (Reynoutria sachalinensis extract), in the US.

Brazilian pharmaceutical company Uniao Quimica acquired the Brazilian bioinsecticide firm, Saneantes Biologicos Bthek.

Italian agrochemical company Isagro agreed a regionally exclusive distribution deal with Syngenta for its T asperellum and T gamsii-based biofungicide. The arrangement covers Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

Marrone Bio Innovations appointed Canadian agrochemical company Engage Agro’s US subsidiary, Engage Agro USA, as the exclusive US distributor of MBI’s bioinsecticide, Grandevo PTO (Chromobacterium substugae strain PRAA4-1T).

French crop protection company De Sangosse acquired a stake in UK biopesticide company Alpha Biopesticides and will be the exclusive distributor of Alpha Biopesticides products in France in the agriculture, home and garden, and amenities sectors.

VIII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Biopesticides

A review of the efficacy of biocontrol agents introduced to control invasive weeds in New Zealand has confirmed the variation in success rates. Benefits from the 33 introductions targeting 23 weed species considered by the review ranged from massive to negligible, according to the five-point scale used by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which considers economic, social and environmental risks and benefits. Around two-thirds (23) of the introductions had a negligible or minimal benefits, two had minor, five moderate, one major and two massive beneficial effects. Overall benefits to the New Zealand economy from introduced biocontrol agents are estimated at NZ$11-21 million (US$9-17 million) per year.

The review cites four case studies as exemplars. Assessed as having a moderate effect on its target, the nodding thistle (Carduus nutans), the nodding thistle crown weevil (Trichosirocalus horridus) was introduced in 1982 and effected a decline in its target weed in many areas across New Zealand. It also attacked six other non-native thistles. Its control activity has been unexpectedly bolstered by the introduction of a second biocontrol agent, the Californian thistle gall fly (Apion onopordi), introduced to combat the Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense). The efficacy of this latest introduction has not yet been determined.

The ragwort flea beetle (Longitarsus jacobaeae) has been spectacularly successful against its target, ragwort (Senecio jacobaea), achieving a 90-100% reduction in populations within four years at many sites. Spread of the biocontrol agent across New Zealand seems to have been limited by high rainfall, the review notes. Economic benefits from the introduction of L jacobaea are estimated to be around US$5 million.

The introduction 60 years ago of the lesser St John’s wort beetle (Chrysolina hyperici) to control St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) is also considered to have ”massive” benefits. The weed, which had become the dominant species in large areas of pasture, has been so severely affected by C hyperici that it no longer features on regional pest management strategies.

The introduction of white smut fungus (Entyloma ageratinae) to control mist flowers (Ageratina riparia) in 1998 has brought major benefits, the review notes. The fungus has spread to all areas that the weed infests, reducing the mean percentage cover of mist flower from 81% to 1.5% over five years.

Given that most of the costs associated with the introduction of a novel biocontrol agent are incurred prior to release, the review notes that further work is needed to maximise establishment. The review has been published in the journal, Biological Control.

Control Target Effectragwort flea beetle (Longitarsus jacobaeae) ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) massive

lesser St John’s wort beetle (Chrysolina hyperici) St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) massive

White smut fungus (Entyloma ageratinae) mist flower (Ageratina riparia) major

alligator weed beetle (Agasicles hygrophila) alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) moderate

alligator weed moth (Arcola malloi) alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) moderate

heather beetle (Lochmaea suturalis) heather (Calluna vulgaris) moderate

nodding thistle crown weevil (Trichosirocalus horridus) nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) moderate

nodding thistle gall fly (Urophora solstitialis) nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) moderate

broom seed beetle (Bruchidius villosus) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) minor

Mexican devil weed gall fly (Procecidochares utilis) Mexican devil weed (Agaratina adenophora) minor

Californian thistle gall fly (Urophora cardui) Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense) minimal

cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae) ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) minimal

gorse pod moth (Cydia succedana) gorse (Ulex europeus) minimal

gorse seed weevil (Exapion ulicis) gorse (Ulex europeus) minimal

gorse spider mite (Tetranychus lintearius) gorse (Ulex europeus) minimal

nodding thistle receptacle weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus) nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) minimal

St John’s wort gall midge (Zeuxidiplosis giardia) St John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum) minimal

gorse thrips (Sericothrips staphylinus) gorse (Ulex europeus) negligible

greater St Johns wort beetle (Chrysolina quadrigemina) St Johns wort (Hypericum perforatum) negligible

phoma leaf spot (Phoma clematidina) old man’s beard (Clematis vitalba) negligible

ragwort seed fly (Botanophila jacobaeae) Ragwort (Senecio jacobaeae) negligible

Californian thistle stem miner (Apion onopordi) Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense) undetermined

Source: Biological Control; Biological Control Australia New Zealand (BCANZ) database.

NZ weed biocontrol successes

– compiled by Hazel Blake

VIII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com IX

Biopesticides

Brazilian researchers have completed a review of the methods used to identify phytopathogens with potential for use as bioherbicides. The review covers the main research strategies currently employed for the isolation and identification of such compounds, including: the processes involved in isolating fungal phytotoxic metabolites; the factors affecting in vitro biosynthesis of phytotoxins, extraction and fractionation methods; the bioassay-guided fractionation procedure; and the bioassays most commonly used for monitoring isolation processes.

The review notes that several factors have contributed to the dearth of new herbicides including costs related to meeting regulatory requirements for new products and the maintenance of synthesis programmes as well as the surging popularity of herbicide-tolerant crops. As a result, no major herbicides with modes of action unrelated to those of existing products have been introduced in the past 20 years, it points out.

Phytotoxins produced by phytopathogenic fungi are generally

low molecular weight secondary metabolites that induce specific symptoms. Toxins may be broadly divided into those responsible for pathogenicity that are often effective against only host species of the parent fungi (see Table 1), and those contributing to virulence that are effective against a wider range of species (Table 2). An individual phytotoxin may be produced by not just different species, but different genera, the review notes.

Fungal phytopathogens and synthetic herbicides share little similarity in their modes of action, making them particularly attractive in combating weed resistance issues. Phytotoxins that may be unsuitable for direct use as a commercial herbicide may identify new sites of herbicidal action as potential targets for synthetic products, the review notes. Structural elucidation of an isolated phytotoxin can facilitate the development of a synthetic analogue with improved biological activity.

Details of the study have been published in the journal, Crop Protection.

Table 1: Fungal phytotoxins for potential species-specific biocontrolSource Phytotoxin Possible Biocontrol TargetBipolaris euphorbiae NK Euphorbia heterophylla

Alternaria cinerariae, A zinnia; Curvularia eragrostidis QZ2000

a,b -dehydrocurvularin Xanthium occidentale; Digitaria sanguinalis

Ascochyta caulina ascaulitoxin aglycone Chenopodium album

Ascochyta sonchi ascosonchine Sonchus arvensis

Fusarium moniliforme fumonisin B1 Lemna pausicostata

Fusarium spp, especially F oxysporum f sp lili fusaric acid methyl ester (5-butylpicolinic acid) Striga spp

Phyllosticta cirsii phyllosictine A Cirsium arvense

Source: Crop Protection.

