Precision spraying and biologicals– driving collaboration

Precision spraying and biologicals - driving collaboration

Introduction
Biologicals are seen as part of the toolkit of solutions necessary
to address the need for more environmentally sustainableagricultural practices. Recent regulatory changes, particularlyin the EU, are starting to make the use of traditional synthetic
chemical-based crop protection products increasingly challenging.
Some see biologicals as a potential solution, but if products in thisbroad category are to be successful and adopted more widely,some disruptive changes will probably be needed at different
points across the value chain.
To explore some of these changes in more detail, Cambridge Consultants and Agri-TechE took soundings
from across the industry. With increasing use of biological material – soil amendments, crop protection
and biostimulant products, not to mention release of beneficial insects and microbes – we challenged
representatives from global businesses across the industry to think about the future production,
formulation, transportation and application of these materials on-farm, and at scale. We convened aseries of roundtable conversations with key stakeholders – covering developers of active ingredients,product formulators, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and agronomists – to identify thecommon needs, challenges and potential routes to solutions that benefit all.
Representing the agrichemical providers, formulators and agronomists were thought leaders fromBASF, Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, Corteva Agriscience, Croda and Hutchinsons. Their peers inequipment and machinery were represented by Garford UK, John Deere and Saga Robotics. We invited
our contributors to consider use of a wide range of different biological products but with a core focus
on biological crop protection products, considering the position of regulators, retailers, growers andthe public.

02© Cambridge Consultants 2024

Precision spraying and biologicals - driving collaboration

Trends and drivers
Biologicals are gaining interest from a wide audience.
Retailers and the general public are keen to see a reduction
in chemical inputs used in food production and in turn theresidues left in food products – a strong market ‘pull’. The
latter noted a disconnect between regulator-approved
restrictions on chemical products and the levels – or eventhe products themselves – permitted by retailers. The lattermay impose more stringent constraints than the regulators’
requirements, forcing growers to react accordingly). This hascost implications and margin constraints throughout thevalue chain, as we’ll explore later.

Biologicals are perceived as more environmentally benign
and the aim to move to more sustainable practices inagriculture is a key factor in the increased interest in
biological crop protection products. Precision agriculture isa key enabler of this; moving from widespread applicationsof products to a more ‘per row’ and ‘per-plant’ intervention
to deliver these selective products to the crops. Indeed,
given the cost associated with biologicals, precisionapplication technologies need to work hand-in-hand withthe formulation in order to drive clear benefit to the growerand satisfying the needs of retailers and consumers at thesame time.

In addition to this end-user pull, there is a market ‘push’
from regulators to reduce the use of traditional crop
protection products. The EU Green Deal and its initial
ambition to reduce use of chemical pesticides by 50% wasa key driver in the need to reduce use of chemical products.
This was compromised in February 2024 in response togrowers’ concerns and protests across continental Europe.
Availability, or lack thereof, of some traditional materials,
due in part to geo-political instability, is also a driver for
wider interest in biological-based products.

Market barriers

Regulatory push for CP productswith lower environment impact

Regulatory
push

Consumer demand for healthierand sustainable food choices

Consumerdemands

Low technical and financial entry
barriers, especially for biostimulants

Low entry
barriers

Agricultural Biologicals

Market drivers

Regulation

Lengthy regulatory approval process,lack of regulatory harmonisation andproduct standards

Cost

Significantly higher product andlabour cost for growers, reluctancefrom retailers and consumers to pay

Efficacy

Slow and narrow spectrum; can onlyreduce/complement, but not replace
synthetic chemicals

03© Cambridge Consultants 2024

Precision spraying and biologicals - driving collaboration

Tackling the challenges

Evaluating efficacy

The overview of trends, with market pull from retailers on
one side and regulatory push on the other, would seemto favour biologicals. But our interviews highlight a raft ofchallenges which need to be addressed before trends turninto widespread adoption.

On the subject of efficacy, when comparing biologicaland chemical crop protection products, biologicals ingeneral are not as efficacious. They generally require more
applications to the crop, requiring more time and costing
more fuel and incurring more labour costs associated withspraying. The application window is also more specific, andconditions have to be correct to get the best out of theseproducts. In addition, biologicals may be preventative rather
than curative and therefore more crop monitoring is requiredby growers.

