A Front Door

History is filled with examples of entrepreneurs ginning up ideas that revolutionized U.S. agriculture. Those early pioneers had local communities that helped them nurture and grow their brainstorms until they became viable products.

But where do today’s Eli Whitneys and John Deeres and Cyrus McCormicks turn to get the help they need to launch their great innovations and build industries around them? That’s one of the biggest challenges facing agriculture as it seeks to feed, cloth and provide fuel for a rapidly growing world population.

Steve Bares, president and executive director of Memphis Bioworks Foundation, an organization that works with entrepreneurs in a number of fields, including agriculture, talked about the process during a presentation at the Tennessee AgriTech Challenge in Murfreesboro, Tenn.  Delta Farm Press reported on it.

“I have the privilege every day of working with entrepreneurs, whether we’re working with entrepreneurs in the agricultural space, in the medical device space or in the logistics areas,” said Dr. Bares. “The one thing you learn I think in the community and in the state is that entrepreneurs put batteries in our communities.

“They light the way; they provide the energy; they give you jobs; they make it so that our kids want to come back to the state and work. That’s what this is all about. What we’re trying to do is build a system around helping entrepreneurs.”

The Memphis Bioworks Foundation, which organized the conference along with the Tennessee Department of Agriculture and USDA, has a track record of assisting entrepreneurs in taking their ideas to the marketplace.

Another fact Bares has learned is that ag entrepreneurs’ good ideas don’t get automatically translated into success. “That’s not what happens,” he said. “It’s actually hard to be an entrepreneur in the agricultural space. It’s not clear where we go to get the information we need.”

Too often, Bares said, entrepreneurs don’t know where to go to get the information they need on subjects such as irrigation or other areas of expertise that could help solve problems they face. They often don’t know where to get the capital they need.

“What we’ve done is we’ve made it hard for entrepreneurs, the batteries or the energies behind our communities,” he noted. “What we’ve learned in this process is that when you talk to new entrepreneurs or your customers, they tell us ‘we need to figure out how this works; we don’t get it.’ They need a front door.”

That doesn’t mean that only one organization should be working with entrepreneurs and providing that single front door, according to Bares. “If we’re doing this right, we need 12 organizations that are doing this across the state. But we still have to have a place where it all makes sense, where it all comes together.”

The goal, he said, is to enable hundreds of entrepreneurs to start many new agricultural companies in Tennessee.

Participants in the Tennessee AgriTech Challenge heard presentations by four representative startups that are seeking help in getting established. The four are scattered across the state and even into Mississippi:

Climate Adaptive Genetics. James West, a professor at Vanderbilt University and chief technology officer for the company, described a breeding program that would put Angus cattle in white coats to make them more tolerant of the heat in climates like Brazil. The project is being developed by Vanderbilt and Middle Tennessee State University. www.Climateadaptivegenetics.com

Hivalgo. John Reams, CEO, described a system that would provide refinements in grain and oilseed training through the use of information technology. www.hivalgo.com.

Croptell. Scott Sartor, CEO, discussed developing new financial farm planning software for the row crop farming industry. www.croptell.com.

Sytheros. Jim Stratigos, CEO, talked about developing a wireless sensor platform for agriculture and other industries. www.sytheros.com.

Ron Meeusen, a former scientist with Dow AgroSciences who now directs a venture capitalist firm called Cultivian Sandbox Ventures, spoke on “Investing in Agricultural Innovation,” and three panelists, William Brown, dean for research and director of the University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station; Walt Mullins, trait manager for Bayer CropScience; and Barry Knight, chief executive officer, Cresco Ag LLC, spoke on “Does Tennessee Have a Role in Global Ag Innovation?”

For a short video on this presentation click here.

Delta Farm Press recently reported that America’s Farmers Grow Ag Leaders is now launching in 40 states, with more than $500,000 worth of scholarships available. Sponsored by the Monsanto Fund, the program provides $1,500 college scholarships to students pursuing a degree related to agriculture.