Table 2: Broad-spectrum fungal phytotoxinsPhytotoxin Source MoAAnhydro-D-glucitol Fusarium solani sugar metabolism disruptor

Beticolin Cercospora beticola membrane function disruptor

B-nitroproprionic acid Septoria cirsii succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor

Cercosporin Cercospora spp photosensitiser

Cerulenin Cephalosporium cerulens lipid synthesis inhibitor

Cinnacidin Nectria spp DA060097 jasmonic acid analogue

Colletotrichin Colletotrichum spp membrane function disruptor

Cornexistin Paecilomyces variotii amino acid transferase inhibitor

Cyperin Preussia fleischhakii; Phoma sorghina; Ascochyta cypericola

lipid synthesis inhibitor; PPO inhibitor

Cytochalasin Phoma exigua; Zygosporium masonii mitosis disruptor

Elsinochromes Elsinoe fawcetti photosensitiser

Fusicoccin Fusicoccum amygdali (Phomopsis amygdali) membrane function disruptor

Fungal phytotoxins reviewed

X www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Biopesticides

Table 2: Broad-spectrum fungal phytotoxins (continued)Phytotoxin Source MoAGliotoxin Aspergillus spp; Gliocladium fimbriatum protein conjugator

HC toxin Cochliobolus carbonum mitosis disruptor

Hymeglusin (1233A or L-659699) Scopulariopsis spp terpenoid synthesis inhibitor

Macrocidin Phoma macrostoma terpenoid synthesis inhibitor

Moniliformin Fusarium moniliforme mitosis disruptor

Ophiobolin Bipolaris spp membrane function disruptor

Rhizobitoxine Bradyrhizobium spp methionine/ethylene synthesis inhibitor

Rubellin D Ramularia collo-cygni photosensitiser

Sirodesmin PL Leptosphaeria maculans protein conjugator

Solanapyrone A, B & C Ascochyta rabiei DNA polymerase inhibitor

Taxol Taxomyces andreanae mitosis disruptor

Tentoxin (1967) Anacystis nidulans; Alternaria alternata PPO import and chloroplast ATP synthase inhibitor

Tenuazonic acid Piricularia oryzae; Alternaria alternata PS II inhibitor

Trichothecene-2; (T-2 toxin) Cochiobolus heterstrophus, Phyllostica maydis, Bipolaris maydis

membrane function disruptor

Victorin C Cochiobolus victoriae membrane function disruptor

Source: Crop Protection; Toxins.

– compiled by Hazel Blake

Agr

ow

Biop

esti

cide

s 20

13Re

gion

al M

arke

ts, C

ompa

nies

, Pro

duct

s, Pa

tent

s an

d Re

gula

tory

Fra

mew

orks

.

The

biop

estic

ides

sec

tor i

s es

timat

ed to

be

wor

th a

roun

d $1

.5

billi

on p

er a

nnum

, with

an

annu

al g

row

th ra

te e

xpec

ted

to s

oon

reac

h 15

%.

Biop

estic

ides

are

att

ract

ing

grea

ter i

nter

est a

s co

re o

ptio

ns in

cr

op p

rote

ctio

n pr

ogra

mm

es, w

ith a

num

ber o

f rec

ent h

igh

pro�

le a

cqui

sitio

ns b

y m

ajor

R&

D b

ased

com

pani

es. T

he la

rges

t re

gion

al m

arke

t for

bio

pest

icid

es is

Nor

th A

mer

ica,

cur

rent

ly

acco

untin

g fo

r aro

und

40%

of s

ales

. Eur

ope,

Asi

a an

d La

tin

Am

eric

a, re

pres

ent 2

5%, 2

0% a

nd 1

0%, r

espe

ctiv

ely.

This

repo

rt c

over

s al

l wor

ld m

arke

ts, a

s w

ell a

s re

gula

tory

de

�niti

ons

and

path

s fo

r bio

pest

icid

es.

The

repo

rt lo

oks

in d

etai

l at:

Th

e re

gula

tory

sec

tors

and

all

maj

or in

dust

ryor

gani

satio

ns

The

key

play

ers

and

sign

i�ca

nt a

cqui

sitio

ns

Com

pany

pro

�les

and

pro

duct

por

tfol

ios

of le

adin

g bi

opes

ticid

e co

mpa

nies

Rece

nt p

aten

ting

activ

ities

Futu

re g

row

th tr

ends

and

str

ateg

ic d

evel

opm

ents

4 re

ason

s w

hy y

ou

shou

ld o

rder

:

Lear

n ab

out t

he k

ey

driv

ers

for g

row

th in

th

e bi

opes

ticid

e m

arke

t

Und

erst

and

the

regu

lato

ry fr

amew

ork

in w

orld

mar

kets

See

wha

t the

lead

ing

biop

estic

ide

com

pani

es

are

wor

king

on

Dev

elop

str

ateg

ies

base

d on

exp

ecte

d fu

ture

gro

wth

tren

ds

and

deve

lopm

ents

stor

e.ag

ra-n

et.c

om/r

epor

ts/b

iope

stic

ides

.htm

l re

port

s@ag

ra-n

et.c

om

+44

20 7

017

4308

1. 2. 3. 4.

Ord

er b

efor

e A

pril

30th

to

rece

ive

10%

o�.

Quo

te A

WBI

O20

13

Ord

er y

our c

opy

now

:

Agrow Biopesticides 2013Regional Markets, Companies, Products, Patents and Regulatory Frameworks.

The biopesticides sector is estimated to be worth around $1.5 billion per annum, with an annual growth rate expected to soon reach 15%.

Biopesticides are attracting greater interest as core options in crop protection programmes, with a number of recent high pro�le acquisitions by major R&D based companies. The largest regional market for biopesticides is North America, currently accounting for around 40% of sales. Europe, Asia and Latin America, represent 25%, 20% and 10%, respectively.

This report covers all world markets, as well as regulatory de�nitions and paths for biopesticides.

The report looks in detail at: The regulatory sectors and all major industryorganisations

The key players and signi�cant acquisitions

Company pro�les and product portfolios of leading biopesticide companies

Recent patenting activities

Future growth trends and strategic developments

4 reasons why you should order:

Learn about the key drivers for growth in the biopesticide market

Understand the regulatory framework in world markets

See what the leading biopesticide companies are working on

Develop strategies based on expected future growth trends and developments

store.agra-net.com/reports/biopesticides.html [email protected] +44 20 7017 4308

1.

2.

3.

4.

Order before April 30th to receive 10% o�. Quote AWBIO2013

Order your copy now:
















1.

2.

3.

4.



X www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com XI

Biopesticides

Biopesticide patent watchHazel Blake identified biopesticide and related patent applications published in 2012 and in the first quarter of 2013.

US granted patentsThe US Patent and Trademark Office granted 17 patents for various biological control agents during the period January 2012 – March 2013. Of the 18 assignees, 11 were publicly funded entities. Insecticides were the focus of seven patents, followed by fungicides (six), plant growth regulators (two), dual purpose

products (fungicide/insecticide - one) and herbicides (one). The USDA was the only assignee with more than one patent granted in the period. Its four awards included two concerning the use of different strains of the Solenopsis invicta virus to control fire ants. Eight patents concerned specific strains of bacteria or fungi, mostly for use as fungicides.

Biopesticides

US granted biopesticide patents 2012- 13Year Assignee Patent Number Type Description

2013 Lincoln University, New Zealand

8,394,623 Fungicide Use of Trichoderma atroviride strains as a fungicide effective against Rhizoctonia spp, Sclerotinia spp, Pythium spp and Fusarium spp

2012 Adjuvants Plus, Canada 8,101,551 PGR Use of plant endophyte Clonostachys rosea strain 88-710 as a growth promoter

2012 French national centre for science research(CNRS)

8,101,171 PGR Use of synthetic analogues of strigalactones GR7 and GR24 to promote growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, especially Glomus intraradices and Gigaspora rosea

2012 Connecticut University, US 8,362,201 Insecticide Australian funnel-web spider (Hadronyche versuta) toxin, omega-atracotoxin-Hv2a, used as a foliar insecticidal spray

2012 J H Biotech, Canada 8,188,004 Herbicide Herbicidal composition comprising oxidized clove oil, eugenol, or cinnamon oil and a surfactant comprising casein, whole egg powder and Konjac glucomannan effective against broad-leaved weeds, especially docks, nettles, thistles and common ragwort

