Syngenta Thrive

by

With fertilizers at a premium this year, no farmer wants to see them wasted. Or, perhaps worse than wasted, taken over by weeds competing with crops. It is more important than ever to make sure fields are weed-free, and starting early is the best way to minimize the effects of weeds.

Weeds hamper profits not only by reducing yield, but also in more hidden ways such as siphoning valuable resources from crops, says Skyler James, a crop consultant with Crop Quest.

Weeds take water, nutrients, sunlight and leave fewer resources for crops — meaning they are especially harmful for crops’ early development. The longer weeds grow, the more they take.

''

The first thing you need to do is start clean so that you don’t plant into any standing weed infestations.

Erin Burns Ph.D. Assistant Professor and weed scientist at Michigan State University

Know the Hidden Costs

Fertilizer is a significant investment from which successful farming operations want to extract maximum value.

“If a guy has already fertilized and has weeds out there, he’s worried about the weeds using moisture and the fertilizer,” says James. “Competition is a real issue you see in the field when weeds aren’t controlled early enough. One thing that really helps is having a good crop canopy to compete with the weeds. For example, if the wheat isn’t fertilized properly, then the stand can be thin; then we have the weeds come in and compete with the wheat.”

Pete Eure, Syngenta technical product lead for soybean herbicides, agrees. “With fertilizer prices being at high levels today,” he says. “Anything you can do to maximize that nutrient-use efficiency is key — meaning removing weeds and keeping them from taking the nutrients.”

Start Clean

With early weed management, it is essential to start with a clean slate.

“The first thing you need to do is start clean so that you don’t plant into any standing weed infestations,” says Erin Burns, Ph.D. assistant professor and weed scientist at Michigan State University. She recommends burndown applications to ensure that all the weeds — any winter annuals or weeds that have emerged before crop planting — are gone.

Burns explains that she has many herbicide trials with control plots where no herbicides are applied. These control plots are excellent evidence of just how detrimental competition from weeds can be for crops.

“Even if you only had minimal weed competition, once weeds have established themselves, they’re competing with crops all season,” she says.

Eure says weeds are constantly fighting for the resources crops need such as sunlight, water, nutrients and space.

“Where we see a lot of the best success in weed control is when the grower comes out with a clean field,” he says. “With no weeds present, crops planted and a solid preemergence herbicide with multiple effective sites of action in place, the fight is largely over before it begins.”

If weeds are not controlled early in the season and become firmly established, harvest efficiency decreases, and a field’s weed seed bank grows. That means growers face unnecessary difficulties throughout the current season and at harvest and will likely start the following season in a less advantageous position regarding weed management.

Think Through Options

Growers can choose from a wide range of practices and products. The most significant opportunity for success lies in figuring out what best fits the operation and what each field needs.

Burns says growers in some areas use cover crops to help manage weeds. Cover crops create shade and block sunlight from weeds — such as the one he sees most frequently, ragweed. Effective cover cropping requires large amounts of biomass to layer the soil surface and impede weed germination.

“If you have shady conditions,” Burns says, “It makes it hard for weeds to make it through that thick layer, and we can have various levels of success.”

Mark Kitt, Syngenta technical product lead for corn herbicides, says each grower has their preferred weed management strategies. He suggests growers consider including herbicides with multiple effective modes of action in their weed-management program such as Acuron® and Acuron Flexi. Kitt says Acuron GT herbicide is the strongest post-emergence knockdown plus residual product for glyphosate-tolerant corn on the market and a great option for growers.

“Acuron GT combines four active ingredients — bicyclopyrone, which is exclusive to Syngenta — as well as mesotrione, S-metolachlor and glyphosate,” Kitt says. “It is specifically designed for post-emergence use in glyphosate-tolerant corn.”

Consider Geography

Of course, a grower’s location is also a significant factor in selecting the best weed control methods for an operation.

In Kansas, T.J. Binns, Syngenta agronomy service representative, says one weed gets most attention these days.

“Out in my world, here in western Kansas, the only weed we talk about right now — and any more — is Palmer amaranth,” Binns says. “We start with tillage, but it doesn’t help much with the Palmer because our Palmer starts emerging later than we plant our corn.”

That’s why he and his peers use different herbicides to attack the weeds head-on. For example, Binns says Acuron is an enormous advantage to growers in his area. He points out that weed control is difficult because there is no one-size-fits-all method. For example, cover cropping doesn’t work well in the dryer Kansas climate.

“The problem is we’re in a very arid environment,” he says. “Where we live, cover crops aren’t used very much because we barely have enough water.”

James agrees and adds that moisture is a make-or-break factor for crops.

“Moisture is normally our limiting factor. There have been several people trying to cover crop, and maybe it helps with the weeds, but it uses so much moisture that the crop yields are usually down in the dry land scenario,” he says. “Under irrigation, they’ve had some success, but it’s pretty limited unless you consider wheat a cover crop.”

Moisture and weather go hand-in-hand in preventing weeds. The weather, James says, heavily affects the possibility of weeds.

“If it’s really dry, which a lot of times it is, we don’t have any weeds sprouting,” James adds. “If we have moisture, we have weeds.”

