It brings together 10 companies already under the Rovensa Group into a unified business unit with a presence in more than 90 countries, and a portfolio of products running into the hundreds. The new business has scale: 14 production plants, 30 R&D laboratories, experimental centres and greenhouses, and 84 partnerships with research centres and universities.
Rovensa Next has many parts, but one objective – to become a global leader in biosolutions. But what are the challenges in bringing together 10 different companies?
New AG International has an exclusive interview with José Alfredo García, chief operating officer of Rovensa Next.
Rovensa Next is a mighty new entity bringing together 10 companies that were already part of the Rovensa Group. Table 1 lists the 10 companies, highlighting the different specialisms that come under the brand.
Table 1: Component companies of Rovensa Next
What’s next?With the company’s bloodline now established, what’s next for this new entity? The COO of Rovensa Next is José Alfredo García, formerly COO of Rovensa Crop Nutrition, and previously from the management side of Tradecorp. The ambition of the new entity is nothing less than to be a biosolutions leader in the industry, says García.
“We formed Rovensa Next to accompany farmers in the fundamental challenges they face – and we as humanity face – particularly when it comes to sustainability. So, we came together to create a solution that not only gives farmers the products they need, but also the support along the way no matter where they arein the world.”
He notes the companies have combined their years of experience to understand the challenges that growers are facing. García says Rovensa Next is betting on its product portfolio and global expertise to set them apart from others in the industry.
Entrepreneurial spiritPutting global challenges to one side, what are the challenges in bringing together 10 different companies?
“Of course, we have some differences: in company culture, and even processes and management styles, but we do have a few things in common,” notes García. “One of those is an entrepreneurial spirit. That has allowed us to build a solid platform that is grower-focused and is going to lead the biotransformation of agriculture.”
Rovensa Next is looking to fill some of the gaps in particular markets, so is focusing its research efforts on microorganisms, microbiological extracts and vegetable extracts, among other active ingredients. The end goal, García says, is to help growers solve the challenges they face. A key part of the company's strategy is providing what they call a holistic platform, which includes not only the products, but also professional teams and local field experts.
FootprintsIn terms of markets, Rovensa Next has sales in 90 countries, with North and South America and Europe as the main regions. With the global network of 10 companies, Rovensa Next has 14 plants across Europe, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico and the United States.
Regarding markets, García explains the company has key markets that it expects will grow significantly, like the United States, Brazil and Europe. In Africa, the company has been active in North Africa since the 1990s – Egypt, Algeria and Morocco – and is also present in South Africa, Nigeria and Ethiopia.
When it comes to Asia, the company has operated there for several years and has offices in main markets like India, China and South Korea, and just opened an office in Malaysia.
Regulatory strengthWhen it comes to the dossiers for regulation, the new entity will have some mass to put behind it.
With a presence and history in various markets around the world, García believes this will accelerate the field part of the regulatory job and demonstrate efficacy. He also notes that in their research centres, they will enhance product characterization and scouting as well.
The in-house knowledge can be shared among the companies in specific markets. “Rovensa Next is taking advantage of the current assets that we have in other geographies. The dossiers that we have developed can be deployed in other areas and speed up the registration processes in key markets,” explains García.
Making headwaySo, what achievements would García like to see Rovensa Next make in the next five years?
“Our portfolio of biosolutions covers the entire plant lifecycle, but I would say biocontrol is going to be one of our differential elements in the sector. And we will intensify our growth in priority markets like the U.S., Brazil and Europe,” he says.
In short, this means more product launches and more registrations. He also refers to two of the EU’s policy initiatives – the Green Deal and Farm to Fork – and the need for biosolutions in agriculture. Rovensa Next plans to help growers to deal with these and other similar regulations throughout the world.
Part of the of the success of this company, concludes García, will come from the differentiation that they have against the big multinationals and from smaller companies.
