BASF Releases Biological Fungicide--But Not for Commodity Crops

WOW!! Imagine my excitement when I saw the headline “BASF releases its first proprietary biological fungicide” that appeared in the online Southeast Farm Press on Oct. 24, 2017.

The new fungicide is Serifel, which is a labeled biological foliar fungicide that is based on viable spores of the bacterium Bacillus amyloiquefaceins strain MBI 600. It has no crop rotation restriction, no preharvest interval [PHI], and a very short re-entry interval of only 4 hours. It is a FRAC Code 44 [microbial disrupters of pathogen cell membranes] preventive fungicide that is designed to be used in a program with conventional fungicides.

Now imagine my disappointment when I read “It is targeted to specialty crops such as lettuce, spinach, grapes, wine grapes, strawberries, onions, carrots, and tomatoes” or for use in an organic program.

Now comes my question. Why did the company not work toward a label for Serifel or a similar biological fungicide to target fungal pathogens of commodity crops such as corn, soybean, rice, wheat, etc.? Surely the millions of acres devoted to these crops in the US would provide an even larger market for such a new product. And I don’t think anybody can argue that such a breakthrough product would take some of the load off the current stable of expensive synthetic fungicides [several of which are on BASF’s product list] that are currently used on these crops, especially since several of the common fungal pathogens that infect these crops have developed or are developing resistance to these currently used products because of their promoted overuse.

US commodity crop producers are essentially totally dependent on the private sector for their varieties and hybrids, seed treatment products, insecticides, and fungicides. If these companies are not doing everything in their power to develop products that commodity producers can use to offset the resistance problems associated with previously released products [click here], or to combat pest problems [such as seed rot in soybean] that plague these crops, then they are not fully occupying their place at the table. Or could it be that they choose to develop products and technologies that will offer the greatest monetary return when released to the market? This may be a harsh sentiment, but it seems that sometimes not enough is being done in the no- or low-return area of crop protection technology development by the private sector. And since this sector is the only source of these products and developments, this should be a question that commodity groups are asking them. After all, commodity crop producers are by far the largest group of buyers of seed and crop protection products from the private companies. This should not be ignored.

Sadly, this is one of the offshoots of the reduced and continuing reduction in public funding of agricultural research. There is no one left to work on developing technology that may not provide a lucrative return to the developer. Again, the US crop producer is at the mercy of private companies that are likely to pay attention to developing those technologies that will offer the most return in the marketplace. This may not be in the best interest for the the long-term sustainability of US crop production.

Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, Oct. 2017, larryheatherly@bellsouth.net