2012 Koppert, Netherlands 8,097,248 Insecticide Use of Amblyseius sirskii to control Carpoglyphus lactis, Dermatophagoides farina, Euroglyphus longior, E maynei, Pyroglyphus africanus, Glyciphagus destructor, G domesticus and Lepidoglyphus destructor

2012 Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology

8,202,514 Fungicide Use of Bacillus subtilis strain EB120 as a fungicide

2012 Michigan State University, US 8,202,552 Insecticide Plant extract from Turkish hop (Humulus lupulus) flower buds effective against Colorado potato beetles (Leptinotarsa decemlineata)

2012 Monaghan Mushrooms, Ireland 8,329,446 Fungicide Use of Bacillus subtilis strain J-P13 to control Trichoderma spp in mushroom production

2012 Nippon Soda 8,257,958 Fungicide Use of Pseudomonas rhodesiae FERM BP-10912 as a bactericide effective against canker, bacterial shot hole, bacterial soft rot, bacterial spot, bacterial black spot, bacterial wilt, necrotic leaf spot, pitch necrosis, bacterial grain rot, bacterial seedling blight, bacterial leaf blight, bacterial rot and black rot

2012 Rothamsted Research, UK 8,221,736 Insecticide Use of cis jasmones alpha-farnesene, beta-caryophyllene, 4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene or especially beta-ocimene as a semiochemical in a foliar spray in beans (Vicia faba) or wheat to elicit/prime plant defence responses, increase parasitoid foraging and reduce feeding by aphids or pollen beetles

2012 Santiago University, Chile 8,372,391 Fungicide Use of Serratia plymuthica CCGG2742, isolated from grape skins, as a fungicide effective against Botrytis cinerea

XII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

US, EP AND WTO biopesticide patent applications 2012-13Assignee Patent Number Type Description

Gottingen University, Germany US20130071425 Insecticide Use of Beauveria bassiana strain ATP02, DSM 24665 as an insecticide

INRA, France US20130071356 Fungicide Use of filamentous algae, Phoma spp strain I-4278 as a fungicide, especially against Phytophthora parasitica

USDA; Gonzaga University, US US20130035231 Herbicide Use of Pyrenophora semeniperda to control brome grass

Biopreparáty, Czech Republic US20130035230 Fungicide Use of Pythium oligandrum as a fungicide

Synthetic Genomics/Monsanto WO/2013/016361 US20130031673

Fungicide Use of Mycosphaerella spp strain SGI-010-H11, Microbacterium spp strain SGI-014-006 or SGI-005-G08, Variovorax sp strain SGI-014-G01, Bacillus spp strain SGI-015-F03 or SGI-015-H06 to control head blight (Fusarium graminearum) in cereals

Natural Resources Canada US20130028858 Insecticide Use of (3Z)-dodecen-12-olide and ash green leaf volatiles in a light trap to control emerald ash borers (Agrilus planipennis)

BASF US20130017949 PGR Use of Penicillium bilaji as a phosphate solubiliser in fungicidal mixtures

USDA US20130014428 Insecticide Use of the semiochemical 3-methyl-2-buten-1-ol to control walnut twig beetles (Pityophthorus jugkandis)

Lantmännen Bioagri US20130005572 PGR Use of Pseudomonas azotoformans, strain F30Aas a PGR

USDA US20120322658 Fungicide/PGR Use of a co-culture of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain NRRL B-21133, NRRL B-21053 or NRRL B-21102 or Enterobacter cloacae strain NRRL B-21050 as a fungicide, especially against Fusarium dry rot (Gibberella pulicaris), pink rot (Phytophthora erythroseptica) and late blight (Phytophthora infestans) or to suppress tuber sprouting in potatoes

US, EP and WTO applications There were 36 patent applications from 27 assignees claiming methods of biological control of plant pests and pathogens published in the 15 months to March 2013. Fungicides were the focus of 14 applications, followed by insecticides (ten), plant growth regulators (seven), dual action products (fungicide/insecticides or fungicide/PGR – two) and herbicides (one).

The most active assignee was the USDA with four filings published. It was followed by AgraQuest (now owned by Bayer Crop Science) and BASF (three each), Australian Agriculture Victoria Services and the US California University (two each).Publicly-funded organisations accounted for two-thirds (19/27) of the applications published.

BASF’s applications include a filing concerning the combination

of Bacillus subtilis strain QST713 and various synthetic fungicides. In 2009 BASF agreed a licensing deal for B subtilis with AgraQuest which sells the product as Serenade. AgraQuest has since been acquired by Bayer Crop Science.

Five applications concerned the control of specific pathogens. These included a bacterial inoculant effective against Xylella fastidiosa, the causative agent of Pierce’s disease from California University; a seedling treatment for the prevention of white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) and anther-smut (Microbotryum violaceum – JD Irving); a nematicide effective against lance nematodes (Hoplolaimus magnistylus – Pasteuria BioScience); the use of Pseudomonas fluorescens VP5 to control red root disease (Poria hypolateritia) in tea (Rangasamy College of Technology, India); and the use of the fungus, Pyrenophora semeniperda, to control annual brome grass (USDA and Gonzaga University).

continued on page XIV . . .

Biopesticides

US granted biopesticide patents 2012- 13 (continued)

Year Assignee Patent Number Type Description

2012 Santiago University, Chile 8,372,391 Fungicide Use of Serratia plymuthica CCGG2742, isolated from grape skins, as a fungicide effective against Botrytis cinerea

2012 USDA 8,226,938 Insecticide Use of Beauveria bassiana strain NRRL 30976 used as an acaricide against Varroa destructor in honeybee colonies

2012 USDA 8,183,025 Insecticide Solenopsis invicta virus (SINV2) as a biocontrol of fire ants

2012 USDA 8,101,172 Insecticide Solenopsis invicta virus (SINV3) as a biocontrol of fire ants

2012 USDA, Ohio State University, US

8,257,958 Fungicide Use of prothioconazole-tolerant Cryptococcus flavescens strain OH 182.9 as a fungicide effective against Fusarium graminearum

2012 Valent BioSciences 8,273,389 Fungicide/ Nematicide

Composition containing diallyl disulfide and cinnamon oil and/or cinnamaldehyde for use on cucumbers, melons and tomatoes as: a fungicide effective against Pythium spp, Rhoxoctonia spp and Sclerotinia; or a nematicide effective against root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita)

XII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com XIII

US, EP AND WTO biopesticide patent applications 2012-13 (continued)Assignee Patent Number Type Description

California University, US US20120282233 Fungicide Use of Achromobacter spp or Geomyces spp as a bactericide xylem inoculant effective against Xylella fastidiosa

Rangasamy College of Technology, India

US20120270735 Fungicide Use of Pseudomonas fluorescens VP5 to control red root disease (Poria hypolateritia) in tea

AgraQuest US20120231951 Fungicide Use of Bacillus subtilis strains QST30002 and QST3004 (NRRL B-50421 and NRRL B-50455) sandpaper mutants as a bactericide/fungicide

California University, US US20120201981 Insecticide Use of Bacillus firmus as a nematicide, especially in seed coatings

JD Irving, Canada US20120198590 Fungicide Use of Pinus strobus endophytes as a fungicide, especially against Cronartium ribicola, and/or Microbotryum violaceum

Bio Insumos Nativa Limitada, Chile US20120183517 Fungicide Use of Brevibacillus parabrevis strain No 4; Bacillus subtilis strain No 5; Bacillus cereus strain No 6 and B cereus strain No 7 as a plant protectant/bactericide, especially against Pseudomonas spp

USDA US20120183507 Fungicide Use of non-toxigenic Aspergillus strains NRRL 50427, NRRL 50428, NRRL 50429, NRRL 50430 and NRRL 50431 to control A flavus in maize, peanuts and tree nuts

Wisconsin University, US US20120164105 Insecticide Use of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp kurstaki strain VBTS 2477 quadruple enterotoxin-deficient mutants as an insecticide

