The aim is to develop products that reduce the amount of conventional nitrogen (N) fertilizer application, while increasing crop yields and grower revenue. Mosaic is a giant in the potash and phosphate markets, with production volumes of 8.1 million metric tonnes of finished phosphates, including MicroEssentials, an NPS product. Potash production averaged 8.6 million metric tonnes for the three years 2017-2019, according to the company’s 2019 annual report. Along with Nutrien, it is one of the two shareholders in Canpotex, a leading exporter of potash, rivalled only by Belaruskali and Uralkali. This is important background to the collaboration. Mosaic will not be eroding a nitrogen business through the partnership. It therefore side-steps the dilemma of selling a nitrogen-fixing microbe or selling some nitrogen. As part of the deal, Mosaic gains access to BioConsortia’s pipeline of phosphorus and potassium solubilization microbial products. This could be combined with Mosaic’s existing range of potash and phosphate fertilizers to deliver a new generation of fertilizer products.
"We will be putting nitrogen-fixing microbes into field trials this year,” BioConsortia’s CEO, Marcus Meadows-Smith, told New AG International in January.
Actual products will be coming along later, with 2023 the likely year for launch. Meadows-Smith prefers to have two years of data from field trials before going to market. Finding the right partner Meadows-Smith describes Mosaic as the ideal partner for BioConsortia. And the feeling is probably mutual. “People only write a cheque if something is credible,” he says.
Some face-to-face meetings occurred before COVID-19 restrictions, so it was not a deal sealed only on Zoom. As well as expertise in field trials, Meadows-Smith says Mosaic will bring the formulation experience necessary to get the right product to market. “We know about seed treatments, but is the product better as an in-furrow liquid, granule, coating or incorporated into a fertilizer product? That’s the development part of the collaboration.” Meadows-Smith also referenced the benefit of having Mosaic’s close contact with the market. End-users might prefer a product that can be applied in-furrow with fertilizer, in which case robust microbes will be needed for tank-mixing.
The ambition should not be understated. Meadows-Smith cites the USD$9 billion annual turnover of Mosaic. “A $100 million product isn’t going to move the needle,” he says. The collaboration is not about launching high price low volume products on the market. High volume is certainly the name of the game, and that will appear in the pricing strategy. “There has to be a cost efficacy here to get the adoption. That would be the target,” explains Meadows-Smith. Building on in-house knowledge BioConsortia says it has already discovered a range of naturally-occurring robust microbes capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen and colonizing corn, wheat and other non-leguminous plants. Meadows-Smith says they are currently working on developing a single
microbe that will effectively fix nitrogen in field conditions. One of the ways BioConsortia aims to develop the necessary microbes
is through gene editing. The company is planning to bring natural and gene edited microbes to market. This has already led to the recruitment of several key scientists with genomics and gene editing experience, as well as Dr. Damian Curtis, who joined in July 2020, to lead the new gene editing and synthetic biology platform at BioConsortia. Plants use about 25 to 30 percent of their energy to produce a root exudate to feed their microbiome, according to BioConsortia. It is better for the plant to feed beneficial microbes that are giving something back to the plant in terms of nutrient acquisition, protection from pathogens, or in this case nitrogen fixation. Nitrogen fixation is a very energy intensive process for the microbe. Therefore, nature has developed microbes that have feedback loops that switch off nitrogen fixation when there is sufficient nitrogen in the plant cells, soil or the localized environment.
“Our technical breakthrough is to knock out (or switch off) these feedback loops or off switches,” notes BioConsortia. “Hence, the microbes continuously fix nitrogen and make it available in a form that the plant can use to grow. It will do this even if the farmer adds some nitrogen to the soil at the start of the growing season.” Growers will be able to hold or even increase yields while reducing the amount of conventional nitrogen that is applied to their fields. Terms of deal Under the terms of the deal, Mosaic maintains the exclusive rights to the nitrogen-fixing technology for core row crops in the Americas (including Central), initially focused on corn, wheat, cotton and sugarcane.
BioConsortia retains all rights to the technology for fruit, vegetable, turf and ornamental crops in the Americas, and for all uses and crops outside of the Americas.