The Next generation looks set to make its mark. ●
Innovation Center Campinas
Rovensa Next is taking advantage of the current assets that we have in other geographies
Left to Right: José Alfredo García, Co-COO Rovensa Next, Javier Calleja, new CEO Rovensa Group, Eric van Innis, CEO Rovensa Group and Carlos Ledó, Co-COO Rovensa Next
A statement from Panett’a office noted that currently, there isn’t a consistent and predictable path to market for plant biostimulants and “this legislation would help remedy that problem with federal guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture.” Companion legislation was introduced by U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Mike Braun.
“The lack of a standard regulatory definition or pathway to market for plant biostimulants makes accessing this innovative technology difficult for the sustainable agriculture industry,” said Panetta.
According to Baird, as newer technologies become available to farmers and ranchers to improve efficiency, productivity and sustainability of American agriculture, “we have a responsibility to ensure we have a regulatory process that creates a pathway to market without sacrificing safety or efficiency. Biostimulants have the significant potential benefits for producers and their sustainability footprint, and defining these products is an important firststep in getting these tools into farmers' toolboxes.”
The Plant Biostimulant Act will:
Amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to define what is a plant biostimulant and exclude it from being regulated under the Act.
Require the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA) to revise existing
Code of Federal regulations to include this new plant biostimulant definition.
Require U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to study how plant biostimulant products can contribute to soil health.
The Plant Biostimulants Act is endorsed by the Biological Products Industry Alliance (BPIA), the trade association representing the biostimulant industry, as well as the Agriculture Retailers Association (ARA), American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology (CPDA), CropLife America (CLA), The Fertilizer Institute Biostimulant Council, Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), Humic Products Trade Association (HPTA), International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA), National Association of Landscape Professionals (NALP), Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) and Western Growers.
Keith Jones, executive director of the Biological Products Industry Alliance (BPIA), said “the BPIA believes this legislation is critically important to the future of the biostimulant industry because it will codify a federal definition for plant biostimulants and clarify the path to market for these innovative products. BPIA looks forward to working with congress to see this bill become a law.” ●
We have a responsibility to ensure we have a regulatory process that creates a pathwayto market.
By Janet Kanters
The move follows the announcement in March that U.S. representatives reintroduced the Plant Biostimulant Act to create a uniform process for approving commercial plant biostimulant use and require more federal research on the technology’s benefits for soil health.
Currently in the U.S., there isn’t a consistent and predictable path to market for plant biostimulants. The representatives suggest this legislation would help remedy that problem with federal guidancefrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture.
TFI president and CEO Corey Rosenbusch said the Plant Biostimulant Act will support the adoption of biostimulants by farmers and provide clarity to the emerging marketplace.
“Biostimulants are a relatively new innovation in agriculture,” Rosenbusch explained. “There is great potential in these products, but as with any new technology there are hurdles.”
Among the biggest of the hurdles mentioned by TFI’s Rosenbusch are the lack of a clear and consistent definition for “biostimulant” and the fact that there is no uniform framework to regulate them as plant nutrition products.
“The lack of a regulatory framework inhibits research and puts the U.S. behind Europe in product development,” Rosenbusch said. “Other countries are regulating biostimulants through a fertilizer lens and finding success. We are hitting a roadblock right out of the gate and need those guardrails to foster innovation, research, testing, and ultimately a path to market for these products.”
New AG International reached out to Ed Thomas, TFI vice president of government affairs, to learn more about the certification idea.
What does the TFI hope to accomplish with a certification process for biostimulants?The certification program is really being driven by our agriculture retail members. They are getting inundated with hundreds of products seeking shelf space for potential grower adoption. TFI created the program to be an initial screen for our ag retailers so that they could sift through fewer products to conduct their own field trials and R&D before making any recommendations to their grower customers.
How would the process work?The voluntary program will require manufacturers or custom biostimulant blends to submit an application that meets minimum industry standards for efficacy, safety and composition. The application would be reviewed for completeness and conformance with a standard entitled “United States Biostimulant Industry Guidelines to Support the Safety, Composition and Efficacy of Plant Biostimulant Products.” Those products that have completed proper scientific rigour and demonstrated a valid conformance process will be awarded a label signifying certification.