Saskatchewan University, Canada US20120156173 WO/2011/022809; WO/2012/113051

Fungicide Use of Sphaerodes mycoparasitica strains IDAC 301008-01, -02, or -03, as a fungicide, especially against Fusarium spp

TERI, India US20120128648 Insecticide Use of Eucalyptus camaldulensis or E globus extracts as insecticides

AgraQuest US20120114610 Fungicide Use of Muscodor albus strain NRRL 30547 or NRRL30548 as a bactericide

Santiago University, Chile US20120107280 Fungicide Use of Serratia plymuthica CCGG2742 as a fungicide

BASF US20120094834 PGR Use of Bacillus subtilis strain NRRL B-21661 as a PGR

Bayer US20120077673 Fungicide/ Insecticide

Use of a fungicidal xylylalanine and Chenopodium quinoa saponin extract to induce systemic acquired resistance in plants

USDA US20120076765 Fungicide Use of Bacillus simplex strains 03WN13, 03WN23 and 03WN25, Pseudomonas koreensis strain 10IL21 and P lini strain 13IL01, and or Pantoea agglomerans strain 10IL31 as a fungicide, especially against pink rot (Phytophthora erythroseptica) in potatoes

Agscitech US20120058895 Insecticide Use of glycolipid biosurfactants derived from Pseudomonas aeruginosa, P putida, P florescens, P fragi or P syringae; Flavobacterium spp; Candida albicans, C rugosa, C tropicalis, C lipolytica or C torulopsis; Rhodococcus spp; Arthrobacter spp; Campylobacter spp or Cornybacterium spp as insecticides

BioWorks US20120028799 Fungicide Use of Streptomyces scopuliridis strain RB72 to control bacterial and fungal diseases in plants

Bee Vectoring Technology US20120021906 PGR Use of Clonostachys rosea, Trichoderma harzianum, T koningii, T virens, Paecilomyces lilacinus, Ulocladium atrum, Penicillium oxalicum, Penicillium bilai, and/or Fusarium oxysporum as PGR

BASF US20120003199 Fungicide Use of Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713 as a fungicide

AgraQuest US20120003197 PGR Use of Bacillus mycoides isolate BmJ NRRL B-30890 to induce systemic acquired resistance in plants

Agriculture Victoria Services, Australia WO/2012/159161 PGR Use of Nodulisporium spp, Ascocoryne sarcoides or Coryne spp extracts as PGR

Agriculture Victoria Services, Australia WO/2012/174585 PGR Use of Acremonium spp endophytes derived from the Brachiaria spp - Urochloa spp complex as a PGR

Chr Hansen WO/2012/020014 Insecticide Use of Bacillus subtilis strain DSM 17231 and B licheniformis strain DSM17236 as a nematicide

CNRS, France WO/2013/011142 EP2012/064357

Fungicide Use of Streptomyces spp BG76 strain as a fungicide effective against Pythium ultimum, and as a phosphate solubiliser

Czech Academy of Sciences WO/2010/006563 Insecticide Use of Isaria fumosorosea CCM 8367 (CCEFO.011.PFR) as an insecticide

Pasteuria Bioscience WO/2012/064527 insecticide Use of Pasteuria strain ATCC SD-5832 as a nematicide effective against lance nematodes (Hoplolaimus magnistylu)

Patent Watch continued from page XIII

XIV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Biopesticides

With the global industry recognising the growing importance in the role of biopesticides as part of ICM, EAS Group is the ideal partner for all of your product development needs.

EAS Group can advise and support your biopesticide development program, providing the trials and analytical services needed for the registration of your product.

Working together for a sustainable future.

Our expertise includes:

• Greenhouseefficacyscreening• Laboratoryefficacyscreening• Regulatoryefficacystudiesfor local, international and global submissions• Regulatory GLP ecotoxicology studies• Regulatory product chemistry studies

www.eurofins.com/[email protected]

Biopesticide Services

XIV www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Biopesticide Development in ChinaAgrow’s guest author Shuyou Han traces the development and prospects of biopesticides in China

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture’s Institute for the Control of Agrochemicals (ICAMA) has not developed a specific definition of biopesticides. The prevalent description of the category is in line with the ones developed by the UN FAO and the US EPA. The ICAMA’s required documentation for biopesticides is partially waived and is much less than that for synthetic pesticides. Chinese biopesticide research groups agree that biopesticides include microbial pesticides, agricultural antibiotics, botanical pesticides, biochemical pesticides, predatory insects, and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) in the form of genetically modified crops.

China started biopesticide research in the 1950s. The main products are grouped under the following categories: 1) microbial insecticides (Bt, Beauveria bassiana, NPVs); 2) agricultural antibiotics (Jinggangmycin, abamectin); 3) botanical pesticides (rotenone, toosedarin); 4) biochemical pesticides (PGRs, insect hormones); 5) PIPs; 6) predatory insects.

Statistics from the national agriculture technical extension centre showed that biopesticide treated acreage was around 33-40 million ha annually, accounting for around 8% of total pesticide treated area. It is planned that the biopesticide share should be expanded to 30% in 2015. Among the biopesticides used, 88% were microbials and agricultural antibiotics.

Until the end of 2010, there were 73 registered biopesticide active ingredients. The number of finished products was 2,500, accounting for 11.2% of the entire registered pesticide ais (650), and 9.3% of the total number of finished products (27,000). ICAMA statistics indicate that there are currently more than 200 microbial, botanical and biochemical biopesticide manufacturers, and ten of them are thought to be large-scale enterprises. Interestingly, the number of agriculture antibiotic producers exceeds 1,700 in China.

The number of registered biopesticide ais moved up to 85 in 2011, a third of which were insecticides, and nearly two-thirds were fungicides. In 2011, the import and export volume of biopesticides was 3.27 million tonnes (formulated products), accounting for 2.2% of the entire pesticide trade. The import and export value of biopesticides was $173 million, making up 2.6% of the total. Exports amounted to 32,300 tonnes ($162 million), accounting for 10% of total global biopesticide sales. The largest exported biopesticide was abamectin, followed by Bt. The major target countries

(and regions) were the EU, US, Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, Brazil, Japan, South Africa, and Pakistan. Annual production of pyrethrin products reached 5,000 tonnes, accounting for 25% of the international market in recent years.

In terms of sales volumes and revenue, abamectin is followed by Jinggangmycin, gibberellin, and Bt. In terms of application by area, Jinggangmycin takes the lead, followed by abamectin, Bt and gibberellin.

Main biopesticides in China

1. Microbial pesticides

Among 25 registered microbial pesticides ais, nine are bacteria, seven are fungi, and nine are viruses.

Table 1. Microbial and viral biopesticides used in ChinaNames of microbes Total No of

registrationsTotal No of

manufacturersPesticide

type

Bacillus thuringiensis 132 85 insecticide

Bacillus cereus 4 4 fungicide

Bacillus subtilis 11 8 fungicide

Bacillus licheniformis 1 1 fungicide

Paecilomyces lilacinus 6 3 nematicide

Verticillium chlamydosporium ZK7

2 1 nematicide

Paenibacillus polymyza 3 1 fungicide

Trichoderma spp 5 2 fungicide

Conidioblous thromboide 1 1 fungicide

Bacillus sphaericus H5a5b 3 2 insecticide

Pseudomonas fluorescens 2 1 fungicide

Beauveria bassiana 7 1 insecticide

Metarhizium anisopliae 7 3 insecticide

Pierisrapae granulosis virus (GV)

2 1 insecticide

Ectropis obliqua Nuclear polyhedrois virus (NPV)

2 1 insecticide

Heliothis armigera NPV 19 11 insecticide

Dendrolimus punctatus cytoplasmic polyhedrosis virus

2 2 insecticide

Laphygma exigua NPV 5 2 insecticide

Autographa californica NPV 2 1 insecticide

Plutella xylostella GV 1 1 insecticide

Spodoptera litura NPV 3 1 insecticide

Periplaneta fuliginosa densovirus

1 1 insecticide

XVI www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

Biopesticides

Microbial pesticides make up one of the largest groups in biopesticides, involving around 300 products. The largest sub-group of microbial pesticides is Bt, comprising 167 products. The most used Bt formulations in China are wettable powders (WP) and suspension concentrates (SC).