Starting Nov. 15, high school seniors and college students in eligible states can apply for this opportunity. Farmers know the rewards of a career in agriculture, but many of today’s youth may not. Luckily, there is an abundance of evidence that agriculture is a smart career choice. According to  USDA, nearly 55,000 jobs in agriculture are available every year. Many of the nation’s largest land-grant institutions, such as Penn State and Texas A&M University, report job placement rates above 90 percent for their ag students
.
Grow Ag Leaders helps engage future generations in agriculture by raising awareness of the broad range of career opportunities in the industry and by supporting their college education.

The program was created in response to farmer requests to keep rural youth involved in agriculture. Farmers can participate in the program by encouraging students in their community to apply for a scholarship and by endorsing their application.

Because farmers play a crucial role in the industry, each applicant is required to obtain endorsements from at least three local farmers. “We want to encourage ambitious and talented students to pursue careers in this growing field,” said Elizabeth Vancil, Youth and Community Outreach manager at Monsanto.

“As students who grew up in rural areas learn more about what agriculture has become, they are realizing that it is a fascinating, hi-tech industry, with job growth, job security, and high wages,” Vancil said. “These young people are seeing that there are emerging opportunities for a new generation of innovative young farmers, engineers, implement designers, marketing specialists and seed scientists.”

Grow Ag Leaders is part of the overall America’s Farmers campaign, which highlights the vital role played by farmers, through programs designed to support rural communities. Farmers interested in promoting the program and endorsing students’ scholarship applications can learn how at GrowAgLeaders.com.

The scholarships are administered by the National FFA Organization, but FFA membership is not required to apply. Students have until Feb. 1, 2015 to complete the application online at FFA.org/scholarships.

Super weed! Fact or Fiction

Journalists like Paul Holis from South East Farm Press love a good buzzword or moniker – a “trending” name or nickname that can be used in place of a much more ordinary-sounding word or phrase.

For one thing, it’s just more fun to use such words. For another, it’s more likely to catch the attention of the reader, translating into a greater readership and the resulting increased number of “hits” on a website.

But there are admittedly cases where we simply use such a word to death. A case in point might well be the infamous “superweed.” Holis goes on to write about the subject.

Originally, I suppose it was a fairly good substitution for glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth pigweed. It certainly takes less time to write “superweed,” and it sounds sexier than the aforementioned technically accurate term.

But in recent years, we’ve overused it to the point to where no one’s really certain what “superweed” truly means. It has been used for a lot more than just glyphosate-resistant weeds, and therein lies the problem. “Superweed” makes for a swell headline, such as in “Superweeds Choke Farms,” but what does it really mean?

To help dispel some of the common misconceptions about superweeds, the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) recently published an excellent fact sheet to clarify two common misconceptions about superweeds. The WSSA, if you don’t already know, is a non-profit organization that promotes science-based information about weeds, their impact on the environment, and how they can be managed.

While there is no science-based definition for superweed, the WSSA points out that the term is often used to describe weeds “believed to have special capabilities that are helping them outcompete other plants in ways never experienced before,” with many associating superweed with glyphosate-tolerant crops and the suspected transfer of resistance genes from these crops to weeds.

The first superweed misconception, according to the WSSA, is that rampant gene transfer between genetically modified crops and weeds is creating weeds able to resist treatment by herbicides.

In reality, states the fact sheet, there is no evidence that gene transfer is a major factor in the development of herbicide resistance. Instead, overreliance on herbicides with a single mechanism of action to control certain weeds has led to the selection of weeds resistant to that mechanism of action.

“The transfer of resistance traits from genetically modified crops to weeds growing in the field is rare, and the occurrences observed and reported to date have had minimal impact. The only currently known mechanism for any crop trait to move into weeds (or vice versa) is through cross pollination – a sexual crossing between the crop and the weed. Gene flow is more likely to happen if the crop and weed are sexually compatible, near relatives. Gene flow among more distantly related plant species is rare because they do not cross as readily. There are often physiological barriers, including pollen incompatibility, varying numbers of chromosomes and other factors that serve as impediments.”