Cost constraints in biological adoption
There is no escaping that cost is a big barrier to theadoption of biologicals. Growers are looking for the mostcost-effective way to produce their crops and this cansometimes conflict with the adoption of biologicals.
Several factors may explain this: Biologicals are often priced higher than traditional crop
protection products.
 The selective and targeted nature of biologicals drives
the need to have multiple applications, meaning morepasses across the field may be necessary.
 Shelf life of some biological products is shorter than withsynthetic chemical alternatives – growers aren’t yet able
to bulk buy biologicals and thus miss out on economies
of scale and the opportunity to take advantage ofdynamic pricing.

Market options and grower confidence
Finally, the choice of biological products available on
the market is currently limited and this plays a part in
the adoption of these products. Confidence in biologicalproducts has a lot of headroom for improvement, driven
primarily by very mixed experiences with the use of some
biostimulants which risks tarnishing the reputation of
biologicals as a whole. Some of this lack of confidence
is based on experience with early products and theperception that it is challenging to integrate these productswith existing practices; challenges which have considerable
merit, given the list above.

Formulation and delivery hurdles
Formulation is a huge challenge when it comes tobiologicals, particularly when compared to the use cases
and application steps associated with traditional crop
protection products. The core formulation and delivery
challenges are:
 Reduced UV stability compared to synthetic chemicals.
 Potential limited compatibility with other biological andchemical products.
 The inability to tank mix many of these biologicalproducts with either other biologicals or with chemicalproducts.
 Reduced shelf life of the products as compared withchemical alternatives
 Specific storage requirements.
 Narrow application windows – potentially even more
stringent that spraying conditions for synthetic chemical
application.
 Some lack of awareness about the range of biologicalcrop protection options.
All the above can impact product efficacy and wider
adoption.

04© Cambridge Consultants 2024

Precision spraying and biologicals - driving collaboration

Regulation
Not unsurprisingly it was felt that innovation in both theformulation, active ingredients and precision applicationequipment has outpaced regulation, which is increasinglyoutdated. For example, in the UK, legacy regulation exists
centred around the number of input applications rather thanviewing the total amount applied as a whole across a field.
Precision spraying equipment enables spot spraying to beeffective and targeted, but its wider use with biologicals issomewhat restricted due to the overly simplistic and generalregulation in use today. Greater collaborative dialogue fromequipment providers and product developers is required tochange legislation for the collective good.

Counter to this was the perception that biological products
may not be subject to the same regulatory rigor as chemicalproducts. Biostimulants for example, are not regulated in thesame way as biocontrols and this has led to a wide numberof biostimulants available with varying levels of efficacy. This
has impacted the reputation of biologicals in general andmay explain a lack of trust in these products.

05© Cambridge Consultants 2024

Precision spraying and biologicals - driving collaboration

Opportunities
Incorporating application of biologicals with existing
precision agriculture approaches could help reduce the costneeded by the grower to implement these new products,
and in turn help with increasing the efficacy which is a key
barrier to uptake. Greater collaboration is an over-used
term, but it is in the mutual interests of both equipment
manufacturers and product developers to work together
to improve updated regulation regarding application.
In addition, improved optimisation of formulation andequipment design could help to overcome issues with tankmix. Recent innovations in direct injection nozzles may offer
one example where equipment innovation can help improvethe cost effectiveness of biologicals.

Staying on the topic of integration of equipment and activeingredients, it was interesting to note where the potentialof autonomous equipment could enable greater use ofbiologicals. The example of autonomous UV-C application
at night for mildew treatment in speciality crops was cited
as a facilitator for predatory mite application. Given themachines operate slowly over many hours at night withno human in the loop, it was found that they could apply
predatory mites more accurately than humans, improving
the efficacy of the treatment. As autonomous equipment
becomes more common and electrification increases,
the concerns around time, labour and fuel emissions
disappear, improving the business case for adoption ofsome biological treatments.

There are some examples of effective collaborations, forexample the recent announcement in January 2024 byJohn Deere and Corteva, which will be key for increasing
innovation in this space and allowing more growers to move
to more biological products without completely disrupting
current practices. Collaborations and acquisitions linked
to biologicals are occurring within the industry and thisadvances the state of the art and widens the portfolioof available material at scale. These activities and thegeneral move to more development within biological crop
protection, all have the potential to reduce cost and reducethe barriers faced by growers when making their choices forcrop protection products.