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

A child fighting leukemia in the Philippines faces a significant disadvantage compared with a child in this country. For one girl, the U.S. agricultural community stepped up to make a difference. Thanks to Bob Kemerait, Ph.D., extension specialist in the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia, the world has gotten a little smaller and a lot more compassionate.

Global Ties

“I work a lot in agriculture around the world,” Kemerait says. “And one of the places where I work is the Philippines.” Over the past 20 years, he has worked closely with colleagues in the country, visiting frequently to help the farmers there, and ultimately acquiring a wide array of friends. He and his wife, who is from the Philippines, also vacation there.

Kemerait’s trips are normally routed through Manila, and he’s come to know some of the families living in the capital city – including some from impoverished backgrounds. During his stays, he often invites them to participate in fun activities to bring a little sunshine into their lives.

On a visit to Manila several years ago, Kemerait invited Rema, a family friend, and her children to go swimming and then to eat at a local restaurant. Rema brought along her cousin’s 6-year-old daughter Rhianna “Ula” Jhane – whom she refers to as her niece.

“Ula stood out from the other children because, though she was small in stature, she was filled with exuberance,” Kemerait says.

''

After Rema told me about Ula’s diagnosis, I decided I had to do something for that sweet girl, her mother and her aunt. I didn’t quite know what could be done; but I knew if Ula would fight, then I would fight beside her.

BOB KEMERAIT, PH.D. Extension Specialist in the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia

Ula lives with her mother, Josiephine, and her 3-year-old brother, Ar-J, in Navotas, a hard-scrabble coastal town located within Metro Manila.

Exuberance to Exhaustion

In 2021, Josiephine noticed that Ula was having difficulty walking and experiencing pain in her hips. The once active Ula had little to no energy. Josiephine scraped together the money to take Ula to the hospital. Following that visit, she called on Kemerait to help her understand the diagnosis. Kemerait and his wife, Pam, working through the medical system, eventually learned that Ula had Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL).

Childhood ALL is a type of cancer that affects the blood and bone marrow and worsens without proper treatment, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy. However, this type of treatment requires access to appropriate medical care and money to fund it, both of which can be major obstacles for children from Navotas. Kemerait’s research revealed that a child in the United States who is diagnosed with this same type of cancer has a 90% chance of survival; for a child without ready access to medical care, the disease is a death sentence. This disparity was inconceivable to him.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

“After Rema told me about Ula’s diagnosis, I decided I had to do something for that sweet girl, her mother and her aunt,” Kemerait says. “I didn’t quite know what could be done; but I knew if Ula would fight, then I would fight beside her.”

Social Support

As this ordeal developed, Kemerait shared Ula’s story on social media. The outpouring of support he received for Ula was immediate and astonishing. People he hadn’t seen in years — and current acquaintances like Chip Blalock, the executive director of the Sunbelt Agricultural Expo — wanted to help support Ula’s treatment.

“When a man like Dr. Kemerait champions a cause, you know it’s important,” Blalock says. “He has never asked for a dime [for Ula], and it shows how much people think of him when they are willing to help someone on the other side of the globe.”

Blalock decided to help Ula and asked if Kemerait had Venmo®. Kemerait responded, “Well, I do now.”

Kemerait also familiarized himself with other electronic payment platforms that made donations to Ula possible, including Zelle®, PayPal® and Cash App®.

Ag Steps Up

Kemerait says it’s incredible how many people in the industry came together to support a child thousands of miles away. Upon learning of Ula’s plight, attendees from various growers’ conferences came forward quietly to hand him donations. Meanwhile, farmers from four states reached out to contribute.

“At one growers’ conference, a colleague slipped a $100 bill in my hand,” Kemerait says. “Farmers from all over, some of whom I’ve never met personally, joined to support Ula’s cause.”

Randy Thrash of Randy Thrash Farms and Produce in Albany, Georgia, is one such farmer. Thrash regularly donates to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital; but after reading Ula’s story on Facebook, he felt compelled to help.

“Farmers are some of the most compassionate people there are,” Thrash says. “I have more respect for Dr. Kemerait because of what he’s doing for that child.”

The financial support farmers and others in the ag community provided helped Ula celebrate her 11th birthday and Christmas with her family this past year.

Contributions for Ula’s treatment range from $10 to $5,000. In total this past year, Kemerait has raised close to $20,000. He carefully reviews bills from the hospital and attending physicians, then pays for Ula’s medical expenses and sends extra to Rema and Josiephine to buy nutritious food, such as bananas and other fresh fruits and vegetables, which would otherwise be out of reach financially for Ula’s family.

“It is important that Ula gets proper nutrition to help with the treatment,” Kemerait says. “It’s not only the illness we are treating, but we’re meeting her nutritional needs as well.”

Moving Forward

Kemerait emphasizes that this story is about Ula, and he’s just the liaison to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it is a common story for families around the world without access to life-saving medical care.

For Ula, however, the future is bright. She finished an aggressive treatment regime and is now in the maintenance phase of fighting cancer. Her condition continues improving, and her doctors are optimistic she will recover. Josiephine is grateful for the care and love that everyone has shown for Ula and her family.

“I would do anything I could to make my Ula healthy again,” Josiephine says. “But life is hard here, and it is so very difficult to take care of medical needs for this cancer. I am grateful to my cousin Rema for helping us. It is because of Rema that we know Dr. Kemerait and his family. As a mother, I am so very grateful to them.”