Even among sexually compatible crops and weeds, states the WSSA, the opportunity for crop-weed gene flow depends on the proximity of the crop plant to its wild weedy relatives. For example, there have been no reports of gene transfer in the more than 160 million annually planted acres of genetically modified corn, cotton and soybean crops where herbicide resistance weeds are such a significant issue today. Since these crops don’t have sexually compatible, near relatives in the U.S. and Canada, the risk of gene flow to other plants in the region is extremely low.

The second major misconception, according to the WSSA, is that herbicide use is creating a new breed of herbicide-resistant superweeds unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.

“In reality, the costly issue of herbicide resistance isn’t new – and neither are the competitive characteristics of weeds. Although the number of acres affected by resistant weeds has increased over the last decade as more growers have come to rely solely on herbicides with a single mechanism of action for weed control, weeds have exhibited resistance to many types of herbicides over the past 40 years. Many weed populations have even evolved resistance to multiple herbicide mechanisms of action,” states the report.

Herbicide resistance is an important, costly and escalating issue, especially as growers have come to rely more than ever on a single class of herbicides that targets weeds in the same way, states the WSSA, and it is more critical than ever for a variety of carefully integrated weed management strategies to be used so weeds resistant to one method can be controlled in other ways before they have an opportunity to spread. This includes nonchemical means of weed control, such as crop rotation, tillage, cultivation, hand hoeing, seed capture, etc.

As to those super powers that many individuals ascribe to herbicide-resistant weeds? Under herbicide-free conditions, says the WSSA, resistant weeds are no more competitive or ecologically fit than their susceptible partners. Both can crowd out crops and other desirable plants by outcompeting them for water, nutrients, sunlight and space. They grow incessantly and can be prolific seed producers. A single Palmer amaranth plant, for example, can produce hundreds of thousands of seeds, regardless of whether it is herbicide resistant or not.

How to Reduce Risks for New Herbicide Resistant Plants

With all the new technology and herbicide resistant crops coming onto the market, there are risks of chemical application mishaps.  Farmers are being urged to use a free program to reduce those risks.

Agricultural engineer Dharmendra Saraswat from the University of Arkansas Division of Agricultural Cooperative Extension service helped develop the technology.  He recently spoke to Delta Farm Press about the new product.

On the program’s genesis:

“The flag the technology cloud (FTTCloud) program was launched last April, 2014, and is currently used by hundreds in Arkansas.

“The precursor to FTTCloud was initially launched in Clay County in 2010 -- but under a different name: Color Identifies the Field Technology (CIFT). Following the initial success, the program was launched statewide in 2011 and renamed ‘Flag the Technology.’ The changed name directly conveyed program’s focus on use of color coded flags to aid farmers in identifying which fields they are planting to what herbicide-tolerant technology.

Dicamba-tolerant crops soon to be a reality

“In subsequent years, Flag the Technology program also brought forth some unanticipated challenges. During the summertime, as farmers know very well, there are often gusts of wind. Those would sometimes pull the flags out of the ground and take them all over the place.

“In some cases, there were also mischievous people who would intentionally move the flags around.

“Obviously, movement of flags would be a cause of concern for chemical applicators. That’s perfectly understandable. ‘What if we rely on the flags and spray a product that injures the crop?’”

On the switch to a digital program…

“Due to these concerns we began considering how we could keep the program but ‘flag’ fields in a different way. In discussions with some county agents and forward-looking consultants and producers it was decided to launch a digital version of Flag the Technology program.

“The digital version doesn’t store any information on any of university servers. To provide quality experience to the current and potential users, the program has been hosted on a scalable cloud platform.

“The digital version, FTTCloud, retains the simplicity of its field-based precursor.

“Producers, consultants and chemical applicators can all participate after registering an account. The participation is voluntary. A registered producer can allow his/her consultant or chemical applicator to access complete information about entered fields by following certain protocol. The other registered users are provided essential information about herbicide technologies reported nearby or in the target field as new information is added to the program.