Would there be a cost to biostimulant manufacturers and/or distributors to gain this certification?There will be separate pricing for members versus non-members of TFI. The certification will be valid for 10 years and there will be two fees for TFI members to participate, the initial application fee of USD$2,500 and a renewal fee that is paid every two years of $750. Companies that modify product label claims or make active ingredient formulation modifications will be required to resubmit a new application.
Do you expect this cost to be passed to the consumer or absorbed by the seller? An increase in product prices might act against increased adoption. Your thoughts?We have strong support for the program as valid biostimulant manufacturers want to ensure inferior products that do not meet the certification standard remain out of the ag retailer’s portfolio and ultimately our end grower customers. The modest cost for participation in this program far outweighs the benefits to both end users.
Yara International isbuilding a new global production plant for biostimulants and specialty crop nutrition products.
The plant, to be built close to the company’s existing site in Yorkshire, UK, will allow Yara to double the capacity of its YaraVita products when the facility is expected to be operational by the end of 2025 and further expand production capacity if needed. Virtually all the output
from the plant will be exported to markets around the world.
The market for global specialty fertilizers is projected to grow at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.8 percent between 2022 and 2027, according to MarketsandMarkets. The CAGR for biostimulants is growing at an even higher rate – more than 12 percent – DunhamTrimmer estimates, referring to the period from2018 to 2030.
Yara is a global leader in specialty crop nutrition products and one of the biggest producers in Europe. The company has more than 50 years of agronomic expertise in foliar nutrients and biostimulants and more than 100 years of agronomic knowledge in crops and soils. ●
Belgium-based Colruyt Group is collaborating with The Seaweed Company in a project using a seaweed-based biostimulant to boost soil health.
TopHealth Plants is an organic seaweed-based biostimulant that Colruyt Group claims naturally improves soil quality and health. In the project, Colruyt Group will work with The Seaweed Company to study the applicability and benefits of using this biostimulant during the growing season. It will study whether the crops absorb the nutrients better and are thus healthier.
The application of this biostimulant on Colruyt Group’s own farmland in Moustier (Belgium) is in collaboration with local farmers. TopHealth Plants will be used on plots where winter barley and carrots are grown. This biostimulant is applied before sowing and is repeated several times during the growing process. Part of the soil will not be treated with the biostimulant and will serve as a basis for comparison.
The company states that seaweed extract appears to improve nutrient uptake and increase crop growth performance under stressed and normal conditions. It claims use of the TopHealth Plants biostimulant would also help improve soil carbon uptake, water-holding capacity, better resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses in combination with regenerative agricultural practices such as green manures, crop rotation and non-inversion tillage. ●
ADAMA Ltd. has exercised its call option to acquire the remaining 40 percent stake in ADAMA Chile, formerly known as Chile Agro.
This is following ADAMA’s initial investment in Chile Agro in 2013, whereby the company acquired 60 percent of its equity.
ADAMA Chile specializes in the development, production and commercialization of bio plant nutrition and agrochemical products in Chile, including ExpertGrow, a triple mode-of-action biostimulant for the increase of yield in a variety of fruits and vegetables as well as in soybeans. ExpertGrow is based on a unique fermentation process that improves the plant's photosynthesis, thereby reducing abiotic stress and improving fruit/pod retention and plant growth.
ExpertGrow is sold across Latin America in Brazil, Columbia, Peru, Ecuador and Paraguay, and in Italy, France, Spain, China and Thailand. In the coming years it is expected to be rolled out to additional countries. ●
Rovensa Next’s Biimore biostimulant has received additional crops approval under EU Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR). Adding to its initial certification for foliar application to woody perennials and efficacy trials, the registration has been extended to vegetables, ornamental and AMP crops, and broadacre crops.
Derived from biological fermentation, Biimore uses a specific bacterial strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum using an exclusive and sustainable plant fermentation process. The Biimore fingerprint is the result of Tradecorp’s sustainable proprietary process that uses bacterial fermentation of sugarcane molasses.
In addition to becoming one of the first biostimulants to be registered under the FPR in Europe, Biimore, under the brand name of Vorax, became the first biofertilizer to be registered in Brazil, and has also been approved in the Indian market. ●
DPH Biologicals announced global distribution of RootXCell, a biostimulant combining living biologicals with a plant growth hormone.
