Launch Ghent University Consortium: Biostimulants and … · 2016-04-18 · 16:05: Eliminating barriers to innovation and creating a single EU market for biostimulants by Philip Delistoyanov

Launch Ghent University Consortium:Biostimulants and Biocontrol Agents

Programme

15.00: Introduction by Jacques Van Outryve

15.05: Are bio-fertilizers a viable option for intensifying smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa? Or mostly ‘snake-oil’ by Bernard van Lauwe (IITA)

15:35: Developing biofungicides: from a discover to a plant protection product by Ilaria Pertot (Fondazione Edmund Mach)

16:05: Eliminating barriers to innovation and creating a single EU market for biostimulants by Philip Delistoyanov (EBIC)

16:35: Debate: Role of biostimulants and biocontrol agents in sustainable agriculture and horticulture

17.15: Launch Consortium 'Biostimulants and Biocontrol Agents‘ by Geert Haesaert & Maaike Perneel

17.30: Network reception

Programme








B Vanlauwe, M Thuita, A Abdelgadir, C Masso

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

(IITA)

Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected]

Are bio-fertilizers a viable option for

intensifying smallholder farming systems in

sub-Saharan Africa? Or mostly ‘snake-oil’

Full Definition of snake oil: any of

various substances or mixtures sold

(as by a traveling medicine show) as

medicine usually without regard to

their medical worth or properties

Snake oil

The COMPRO project

(‘Commercial Products’)

COMPRO project justification

In COMPRO- phase I (2007-2012):

Over 100 commercial agricultural products, including microbial

inoculants, bio-fertilizers and chemical agents, were evaluated under

controlled greenhouse and field conditions

Only a few products have a potential economic benefit to the

farmer, and only on the condition that the commercial product is

utilized correctly, using the appropriate accompanying measures

Goals

COMPRO-II (2013-2018) will: Objective 1: Dissemination of at least 3 effective products to

smallholder farmer households

Objective 2: Continued screening and evaluation of new products

Objective 3: Establishment and institutionalization of quality control

and regulatory mechanisms

Objective 4: Communication of information on commercial products

Objective 5: Project management, M&E, and capacity building

Tanzania Uganda Ghana Kenya Ethiopia Nigeria

Bio-fertilizer

regulatory frameworkNone None None Yes None None

Bio-pesticide

regulatory frameworkYes None Weak Yes None None

Status of bio-fertilizer

frameworkNone None None Active None Weak

Status of bio-

pesticides frameworkDormant None Weak Active None None

Intensification of

agriculture

No realistic alternatives in densely populated areas

Kenya

Intensification of agriculture

Variability in within-farm soil fertility status

Good soil

Poor soilSame farm…

Same variety…

Same inputs…

Same management…

Same weather…


Somewhere in Europe…

‘Sustainable’ Intensification

Sustainable Intensification of agriculture

Ill-defined but usually having a number of dimensions:

(i) Production of more food, feed, fuel and/or fiber per unit of land,

labor, and/or capital used

(ii) Conservation and harnessing of ecosystem services, including

those delivered by healthy soils and biodiversity

(iii) Resilience to shocks and stresses, including climate change

The concept of SI has been increasingly supplemented with

additional considerations:

Economic (profitability and equity)

Social (culture, gender, participation)

Human (food security and nutrition)

Etc

ConceptuallyP

rod

uct

ivit

y

Low High

Low

Hig

h

Soil fertility status

Sustainable Intensification of agriculture

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

Low High

Low

Hig

h

Time

Time

Soil fertility status

Slash-and burn systems

Towards Sustainable Intensification

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

Soil fertility statusLow High

Low

Hig

h

X

Time

Time

Shortened/absent fallows


Pro

du

ctiv

ity


Low

Hig

h Shortened/absent fallows

3. Towards Sustainable Intensification

+ NP fertilizer

+ NP fertilizer

+ Manure

Pro

du

ctiv

ity


Low

Hig

h

Initial

status

Time


X[Unless incentive

schemes (e.g. payment

for environmental

services)]