“Producers can either manually draw or upload field boundary data in shapefile format and then
interactively assign an individual field or a group of fields to herbicide-tolerant technology of their choice. The program assigns a color to the field based on selected technology. Fields with stacked technologies are also assigned colors, using a protocol slightly different from the field version of the program.

“The FTTCloud tool also allows users to identify other sensitive areas such as pumpkin patches, bee hives, fish ponds, vineyards etc., thereby not limiting its use to only those interested in row crops.

“Participation is free and the whole effort is being funded by the Arkansas Soybean Promotion Board.”

On the digital program savings…

“When using actual flags, fields require an average of five flags. That is at a cost of about $25. If someone has 100 fields in herbicide-tolerant technology, that means an expense of $2,500. However, use of FTTCloud program costs nothing.”

An estimate on how much crop damage has been reduced through the use of the flags?

“That’s a good question. The program is aimed at avoiding risks. An erroneous chemical application can almost ruin an entire field. So, you’re protecting a field that can be worth several thousand dollars to, in some cases, six figures.”

Enlist traits approved, Enlist herbicide next

On the safety of farmers’ data…

“Misuse of online information is an obvious fear in the minds of many and farmers are no exception. The FTTCloud program explicitly recognizes that all the information entered belongs to the producer. The university has no role in accessing it. The information is encrypted and then stored on the cloud platform.

“Towards the end of each year, we will send emails to those who registered an account. That will remind them to download their information for next year’s use. We don’t encourage archiving the information since the university wants to limit its role to providing educational means for chemical risk aversion.”

The Return of Agent Orange?

The USDA recently approved a new technology which conveys resistance to 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicides in corn and soybeans.  The anti GMO crowd was, as usual, up in arms again.

Delta Farm Press recently covered this reaction.  Those whole believe farming should remain in the stone age reacted predictably.  Some even compared this technology to Agent Orange, a herbicide used in the Vietnam war and has been connected to cancer among vets.

Let's take a look at what Agent Orange was.  It was a mix of two herbicides, 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, with only the later associated with the negative impacts on health.  According to studies done by the National Pesticide Information Center, 2,4-D has not been implicated in any relationships between pesticide exposure and subsequent disease.

Despite all that information being out there, a New York Times reporter mentioned the Agent Orange connection.  This sent the anti GMO crowd into a frenzy.  Some news websites have even called it Agent Orange technology.

Fortunately there is science to calm everyone down.  Also, the USDA, EPA and farmers know better.  My hope is rational eventually takes over.  I understand peoples hesitance to this technology.  But it's unfounded.

Will this bring farming back to the "good old days"?  Where farmers could spray with impunity and no fear?  Far from it.  With all this new technology, farmers will have to make sure and spray properly and avoid as much drift as they can.  They will need to communicate better with their neighbor farmers on what they're doing and vice versa.

There will be lots of eyes watching this new technology.  And there are plenty of people out there who can't wait for something to go wrong.

8 Ways Cover Crops Pay

Think about the land you drive by that's idle and not being farmed.  What do you see?  Weeds usually.

"Mother Nature keeps the ground covered, and a living root in the soil, for nine to ten months out of the year.  Then we came along and started doing tillage to grow row crops.  By growing corn or soybeans, we keep a living plant on the soil surface just five months or so a year," says Paul Jasa, engineer in biological agriculture systems at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, in a recent interview with Agriculture.com.

Why Plant Cover Crops?

Jasa, who studied cover crop and no-till systems for more than two decades, farmers need to understand why they want to grow cover crops.

There are numerous reasons:

1. Erosion control
2. Nutrient capture/recycle
3. Improved soil health
4. Water management
5. Biodiversity
6. Nitrogen fixation
7. Reduced compaction
8. Weed supression

Q&A with Monsanto CTO Robb Fraley

Robb Fraley, Monsanto chief technology officer, is excited about the future, but he's looking for new ways to explain new technology with non farmers.

Monsanto has been on a roll these days, as the St. Louis based firm integrates its recent acquisitions with existing seed and trait businesses.