More broadly, the use of synthetic biology was deemedby some respondents to be a game changer for biologicalproduct development but legislation around use of GMOs,
particularly in Europe, makes this route currently non-viable.
Synthetic biology approaches would widen the choice ofbiological products available, reduce the development time
for producers and open up the possibility for novel genebased approaches too. The potential for gene-edited andgenetically modified products to have broader selectivity
could have significant benefits in reducing the numberof passes through the field for effective application, withanticipated cost reductions in terms of fuel and labour.

06© Cambridge Consultants 2024

Precision spraying and biologicals - driving collaboration

Conclusions
Development, delivery and use of biologicals by growers
at scale requires new partnerships across the value chain.
Some encouraging bilateral conversations are underway
and some close corporate relationships are forming, butthese are piecemeal and not holistic across the ecosystem.
There should be end-to-end collaboration from active
ingredient innovators all the way through the retailers ifneeds are to be fully understood and addressed.
Collaboration – and subsequent commercial adoption – hasto be driven by the imperative to make it simple for growers
to adopt and use biologicals. Focus on improving their easeof use at the point of application is critical, so they can beincorporated into existing practices. For effective uptake,it will be crucial to understand and accommodate theeconomic and practical imperatives (for agri-business andgrowers). This is not limited to specific selective efficacy;
consideration has to be given as to how this aligns withcurrent spray windows, the number of passes throughthe field and where spot spraying technologies allow fordifferent application concentrations.

Linked to all of the above, effective communication andeducation of the whole supply chain is necessary and it’s
important that these efforts are pitched correctly – talking‘science’ to all won’t resonate. This will ensure that everyone,from biologicals discovery and development, formulationand manufacture, equipment manufacturers and regulators
to growers, retailers and the general public, understands
the constraints on the supply chain currently and whatis needed to address the challenges with biological crop
protection products. This will enable biologicals to becomea core part of the toolkit of solutions available to growers tohelp make agriculture more environmentally sustainable forthe benefit of all.

Equipment innovations beyond spot spraying are a key
enabler too. As greater automation becomes more common
on farms – starting in speciality produce and moving to row
and broadacre crops – the potential for more targeted andcost-effective application of biologicals rises. Regulationneeds to reflect rapid technology advances for automationand spot spraying benefits to be realised. This allows
growers to apply local treatments in the volumes required
for effective results and evolve away from broadcast,uniform application based rules as is the case today.

Continue the conversation
If you’d like to discover more about the challenges andopportunities around biologicals – or would like to discuss
your ambitions for the new bioeconomy – please get intouch with Niall Mottram, Head of Industrial and AgriTech,
Cambridge Consultants
niall.mottram@cambridgeconsultants.com
Agri-TechE’s membership is global and spans the agri-techvalue chain. If you have an interest in being part of theAgri-TechE membership ecosystem, perhaps throughdeveloping new technologies, undertaking R&D or seeking
new market insights, please contact
belinda.clarke@agri-tech-e.co.uk

07© Cambridge Consultants 2024

Why CC?
Cambridge Consultants (CC), part of Capgemini Invent,is a global team of 800 bright, talented people – unitedby the ambition to turn brilliant and radical ideas into
technologies, products and services that are new to theworld. We expand the boundaries of deep tech innovation
by tackling the tough, high-risk challenges that bringdefensible competitive advantage and market leadershipfor clients. We are trusted by some of the world’s biggest
brands and most ambitious start-ups to realise their criticaltechnology-based aspirations – and we’ve been doing it
for 60 years.

About Agri-TechE

UK — USA — SINGAPORE — JAPANwww.cambridgeconsultants.com
Cambridge Consultants is part of Capgemini Invent,the innovation, consulting and transformation brandof the Capgemini Group. www.capgemini.com

Lit-R-019 v0.5 '2024_Agri-TechE Roundtable_Biotech_Report'

Agri-TechE is an independent not for profit membershiporganisation, supporting the growth of a world-leading
network of innovative farmers, producers, scientists,technologists and entrepreneurs who share a vision ofincreasing the productivity, profitability and sustainabilityof agriculture. Together we aim to help turn challenges
into business opportunities and facilitate mutually
beneficial collaboration.