Written by Susan Wilson from Aphaeas Agriculture
Bio-stimulants, soil conditioners, bio-fertilisers and bio-pesticides have been key features of the move away from high level usage of conventional chemicals and fertilisers and are now mainstream – yet the market is still largely unregulated. This is an attempt to clarify the situation we find ourselves in.
The use of biologicals in Plant Protection Products was well covered in Issue 32 by Dr. Minshad Ansari of the World BioProtection Forum, so I will not cover this topic again. However, I would like to make the point that there is at least some legislation in place, which protects the integrity of the products and is to the advantage of all.
Bio-stimulants: EU Legislation
On 25th June 2019, the European Union published new fertiliser legislation covering the use of bio-stimulants and which is known as Regulation (EU) 2019/1009. This directive amended previous regulations (EC) 1069/2009 and (EC) 1107/2009 and repealed (EC) 2003/2003, with the aim of creating a standard framework of reference across 34 countries. The implementation timeline was 3 years, allowing manufacturers time to complete the registration process. The deadline of July 2022 has since passed and it was disappointing that the UK government chose not to implement this legislation, which protects producers and consumers alike. However, ADAS is currently reviewing this but until then, the market in the UK remains a free-for-all, with many products of dubious origin (and questionable benefits) available for purchase.
It is imperative that the industry is properly policed as it has been the recipient of bad press on occasion, which has not been entirely unjustified. The new legislation, actively promoted by the European Biostimulant Industry Council, sought to prevent further abuse and eliminate the “snake oil salesmen”. Worldwide, the biostimulant market is expected to be of the region of US$4.5 billion in 2025, with the market continuing to grow. Some sort of oversight in the UK would be welcome.
Despite this, it is worth bearing in mind the rationale behind the EU regulations and assume that at some point the UK will introduce similar legislation. When, is another matter entirely.
Clarity and traceability should only be welcomed and from July 2022 (in the EU at least), anything classed as a bio-stimulant must be approved and registered. The registration process includes proof of efficacy with new labelling standards to include full and accurate analysis and displaying the CE Mark where appropriate. Even without a regulatory framework, many manufacturers in the UK require the registration certificates, as well as REACH and CAS numbers, in order to meet their own compliance standards. For companies who sell back into the EU and other markets, these certificates are legal requirements. This is only as it should be where food production is concerned and batch numbers and expiry dates are standard for full traceability.
As per the legislation, biostimulants are now recognised as an agricultural input in their own right, with clear demarcation between abiotic (Fertilising Products Regulations) and biotic (Pesticide Legislation) products. Therefore, any product containing beneficial bacteria and fungi will now come under plant protection legislation. However, the exception to the rule is for products containing phosphite, a recognised fungicide, and which are frequently marketed as biostimulants; this is no longer be allowed under the new rules and they must comply with PPP legislation.
The legislation is comprehensive and the definition of a Plant Biostimulant is as follows:
- A Plant Biostimulant shall be an EU fertilising product the function of which is to stimulate plant nutrition processes independently of the products’ nutrient content with the sole aim of improving one or more of the following characteristics of the plant or the plant rhizosphere.
- Nutrient use efficiency )
- Tolerance to abiotic stress ) Plants
- Quality traits )
- Availability of confined nutrients in soil or rhizosphere ) Soil
When assessing products, the first question should always be: “What is it?” The label should be clear and inform the user exactly what the ingredients are, showing a typical analysis. In addition, information regarding the method of analysis (and standard used) should be available. For instance, many EU products are analysed according to ISO 19822 as approved by the HPTA (Humic Products Trade Association), AAPFCO (Association of America Plant Food Control Officials) and the IHSS (International Humic Substances Society). This is important information to have, particularly when comparing products, as not all laboratories / methods / standards are equal. There are many products on the market that are not properly labelled.
The second question to ask should be: “What does it do?” There can be no more vague claims about benefits, especially when you don’t know what the active ingredient is. The benefits of humic acids (i.e. humates and fulvates) are well established, but some products are better than others and it is always helpful to know the source and concentration; solubility can be an issue with poorer quality products.
It is of concern that certain practitioners continue to peddle flawed science and while BASIS and other bodies such as AICC do an excellent job in regulating advisors, it is difficult to completely control this aspect of the industry.
In the meantime, read the label carefully!
Useful link to the legislation: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1009/oj
Bio-fertilisers
This sector of the industry is completely unregulated and there are many challenges to assessing the effectiveness of bio-fertilisers. This is less of a problem for bio-pesticides, which are carefully regulated. Not all microbial products claim PPP benefits, which means that they fall between the two categories and there is currently no legislation covering their use, either in the UK or the EU.
Bio-fertilisers are not fertilisers per se, but products that contain bacteria and/or fungi and which aim to increase the availability of nutrients from the soil. However, results are very unpredictable and inconsistent, which makes assessment difficult and many products have failed to deliver on potential. Some inoculants such as mycorrhiza and rhizobia are well understood and done well, seed treatments can be effective, delivering consistent results. Use of inoculants should be aimed at addressing a particular problem or limitation and seed must be treated as close to sowing as possible. Inoculants tend not to spread from the application site and often persist only as long as the function is required. However, many products that are successful in greenhouse trials fail once put to the test in the field. This is not surprising, because field conditions are largely uncontrollable and unfavourable soil conditions must be managed first. Fungi, in particular, are lost during cultivation and they tend to survive in soils that are not disturbed.
Generally speaking, single strain species have poor longevity and multi-strain microbes are considered to be more effective, with beneficial properties often strain dependent. However, poly-microbial products make very general claims and quality control is an issue.
Up to 90% of microbes can be lost during application and they have to establish and compete with resident microbial communities, which can be vulnerable to introduced species. Some countries, such as New Zealand (and some South American countries) rightly forbid the application of non-native microbes. Indigenous microbial populations should be protected and one should bear in mind the potential consequences of introducing non-native and potentially invasive species.
Research suggests that good management of the resident soil microbiome has more potential and maintains the desired functions of the soil. As with bio-stimulants, the lack of regulation is concerning and farmers should be wary of purchasing expensive microbial products for soil application.
Reference: Soil Use and Management DRAFT REVIEW Soil microbial inoculants for sustainable agriculture: Limitations and opportunities Authors: O’Callaghan, Maureen; AgResearch Ltd Lincoln Research Centre; Ballard, Ross; South Australian Research and Development Institute; Wright, David; AgResearch Ltd Lincoln Research Centre