RootXCell technology is powered by Indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), a naturally occurring plant hormone that accelerates root development and nutrient absorption, improving plant stress tolerance. The product is developed specifically for commercial greenskeepers, nursery and greenhouse growers, and can help plants to capture increased levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium. In addition to IBA, RootXCell’s formulation includes Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, mycorrhizae, cytokinin and B-vitamins.
According to DPH Biologicals, horticulturalists have been using IBA-based synthetics since the 1930s to root stem cuttings and it is the active ingredient in most plant propagation media. But unlike other IBA-derived products, adding living biology with IBA allows RootXCell to build a foundation for root growth, providing the below and above-ground support crucial to plant resiliency to abiotic stress. ●
The European Biostimulants Industry Council (EBIC) has been working overrecent years to clarify what it says is the misconception that seaweed-based plant biostimulants have modes of actions and biostimulant effects arising from their content of plant hormones.
Earlier this year, EBIC released a white paper entitled: “Recent insights into the mode of action of seaweed-based plant biostimulants”. In it, they clarify that contrary to earlier hypotheses, recent research has showed that the effects of seaweed extracts on plants and their metabolism appear to be largely a function of biomolecules, such as carbohydrates and polyphenols, that modulate gene expression and induce metabolic changes in plants, leading to the observed biostimulant effects.
EBIC reviewed over 35 scientific papers, noting that “many scientific publications over the past 10 years have demonstrated that plant hormones are not responsible for the plant biostimulant effects observed in crops when applying seaweed extracts”. “In fact, recent studies have demonstrated that seaweed extracts modulate gene expression and induce metabolic changes in treated plants, thereby enhancing nutrient use efficiency, abiotic stress tolerance and providing other biostimulant effects. These molecular mechanisms have proven to be independent of any plant growth hormones that may (or may not) be present in seaweed extracts.”
New AG International reached out to Sara García Figuera, PhD, part of the EBIC Secretariat and the leading consultant to EBIC’s Expert Network on Seaweed, who coordinated the White Paper, and David Hiltz, Director of Global Regulatory Affairs at Acadian Plant Health and EBIC Director-at-large, to learn more.
What was the origin of this research project?EBIC members have told us repeatedly over the years that some regulatory authorities were challenging their dossiers to place plant biostimulant products containing seaweed extracts on the market because they believed that the product would contain plant hormones, which are regulated as plant protection products in many jurisdictions. To that end, EBIC decided to write a white paper reviewing the science on this topic that our members could reference when facing this misconception. The paper was developed through EBIC’s Expert Network on Seaweed, integrated by representatives of the following companies: Alfarin, Ocean Knowledge, Yara International, Olmix, Arysta LifeScience, Brandon Bioscience, BioAtlantis, Rovensa Next, ICL Group, Acadian Plant Health, Valagro, Ilex EnviroSciences and Daymsa.
Can you please elaborate on the research process, and explain what the scientific review of the literature looked at specifically?Last year, we conducted a literature review starting from scientific databases such as Scopus and
Web of Science, in which we introduced the words “plant biostimulant” and “seaweed”. We also asked the members of EBIC’s Expert Network on Seaweed to suggest scientific articles that they thought could be relevant for the review. Articles were selected if they had investigated the mode of action of the seaweed extracts or plant biostimulant products, beyond simply reporting their effects on plants. Sara read all the initially selected articles, identified additional references that were either cited or were citing the articles that had been initially selected, and shared a first draft with the Expert Network. After that, we did several rounds of comments to polish the structure of the white paper in chronological order, from the studies in the early 2000s when plant biostimulants were starting to be intensively researched, to the most recent evidence from the current decade. After this iterative process, the EBIC Board approved the white paper in January 2023.
Can you summarize the main conclusions of the white paper?The main conclusion of the paper is that the effect of seaweed-based plant biostimulants is not due to the presence of plant hormones in the product, but to other biological compounds in the formulation and how they elicit natural processes within the plant. Peer-reviewed scientific articles published since 2013 support this conclusion.