Under the agreement BioConsortia will receive an upfront payment and research funding, as well as royalties. The royalty part of the deal provides an incentive to maximize total profit, notes Meadows-Smith. Expansion effort When it comes to the impact of the pandemic on the company’s research effort, Meadows-Smith says that one advantage of having small laboratories at their base in Davis, California, is that they were able to keep research productivity high. He says they were lucky in the design of the laboratories, whereby they have a high number of small labs, so this worked with social distancing and masking rules. The collaboration with Mosaic has also meant an expansion of the team, with two new PhDs, and a requirement for more laboratory space. In January 2020, BioConsortia added 15,000 square feet of laboratories and office space to its operations.
According to Christina Huben, BioConsortia senior VP operations and administration, the new and modern laboratories “will provide the needed space and facilities for our growing R&D team and expanded platform, particularly in synthetic biology, microbiology and fermentation. This new facility has more than doubled BioConsortia’s operations space and positioned our company for future growth.” On the genomics/gene editing side, Betsy Alford, PhD from UC Davis, and Andrew Phillips, PhD from Bayer CropScience, have joined the team. ●
BioConsortia’s new laboratories. The company is developing a single microbe that will effectively fix nitrogen in field conditions.
In January 2020, BioConsortia added 15,000 square feet of laboratories and office space to its operations.
Photo: BioConsortia
The B2B supplier of seaweed extract, Dyacare, has launched Seamegel, produced from fresh Laminaria digitata, a brown macro alga seaweed, in a gel formulation. The company has developed proprietary technology to produce the gel without the use of chemicals. The gel has sufficient viscosity to enable it to be used as a self-binding seed treatment. Laminaria is a fast-growing seaweed, increasing by 5.5 percent per day, according to the company. The gel produced has a neutral pH. The gel contains vitamins, proteins and compounds, such as gibberellic acid, that stimulates the germination of seeds. Dyacare says the combination of auxin and betaine bioactives within the gel also help to boost the early stages of plant growth. Agriculture and horticulture are among Dyacare’s target markets. Beneficial sugars Martin Driscoll, CEO of Dyacare UK, said potential buyers are likely to include laboratories or any company involved in the growing of bacteria, or biocrop protection products, because of the beneficial sugars present in the gel. Seamegal provides a food source for bacteria to increase the degradation of seed husks and speed up germination. “I wanted to produce a gel so it could be used not only as a seed treatment but also for hydroseeding,” said Driscoll. Hydroseeding opens up additional markets, such as turf and recreation, as well as infrastructure projects, such as seeding for motorway banking. The trading headquarters of Dyacare are based in the UK. The company owns 100 percent of EU-registered Dyacare Biotech Limited, its seaweed development and production facility in the Republic of Ireland, and has trading and distribution in China under Dyacare Biotech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. “We sustainably hand-cut both Ascophyllum and Laminaria from rocks where they grow in different locations around the islands of Connemara in Galway, Ireland,” said Driscoll. He likens the process to coppicing – a type of sustainable wood management where trees are harvested periodically and cut back to near ground level. The Ascophyllum is harvested every four years. Driscoll says he’s always being mindful of the ecology and this has been a feature throughout his 30-year career, which has included spells at Roullier, Cargill and Agrium (now Nutrien). His interests include bionutrition. “There’s more to life than NPK,” he said, adding that bio-disruption is based on natural products, such as chitosan that can disrupt the lifecycle of nematodes and wireworms. Vitamin producing plants A topic that has long fascinated Driscoll is why do plants produce vitamins? “Plants produce vitamins for their benefits, not ours,” he notes. “Vitamin B is essential for the assimilation of thiamine and cobalt and the production of amino acids like methionine, which supports the biosynthesis of polyamides and phytohormones. Vitamin C is a powerful antioxidant and offers enzymatic support for the plant, while Vitamin D supports the plant through difficult growing conditions and aids the assimilation of calcium.” The company uses a cold press extraction method. This preserves the vitamins, unlike high-temperature drying processes that use alkaline hydrolysis. These processes can denature most of the proteins into polypeptides, according to Driscoll.
