New Products

The Scoop Podcast: How Carbon Markets Have Changed

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 17:23:21 GMT

Farmer-facing carbon market opportunities have grown in the past six years—going from buzz-worthy to more than two dozen programs available.

Now, a new phase of carbon enrollment has emerged.

“The carbon markets are maturing. The next phase is product-based carbon programs,” says Thad England, director of U.S. strategic accounts with Groundwork BioAg.

Groundwork BioAg has a portfolio of mycorrhizal inoculants branded Rootella, and application of those products—available in dry and liquid formulations—enables growers to be enrolled in Rootella Carbon.

“Crop markets are tough. Revenue streams on the farm aren’t getting wider,” England says. “When I started my career, I wanted to help the largest amount of growers possible. I can some seed, chemical, and fertilizer and help them grow a good crop, but I can’t help them necessarily on a revenue stream standpoint, until now. This is a dawn of a new market for growers.”

Since 2023, the company established Rootella Carbon, which is a four-year enrollment where growers apply a Rootella product, and measurements of soil carbon are taken every year.

“The application cost is going to be roughly in that $10 per acre range. So it’s a four year commitment to spend about 10 bucks an acre,” he says. “What they can expect is a one to four ton sequestration per year. That’s a wide range. So an average, I’m going to be conservative and say that’s one ton which would be a VCU–verified carbon unit, also known as a carbon credit–and that ton is worth about $40.”

The Rootella Carbon program is structured for the company to revenue-share carbon credit sales, and the company covers all measurement expenses.

England says product-based programs provide growers an entry point into a carbon program without requiring a production practice change such as no-till. Instead, they are adding a product application, such as a soil amendment.

“It’s giving an option where a grower who has done a great job doing what they do, but they may not be eligible for other programs right now because of their current practices,” he says.

In all, Rootella products have grown from being applied on 20,000 acres just a few years ago to now being applied on more than 400,000 acres. Groundwork BioAg uses a network or partners and dealers to market their products.

Could Government Efficiency Efforts Break the Dam in EPA’s Pesticide Approval Backlog?

Mon, 12 May 2025 16:09:43 GMT

Earlier this month, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced the next phase of organizational improvements for the agency. For agriculture, the focus went to 130 science positions that were being reallocated.

With EPA’s authority over reviewing the science of pesticides, and a current backlog of 504 new chemicals in review plus 12,000 pesticide reviews that are overdue compared to their expected timelines, the industry has been watching a ballooning backlog.

“We’ve been trying to get more resources to help to reduce the backlog, and we’ve been advocating for Administrator Zeldin to provide additional resources,” says Terry Kippley, president and CEO of the Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology. “And so we’re still waiting on some details, but they have announced that there’s 130 scientists that could be moving over into the chemicals division and the chemicals division is the division that growers care about and agribusiness cares about because it includes the Office of Pesticide Programs [OPP], and they’re responsible for getting the tools out into the field.”

Two core causes of the backlog:

There have been two key factors adding up to the slowdown and now backlog of pesticide processing, regulations and approval.

1. Underfunding and interagency performance.

Specific to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Congress has underfunded its activities. Registrants agreed to a fee structure helping pay for the services provided by EPA, known as PRIA 5, which increased industry fees by 30%.

Congress has continually funded the EPA at low levels, and the OPP significantly below the $166 million asked for in appropriation.

“For many reasons every year they’ve only been giving approximately 80% of that number,” Kippley says. “From the farmer perspective, if you have a deal with a local co-op, and you say I’m going to give you 30% more money. But then you find out that you’re only getting about 80% of that agreed upon number. That’s a problem.”

Kippley says right now, for OPP, it adds up to being short about $32 million.

“We’d like to have them allocate that additional $32 million dollars, so that in the end OPP has the resources to consistently deliver and execute these timelines, so that everybody has certainty.”

2. The COVID-19 pandemic brought an unexpected workload

During the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions added up in addition to EPA being responsible for testing and approving hand sanitizer products.