The doctors say that it will take a total of three years before Ula will be cancer free. Even though she still worries about her daughter’s continued health care needs, Josiephine trusts Kemerait and those contributing to Ula’s expenses. Their help is a bright light in a once hopeless place.

Kemerait only intended to share Ula’s story with his social media network. Now, almost a year later, his intention has brought much needed medical assistance to Ula and united many in the single goal to save a child.

If you would like to follow Ula’s story, please contact Kemerait on Facebook, where he shares daily updates and pictures about Ula’s progress.

by

There has been an ongoing debate in farm management circles about calculating cost per bushel versus cost per acre throughout our careers. To be honest, we’ve wrestled with this over time. At some points, cost per bushel seemed like a clever, highly intuitive metric, but at other times it feels like hand-waving and just dividing total costs by a different number.

The Rub

The crux of the debate gets down to a mismatch of units: Inputs are purchased (or applied) on a per acre basis, while outputs are sold on a per bushel basis. We probably know our cost per acre, but we usually don’t sell corn, soybean, or cotton by the acre.

''

Reviewing budget projections on a per bushel basis can unlock powerful management insights. Great managers across business sectors understand their costs.

The biggest challenge with cost per acre is that we often don’t know what final yields will be until the end of the growing season. Even under irrigated conditions, yield variations can be enough to move the needle. Given this uncertainty and variability, cost per bushel can become confusing.

The short of this is simple — both have their advantages and flaws. Neither is a perfect, end-all measure of production expenses. At the end of the day, producers must know their costs — per bushel, per acre, total, etc.

Scenarios

To consider how per acre and per bushel can be relevant — or confusing — to producer decision making, consider the following scenarios:

  • Buying or renting land — The per acre measure has a strong advantage in farmland situations. Social norms are such that submitted farmland bids are on a per acre basis. While bidding might take place for the entire parcel, everyone is doing the per acre math in their head.While farms aren’t often purchased on a per bushel basis, it can be a helpful metric for benchmarking, especially across several years of data. Furthermore, it is common to see soil productivity metrics used to adjust for quality variations.
  • Selecting inputs — Comparing only per acre costs of alternative inputs can be very shortsighted, especially when there are different yield outcomes. There are two ways to reconcile cost and yield differences.The first option is to calculate the total per bushel cost of each alternative. For example, start with your initial budget assumptions and consider two alternative scenarios. For each herbicide program, plug in the yield assumptions and per acre costs. The program with the lowest per bushel cost is the better deal.The second option is partial budget analysis. For each alternative, consider the revenue gains minus the costs. The program with the highest return is preferred. For example, one fungicide program might cost $30 per acre and generate $45 per acre of additional revenue for a net benefit of $15 per acre. The alternative might cost $20 per acre but only generate $30 per acre in additional revenue. With both measures, the goal and outcome are the same: Don’t singularly focus on cost per acre and overlook potential yield differences.
  • Initial budget projections — When creating farm-level budget projections, per acre measures are often the natural starting point. As previously discussed, inputs are typically discussed on a per acre basis.While challenging, converting and reviewing initial budget projections on a per bushel basis can unlock powerful management insights. You will need to establish a consistent method for the “average” yield used to divide by, but doing this can be insightful for benchmarking across fields or over time. Again, this isn’t easy but can be a powerful tool when done appropriately.
  • Corn versus soybeans — This is the rare case where there is a clear winner: per acre basis. Compare the returns of alternative crops by comparing the per acre contribution margins or returns after variable expenses are paid — and what is left to cover the fixed expenses.The per bushel calculation of profits or contribution margins isn’t insightful at all. Why? Yields are different across the crops. For example, corn will almost always have small profits per bushel compared with soybeans but yield considerably more bushels. On the other hand, we’d expect soybeans to have more returns per bushel but considerably fewer bushels.
  • Early growing season marketing decisions — Again, this is the rub: Inputs are per acre, but you are selling bushels. Perhaps the most significant advantage of per bushel measurement is when making early growing season marketing decisions. Initial cost projections — from budgets — reported on a bushel basis are decisive for making preharvest marketing decisions. While yield assumption must be made, the per bushel measure is extremely valuable in sizing up any market rally opportunities.
  • Post-harvest marketing decisions — will often rely on both measures when making post-harvest marketing decisions. Starting on a per acre basis allows for all revenues to be considered (government payments, crop insurance proceeds, etc.). From there, producers can calculate the per bushel prices needed to reach their break-evens.There can be a few challenges when allocating fixed expenses, such as machinery or family labor, across different crops (irrigated versus non-irrigated) or a livestock enterprise. For example, the machinery cost of planted irrigated and non-irrigated corn will be about the same on a per acre basis, but the per bushel basis will differ given higher irrigated yields. Therefore, it’s helpful to start with the per acre basis, capture all the variables and convert the final numbers to the per bushel basis.
  • Yearly review — Per acre measures make managerial sense for reviewing the financial performance, especially when benchmarking over time or versus initial budgets.Producers will need to use caution with per bushel measures as production abnormalities, such as the drought of 2012 or prevented planting of 2019, can heavily skew the results. Did final production costs come in over budget because Mother Nature walloped yields or input expenses were high? The implications are not always intuitive.