Proteins are among the beneficial ingredients that Dyacare maintains within the seaweed it harvests. “Although polypeptides can be beneficial when applied to young plants, proteins provide building blocks and precursors for cytokinin hormones. These are especially important as the plants change from boy to girl, and then to a mother,” explains Driscoll. Could they use Ascophyllum to make the Seamegel? As well as it being a slower growing seaweed, Driscoll cites a number of key differences. Firstly, he says it has a different level of alginic acid that does not produce the same viscosity in the company’s gel-making process. The end-result is acidic, as opposed to the neutral pH achieved with Laminaria. And the ratio of insoluble sugars is lower, so the bacteria do not have so much to feed on. Market mix An obvious market for Seamegel is horticulture, but Driscoll also believes it could provide a boost to the yield of field crops. Using Seamegel as a seed treatment for wheat could speed up germination, allowing sufficient time for roots to establish and the initiation of tillers. With a larger root mass, the roots will travel further and react with the phosphorus (P) in the soil, which tends to be largely immobile. “Phosphorus moves no further than a millimetre in the soil, the thickness of your business card,” notes Driscoll. The plant’s reaction to P sets the number of tillers, and this, in turn, will be the major factor in determining crop yield. Full of beans As well as providing food for bacteria on seed coatings, Seamegel could be used to feed the bacteria in the guts of ruminants. Seaweed has been used as animal feed for a long time, notes Driscoll. Digestion requires beneficial bacteria and those bacteria need feeding. He says Seamegel could be used to make “jellybeans” for livestock. Other inputs could also be added to the Seamegel. Driscoll is working with a Russian company that supplies to the domestic greenhouse market. Providing beneficial probiotic bacteria in combination with the gel as a twin-pack is a possible development.
Photographs: Page 8: Seamegel is a new seaweed-based product in a gel formulation. Page 9: Seamegel is produced from fresh Laminaria digitata, a brown macro alga seaweed. Page 11: Martin Driscoll All photographs supplied by:Dyacare UK
Driscoll says the early response to the product has been very positive, and Dyacare is now busy sending out samples to companies around the globe.●
Martin Driscoll, CEO of Dyacare UK
Drought costs farmers around the world £10 billion in crop losses every year – but new trial results show that combining unique biostimulants with micronutrients could be the answer to food security. The study, by researchers at Nottingham Trent University (UK) in collaboration with Micromix, looked at the effect of a hybrid biostimulant with nutrients on drought and heat tolerance in a range of crops. It found that the product changed the plants’ response to stress, increasing drought tolerance by 25 to 35 percent and boosting yields by up to 30 percent. “This is really game-changing – it could offer a big contribution to global food security,” says Chungui Lu, professor of sustainable agriculture at the university. “In the UK alone, we could save millions of pounds in lost crops.” Abiotic stress – due to extreme temperatures, water, salt and solar radiation – induce a metabolic and epigenetic change in a plant, weakening its natural defence mechanisms and increasing its susceptibility to disease, pests and subsequent crop failure, explains Lu. “Biostimulants have the potential to affect a plant’s response to this stress, stimulating its own natural processes, while micronutrients enrich its growing environment. This new formulation comprises a
number of key nutritional materials, including micronutrients, in a novel combination with several biostimulant components, which will suppress abiotic stress and stimulate further growth.” The trial is the latest to be carried out on this new technology, after it produced remarkable effects under initial testing on protected salad and field crops in the Middle East, South East Asia and Europe. “We realized we had accidentally discovered a new kind of synergy, and needed to validate it scientifically,” says Wilson Boardman, founder at Micromix and product developer. In 2014, with Lu, he secured a £247,000 Innovate UK research grant, through which they discovered that the key genes relating to heat tolerance were strongly upregulated by the new technology. This 2014 trial focused on bell peppers, which are very heat sensitive – at 28 degrees C they start to wilt and at 30 degrees C they stop growing. But the treated crops were still actively growing at over 30 degrees C, boosting yields by 20 percent and shelf life by 44 percent, alongside an improvement in fruit mineral content. “This has directly led to important new discoveries in epigenetics and a further research project,” says Lu. In 2018, Boardman and Lu secured an £807,948 Innovate UK grant to further investigate the genetic influence of the product. Lu looked at a variety of crops, including wheat, peas, Pak choi and potatoes, and discovered specific genes which were triggered by the biostimulants, using plant genomic/transcriptomic technologies. This reduced the negative impact of stress and stimulated plant growth.