China also has achieved progress in microbial fungicides and insecticides. There has been active research and application of Bacillus spp as biofungicides. B subtilis has been used to control rice blast, vegetable grey mould, powdery mildew, and B cereu is used against rice blast, rice false smut and rice sheath blight in China. B bassiana has been widely used to control long-horned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), Micromelalopha troglodyte, pin moth, and fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea). The registration of viral pesticides has increased significantly, with some 19 products, mainly in WP and SC formulations. For instance, Heliothis armigera NPV has been well accepted to control cotton bollworms. Sporozoans have been used to target control of grasshoppers.

2. Agricultural antibiotics

There are 13 registered agricultural antibiotic ais in China and there are around 1,700 products containing these ais. Abamectin is the leading ai and there are 1,220 products based on it. The main formulations are EC, WP, microencapsulations (ME) and emulsions in water (EW). The second most important ai is Jinggangmycin, of which 300 products have been registered. The main formulations of are WP and SC. Jinggangmycin has been used against rice sheath blight since the 1970s, and some 35,000 tonnes (formulation) are used annually on 10-13 million ha on rice. It has had some resistance issues recently and polyoxin has been gradually replacing Jinggangmycin due to its lower cost, higher efficacy and broader spectrum. Polyoxin has estimated sales of around $160 million.

Table 2. Agricultural antibiotics registered in China Names of microbes Total No of


manufacturersPesticide type

abamectin or avermectin (inluding abamectin-aminomethyl)

1,005 482 insecticide

spinosad 16 9 insecticide

Jinggangmycin 160 92 fungicide

kasugamycin 56 40 fungicide

polyoxin 65 44 fungicide

cytosinpeptidemycin 2 1 fungicide

ningnanmycin 4 1 fungicide

streptomycin sulfate 6 4 fungicide

phenazino-1-carboxylic 3 2 fungicide

tetramycin 2 1 fungicide

Ruo Du Suo Jun Du Su 3 2 rodenticide

China has patented dozens of agricultural antibiotics since the 1990s, including jietacin, meilingmycin, ningnanmycin, polarmycin, yimeijunsu, men-myco-93-63 and wanlongmycin. Ningnanmycin and zhongshengmycin are in the initial stages of commercialisation.

3. Botanical pesticides

China has carried out botanical pesticide research since the 1930s. In the higher plants, those of the Compositae family were found to have insecticidal and fungicidal activities. Meliaceae plants have proven to be repellent and have anti-feedant effects on harmful insects. Celastraceae plant extracts control insects on rice, maize and vegetables. Selaginellaceae and Thymelaeaceae plants are other hot spots for biopesticide research. The botanical pesticides can be classified chemically as follows:

Alkaloids: nicotine, matrine, coptisine, wilfordine, stemonine, capsaicin, veratridine Terpenes: azadirachtin, toosendanin, tea saponin, celangulin Naphthoquinones and flavonoids: oxymatrine, rotenone, elliptinone Volatile oils: daisy oil, peppermint oil, cinnamon oil Light activated toxin class: wormwood diyne Carboxylic esters: pyrethrin Steroidal: sterone, ecdysterone

Some 17 botanical pesticides and over 200 products have been registered. The main formulation is aqeous solution (AS). The most registered product is matrine (54 products), followed by brassinolide (35 products).

Table 3. Botanical pesticides registered in ChinaBotanical pesticides No of

registrationNo of


matrine 60 47 insecticide/fungicide

eugenol 4 4 fungicide

azadirachtin 15 9 insecticide

rotenone 14 10 insecticide

pyrethrins 9 5 insecticide

cnidiadin 4 2 insecticide/fungicide

vertrine 4 3 insecticide

nicotine 7 6 insecticide

Celastrus angulatus 2 1 insecticide

camphor (d-camphor) 5 5 insecticide

curcumol 2 1 rodenticide

Da Huang Su Jia Mi 2 1 fungicide

eucalyptol 2 2 insecticide

carvacrol 1 1 fungicide

ethylicin 19 14 fungicide

continued on page XVIII . . .

XVI www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 ©Informa UK Ltd 2013 www.agrow.com XVII

Biopesticides

4. Biochemical pesticides

Biochemical pesticides are naturally occurring substances that control pests by non-toxic mechanisms. Biochemical pesticides include substances, such as pheromones, which interfere with mating, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps. The application acreage is around 6 million ha annually.

Table 4. Biochemical pesticides registered in ChinaBiochemical pesticides Total No of



cyromazine 45 31 insect growth regulator

Yi Shi Jing 9 7 insect growth regulator

chlorbenzuron 35 23 insect growth regulator

diflubenzuron 37 26 insect growth regulator

hexaflumuron 87 75 insect growth regulator

trimedlure 1 1 insect attractant

torula yeast 1 1 insect attractant

Z-8-dodecen-1-yl acetate, Z-8-dodecen-1-ol, E-8-dodecen-1-yl acetate

2 1 sex pheromone

muscalure 2 2 insect attractant

gibberellic acid 74 33 PGR

4-indol-3-yl butyric acid 5 5 PGR

indol-3-yl acetic acid 3 3 PGR

ethephon 91 72 PGR

triacontanol 11 8 PGR

oxyenadenine 3 1 PGR

6-benzylamino-purine 8 4 PGR

oligosaccharins 14 13 fungicide/PGR

fungal proteoglycan 15 11 fungicide

Chitosan 4 4 Plant induced resistance

agent/PGR

oligosaccharins (Pu Jv Xi Tang)

2 1 fungicide

oligosaccharins 2 2 Plant induced resistance

agent/fungicide

harpin protein 2 2 PGR

Ruo Du Suo Jun Du Su 3 2 rodenticide

Biopesticides of animal origin can be classified into the following categories: insect endogenous hormone, ecdysone, pheromone, and repellent. Until now, thousands of juvenile hormones have been synthesised, but only

XVIII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013

. . . China continued from page XVII methoprene, Meng -512 and fenoxycarb have been registered and commercialised. There have so far been no reports that repellents can be applied to agriculture.

Six ais and around 100 products have been registered in China, the most important being gibberellic acid. Pheromone-based products have developed rapidly due to their low dosage, no pollution and environmentally friendly formulations.

5. Predatory insects

Research has been under way since the 1970s on the successful mechanised production of artificial eggs of Trichogramma dendrolimi and Anastatus japonicas. T dendrolimi is used to control corn borers and sugar cane borers, covering 500,000-600,000 ha annually. A japonicas is used against Tessaratoma papillosa Drury on some 800,000 ha. In recent years, Amblyseius cucumeris was reared and successfully employed to control leaf mites in Fujian, Guangdong, and Xinjiang. It will be registered and commercialised soon. Hebei Plant Protection Institute used Microplitis mediator to control cotton bollworm (second generation) with efficacy of higher than 76%. It is expected that more and more natural enemies will be used as IPM tools in the future.

Table 5 Predatory insects registered in China Predatory insects Total No of

registrationsTotal No of manufacturers

Pesticide types

Trichogramma dendrolimi matsumura

1 3 insecticide

Anastatus japonicas 1 1 insecticide

Outlook

There are more than 30 biopesticide research institutes with 20,000 researchers exploring opportunities in biopesticides in China. Combining strain breeding and improved fermentation technologies, Chinese researchers have increased abamectin fermentation efficiency by over 30 times, while the productivity of agricultural antibiotic 120 and Bt have been enhanced by three times and five times, respectively. The production cost has been cut by 5-25% by optimised processing and formulation improvement.