The Big Picture

Most of the time, conversations and debates about the cost per bushel versus cost per acre miss the big picture: You have to know your costs! At the end of the day, this is an exercise of allocating costs over units. In some cases, it makes more sense to consider the cost structure on an input basis (per acre). In other situations, it makes more sense to consider the cost structure on an output basis (per bushel). Set procedures and practices in place that allow you to have an accurate and up-to-date understanding of your costs. Then you can start to decide which metric is more insightful and intuitive for the questions at hand.

While we’ve focused on crops, the lessons are similar for livestock — cost per acre of pasture versus per cow (or calf sold), pens sold versus head (or pounds) of cattle sold, or per stall versus per hog.

This leads us to the last point: Sometimes, this debate comes across as an ag-related problem. In reality, it’s a situation every business and sector face. Only a few retailers buy bananas at wholesale and pass the same product along at a higher price. Airlines have seats, fuel, trips and hours flown as inputs, with passengers, seats and revenues as outputs. Whether a farmer or ag input supplier, great managers know their costs and challenge their thinking to generate, capture and utilize insights. Start simple and build a system that works for you.

by

Corn popping through freshly planted soil gives farmers a little spring in their steps. There’s nothing quite like it for folks who love farming.

All too often, however, that step goes flat when farmers see tough weeds emerge alongside those corn plants. Those weeds reduce yield starting with that first leaf. With widespread herbicide resistance increasingly commonplace in weeds, farmers must develop management plans to wipe out weeds and protect their yield.

Crop rotation, which in corn country generally means planting soybean in alternate seasons, is one tactic to consider. Crop rotation gives farmers the option to use different herbicides, increasing the modes of action available to combat weeds.

“A comprehensive weed control program should include tools to reduce incidence of herbicide resistance,” says Sudeep Mathew, mid-Atlantic area agronomic service representative at Syngenta. “In the mid-Atlantic, we not only have resistant Palmer amaranth, common ragweed and grasses like barnyardgrass, foxtail and Italian ryegrass, we also have resistant horseweed, which was first identified in this area.”

Resistant weeds vary between regions. In North Dakota, waterhemp and kochia show resistance to both glyphosate and ALS inhibitor herbicides, says Joe Ikley, Ph.D., assistant professor and extension weed specialist at North Dakota State University.

Waterhemp also causes problems in the western Corn Belt, says Bill Johnson, Ph.D, Purdue University weed science professor. However, Johnson points out, farmers farther east are more concerned with weeds like giant ragweed, foxtail, lambsquarter and morningglory.

In the mid-South, Palmer amaranth resistance to glyphosate appeared more than a decade ago and presents a particular challenge.

“Mississippi may rank at the top of the list for resistant weeds,” says Tripp Walker, Syngenta area agronomy service representative in Mississippi and north Alabama. “I think there are 13 weed species here with herbicide resistance. To get control now, you have to diversify your strategy.”

Plan Intensively

Starting with a solid weed management plan is essential.

“Crop rotation is really your biggest strength,” Walker says. “If you’re having a resistant-weed problem, rotate to a monocot crop like corn on some acreage. Then you have more tools for effective weed control. You can reduce the weed seed bank that way.”

''

We spray Acuron as we plant, right behind the planter. That way, the ground is fresh. There’s a little moisture in the soil, which helps activate the herbicide.

Al Hill Owner of High Yield Farms in Deep Run, North Carolina

Walker and Mathew recommend a two-pass herbicide approach on fields where potentially resistant weeds are present. They say the best approach is to consider these weeds herbicide-resistant from the beginning.

“You have to think differently these days. Using multiple modes of action is the key,” Mathew says. “Be sure to use herbicides effective against the weeds. If you use a preemergence herbicide at corn planting, plan to come back within 21 to 28 days with a post-emergence application of a different herbicide. Overlay a residual product before canopy closure.”

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

According to Walker, growers should design weed-control programs that include pre- and post-emergence applications.

“You should design a total weed control program with a preemergence herbicide followed by a post-emergence material as a priority, and use multiple modes of action,” Walker says.

Additionally, Johnson says, “Scout fields. See what’s leaking through.”

For effective control and to anticipate herbicide resistance, Johnson says, “Most Indiana farmers use a glyphosate product along with something else as a post-emergence program.”

Acuron® herbicide from Syngenta is effective preemergence because it combines four different active ingredients with three modes of action. Acuron contains atrazine, mesotrione, S-metolachlor — also sold under the brand names of AAtrex®, Callisto®, and Dual II Magnum® herbicides, respectively, — and bicyclopyrone, a novel active ingredient designed to improve weed control and consistency. The four active ingredients together provide broadleaf and grass control for over 70 weed species.

Ikley likes to see farmers use a multiple mode-of-action approach like that.

“When you get three or four active ingredients spanning three modes of action, you’re more likely to help your situation with resistance,” he says. “Most of our soybean farmers have gone to Roundup Ready 2 Xtend® or Enlist E3® soybean technology, which helps with resistance.”