The recent buying craze started with the purchase of Precision Plantation in May of 2012.  "It used to be seeds at planting would land on top of the field, others would land below where you wanted to plant them," Fraley, Monsanto's executive vice president and chief technology officer, said during a recent interview with Agriculture.com.  "Now, were talking about a planter precisely controlled by hydraulics, with picket fence stands occurring."

In 2013, Monsanto also expanded into biotechnology with a Novozymes collaboration, and extensive weather data with its acquisition of The Climate Corporation.

"We are seeing all these technologies starting to integrate together," he says.

Not all has gone smoothly however.  A simple Google search of Monsanto turns up groups like March Against Monsanto and Millions Against Monsanto.  Also, some weeds and corn rootworms are resisting the companies weed-resistant and insect-resistant technology.

The following is a Q&A between Fraley and Agriculture.com.

AG: What excites you?
RF: Microbials and biological.  We are in the early stages of how useful they will be, but we see applications for control of insects, weeds and viruses.

AG: Did weeds and insects that resist transgenic technology surprise Monsanto?
RF: From the day we launched Roundup Ready soybeans (in 1996), resistance was always on top of our minds as a possibility.  We are always testing the next generation product.  In the case of corn rootworm, the science moved quickly, and we were able to replace a single gene product with dual gene products with multiple modes of action.  We are expecting RNAi technology to come into the market by the end of the decade.  This will defer from the Bt technology now used in corn rootworm traits.

AG: What's the state of the U.S. regulatory system?
RF: It's getting more complicated.  We are seeing more delays.  The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) that USDA requested dicamba (Monsanto) and 2,4-D tolerant soybeans (Dow AgroSciences) has added another two years onto the time these products can get to the market.  We are complying, but we didn't think it was necessary.  The last two products we launched in Brazil took just two years to get government approval.  We are able to launch Roundup Ready Xtend (dicamba-tolerant) soybeans in Argentina before we launch it here.

AG: Aren't there concerns, such as off-target movement, about these new weed control technologies?
RF: I understand there are concerns.  We and BASF are doing a lot of work in developing new formulations of dicamba.  Dow is doing the same thing with new formulations of 2,4-D.  These new formulations are incredible.  I remember as a kid spraying Banvel and seeing volatility and drift.  Newer formulations have dramatically decreased off-target movement.

AG: How is Monsanto working to ease concerns about genetically modified foods?
RF: We're making a bigger effort to talk with consumers - in schools, with moms, with people who like us and people who don't.  We need different approaches.

AG: What will you be talking about in five years?
RF: We will talk about how big of an enhancement Roundup Ready Xtend has made across soybean production.  It is a great new tool for weed control.  We will also be talking about adoption of probably the third or fourth generation of FieldScripts.  These will build upon products that select the right seed for the field and for planting at optimal populations.

How to Feed 9 Billion People

This is your challenge.  In 30 years you're going to have to feed 9 billion people with less land and less water.  How do you do that?

To do this, farmers will have to use the best technology available.  Including some that isn't entirely popular with the public.

South West Farm Press recently covered a event featuring speakers discussing this very topic.  The most important thing is communication with the public.  The event was the Rolling Plains Spring Field Day held at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research station near Chillicothe.  The event featured Julie Borlaug, granddaughter of the late Dr. Norman Borlaug, a Noble Peace Prize laureate known internationally as the "Father of the Green Revolution."

As well as speaking she moderated a wheat seed industry panel consisting of: Jon Rich with AgriPro-Syngenta in Junction City, KS; Marla Barnett with Limagrain Cereal Seeds in Wichita, KS; Sid Perry with WestBred-Monsanto in Filer, ID; and Janet Lewis with Bayer CropScience in Lincoln, NE.

March 25th was my grandfathers' birthday and many people have asked me if he was here today what would his message be about how we are going to feed 9 billion people by 2050," Borlaug said.  "I think he would probably tell you there are three areas we need to be concerned about."