Integrated Soil Fertility

Management (ISFM)

Non-responsive soils

Pro

du

ctiv

ity


Low

Hig

h

Integrated Soil Fertility Management

‘A set of soil fertility management practices that necessarily

include the use of fertilizer, organic inputs, and improved

germplasm combined with the knowledge on how to adapt

these practices to local conditions, aiming at maximizing

agronomic use efficiency of the applied nutrients and

improving crop productivity. All inputs need to be managed

following sound agronomic principles’


ISFM integrates knowledge/experiences gathered over the past

decades on farming systems and best agronomic practices:


Ag

ron

om

ic e

ffic

ien

cy

- Plant growth

- Pest/disease

suppression

- Biol. N fixation

- Nutrient uptake

processes

Vision towards intensification in the South

Vision towards intensification in the South

LSMS data (Sheahan & Barrett, 2014)

The African Union Ministers of Agriculture convened in

Abuja on 12 June 2006 for the Africa Fertilizer Summit:

‘…from the current average of 8 kilograms per hectare to an

average of at least 50 kilograms per hectare by 2015’

What have we learnt

about bio-fertilizers and

bio-pesticides?

1. If the theoretical potential is limited, then the practical

potential usually is limited too

Twin-N- Azorhizobium, Azoarcus and Azospirillum spp

Leguspirflo–Azospirrilum

Legumefix- Bradyrhizobium Japonicum

Evaluation of COMPROs in the greenhouse

* *

0

100

200

300

400

SE

D

cont

rol

Legu

mef

ix

Legu

spi

rflo

Tw

in-N

Nd

fa (

mg

N p

lan

t-1)

Nyala TGx1740-2FSED



2. Even if there is theoretical potential, practical effects may be

limited; the final judge is the field!

Biocontrol agent for Striga hermonthica control

Rasche et al, 2016

Success of Foxy-2 as a BCA

Biocontrol efficacy in farmer-managed trials (20 locations, 13 with resistant, 7 with susceptible)




limited; the final judge is the field

3. Bio-fertilizers are no ‘magic’ – they often require co-

application of other soil amendments

Without inoculant With inoculant

Rhizobium inoculants

Need for P (& other nutrients) for rhizobium

inoculants to

fix substantial

amounts of N

Without P

With P





4. With proven effective products, variation in soil fertility

conditions affects responses (agronomic and economic);

farmers need to be aware of risk when using bio-fertilizers



Good soil

Poor soilSame farm…

Same variety…

Same inputs…

Same management…

Same weather…


Multi-locational trials

Control

without

fertilizer

With

DAP

applied


Fertilizer application to beans in Rwanda

Novel agronomy

350

350

Fertilizer application to beans in Rwanda

Novel agronomy

Soil heterogeneity affects agronomic and

economic responses

Inoculant and P fertilizer application to soybean in Nigeria

Ronner et al, 2016





5. Effectiveness at field level is affected by supply chain and

storage issues






Rhizobium inoculants

Made in UK

Sterile carrier

Made in Kenya

Non-sterile carrier

Quality of Biofix inoculant

Soybean grain yields in each Division

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Boro Ugunja Ukwala Wagai Yala

So

yb

ean

gra

in y

ield

(kg

/ h

a)

Divisions

Control Biofix + Sympal Legumefix + Sympal

Quality of inoculants





6. Regulatory processes can be a bottleneck rather than

facilitating access to farmers of effective bio-fertilizers

5. Effectiveness at field level is affected by supply chain and

storage issues






Countries wanted to rely on data generated locally by their

national scientists (believing that inoculant performance is highly

related to local conditions); reliance on local isolates (e.g., Ethiopia)

COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa): On-

going process for harmonization of the regulatory requirements of

fertilizers and bio-fertilizers; equivalence of data and mutual

recognition

Regulation and use of inoculants

Conclusions

Conclusions1. Intensification of smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a must

and Sustainable Intensification (SI) a laudable goal

2. SI will necessarily build on existing practices but using these more wisely

(earlier quests for ‘alternative’ agricultural practices have largely failed)

3. Bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides have a role to play in intensifying agriculture

in SSA but lessons learnt need to be considered:

4. Effective bio-stimulants are commonly cheap to apply on a per-hectare basis

but require specific regulation and care in order to deliver on their potential

1. If the theoretical potential is limited, then the practical potential usually is limited too

2. Even with a theoretical potential, practical effects may be limited; the final judge is the field

6. Regulatory processes can be a bottleneck rather than facilitating access to farmers of

effective bio-fertilizers

5. Effectiveness at field level is affected by supply chain and storage issues

3. Bio-fertilizers are no ‘magic’ – they often require co-application of other soil amendments

4. With proven effective products, variation in soil fertility conditions affects responses

(agronomic and economic); farmers need to be aware of risk when using bio-fertilizers

A bit of PR

Business Incubation Platform

Nodumax


Control

Fig. Progressive improvement of batch quality through successive carrier processing

options (Fev- Mar. 015; 2 different bags /batch sampled after curing for assessment)

Cells

pe

r gra

m ino

cu

lant (lo

g C

FU

)

Manufactured and distributed by the IITA Business Incubation

Platform

contains 100 g for application to soybean

store in cool, dry, shaded conditions

avoid direct sunlight, do not freeze


Conclusions1. Intensification of smallholder farming in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a must

and Sustainable Intensification (SI) a laudable goal

2. SI will necessarily build on existing practices but using these more wisely

(earlier quests for ‘alternative’ agricultural practices have largely failed)

3. Bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides have a role to play in intensifying agriculture

in SSA but lessons learnt need to be considered:

4. Effective bio-stimulants are commonly cheap to apply on a per-hectare basis

but require specific regulation and care in order to deliver on their potential

5. There is a future for soil (micro)biology in SSA and IITA is ready to

cooperate with the Biostimulant Consortium!

1. If the theoretical potential is limited, then the practical potential usually is limited too

2. Even with a theoretical potential, practical effects may be limited; the final judge is the field

6. Regulatory processes can be a bottleneck rather than facilitating access to farmers of

effective bio-fertilizers

5. Effectiveness at field level is affected by supply chain and storage issues

3. Bio-fertilizers are no ‘magic’ – they often require co-application of other soil amendments

4. With proven effective products, variation in soil fertility conditions affects responses

(agronomic and economic); farmers need to be aware of risk when using bio-fertilizers

Thank You!

Programme








RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CENTRE

Developing biofungicides: from a

discover to a plant protection product

[email protected] Pertot, Gerardo Puopolo, Guillem Segarra,

Oscar Giovannini, Andrea Nesler, Selena

Tomada, Michele Perazzolli, Giulia Molinatto


60

• Less than 0.1 % of the potentially bioactive microbial biocontrol

agents reaches the market (estimation based on scientific

journals, ‘grey literature’, theses)

• Increased research efforts in the last 10 years (especially in

India, China, Africa, Central and South America)

• Mainly ‘old’ active ingredients on the market (identified 30 years

ago or more)

• Most are new strains of the same well-known species

• Registered products quite often reported to be less effective

than chemical standard

State of the art


61

Economic limiting factors

• Registration: Costs for registration are often prohibitive (about 1.2-

1.5 M€ in Europe, 1 M$ in USA)

• Narrow market: microbial PPPs often highly specific and limited to

organic

Consequence: cost of mPPPs vs. chemicals is higher and RoI is lower

– IT IS NOT ALWAYS TRUE

HP: Effective mPPP integrated with conventional pesticides to reduce

residues on food and for soil applications

New chemicals = specific, 1-2 treatments/year to prevent resistance

Limiting factors - new bioPPP


62

Limiting factors in the use

• Efficacy: less effective and inconsistent (higher risk of losses

and dependence on environmental conditions)