Choose Wisely

It is important for farmers to stay alert and inspect your fields for escaped weeds. Johnson says weeds like velvetleaf, cocklebur and jimsonweed, which seemed to be easily controlled a few years ago, have returned in some areas. In North Dakota, Ikely says he’s seeing more wild oats and green foxtail. Waterhemp, too, seems to be a never-ending challenge — with seeds arriving in floodwaters as well as being moved by harvest equipment.

Fortunately, growers have choices. Halex® GT and Acuron® GT herbicides are effective post-emergence herbicide options because they provide both the control of emerged and unemerged weeds. Acuron GT is a new herbicide developed specifically for postemergence. Because it contains the full-season label rate of bicyclopyrone, it cannot be used if Acuron was used preemergence. However, if growers want to use Acuron GT postemergence, they can use Lexar® EZ, Lumax® EZ or Bicep II Magnum® preemergence.

Al Hill, who farms 3,100 acres of corn and soybeans in Deep Run, North Carolina, says a one-pass approach in corn using Acuron herbicide, a premix formulation of bicyclopyrone, mesotrione, S-metolachlor and atrazine, preemergence with a burndown application, such as Gramoxone® SL 3.0 herbicide, works well for him.

“Doing it in one pass simplifies things and works for me,” Hill says. “I start with a fall application of [herbicide] to keep weeds from overwintering. We tend to have mild winters in eastern North Carolina, and this keeps weeds from popping up. Then I come back with Gramoxone® SL 3.0 and with Acuron when we plant corn in late March and early April. We spray Acuron as we plant, right behind the planter. That way, the ground is fresh. There’s a little moisture in the soil, which helps activate the herbicide.”

Hill also strip-tills corn in 20-inch rows so it can canopy quickly, shading out late weed emergence.

Walker notices farmers taking more comprehensive approaches to weed management, which he sees as necessary to deal with today’s weeds. Farmers, he says, are more innovative because they’ve seen the writing on the wall and know long-term farming requires maintaining soil health and reducing the seed bank.

Don’t Delay

A quick start to corn weed control programs protects against yield loss. Mathew advises initiating weed removal at least four to five days before the critical period of weed control, which is the V1 to V11 corn growth stages.

Some weeds can surprise you with lightning-fast growth. Palmer amaranth, for example, can grow two-to-three inches a day.

“People underestimate it,” Mathew says. “They see it, then look at it again in four or five days, and it’s gone from a two-leaf weed to a six-leaf weed. Don’t underestimate these weeds. Be sure you apply proper herbicide rates to control them.”

“Research tells us that for every leaf stage of delay from V1 to V11, there’s a 2% yield loss,” Mathew continues. “You can easily get a 10% yield loss just by delaying post-emergence herbicides. For $6 per bushel corn, that adds up.”

by

COVID-19 chucked a boulder into the global and local supply chain ponds, and the resulting waves will ripple outward for quite some time. With the surplus safety net gone, securing supplies last minute is no longer an option. Farmers, retailers and manufacturers who plan ahead and stay flexible are better situated to stay afloat until things settle.

“In just two years, as a country and industry, we’ve gone from essentially free-flowing supply of all materials to an environment where there’s a strained supply of many,” says Kevin Duhe, head of supply for Syngenta North America. “In the ag industry and even in our personal lives, we’ve seen — and will continue to see — longer lead times for ordering and receiving all sorts of goods.”

While suppliers of crop protection products fared better in the short term than those needing microchips, there’s still cause for long-term concern. Conditions in 2022 create an especially challenging situation for crop protection products.

''

Retailers and farmers will need to lean into their agronomic teams. Agronomists should be ready with recommendations that can help maximize a farmer’s return on investment through the best inputs available.

Jeff Cecil Head of Crop Protection Marketing at Syngenta

Find Balance

Farmers are faced with a careful balancing act in 2022. While input costs have risen substantially due to various factors, including inflation and exponential increases in transportation costs, strong commodity markets continue to offer profit opportunities.

These factors combine to drive increased demand for crop protection products. Growers must plan long-term to ensure the necessary products and tools are available to help them protect higher-than-normal investments, maximize yields and increase income potential.

When planning for crop protection purchases, growers should include a fluid assessment of current pricing, as experts believe inflation will continue accelerating through 2022. These factors contribute to pricing increases on products in most industries, including crop protection.

“Retailers and farmers will need to lean into their agronomic teams,” says Jeff Cecil, Syngenta head of crop protection marketing. “Agronomists should be ready with recommendations that can help maximize a farmer’s return on investment through the best inputs available. This includes where a farm will get the biggest benefit as they navigate increasing costs and potentially limited product availability.”

Consider Supply Chain Complexities

Syngenta is well-positioned to meet farmer needs, Duhe says. The company planned for larger supplies of its crop protection products for the 2022 growing season than in 2021, and all products in the portfolio should be available.

“We don’t have an unlimited supply, but we’re in a good spot,” Duhe says.

That’s not to say all products will be freely available all season. When there’s a shortage of a major product, such as the glyphosate shortfall Bayer announced, there is a domino effect on the supply chain. In this situation, demand for herbicides that work similarly increases, explains Mike Hollands, Syngenta head of global supply and operations.

Crop protection products are especially vulnerable to supply chain disruption for several reasons. For one, most require months to produce. Then, there’s the global travel time.