The Syngenta natural products innovation centre has been recently set up in Optics Valley, Wuhan. It was jointly built by Hubei Academy of Agricultural National Biopesticide Engineering Research Center and Syngenta. This is the first Sino-foreign natural product innovation centre. Both sides will be devoted to creating microbial pesticides and other leading compounds, providing a platform of biopesticide R&D with the aim of improving biopesticide research facilities in China.

Biopesticides

XVIII www.agrow.com ©Informa UK Ltd 2013
















1.

2.

3.

4.



Join the discussion todayWe want to know your thoughts

For more information about Agrow, email [email protected]

Join Agrow today on...Join us on Twitter – twitter.com/AGROW_News

Join the Crop Protection and Agrochemicals Network

1,500+ industry professionals

Receive breaking industry news

Share your opinions and

Network with:

– discussion initiated and compiled by Leila Nabih(Agrow Intelligence)

◼ 1,500+ industry professionals

◼ Receive breaking industry news

◼ Share your opinions and discuss your views with others

Social media chatter on biopesticides

When we initiated a discussion on biopesticides in Agrow’s LinkedIn group (Crop protection and Agrochemicals Network) comprising almost 8,000 members, the result was an animated discussion. We present some of the comments here.

n 4,000 industry professionals

n Receive breaking industry news

n Share your opinions and discuss your views with others

“The consolidation or intensive M&As in the biopesticide sector during the past year does lend a lot of credibility to the industry. When the big agchem players are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in acquisitions of smaller companies with good products in the pipeline, you know this is not snake oil business. However, this consolidation does make it difficult for smaller players to participate in this market sector in the future. The barriers to entry will be heightened for small players by the big ones who have the financial resources to meet the current strict registration regimes in the developed markets.

The main constraints for growth in this sector still lies with the current strict, and therefore expensive, registration requirements. Another major aspect is the fact that biopesticides remain less robust in performance compared to chemical pesticides. Having said that, it is not always true that chemicals out-perform bio ones.”

C S Liew, managing director, Pacific Agriscience, Singapore

“I believe that the big companies are responding to market demand for alternatives to conventional chemical control practices. I am pleased to see them enter into this arena and add strong science to this field as it has merit but requires logistical support and capital leverage to implement on a broad scale. Therefore the big companies should be welcomed as they provide not only the science and support but also the credence that is necessary.

I do not believe that this will inhibit small companies with quality products and marketing concepts. I believe that it will enhance market growth and awareness that biologicals can economically and technically function in the these markets.

Some of the greatest constraints to biologicals are:1. Small market sizes 2. Need for performance proof.3. Shelf life of products. 4. Economics. 5. Clutter of unsupportable claims in the market arena.”

Walter Wayne Surles, president, W S Associates, USA

“For mainstream use at least it has always been difficult for smaller biopesticide manufacturers due to (perceived) poor efficacy and unrelenting regulatory requirements. Most BPs registered to date (Bts excluded) have had a limited but important niche roles, especially so for those with high specificity such as baculoviruses.

Large players becoming involved was inevitable and I consider will actually assist small players as the large companies put more resources into educating industry and governments about the benefits and risks.

Significant effort is required to assist regulators come to terms with the different risks involved and how current data requirements may not be relevant and indeed possible with many biologicals.

Gavin Hall, senior consultant, DeGroot Technical Services, Australia

“It is a trend and this is the reason that some big CP players jumped into this segment. Public opinion plays an important role and they look towards 'green' products positively. It is clear that biopesticide is an additional tool to raise crops sustainably.”

Rodrigo Egéa de Miranda, independent consultant, Brazil








Network with:

Are national government spending cutbacks for public sector research a bad thing? Do we need an alternative to private sector research?Over 2,500 industry professionals follow Agrow on LinkedIn and Twitter. Our aim is to encourage debate on pertinent topics at an international level. Excerpts from the latest discussion are presented here.

“In the ‘developed world’, the private sector can and will do research for major crops in major growing areas. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does leave out minor crops. While diverse and spread out, minor crops and minor growing regions remain important to the food system and local economies. Locally and regionally funded re-search is needed to deal with local pests, climates, nutrient needs. Private sector funding does not exist here, so public is needed. While I tend to lean towards free-market economics, it doesn’t work in agricultural research or education.”

Bradley Mitchell, Massachussetts Farm Bureau Federation, US

“Any time a government programme or spending is changed or eliminated, it hurts in the short-run because the programme and spending altered private market decisions and it takes time for the market to readjust. Ultimately, allocating resources to research and development is no different than any other resource allocation decision. Those decisions are best left to the market and to profit motives, even in the area of agriculture research and education.”

Lyle Riggs, managing attorney at Riggs Law

“While it is often the case that the market steps up, there are many situations where there is no alternative to public research in agri-culture. Look at minor crops and pesticides. If it weren’t for public IR-4 funding, we would lose a lot of registrations on minor crops, where it simply isn’t in the industry’s financial interest to continue a registration.”


“If there is no profit motive (financial interest) in producing a crop, a product or maintaining a registration, then the resources allocated to those activities should be re-allocated to activities consistent with profit motive and not artificially propped up by public funding. History is replete with products that were once profitable that have fallen into disuse because of a change in profit motivation. The transition can be and usually is difficult, but it results in a better use of finite resources. It is no different for funding agriculture research and development.”


“There is always a debate between public (generally done for the general good) and private (generally done to make profits for share holders) funding streams and some dual business model is needed. In the UK, the government has put in place a new system called ‘not-for-profit’ organisations that may well help. There is currently a growing ethos that is questioning ‘red in tooth and claw’ capitalism, it remains to be seen what new business models may transpire.”

Keith Davies, University of Hertfordshire

“A joint effort between the government and the private sector is an option which can be explored.”

Florence Vasquez, Bayer CropScience

“Spending cutbacks are a current problem we suffer from in Egypt and the solution isn’t in the alternatives but in the integration and co-operation between both sectors.”

Ibrahim Gohar, professor of plant nematology, Egypt

- compiled by Leila Nabih (Agrow Intelligence)











Network with:



























Network with:



























Network with:




















“Mixtures of conventional chemicals and biologicals could work in future, but mix compatibility/formulations both in tank and on plant will need more research. Mixing different modes of action could be beneficial, or chem and bio-based protectants having different molecular modes of action will help to prevent resistance.

- In general I think there'll still be opportunities for small companies to discover and market innovative new bio-based Ag agents. Larger companies will scan these offerings and similar to the pharma arena (at lower value-in-use), selectively acquire bio-Ag products, technologies or whole companies.

- The larger companies being involved does lend increased credibility to the field, and adds a lot of science, technology, registration and marketing expertise and reach.

- I believe bio-based Ag products' biggest promise is in delivering novel modes of increasing Ag yields, such as the growth stimulants, agents acting in novel ways on the rhizosphere, and novel complementary protection MOA's. Some of these areas haven't had much fundamental research.

- At least one challenge for the field will remain consistent performance and stability given current agronomic practices. If a Biological does work but requires such specialized formulation, storage, application etc that growers aren't used to implementing it economically, there could be problems.”

Keith D Wing, life science strategic advisor, US

“The involvement of the major companies brings credibility to biopesticides and gives justification for investing in biopesticide development.

While the big companies are becoming involved, I believe it will be small companies with dedicated staff focussed on their small product ranges that will continue to be the key to establishing novel biopesticide products.

With the large companies becoming involved the innovators/entrepreneurs now have an opportunity to develop their products and sell them to a major company, as has been happening in the pharmaceutical industry for some time. A viable exit strategy for the innovators/initial investors is now developing.

A hurdle that still needs to be overcome is the need for investors to know how much development of these products will cost and how long before a new product can be sold.”

