The Future of Crop Production: Exploring the Impact of Biologicals and Biostimulants at the No-Till Conference
This January, I had the privilege of attending the 32nd Annual No-Till Conference, a pivotal event that kicks off the season for no-till growers. Spanning over three decades, this conference has become a cornerstone in the no-till community, offering over 100 cutting-edge, informative sessions across four days. It's a vibrant hub for learning and networking, attracting a diverse group of participants from active no-till farmers to leading academics who share their latest research findings.
The conference's format, with its mix of large group presentations and more intimate breakout sessions, provides valuable insights for those looking to improve their agricultural practices. Among these, the discussions on biologicals, biostimulants, and residue management products stood out, highlighting their growing importance in the future of agriculture.
The speaker agenda for the conference is packed full of individuals who actively no-till and academics who present research findings. The conference format included large group presentations and more intimate breakout classrooms where several agricultural scientists presented research pertinent to growers interested in improving their operations. One such breakout room dealt with biologicals, biostimulants, and residue management products. Such products are all the rage currently and, in my humble opinion, the future of agriculture.
Most of the research in biologicals is done by companies who directly market such products or in an academic setting where the results are only occasionally disseminated to the general public. However, this particular classroom was run by Dr. Connor Sible, a post-doctoral research assistant at the University of Illinois and protege of Dr. Fred Belows (see Dr. Belows 7 Wonders of 300 Bushel Corn). Dr. Sible was also highly interested in biological products and, as such, has performed several years of trials looking at the efficacy of such products alongside Dr. Below. I found Dr. Sible's presentation of his findings to be concise, easy to understand, and highly informative.
Figure 5 from Seven Wonders of the Corn Yield World by Dr. Ted Belows.
Effect of previous crop (continuous corn versus soybean) on soil tilth. Photo taken after spring tillage activities (chisel plow followed by field cultivator) at Champaign, IL.
In the field of biological products, there are often several unanswered questions, and Dr. Sible's presentation set out to answer such questions as;
What Qualifies as a Biostimulant?
Can Biologicals Replace Traditional Fertilizer Applications?
Will these products work consistently?
I intend to summarize some of the points from the presentation and provide a link to read the full report. By the end of this blog post, the reader will have a deeper insight into the world of biological and bio-stimulant products.
What Qualifies as a Biostimulant?
First off, What is the difference between a biostimulant and a biological? Both products are held to improve nutrient efficiency, but as Dr. Sible summarized succinctly, the living (biologicals) and the non-living (biostimulants). So, with those fundamental differences in mind, let's look at how each product group works.
Biostimulants are not typical fertilizers or even classified as such. Instead, they work by enhancing the plant's ability to absorb nutrients and cope with stressors like drought or disease. For example, seaweed extracts are known for stimulating plant growth and improving stress resistance. Humic acids, another popular biostimulant, play a crucial role in improving soil structure and nutrient availability. Biostimulants are not just about boosting yields directly; but cultivating healthier, more resilient plants and soils, naturally paving the way for a more sustainable future in agriculture.
Biostimulants such as fulvic acid and humic acid help to improve nutrient efficacy by acting as chelators.
Chelator - facilitator or carrier, making it easier for plants to absorb minerals that are vital for their growth, which might otherwise be unavailable in the soil. This process is crucial for improving plant nutrition and overall health.
In terms of phosphate specifically, we see availability hindered by cations. Because phosphate is negatively charged, it is often captured by positively charged elements such as calcium, iron, and aluminum, forming bonds that lock up phosphate, ensuring it is unavailable to plants. Fulvic acid and humic, chelate cations before they can attach to phosphate, thus improving their availability.
How Biologicals Work
For the sake of conversation, let’s keep phosphate availability in mind. It’s important to understand that biologicals work in several ways. We see biologicals sub-divided into two categories:
Free-Living and Symbiotic
Free-living phosphate solubilizers or mineralizers do not form direct relationships with the crop when applied to the soil; however, they produce acids and enzymes that break inorganic phosphate cation complexes and convert organic phosphate to inorganic phosphate. In his published research, Dr. Sible points out that the act of solubilizing phosphate (breaking apart inorganic phosphate bonds to release phosphate) is separate from mineralizing phosphate (converting organic phosphate to inorganic phosphate). Many readers may recognize Bacillus strains as part of biologicals as they are well-known phosphate solubilizers.
The symbiotic group of phosphate-focused biologicals primarily comprises arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi or AMF for short. AMF forms an extension of a crop's rooting system in exchange for root exudates. The AMF network helps increase root-soil contact, resulting in greater phosphate uptake.
2. Can Biologicals Replace Traditional Fertilizer Applications?
Often, we see biological products positioned as fertilizer alternatives with claims that biologicals can reduce the amount of fertilizer added. Dr. Sible performed a two-year study to determine the validity of these claims, and the results were fairly interesting. The study focused primarily on the use of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria. The study included four treatments: untreated, PSB alone, ammonium polyphosphate alone, and PSB+polyphosphate.
The trial was performed at the University of Illinois at Champaign between 2021 and 2022, and yields averaged between the two years. The untreated averaged 232 bushels per acre, the PSB alone averaged 235, the polyphosphate alone averaged 237, and the combination of both averaged 245. This research indicates that a combination of both biological and traditional fertilizers is the best practice. While fertilizer alone and biological alone essentially yielded the same, the benefits of both speak for themselves.
3. Will Biologicals Work Consistently?
The two-year study also speaks to the consistency of using biologicals. Results were positive two years in a row, but is it definitive? We often hear stories from growers who are all in on biologicals and growers who indicate they do not work on their farms. I would chalk up this inconsistency to the multiple variables involved in farming. Weather, nutrient availability, and soil type vary wildly throughout the United States. When testing biologicals on your farm, I recommend multiple-year trials to truly understand if an initial increase or failure resulted from chance. Determining if biologicals can provide a consistent advantage boils down to testing on your farm and tracking the results.
Assessing Consistency: The 2023 CultivAce Midwest Trials
A key question often asked about biologicals is their consistency in performance. The 2023 CultivAce Midwest trials provide valuable insights here. These trials highlight that when applied correctly, biologicals, like Free Phos 24 can deliver consistent results across various crops and conditions. However, the trials also emphasize the importance of adapting these solutions to specific local conditions and continuously monitoring their effects to maximize benefits.
Additional links
For Dr. Sible's full study, The Role of Biologicals in Enhancing Nutrient Efficiency in Corn and Soybean (PDF)
No TIll Conference 2024 - January 7-10th, 2025 - Louisville, Kentucky
For those interested in learning more about PSBs read, Comparing Liquid Phosphate Fertilizers: Midwest Corn Yields