Crop protection product manufacturing spans the globe — with the early stages of the process sometimes starting in distant locations like China and India. Multiple stages require fabrication of chemicals, and manufacturers move products several times before they get to local formulation and packaging.

This complexity creates many potential pain points, especially since each product contains multiple components — chemicals, stabilizers, surfactants, colorants, plastic bottles, caps, labels, printer ink, glue, boxes and more.

“Not having any one of those components can delay or keep a product off the shelf,” Duhe says. “Everything might be done, and then the cap didn’t show up because the plant that produced it had to slow down due to COVID. That throws off the schedule by a week or more. Those situations aren’t easy to plan for, but that’s what we’re all adapting to — us, retailers and farmers.”

Have a Long-Term Plan

When the pandemic hit, those who had full pantries and freezers — maybe even a spare roll of toilet paper or two — were probably less stressed. The pantries at Syngenta were well-stocked, company leaders point out, thanks to years of strategic long-term planning.

“What positioned Syngenta so well to handle upheaval in the supply chain compared with other crop protection companies and industries is that long before any crisis hit, we formed long-term strategic collaborations across our entire supply chain,” Duhe says.

The company and its customers continue to realize benefits from its strategic planning as the world hopscotches from one supply chain disaster to the next, including a global pandemic, canal-blocking ships, clogged ports, power outages in China, and war.

Syngenta secured long-term contracts with guaranteed levels of service and supply end to end — from raw materials to packaging to transportation. And as a long-standing contracted partner, Syngenta has priority when orders continue to come in but supplies or space on transport run low.

One way Syngenta planned ahead for potential disruptions was locking in rates with partners. For example, Duhe says, Syngenta signed a long-term contract with global shipping titan Maersk years ago. Prior to 2020, the Maersk deal may not have looked so savvy to outsiders. However, it wound up cementing rates and securing a consistent supply of space on Maersk container ships during an unexpectedly turbulent time.

“Traditionally, spot market buys could sometimes be lower than the rate Syngenta secured by contract. But by 2020, costs had skyrocketed from $3,000 to $20,000 to get a shipping container from China to the United States,” Duhe says.

While companies needed to adjust even contractual rates with such a wild swing, Syngenta was positioned for capacity and cost benefits due to its long-term supplier relationships.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

Track for Success

An innovative tracking system also helps Syngenta — literally in this case — navigate around supply chain issues. The company invested in a cutting-edge global online tracking and visibility platform that helps it assess where in the world its products are at all times, Duhe says.

“We have a global team with people who work around the clock in all time zones and constantly track our raw materials and products around the world,” he adds.

The real-time digital tracking and constant surveillance allow Syngenta to detect transit and supply problems sooner. When issues arise, it can redirect and adjust plans to keep things moving.

Even as the world optimistically looks for the pandemic to wind down, supply chain issues persist. Syngenta supply teams are doing their best to insulate farmers from feeling the effects, but it’s an ongoing battle. It will take time to work through global supply chain backlogs. Cecil and Duhe point out that careful planning and contingency plans are always good business strategies. They’re even more critical now.

by

When growers apply fungicides and other inputs to permanent crops, such as tree nuts, grapes and citrus, the carryover effects from one year to the next are relevant to lifelong production.

“A grower planting almond or pistachio trees may use fungicides for Phytophthora root rot and may or may not see immediate benefits in the current crop year,” says Garrett Gilcrease, Syngenta agronomy service representative in Hanford, California. “But since the grower enhanced the plant health of the crop, it helps long term.”

John Taylor, Syngenta agronomy service representative in North Palm Beach, Florida, sees a similar thought process when citrus growers make input decisions, particularly where citrus greening is a major factor.

“Citrus greening has made the crop much more unpredictable,” Taylor says. “Growers find it much more challenging to predict benefits and returns of all their inputs.”

Supporting root development, however, reaps benefits for healthy and stressed trees. One way to do that is by controlling Phytophthora, which can be managed but not eradicated.

Taylor works with growers who use Orondis® and Ridomil Gold® fungicides to manage Phytophthora, and thus support healthier roots and increased root mass. Growers, Taylor says, should consider ongoing fungicide applications as a way to protect their investment.

“Even in years of light disease pressure, timely fungicide applications can help reduce inoculum and improve root mass,” Taylor says. “This puts the grower ahead when the disease inevitably rebounds.”

Cover image: Healthy orange groves like this one in Florida benefit from regular fungicide applications, even in years when disease pressure is light. Photography by Stephen Williams. 

by

Kathy Eichlin, head of internal communications for Syngenta Crop Protection in North America, and Robin Thomas, early talent acquisition manager for Syngenta in North America, were recently awarded Honorary American FFA Degrees.

Both Eichlin and Thomas were recognized for the exceptional service they’ve provided to the National FFA Organization, specifically for agricultural communication and education.

Eichlin says she appreciates FFA’s recognition, which “continues to shape and guide the future leaders of the agriculture industry.”

Thomas, who was active in 4-H and FFA during her childhood on a West Virginia farm, once served as her state’s FFA vice president. Now leading early talent acquisition at Syngenta, Thomas says, “I’m grateful that Syngenta provides me the opportunity to serve FFA, the organization that gave me so much.”