“We identified 178 key genes that are affected by the new biostimulant technology, which provides insight into gene regulation and molecular markers for breeding programs targeted at drought tolerance,” says Lu. “This will have a big impact for agriculture, protecting against climate change and directly protecting crop growth and quality.” For example, treated crops increased cutin formation and reduced respiration, preventing water loss, while also increasing some enzymes and defence activity, boosting nutrient transfer, growth and disease resistance.
Lu plans to publish his scientific paper in 2021, and will then apply for further grant funding to help develop the next generation of biostimulants. “We want to design larger field trials across more crops, to identify the correct rate and timing of application for different crops.” Micromix plans to launch products based on the research to market in the next two years, although application techniques will be refined as the research continues.
“The university is really excited,” says Lu. “It will be really good to do further research into improved crop quality. The outputs of the research will enable the successful commercialization of novel farming systems, which will in turn help to improve food security, reduce the environmental impact of food production, create local employment and contribute to community health, wellbeing and sustainability.” ●
Treated potatoes
Untreated potates
Photographs: Nottingham Trent University
Fertiliser registration in Europe is changing, and all of us in this sector know that the new Regulation EU2019/1009 will bring about major changes in the sector.
Just to cite one, biostimulants are finally regulated. On the one hand, the law will allow for a unique registration applicable in all the EU Member States (27), simplifying the multiple arrangements that currently have to be made when registering them in different local legal systems. But at what cost and with what studies can they be registered within the different groups of the new regulation?
Today there is no answer to these questions, so companies can wait until the working guidelines of the new implementation regulation are issued before June 2022, if there are no delays, or they can proactively take advantage of this time and generate sales registrations.
How? By taking advantage of the “Mutual Recognition” window that opened in the majority of EU member countries in 2020 as a result of multiple rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
In April 2020, this new Regulation (EU) 2019/515 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on Mutual Recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State entered into force, repealing Regulation (EC) 764/2008. This regulation stipulates that Member States shall facilitate
cooperation and the exchange of information within the context of the principle of “Mutual Recognition”. Several European countries are already applying this regulation to authorise the sale of fertilising products that are already authorised and being sold in another EU country.
Currently, the process takes 2-5 months, depending on the country, with different fees and documentation to be submitted.
We all know that once a product is registered, if a new law enters into force, we may be asked for additional documentation, but this documentation is unlikely to differ from what we have to submit to the registrations currently in force in the local country. Therefore, we have registrations and we sell in those countries where we have requested “Mutual Recognition” as we await a possible revision, far ahead of those who have decided to await the new European guidelines.
We have regulated fertilisers in Europe for many years now, and we all know there are countries with complicated laws that are difficult to access because of the heavy investment needed, so we have to take advantage of the current situation to access these markets. ●
Ferran Soldevila Managing Director Sun Chemicals Services
Three years after a major image rebrand, Italpollina has changed its name to Hello Nature. The announcement comes as the company marks its 50th year in business. According to Luca Bonini, CEO of Hello Nature, the name change is not the result of an acquisition or change of ownership. It simply exemplifies the company’s progression.