There is a focus on the Ascophyllum nodosum species of seaweed. Why is that?We looked for scientific articles investigating the mode of action of other seaweed species, but A. nodosum is the most studied and well characterized species for its plant biostimulant effects, and is a key component of the biostimulant products of many EBIC member companies. When available, we also reported results from studies with other seaweed species, such as the green seaweed Ulva intestinalis or the red seaweed Kappaphycus alvarezii.
How do you think the information from this white paper could shape future research?Our goals for this white paper are to prevent misconceptions from regulatory authorities all over the world, and to stimulate further research into the mode of action of
plant biostimulants, particularly those containing seaweed extracts. Advances in “omics” technologies (genomics, metabolomics, etc.) currently allow for a very detailed characterization of how products applied under certain conditions act on the gene expression of the target plant. If this white paper stimulates more research making use of these technologies, EBIC would be very satisfied.
Putting the scientific debate to one side, when it comes to the FPR, the presence of hormones does not actually prevent the registration of a plant biostimulant. Can you explain why this is the case?Plant biostimulants are regulated in the European Union under the Fertilising Products Regulation [Regulation (EU) 2019/1009], which classifies fertilizing products according to seven Product Function Categories (PFCs). Plant biostimulants (PFC 6) can be placed on the market under the FPR if they fulfil at least one of the four functions listed under PFC 6 (i.e., improving nutrient use efficiency by plants, abiotic stress tolerance, quality traits or nutrient availability in the soil of rhizosphere), they are made of components listed under one or more of the Component Material Categories (CMCs) in the FPR, they fulfil the FPR labelling requirements (including an obligation to declare any ingredients above five percent by product weight), and go through a conformity assessment procedure, including a demonstration oftheir efficacy.
Therefore, a seaweed-based plant biostimulant that fulfils these four conditions would be allowed to be placed on the market after being assessed by a notified body, who will receive an analytical report and a product sample, and would be subject to inspection by market surveillance authorities. In short, the Fertilising Products Regulation uses a functional definition of products, rather than defining them by what they contain.
Other regulatory authorities worldwide have taken different positions on this matter. There have been legal cases in the U.S. and India in which plant biostimulants containing seaweed extracts have been subject to regulatory enforcement actions because the products declared the presence of plant growth hormones or made claims regarding their use as plant growth promoters/regulators (PGRs). In the EU, any natural plant hormones that may (or may not) be present in a plant biostimulant cannot be linked to product function, and it is not allowed to add synthetic plant growth regulators to a plant biostimulant. Doing so would make the product fall under the Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation [Regulation (EC) 1007/2009].
Prospero and EBIC were instrumental in steering the FPR towards the prioritizing of function over component when it came to biostimulant registration. Perhaps you can expand a little more on how this relates to hormones, and possibly other components that we might find in biostimulants? And possibly for components that might be used in biostimulants and biocontrol, the so-called dual-use components.In EBIC, we tend to talk about multiple use components, because just as iron sulphate can be used as a fertilizer component, a herbicide active substance, or a food supplement for humans, there are many components of plant biostimulants that could be used in other products to fulfill other functions. It is how these components are formulated with other components, and how this formulation is used (e.g., application rate, mode of application, timing, target crop, etc.) that determines the function of the product, not just the presence of a particular component. Both the FPR and the PPP Regulation establish rules based on the function of the product, its intended use. Considering this, the European Commission and the EU member states have acknowledged the multiple use principle in numerous occasions, as reflected by the Frequently Asked Questions document related to the FPR. Thus, if a natural plant hormone happens to be present in a seaweed-based plant biostimulant (research would suggest these concentrations can be in the range of nanogram/mL, picogram/mL, or at undetectable
levels), it will be the function of the product, the effect provided under specific use instructions, that will determine how it is classified, not the presence of this component. ●
The effect of seaweed-based plant biostimulants is not due to the presence of plant hormones in the product, but to other biological compounds in the formulation and how they elicit natural processes within the plant.