• Knowledge: high technical skills for a successful use; need

confirmation in each new environment

• Cost for growers: expensive, complicate, need monitoring

Consequence: mPPPs vs. chemicals are weak and difficult – IT IS

NOT ALWAYS TRUE

HP: Effective mPPP integrated with conventional pesticides: when

there is an advantage vs. chemical and conditions of application are

correct

Technical limiting factors

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION CENTRE63

Development process

Identification

• At strain level

• Effective (pathogens)

IP protection

• Patent

• Confidentiality

Formulation

• Shelf life

• Increase field efficacy

Production

• Industrial scale-up

• Reducing cost of production

Registration

• Tox and Ecotox

• Efficacy

Market

• Integration in IPM

• Label extension

Identific

atio

n

IP p

rote

ctio

n

Form

ula

tion

Pro

ductio

n

Regis

tratio

n

Mark

et


64

Dual culture or leaf disk screening

• Advantage: high throughput screening

• Bias: Selection of microorganisms producing active

metabolites (antibiosis) under the conditions used in the trial

(substrate, temperature, RH, etc.)

• Real conditions of use are far from the lab conditions (i.e.

spores/conidia need to germinate before being active)

Isolation


In planta screening – conditions closed to reality

• Small scale trials on plantlets: good compromise

• Lower number of potential candidates screened

• More robust and trustable results

• Dual culture or leaf disk test only for specific objectives: i.e. to

characterize the direct effect against the pathogen, preliminary

trials to check the role of metabolites against the pathogen

Isolation - Recommendation


66

Correct identification at species level

• Often identification comes after several efficacy trials: with bad

surprises…

• Species related to human pathogens, production of

metabolites of concern, plant pathogen, etc.

Identification


67

Correct identification at species level

• Identification as early as possible

• Clear taxonomy – molecular level, possibly genome sequencing

• Accurate check of the existing literature at species level

• Wide literature search, also on related-genera

• If isolated from environment, cross-check with strains of the

same species used and biopesticides (molecular similarity)

• Specific markers for strain identification (later stage, although

compulsory for registration)

Identification - Recommendation


68

Other useful tips:

• Prefer strains, which do not grow @ > 36°C

• Verify feasibility of a large scale fermentation (cost of

substrate, submerged vs. solid state, fermentation yield, time,

etc.)

• Check environmental stress tolerance (minimal medium, water,

high/low temperature, freezing, desiccation, water activity, UV,

etc.)

• Test control efficacy of washed cells vs. culture broth or culture

broth + cells (cells vs. metabolites)

Identification – Recommendation


69

Publishing is ‘very urgent’! Evaluation of scientists is

based on publications

• Investing research money in isolating new microbial strains is

less ‘convenient’ for the career

• New strains are offered to industries without IP protection

• Patents are filed in very early stage, new strains still need years

for industrial development, IP protection is limited to few years

(patent expire)

• Patents for strains of ‘known’ species a more difficult (claims

should be narrow or specific thus limiting formulation options

and market)

IP protection


70

Patent as late as possible (without disclosing any result

before)

• Do not publish any preliminary result at conferences, abstracts, in

posters; strain in restricted culture collection (Budapest treaty)

• New strains are patentable only if show an advantage to the state

of art (include existing strains in you trials)

• Patenting microorganism + formulation may restrict your freedom

later

Patent vs. confidentiality

• Carefully check with patent attorney: i.e. confidentiality is

preferable for fermentation process, formulation

IP protection - Recommendation


71

Efficient production (fermentation) is a key point to

achieve an economically sustainable product

• Most of farmers select the pesticides according to the price

(price reference: chemical with the best tox/ecotox profile,

unless problems of residues exceeding MRL)

• Consumer willingness to pay a premium for IPM is often

highlighted in literature, however is rather limited in reality

(Directive 128 and NAPs are adding more confusion)