Involve the Next Generation

"It's important for us to continue to train the next generation of agricultural scientist," Borlaug said.  "We need to engage students; we need engage those even outside of agriculture, because it's going to take people from various backgrounds across different disciplines to help figure out how to feed 9 billion people."

This will require new economic and political policies, advancements in engineering, medicine energy, but mostly agriculture.

We need what her grandfather called "hunger fighters."  Entrepreneurs, scientist, researchers, policy makers and farmers.

They need to embrace bold new ideas and work with people along different disciplines.  They must engage smallhold farmers and private and public sectors to come up with sustainable ideas.

"So we need to continue to reinvest in that and move our generation forward, so they will become the next Norm Borlaug and leaders in agriculture," she said.

Funding Dilema

"We need to re-engage the funding entities and those outside of agriculture to understand why their support is so important," Borlaug said.  "We are going to need a lot of technology and improvements to feed 9 billion people, especially with climate change and scarce natural resources."

The third thing she stressed is - "the misunderstanding and misinformation that's spread about agriculture."  She said that mainly comes from the anti-science, anti-GMO groups who don't understand the basic role of biotechnology in agriculture.

Borlaug said her grandfather was known to say "fear of change is the greatest obstacle to progress."

The ag sector must address the public differently.  People need to understand how important new technology, innovation and biotechnology are to our future.

"It is no longer enough to just have collective support of the research and private sector.  We must gain the support of the general public in order to move agriculture research forward."

Most arguments against these advancements are emotional and not rational.  They resonate because they fuel the anti-corporate mentality.

She brings up the GMO golden rice crop in the Philippines.  "Do you as biotech opponents really want to deny golden rice to those children who could so profoundly benefit?  Are you willing to condemn them to blindness and death out of your own ignorance?  I say out of your opposition, you are somewhat responsible for their vitamin A deficiency and blindness."

This is not to say biotechnology is the only solution.  "but we must understand that a multi-faceted integrated solution is needed."

Wheat Breeding

Wheat is the most important food crop in the world.  It's time to reinvest time and energy into the crop.  

"What's happened over the years is that in the U.S., wheat has not been looked upon as a high staple crop like corn and soybeans," Rich said.

There is a lower cost of molecular markers and the ability to "speed breed" to bring greater yields.  

"I think it has been largely customer-driven - seedsmen and farmer driven," Barnett said.  "We've seen the demand for wheat yields to be increased.  Farmers have long been asking, "Why am I still getting the same wheat yields my grandfather got while my corn yields have tripled?"

The industry has learned a lot from corn, soybeans, cotton and canola that can be applied to wheat.

GM Wheat?

Right now there is no GMO wheat on the market.  However, acceptance will be necessary the panel suggested.

"Most people don't know what GMO means; they don't know that GMO is a technique, a tool that can be used in the breeding toolbox," Lewis said.  "There is a lot of confusion on what GMO is, and it has been a slow process of education for the general public.  There is a perception issue."

The breeders agreed it is important to look into GMO and non-GMO solutions.  And if there is a non-GMO answer then that's the route to peruse because it's cheaper.  They also agreed research needs to be done on nitrogen use efficiency, heat tolerance and water use efficiency.

"We have a skeptical public, which is okay; but we also have a gullible public, which is discouraging," Perry said.  "They are willing to accept the popular view on something rather than scientific research.  So take every opportunity to educate the people around you."

GMO acceptance is more likely to come with food safety.

"It's an emotional issue to a lot of people, and an education issue," he said.  "We need to educate the people on what GMO traits can do and how we feed people correctly.  We can reduce the amount of pesticides; we can reduce the amount of nitrogen we put in the soil; we can reduce the amount of irrigation we have to apply to get those maximum yields."

In the end, the most important thing to the public will be the pocket book.  We need to make a loaf of bread cheaper and the production cheaper for the farmer.

"It's a real luxury here in the U.S. as long as our bellies are full and food is cheap, we can complain about having GMOs in our products," Perry said.  "But that is a real disservice to others in the world who don't have that luxury.  I don't know how we can get that across to our public; a lot of it is in their hands."