Michael Tichon, principal consultant, Competitive Advantage, Australia

“Big company participation will benefit the farmers who are looking for alternatives to chemical control. The companies will avail larger quantities of the biocontrol agents and a wider choice of products hence lower the prices and cost of production. More research is however, required to make available products in appropriate carriers for field conditions and those that can work in a variety of environmental conditions.”

Dorah Kilalo, lecturer, researcher and extension adviser, University of Nairobi, Kenya

“After the M&A moves of the majors there are not that many innovative companies left to be taken! Bio-control is developing but will not be the panacea. The integration of all the means nutrition - protection - stimulation - breeding (classical and GMO) will need further development.”

Michel de Rougemont, owner, Enterprise Consulting, Switzerland

“This market will develop, however one the main problem is the lack of the knowledge about interactions between particular biological product, this matter is much more complicated than mixing of chemicals or mixing bio with the chemicals. Unfortunately as of today I do not know anybody who is developing that kind of research.”

Piotr Zajkowski, owner, BioAgris, Poland

“There are three main tracks to improve crop yields (other than fertiliser effects). Traditional chemical PPP application, GMO crops or biopesticides.

In the EU and USA, the regulatory hurdles for PPP chemical safety evaluation for human health and the environment are getting higher and higher (high cost, many failures due to hazard rather than risk assessment, long testing periods before market). In the EU, the concept of using GMOs is far from accepted, despite a very high level of safety in use. Only one option remains. No surprise that large PPP organisations are looking carefully at biopesticides and bio-plant-growth-regulants.”

David Esdaile, scientific director, CiToxLAB, Hungary

CONSULTANCIES

Agrooh Bioscience translationsLost in translation?? Agrooh is a global provider of multilingual translations and many other linguistic services in the Agribusiness & Food sectors. We have worked extensively for these industries for 15 years. Our services are available in over 40 languages. • Services: translation, interpreting, video transcription, brand screening, website & other IT tool localization, dtp. • Type of documents: regulatory dossiers, scientific articles, MSDS, product labels & brochures, market research questionnaires, promotional material.Contact: Pauline IjdenbergWeb: www.agrooh.com Email: [email protected]

APCAchieve National, European and International Registrations and maximise your regulatory product portfolio and associated sales potential.APC’s worldwide team of chemists, agronomists, toxicologists and environmental experts provide regulatory services to the Agrochemical (1107/2009), Biocide (98/8/ EC) and Chemical (REACH) industries. APC provides a complete range of dossier compilation services to achieve product registration in EU Member States: • Evaluating what uses can potentially be registered according to new EU risk assessments. • Data Gap Analysis (DGA). • Data Matching evaluations. • Technical Equivalence submissions. • Managing studies and field trials. • Prepare and submit active substance and product dossiers (including post submission) • Co-ordinating multi-company Task Forces.Offices worldwide including: UK, France, Spain, Poland, Australia and Brasil Tel: +44 (0) 1937 547677 Email: [email protected] Scientific. Geographic. Strategic www.apc.eu.com

Brixham Environmental LaboratoryBrixham Environmental Laboratory, is a leading industrial environmental science facility with a worldwide reputation. We offer laboratory based assessment of the environmental effects, ecotoxicity and environmental fate of substances. Intelligent approaches to testing and state-of-the art, GLP compliant facilities, enable us to deliver solution driven science to meet customers’ needs. www.brixham-lab.com

Compliance Services International (CSI)Since 1988, Compliance Services International (CSI) has been specialising in regulatory and scientific consultation to the crop protection and allied industries. CSI’s services include agrochemical, biocide and chemical registration (including under REACH), hazard assessment (including QSAR and GHS CLP), exposure assessment (including modelling), risk assessment (including for endangered species), contract research management, data compensation evaluations, and regulatory due diligence. www.complianceservices.com [email protected]

EBRCEBRC services include full regulatory support for plant protection products, biocides and industrial chemicals (REACH). Assistance is provided for plant protection product registrations according to all EU national legislations and EU requirements, including biological dossiers, complex exposure/risk assessments and computer modelling of environmental fate behaviour. Additional speciality services are available for non-crop uses of active substances, but also for niche products (such as rodenticides) and inorganic compounds. Dossier compilation is available in CADDY as well as IUCLID format. Task force management, project coordination and scientific monitoring of experimental investigations complete this package of services.

www.ebrc.de

Ecotox Services InternationalUnit 27, 2 Chaplin Drive, Lane Cove, Sydney, 2066 Australia Tel: 0061 2 9420 9481Located in Australia, Ecotox services International (ESI) is able to offer honey bee studies off season, in addition to providing the standard suite of ecotoxicity studies. ESI was formed specifically to provide contract ecotoxicity testing services for chemicals and products for international regulatory assessment purposes in compliance with the OECD Principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.ecotox.com.au

EuroChemLink EuroChemLink is a registration consultancy handling agrochemicals, biocides, and general chemicals under REACH. Thirty year’s experience in European registrations in all member states and in working with the European Commission we offer task force management, dossier preparation, preparation of dossiers in CADDY and IUCLID, plus study placement and monitoring.www.eurochemlink.com Email: [email protected]

Exwold Technology LimitedPO Box 270, Brenda Road, Hartlepool, TS25 2BW, UKExwold Technology is a UK based contract processing and formulation company dedicated to servicing the Crop Protection & Speciality Chemicals markets. With two manufacturing sites for the production of extruded granules, we are recognized as specialists in formulation of Agrochemicals and produce 1000’s of tonnes of WDGs every year. We now have a further stand alone facility dedicated to the formulation of High Potency herbicides which ensure high levels of containment and cross contamination control . In addition, we have impregnation and coating capabilities which allow us to produce herbicide and insecticide granules for direct application and compliments our extensive facilities for blending and compaction. We are pleased to offer a trusted, fast and flexible service to companies around the world. Our pilot facility and years of experience allow us to support you through your development process and as your partner in chemical processing, we are able to continually develop & optimise your process. We are accredited to ISO 9001 & 14001 and have an excellent safety record. Tel: 0044 1429 230340 Web: www.exwold.com Email: [email protected]

JSC InternationalRegulatory specialists, with backgrounds from government, contract research and industry, providing a comprehensive service to the agrochemical, biocide and chemical industries. Our advice is unbiased and ethical, finding the quickest and most economical route through the regulatory maze. www.jsci.co.uk Email: [email protected]

LKC Switzerland Ltd P.O. Box 167, CH-4414 Füllinsdorf, Switzerland Tel +41 61 906 85 00 Fax +41 61 906 85 09 [email protected] LKC Switzerland (LKC) provides independent registration and development expert services to the specialty chemicals industry. Chemical manufacturing companies with a need for strategic advice on development, resubmissions, renewals and product authorisations, dossier preparation, risk assessments and study monitoring for plant protection products, biocides, veterinary medicines and industrial chemicals can benefit from LKC’s experience and resources. LKC has affiliates in the UK and a global network including USA and Japan to enable LKC to offer EU and global regulatory support. www.LKC-ltd.com

Polgar ACRO (Kft)Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, BelarusH-1031 Budapest, Szentendrei ut 190/B, I floor, 8, HungaryTel: +36-70-315 77 66 Fax: +36-1-437 03 52 Comprehensive regulatory assistance in CIS region Polgar ACRO delivers wide range of regulatory services in CIS (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Belarus) including comprehensive support for registration of pesticides, biocides, bio pesticides, microbials, fertilizers, pest control agents, surfactants and other products. Our experienced regulatory affairs specialists are ready to provide professional assistance in the dossier preparation, study management, organization of trials and communication with authorities. Apart from that, Polgar ACRO offers organization of demo-trials and public hearings, assistance in patent issues and registration of brand names. www.polgar-acro.eu Email: [email protected]