The Italpollina name will continue to be used for their classic poultry manure fertilizer product. The full transition to the new name will roll out across the globe throughout 2021, and the company expects to see some crossover on branded materials during this time, coming from the decision of avoiding additional waste. Internationally, branches will adopt the name at different rates depending on various bureaucracy considerations of the region. ●
Biostimulant NEWS continued
By Keith Matthews
Regulatory requirements applicable to plant biostimulants in the United States continue to be unclear. I discussed positive regulatory developments that occurred in in 2018 and 2019 in the SEP/OCT 2019 issue of New AG International. Since that time, various actions related to updating the regulatory requirements applicable to plant biostimulants have occurred, and it appears that a significant breakthrough in plant biostimulants regulatory policy in the U.S. may be in the offing. As I wrote in 2019, in the United States, plant biostimulants are caught in a kind of “no-substance’s land” where they are subject to regulation either as pesticides or fertilizers. While it may seem odd that substances intended to stimulate enhanced growth or yield, or other beneficial physiological responses, may be regulated as pesticides, it is a result of certain aspects of the U.S. regulatory system applicable to pesticides. Because the regulatory scheme applicable to pesticides is substantially distinct from that applicable to fertilizers, this can have significant economic consequences for product manufacturers. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), “pesticide” is defined broadly and includes substances that “alter the physiology” of plants. FIFRA Section 2(u) defines pesticides as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest,” or “any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant”. FIFRA Section 2(v) defines “plant regulator” as “any substance or mixture of substances intended, through physiological action, for accelerating or retarding the rate of growth or rate of maturation, or for otherwise altering the behavior of plants or the produce thereof, but shall not include substances to the extent that they are intended as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant inoculants, and soil amendments.” Therefore, any plant biostimulant product intended to affect the growth rate of plants, or to otherwise alter the physiological behaviour of plants, may be construed to be a plant regulator and thus subject to regulation as a pesticide under FIFRA. The 2018 Farm Bill required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to issue a report a report “that identifies any potential regulatory, non-regulatory, and legislative recommendations, including the appropriateness of any definitions for plant biostimulant, to ensure the efficient and appropriate review, approval, uniform national labeling, and availability of plant biostimulant products to agricultural producers.” USDA produced this report in December 20191.
The USDA 2019 Biostimulants Report noted there currently is no formal statutory or regulatory definition of “plant biostimulant” in either U.S. federal or state law. The USDA proposed two alternative definitions: 1. A plant biostimulant is a naturally-occurring substance, its synthetically derived equivalent, or a microbe that is used for the purpose of stimulating natural processes in plants or in the soil in order to, among other things: improve nutrient and/or water use efficiency by plants, help plants tolerate abiotic stress, or improve characteristics of the soil as a medium for plant growth. The characteristics may be physical, chemical, and/or biological. The plant biostimulant may be used either by itself or in combination with other substances or microbes for this purpose. 2. A plant biostimulant is a substance(s), microorganism(s), or mixtures thereof, that, when applied to seeds, plants, the rhizosphere, soil or other growth media, act to support a plant’s natural nutrition processes independently of the biostimulant’s nutrient content. The plant biostimulant thereby improves nutrient availability, uptake or use efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, and consequent growth, development, quality or yield. The USDA’s report did not recommend the adoption of either of these alternative definitions, and although it noted each alternative definition has “its own merits,” it did not discuss the relative merits of the alternative definitions.
The USDA’s Biostimulants Report also identified six options for updating and improving the U.S. regulatory system applicable to plant biostimulants: 1. Harmonize existing state and federal programs that regulate fertilizers and soil inoculants. 2. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) facilitates a state by state approach and coordinates efforts with the [Association of American Plant Food Control Officials (AAPFCO)] to create a model bill of state regulations for beneficial substances, including plant biostimulants. 3. USDA facilitates a process to bring about a model bill that states would use to enact plant biostimulant legislation that is consistent across the adopting states. 4. Congress enacts legislation to establish a uniform national definition of "plant biostimulant" and directs EPA to amend its current pesticide regulations to (1) incorporate the same uniform national definition of "plant biostimulant," and (2) clarify the exclusion of plant biostimulant products from regulations as plant growth regulators (i.e., pesticides) under FIFRA. 