• Efficiency of cell production versus minimum effective

concentration

• Volumes of application (1-4 Kg max of final product per hectare)

• Logistics (storage temperature, shelf-life, viability)

Production


72

Screen strains not only for efficacy, but also for harvest

efficiency

• We need high throughput methods and models to estimate at a

very early stage the productivity of the strain in fermentation

• Abandon quite early lab media and use media, which can be

scaled-up easily at industrial stage (cost of raw material)

• Cost estimation per unit of CFU (raw material, energy, process)

Downstream processes

• Often dictate economy, sufficient shelf life, ease of application

and satisfactory field efficacy

Production- Recommendation


73

Formulation may play an important role (survival,

efficacy, metabolites, shelf-life)

• Good microbial active ingredient may be discarded because

tested without formulation

• New strains are often offered without formulation to industries

(efficacy trials with washed cells or cells in culture broth)

• Changing formulation at a later stage may influence efficacy

• Formulation is often strictly related to the fermentation process

Formulation


Formulation should be finalized as early as possible

• Define the type of application of the MOs (i.e. soil, leaf, post-

harvest): optimal formulation may vary among uses

• Do not patent formulation if possible or prefer wide claims of

formulation

• Check the shelf-life of formulated product as early as possible

• Carry out efficacy trials with the final formulation

However formulation is not a magic stick

it may help survival, but not change the

intrinsic characteristics of a strain neither

deeply modify the environment

Formulation - Recommendation


Fate in the environment (efficacy and side effects): fast

methods to check viability/efficiency and not only DNA

• Survival in the target environment (often related to the

environment of isolation of the strain, species, spore formation

ability, etc.): advantage and disadvantage of microbial

pesticides

• Efficacy in the targeted environment (inducible secondary

metabolite, mechanism of action)

Minimum effective concentration (often the limiting

factor)

Modelling the behavior (T, RH, radiation, pH, nutrients)

Important traits for successful field

application


Mode of action (key starting point for field application)

• Antibiosis (secondary metabolites: chemical analysis, genome

mining, transcriptome, metabolome, etc.)

• Induced resistance (is it really effective under

field conditions? Plant already ‘induced’

by several factors…)

• Competition for space and/or nutrients

(integration with techniques that can enhance it,

i.e. solarization, anaerobic soil disinfestation)

• Hyperparasitism (more relevant for

certain fungi)

Metabolites of concern (genome

comparison, generalization, interaction

with toxicologists)

Important traits for successful field application


Side effects on microflora, pollinators, beneficials and

aquatic organisms (a microbial pesticide should be

better than a synthetic chemical…)

Shelf-life and condition of storage (>1 y; room T)

Compatibility with other compounds used in the crop

Important traits for successful field

application


78

Registration is often the last step prior entering the

market

• Registration of some promising candidates may be complex

and expensive (abandoned in a later stage because not

economically sustainable)

• Registration at strain level, however can be easier to register a

strain belonging to a well-known species

• Registration of poorly characterized species can be difficult

• Mechanism of action may impact on registration (i.e. antibiotic

producer may be more difficult to register

Registration


79

Production and impact of secondary metabolites

In EU: precautionary principle (suspected risk of causing

harm, in the absence of scientific consensus that it is not

harmful = it is ‘of concern’ unless proven to be safe)

• Impact on the human health

• Impact on the environment

We commonly assume ‘it is obvious that they do not have impact’,

but only recently some ‘scientific’ evidences were appearing in

literature

Obvious, but not demonstrated (regulators vs. scientists)

Registration – the unsolved questions


80

Registrability should be checked as early as possible

• Accurate literature review of closely related species

• Strains of well-known species vs. Strains poorly characterized:

pros and cons

• GRAS can help in waiving some trails

• Check for presence of metabolites of concern as early as

possible

• Strains belonging to poorly characterized species: produce

scientific evidences (as many as possible) on fate in the

environment, mechanism of action, impact on air, soil, water

MOs (good items for publication)

Registration - Recommendation


81

Market needs are not being met (quite often)

• Not always a big market (pathogen/crop) can be satisfied (i.e.

pathogens with a fast epidemic growth are not suitable for

biocontrol, high risk aversion, low market tolerance for symptoms,

etc.)