The names of Honorary American FFA Degree recipients are permanently recorded as recipients of the highest FFA honor, and recipients receive a plaque and medal.

For more information, visit www.ffa.org/participate/awards/honorary-awards.

Cover image: Photography by Bryan Moberly

by

Q. What sources do you find the most helpful for evaluating new ag technology?

A. David Zaruk, Ph.D., professor of communications and marketing at Odisee University College in Brussels, environmental health policy risk analyst at Risk Perception Management: Farmers. If a technology works, they will demand it again. If it doesn’t, they will not waste their money the next season. Researchers need to work closely with farmers, especially those with a pioneering spirit who are actively working for a better, more sustainable means to harvest.

A. Tim Pastoor, Ph.D., president of the Health & Environmental Sciences Institute, founder of Pastoor Science Communications, LLC: Go to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Food and Drug Administration; they are qualified, and they are the referees in these situations. You need a referee because if you left it to the players, there would be a considerable amount of bias in every single call. Those government agencies have access to all the relevant facts and must come to an objective decision that’s in the best interest of everyone.

Q. How can ag consumers determine bias in a study?

A. Zaruk: A lot of times, they can’t. Before the internet revolution, studies were published and debated before science communicators conveyed the information to the public. Most news organizations no longer have science editors. This means consumers are “doing their own research,” which generally is simply confirming their own biases. Objective, quality research rarely has the support to reach the public, but it does still exist, and critically thinking consumers can pick it out if they’re looking.

A. Pastoor: I accept and expect some level of bias in everything. That’s human nature. It’s too easy to say, “Hey, you’re biased. I’m not.” Bias is about our individual perspectives and context. The same data can be interpreted and cast in many different lights. But I try to triangulate information against three pillars: First, I look at the opinion in terms of the speaker’s qualifications. Is this person an expert? What makes him or her an expert? Ask your doctor for an opinion on health, and you’ll get expert advice. Ask your doctor about climate change, and you might get an opinion that isn’t much better than your own. Second, accept that this person has biases, but seek out their objectivity. If an opinion is objectively supported by facts, I can be OK with that, even when I disagree with the interpretation. Lastly, I look for other opinions to find a consensus viewpoint. If several experts express the same or similar viewpoints, that strengthens the conclusion.

''

Participants up and down the agricultural supply chain need to make sure they share new information with each other as it becomes available, because what is relevant to one is also relevant to their industry partners.

David Zaruk, Ph.D. Professor of Communications and Marketing at Odisee University College in Brussels, Environmental Health Policy Risk Analyst at Risk Perception Management

Q. The information flow is a raging river these days. How can retailers and farmers find information relevant to their operations?

A. Zaruk: Unfortunately, there is often poor communication and coordination between researchers, ag retailers and farmers, which also extends to food processors, manufacturers, brands and consumers. Participants up and down the agricultural supply chain need to make sure they share new information with each other as it becomes available, because what is relevant to one is also relevant to their industry partners.

A. Pastoor: We have a human tendency to believe what we want to believe. But if you’re sincerely interested in learning and forming a solid perspective, use this three-step process: consensus, qualifications and objectivity. When reading an article, wherever it happens to be, ask yourself, “Is it referencing consensus information from qualified sources that try for objectivity?” It needs to check those boxes. Avoid yoga teachers opining about pesticides while trying to sell their own dietary supplements. Do go to the EPA website and look for fact sheets and FAQ that can help you form your opinions.

Q. When we see inaccurate information on social media, is there a strategy that can help change the perception?

A. Zaruk: It seems that more and more, social media is becoming a divisive world of echo chambers with limited levels of stakeholder dialogue. Public trust is eroded when even the experts are seen attacking and silencing those who may disagree. The first point in any strategy is to engage openly, professionally and calmly; it is not about winning each argument for the sake of winning the argument, but about developing public trust.

A. Pastoor: It’s important to take a deep breath and decide if engaging would make a difference. Walk away from extreme positions. Onlookers may see you as the same. If you decide to engage, ask for or state facts and qualifications, and look for objectivity, especially in yourself. Cool headedness often starts with opening our ears before opening our mouths, then engaging in factual discussion and civil debate.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

Recalling a visit to a peanut field outside of Tifton, Georgia, in the late 1980s, Timothy Brenneman, Ph.D., University of Georgia (UGA) plant pathologist, says, “I remember walking out of that field scratching my head because this was a new type of beast that we were not used to dealing with.”

Brenneman was responding to a report of an unknown disease infestation. He and Albert Culbreath, Ph.D., a fellow UGA plant pathologist, walked the field but could not identify the disease, let alone the cause. The unknown beast turned out to be tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). That day set the stage for a three-decade war between the disastrous disease and a cross-discipline team of researchers, extension personnel and industry leaders. This collaboration brought the Southeast’s peanut industry back from the brink of disaster. The team won the battle, but the war continues.

Detection of Threat to Peanut Industry

First discovered in Texas in 1971, TSWV didn’t pose a significant threat to the rest of the U.S. peanut crop until it moved into the Southeastern peanut states. Severe outbreaks of TSWV in peanuts occurred as the insect vectors for the virus — most commonly tobacco thrips (Franklinella fusca) or western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) — transmitted TSWV. In some regions of Georgia, peanut fields saw infection rates ranging from an estimated 40% to nearly 100%.