RIFCON GmbHRIFCON is a dynamic independent consultancy specialised in providing the full range of support services needed to get plant protection products registered in the EU. Our regulatory affairs experts have an excellent track record in the preparation of Annex II dossiers, draft registration reports, biological assessment dossiers and numerous associated documents and submission services. Our experienced scientific staff design and implement a comprehensive range of higher tier ecotox field studies, efate modeling and risk assessment refinements in all areas – of course in complete accordance with current EU and national legislation.www.rifcon.de Email: [email protected]

BUYER’S GUIDE

SCC – Scientific Consulting CompanyScientific Consulting Company is one of Europe’s largest consulting companies for the registration of agrochemicals and biopesticides, biocides, chemicals, consumer products, feed & food additives and veterinary medicine. A wide range of experienced scientific experts are the backbone of our company, assuring our clients of competent and continuous consultancy for the complete spectrum of registration issues. Furthermore, SCC provides task force/consortia management, REACH services and Only Representative, and special archiving solutions for managing regulatory and GLP data. SCC is internationally active, including its Liaison Office in Japan. Our motto is: We take care!

www.scc-gmbh.de Email: [email protected]

MARKET RESEARCH

GfK Kynetec LimitedWeston Court, Weston Newbury, Berkshire, RG20 8JE, UK Tel: +44 1488 649135GfK’s Crop & Animal Health is the leading global, full-service, full-spectrum market research company providing market research and consulting services to the crop protection, seed, biotechnology and farm machinery industries. With offices across North America, Europe and Asia, GfK provides a comprehensive range of information, advanced market tools and consultancy. www.gfk-kynetec.com Email: [email protected]

Specialty Products Consultants, LLC35 East Main Street, Mendham, New Jersey 07945 USTel: +1-973-543-5195SPC is the recognized leading provider of market research studies to the U.S. specialty (non-crop) pesticide industry. SPC clients include a significant majority of the suppliers serving the professional turf and ornamental and structural pest control markets. SPC’s transaction-based studies, SPCexpress™, track in-season sales and market share performance for non-crop pesticides.www.SPCresearch.com; www.SPCexpress.com; www.SPCexpressPest.com

CONTRACT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS

BioChem agrar GmbHWe are a German based CRO providing a wide range of services for the registration of agro-chemicals (GLP compliant). It is our aim to support the registration of your products with studies in the field of Ecotoxicology (lab & field), Field Testing (Residue & Processing-, Efficacy-, Variety- testing), Environmental Fate (lab & field) and Residue Analysis. www.biochemagrar.de [email protected]

CEMASCEM Analytical Services Ltd. (CEMAS), Glendale Park, Fernbank Road, North Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 8JB, UK Tel: +44 (0)1344 887100CEMAS is a GLP-compliant contract research organisation established in the UK in 1989 that specialises in providing high quality regulatory data for plant protection products, biocides and industrial chemicals. Key services provided include method development, residue analysis, animal transfer studies, agrochemical and biocide product analysis, formulation development, operator exposure, ecotoxicology, soil characterisation, efficacy, REACh and the generation of regulatory dossiers.www.cemas.co.uk Email: [email protected]

Smithers Viscient Smithers Viscient North America Tel: +1 508 295 2550 Smithers Viscient Europe Tel: +44 (0) 1423 532 710Smithers Viscient Japan Tel: +81-42-519-1172

Smithers Viscient is a global Contract Research Organization (CRO) providing environmental testing, toxicology, and regulatory services for the crop protection, pharmaceutical, industrial chemical, and consumer product industries. Smithers Viscient has performed standard guideline and higher-tiered environmental studies for over 40 years. We conduct studies to satisfy all regulatory requirements globally.www.smithersviscient.com Email: [email protected]

TECAMGLP Testing LaboratoryAgrochemicals, seeds, biopesticides, biotech products.Testing on Toxicology, Physico-chemistry, Ecotoxicology, etcVisit our site: www.tecam.com.br.Contact: Tecam Laboratories [email protected] Tel: +5511 3677-2553

Innovative Environmental Services (IES) Ltd IES is an independent Swiss CRO with headquarters in the region of Basel. We perform GLP studies in Environmental Fate, Plant Metabolism, Ecotoxicology and Analytical Chemistry and also provide Regulatory Consulting Services (including Modelling & Statistics) in order to support the development, registration and stewardship of agro-chemical, biotechnological and chemical products. Quality, flexibility and innovative solutions is our mission.www.ies-ltd.ch Email: [email protected]

SGS Group SGS Seed & Crop Services is a leading global Contract Research Organization providing an international in-house network of field trial stations and GLP laboratories for sponsors’ product development and registration programs in Europe, Africa, North America, Latin America and Asia-Pacific for plant protection products, biocides, fertilizers, seeds (incl. GMO) and other agricultural inputs. In addition to the field and laboratory capabilities, SGS service portfolio also includes study directorship, global project management as well as regulatory services from data GAP analysis to CADDY dossier submission.

SGS is the world’s leading inspection, verification, testing and certification company. SGS is recognised as the global benchmark for quality and integrity. With more than 70 000 employees, SGS operates a network of over 1,350 offices and laboratories around the world. Tel: +41 22 739 9111 www.sgs.com/seedandcrop Email: [email protected]

MANUFACTURERS

Agri LifeManufactures BioPesticides viz. Bt-K, Bt-I, Trichoderma viride, Trichoderma harzianum, Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium anisopliae, Verticillium lecanii, Azadirachtin, Karanjin – supported by basic data package. Agri Life offers BioFertilizers like Nitrogen Fixing Bacteria, Phosphorous Solubilizing Bacteria, Potash Mobilizing Bacteria, Ferrous Mobilizing Bacteria, Zinc Mobilizing Bacteria, Mn Mobilizing Bacteria, Sulfur Mobilizing Bacteria, VAM etc.www.agrilife.in Email: [email protected]

Bharat Group Established three decades ago, we are one of India’s leading manufacturers and exporters of Pesticides Technical, Formulations and Intermediates. Our high customer satisfaction has enabled us to reach turnover of USD 100 Millions. All Group Companies are ISO 9001:2008 and ISO 14001:2004 certified. Bharat Rasayan Ltd., the flagship company, has annual capacity of 10000MT. A new Technical Manufacturing Plant of 25000MT capacity is being set up at Dahej, Gujarat. Our Registration Department has ready dossiers for all products with full toxicology information. Some of our competitive products are : A) Synthetic Pyrethroids: Cypermethrin, Permethrin, Bifenthrin, Fenvalerate, Lambda Cyhalothrin, Chlorpyrifos, Chlorpyrifos Methyl, Ethion, Phenthoate and Clodinafop Propargyl. B) Intermediates : MPBD, MPBAL and many more. www.bharatgroup.co.in Email: [email protected]

Jiangsu Luye Agrochemicals Co., LtdJiangsu Luye Agrochemicals Co., Ltd is a high-tech enterprise which places the equal stress on R&D and production in China. We are mainly engaged in R&D, production and sales of pesticides, chemical intermediates and fine chemicals. Upholding the tenet of “Establish Famous Brand through Quality, Occupy the Market with Famous Brand”, we constantly strive to provide excellent products and customer services to promote agricultural development worldwide. www.luyeagrochem.com Email: [email protected] [email protected]

To see your company in Agrow’s classified section, contact [email protected] on 020 3377 3911

BUYER’S GUIDE

Protecting a growing worldA growing population is stretching the world’s resources, calling for new levels of effi ciency in crop production and harvesting.Our eco-friendly alternatives to conventionalfumigants can help protect the world’s valuable food chains. And your livelihood.

Visit us today cropscience.linde-gas.com to see why Linde is the partner of choice for more sustainable agricultural choices.

17422_Linde_Fumigants_Advert_AGROW_AW_v2.indd 1 15/04/2013 15:25

Documents

agrow.agribusinessintelligence.informa.com...Created Date: 4/24/2013 4:36:08 PM