• Unsuitable mechanism of action against the pathogen (low or

inconsistent efficacy)

• Dual culture test can drive to big disappointment in field trials (it is

a suggestion not a recommendation)

• Most of the old registered strains have been tested against the

most important pathogens (‘no publication’ does not mean ‘no

test’, most frequently means ‘negative result’)

• Careful with strains discovered long time ago, but never developed

(technical constrains, economic constrains, etc.)

Market


82

When looking for a market (pathogen/crop)

• Define the way of application, the most suitable mechanism of

action, identify frequent environmental conditions on the crops:

screening for new strains should start form here

• Be wise, but courageous: we need new species on the picture

• Prefer mechanisms as reduction of inoculum; diseases with

high market tolerance to symptoms; uses as reduction of

pesticides residues

• Avoid diseases where even chemicals often fail (with few

exception)

• Talk with experts (farmers, advisors, industries, distributors)

Market - Recommendation


Case study: Trichoderma atroviride SC1

Timing

Research project: 2004-2008

Patent filed: 2008

Industrial development and trials for registration:

2009-2012

Registration: 2012-2016

Expected approval as active substance:

2016

Initial market: 2017-2018


Grapevine: Esca disease


Esca disease: infections

Pal

Nu

mb

er

of co

nid

iaPch

Nu

mb

er

of co

nid

ia

Captures of conidia of Phaeoacremonium

aleophilum Pal in Puglia (2007) and Phaeomoniella

chlamidospora Pch in Umbria (2010), modified from

Frisullo et al. (2010)

Pruning wounds are

susceptible to infections all

over the year

Pathogens’ conidia are

present from late spring to

autumn


QUESTION

• To protect would for long time (months and not days)

• No chemicals with such long persistency or need to re-apply

several times

• Good fungal antagonists and good wood colonizer

• Good conidia producer in solid-state

• Fast growing strain

SOLUTION

• Living microorganism

• Isolated from decayed wood

• Selection based on conidiation time and rate, growth rate

• Efficacy evaluation on wood pieces instead of petri dishes

Trichoderma atroviride SC1

Question and solution


• Treatment with T. atroviride SC1 after pruning

• Pruning wounds are colonised by T. atroviride and infection of

Pal and Pch cannot take place

Mode of application and action


Thank you for your attention!

Programme








Programme








Programme








Identificationand

characterization

Proof of concept

Commercial

development

Natural resources

Biostimulant/ Bio-Control

Biologicalactivity

Screening & identification Mode of action & characterisation Proof of concept in the field

Fundamental researchApplied research

New Consortium:Partnership of 30 research groups of Ghent University

A multidisciplinary and complementary consortium: from Lab to

Field

Focus on Biostimulantia and Bio-control

A strong name for a strong consortium

Input

Natural extracts

Growth regulators

Microbials

Macrobials

Output

Analytical and

genetic tools

Greenhouse facilities

Experimental farmPhenotyping unit

Fundamental and

Applied research

Performant test platform

> 100 researchers

Business Developer

• Coordination of the consortium

• Facilitation of the interaction between university, stakeholders and industry

• Encourage collaboration

• Detect opportunities

• Stimulate innovative research, technology and know-how

What makes this consortium unique?

• Completely vertically integrated: from screening until field trials

• Fundamental ánd applied research

• One single point of contact

• Unique collection of micro-organisms andpromising plant extracts

• Multidisciplinary consortium with more than 30 research groups and 150 researchers with readilyavailable products and results

Programme








Documents

Launch Ghent University Consortium: Biostimulants and … · 2016-04-18 · 16:05: Eliminating barriers to innovation and creating a single EU market for biostimulants by Philip Delistoyanov