5. Congress passes a "Plant Biostimulant Act" and grants USDA, EPA or another federal agency authority to regulate those plant biostimulant products not currently regulated as pesticides or growth regulators by EPA, and not otherwise regulated as a food additive or as a [Biological Soil Amendment of Animal Origin (BSAAO)] by FDA. 6. A voluntary, fee-for-service non-regulatory approach that would involve on-site verification by a third-party that producers of plant biostimulants have their products and production processes audited annually, confirming that products meet certain plant biostimulants standards and criteria. The USDA noted that, of the six options, the U.S. regulatory agencies, EPA, FDA and USDA, preferred either options 2 or 3. Recall that both options 2 and 3 are regulatory options that would alter current policy by facilitating the adoption of consistent state requirements for plant biostimulants that are not subject to federal regulation. These approaches would maintain EPA and FDA jurisdiction over plant biostimulant products that are sold and distributed with plant growth regulator (i.e., pesticidal)3 intent or that meet the definition of “food additive” under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) or that are classified as a BSAAO. While the USDA was carrying out its mandate under the 2018 Farm Bill, EPA was considering comments that had been submitted on its draft guidance for plant regulators2 – which discussed and provided examples of claims that EPA considered to not constitute pesticidal plant regulator claims, and also claims that would subject a product to regulation as a plant regulator. In addition to identifying claims that EPA considered to be either pesticidal or non-pesticidal, the draft plant regulator guidance also identified “naturally-occurring, plant regulator active ingredients having modes of action and associated product label claims that are consistent with the FIFRA definition of a plant regulator.” EPA’s draft guidance stated “[t]hese substances are generally recognized to have no other significant commercially valuable use, either alone or in combination with other substances, other than use as plant regulators (i.e., as pesticides).” EPA’s Table 4 included a number of substances that, while they are active ingredients in some EPA-registered products, are also currently contained in biostimulant products for which plant regulator claims are not made and that are not currently regulated or registered under FIFRA as plant regulators. EPA’s categorization of certain substances as having no “significant commercially valuable” uses other than as plant regulators caused significant consternation. Comments objecting to EPA’s conclusions regarding certain substances the EPA categorically identified as plant regulators and the inclusion of such a list within the guidance were submitted by a wide range of commenters including the U.S. Biostimulant Coalition (USBC), the Biological Products Industry Alliance (BPIA), the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), the Fertilizer Institute, CropLife America, the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), EBIC, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) and biostimulants producers such as Bayer Crop Science, Marrone Bio Innovations, Scotts and FMC.
In large part due to the controversy engendered by the list of substances that were categorically identified as plant regulators, EPA’s release of the final guidance document was substantially delayed. On 30 November 2020, EPA announced the availability of a draft final guidance on label claims for plant regulators and plant biostimulants4. EPA took comment on the draft final plant regulator guidance until 30 December 2020. EPA indicated its intention was to complete and release the final guidance document in January 2021, but this did not happen. In the draft final Plant Regulator guidance, EPA removes Table 4 and replaces it with discussions of (1) “Substances that have no other use than as plant regulators or pesticides;” (2) “Substances that may have plant regulator and non-plant regulator activity;” and (3)
“Regulatory approaches for substances and products that have multiple plant regulator and non-plant regulator modes of action.” (Draft Final Plant
Regulator Guidance at pages 11-15.) EPA received a broad range of comments on the draft final plant regulator guidance, including comments taking issue with the list of substances identified as having no commercially viable use other than as plant regulators (some comments note that, even where that may be true at present, it is possible that alternative non-plant regulator uses may be developed in the future). EPA is continuing to work on this guidance document, and while the change of administrations has no doubt delayed the final approval of the final guidance, EPA staff still anticipate it will be released by EPA in Q2 or Q3 of calendar 2021. ●
Keith Matthews has practiced environmental law focusing on the regulation of chemicals, biopesticides and genetically engineered organisms for over 20 years. He has practiced in the private sector, and for over 13 years was a staff attorney and assistant general counsel in the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He then served for four years as the director of the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). Today, Matthews is Counsel with Wiley Rein LLP, and his practice focuses on the regulation of chemical products, including biotechnology products regulated by EPA and USDA.
The USDA 2019 Biostimulants Report noted there currently is no formal statutory or regulatory definition of “plant biostimulant” in either U.S. federal or state law.
1Report to the President of the United States and the United States Congress on Plant Biostimulants. Submitted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Dec. 20, 2019.
2Draft Guidance for Plant Regulator Label Claims, Including Plant Biostimulants
3Substances included in the list of substances “generally recognized” to have no significant commercially valuable uses other than as plant regulators included abscisic acid, γ-aminobutyric acid, humic and fulvic acids, harpin proteins and seaweed extracts.
4Pesticides; Updated Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on Plant Regulator Products and Claims, Including Plant Biostimulants; Notice of Availability and Request for Comment.