Culbreath remembers that when he began working with Jim Demski, Ph.D., UGA plant virologist, and Jim Todd, Ph.D., UGA entomologist, they suspected the horrendous possibilities of TSWV. “We really didn’t know exactly what the potential damage was,” Culbreath says, as he recalls that first encounter with TSWV. “Ultimately, we suspected it had great potential, and, unfortunately, we were correct.”

''

Every year, it seems a different factor is thrown in with this virus, and it’s a challenge to keep it in check. But thankfully, there are people from all over contributing to the management of this virus.

Wilson Faircloth Ph.D. Agronomic Service Representative Syngenta

The disease spread rapidly, and leaders in the Southeast feared losing the region’s peanut industry, which is a significant economic driver. However, an interdisciplinary team known as the Spotted Wilt Eradication Action Team (SWEAT) rose to the challenge.

Hard Work and SWEAT

SWEAT, an acronym that Culbreath notes is highly fitting when he recalls the team’s long hours in the field, quickly garnered support from Southeast peanut researchers determined to find solutions for the puzzling disease.

“It was not like we all got together and said, ‘We’re going to put this team together to work on spotted wilt,’” Culbreath says of SWEAT’s origin. “Most of us involved recognized the necessity of it [SWEAT], both in terms of the scope of the problem and because, early on, no single project had the resources to achieve the progress we’ve since made with spotted wilt. The teamwork was born out of necessity. We didn’t have a choice.”

SWEAT has gone through many changes in the past 30 years, with notable players in the peanut industry pitching in and creating management strategies for the challenges the virus poses each year. Many management strategies developed by the team, such as the discovery of resistant varieties, remain successful today.

Solutions for TSWV

William Branch, Ph.D., UGA endowed seed development professor in peanut breeding and genetics, developed Georgia Green, the first popular cultivar with resistance to the virus. Georgia Green worked in concert with the other practices identified for managing TSWV such as mid-May planting, increased plant population, at-plant insecticide (phorate) application, twin-row-pattern spacing and strip tillage. This integrated approach was critical in reducing disease losses since no single component provided the protection needed. The genetic resistance in Georgia Green was a key component, and peanut breeders in the Southeast responded by developing more cultivars resistant to spotted wilt.

Investments in molecular studies have improved researchers’ understanding of the virus. “But there’s still a lot we don’t know,” Brennemen explains, “and in many ways, we still rely heavily on genetic resistance.”

Although management strategies haven’t completely eradicated the virus, research over the last few decades has produced tools to identify peanut disease pressures throughout the growing season.

Risk Index Established 26 Years Ago

The Spotted Wilt Risk Index for peanuts, created in 1996, assigns risk values based on the symptoms of TSWV to determine the most effective integrated approach to manage the virus. Culbreath helped develop the index, but credits Steve “Bug” Brown, Ph.D., UGA extension entomologist, as the “father” of the project. Using the index, now known as Peanut Rx, farmers can determine a field’s disease and TSWV risk level. Peanut Rx was initially developed and is reviewed each year by peanut specialists at the University of Georgia, the University of Florida, Mississippi State University, Clemson University and Auburn University. Today, Peanut Rx helps growers evaluate their risk not only for TSWV, but also for leaf spot and white mold.

TSWV Today

Wilson Faircloth, Ph.D., Syngenta agronomic service representative, explains that, even after all these years, the common challenge for growers managing TSWV in peanuts remains the unpredictable factors that initially cause the disease.

“Last year, some peanut fields had trouble with germination, and that was a big contributor,” Faircloth says. “But this season, seed germination and quality were better, which led to good stands and just a perfect early season. We also had some adequate rains. Then one day we walked out and went, ‘Oh no, what’s going on?’ Every year, it seems a different factor is thrown in with this virus, and it’s a challenge to keep it in check. But thankfully, there are people from all over contributing to the management of this virus.”

The day of TSWV’s eradication isn’t here yet, but the progress made so far is a testament to a successful, ongoing collaboration within the peanut industry.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

The Peanut Rx sheet offers growers a valuable tool for assessing a field’s disease risk, including its risk for tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), using a simple four-step process that assigns points for various factors that can make the disease more likely.

TSWV Risk Factors Risk Points Assessed to Factors Range From
Variety Selection 5 to 30
Planting Date 5 to 30
Plant Population (final stand, not seeding rate) 5 to 25
Insecticide Used at Planting 5 to 15
Row Pattern 5 to 50
Tillage 5 to 15
Herbicide Use 0 to 5

Once points are assigned and tabulated, growers can see the level of risk that a particular field has for TSWV.

TSWV Levels of Risk
Low Risk 65 or less
Moderate Risk 70 to 110
High Risk 115 or more

With that information, growers can then formulate a management plant to mitigate the risk of TSWV on a field-by-field basis, including steps such as using less-susceptible varieties and the adjustment of planting dates.

For more detailed information about your TSWV, leaf spot or white mold disease risk index, talk to your local Syngenta representative or visit syngenta-us.com/peanut-doctor. You can find Peanut Rx sheets for four key U.S. peanut-growing regions on this website.