“I’ve had nearly a 30-year career dealing with regulated products, and I can say we’ve had certainty out of EPA in the past,” Kippley says. “Maybe wasn’t always perfect, but until COVID it was really operating in a way that we could do business, and they have just received so much more work with so many fewer resources. It’s really a difficult situation to manage.”

Will DOGE be the answer to the two issues that have amassed this backlog?

It has yet to be seen. One retiree from EPA is skeptical that even with an influx of 130 scientists transferred into the OPP, any benefits in terms of approvals won’t be seen for 18 months.

“If they allocate all of the transfers to new registrations — and ignore the FIFRA renewals — and if they are creative, by the time the Trump administration is over, things could be caught up,” they say.

One reason is the recent wave of early retirements, which currently employs 550 total scientists and 100 of those taking the early out package, which went into effect on May 5.

What Agronomists And Farmers Need to Know About Endangered Species Act in 2025

Wed, 07 May 2025 11:00:00 GMT

With the final herbicide rule and final insecticide rule announced by EPA, farmers and applicators will be phasing in new considerations with every new product label and FIFRA re-registration.

“Don’t panic,” says independent crop consultant Steve Hoffman with In-Depth Agronomy. “This is going to be a gradual phase in, and I know it’s definitely adding complexity.”

Independent consultants James Todd and Hoffman have been following the development of these rules, working with federal agencies to schedule about what everyone should know and how this year is pivotal to the future of pesticide use.

“Every new pesticide that gets registered through EPA, and every current pesticide that gets re registered has to come into compliance with new language on the label, Todd says. “Each pesticide is going to be unique and unique to also different endangered species. So the requirement in one part of the country might look different in another part of the country.”

The rules are the result of the EPA taking action to enforce its regulatory authority for the Endangered Species Act. Although the law is 50 years old, in recent years federal courts have announced rulings limiting pesticide use relative to ESA.

“Those lawsuits resulted in a judge somewhere saying, ‘Okay, you have not met this requirement, and we’re going to cancel this pesticide,’” Hoffman explains. “That’s where agriculture was at—we could have just lost any pesticide label instantly. So agriculture has the burden on our back to show that we care about endangered species, and we can do something. This is an opportunity. We just need to see this opportunity to make sure it stays a positive.”

Since the final herbicide rule, EPA issued a label for BASF’s Liberty Ultra, which could be looked to as a model for how these regulations will be applied to products. There hasn’t been a label for an insecticide yet issued , but many expect those labels to mirror how the herbicide rule was applied.

“Growers should go out and take a look at the Liberty Ultra label, because that’s the framework,” Todd says. “There are certain mitigations practices that you can do to earn points—erosion and runoff—and spray drift, and there are PULAs (geographic limitations.) Everyboyd has something that they need to do or be aware of that they need to do. Even if you’re not applying Liberty Ultra this year, look at its label and become familiar with what steps are going to be required.”

While the final herbicide rule and the final insecticide rule require evaluating the product and field, consulting the EPA website, and keeping record of your workplan, Hoffman and Todd have been engaging with other consultants, farmers, and federal agencies in the development of the rules to take into current production practices.

Last year, Hoffman hosted a two-day tour in Wisconsin with multiple federal agencies to discuss farmer practices, production considerations related to the upcoming regulations. The National Alliance of Crop Consultants is repeating the idea this coming year in Virginia and North Carolina.

Hear more in The Scoop podcast:

New Product of the Year Runner Up: RhizoSorb from Phospholutions

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 20:07:05 GMT

Launched in 2024, RhizoSorb from Phospholutions puts an emphasis on phosphorus sustainability from start to finish. It’s stood out in its first year on the market, and readers of The Scoop have voted it as the New Product of the Year runner-up for 2024.

“RhizoSorb is the first major step in 60 years to make phosphate more efficient from a mine to end use perspective,” says Craig Dick, Phospholutions’ vice president of sales and marketing. “Phosphate rock is finite, and the ability to stretch a unit of phosphorus further in the soil has a significant impact to both manufacturers and farmers.”

RhizoSorb 8-39-0 is a dry fertilizer that serves as a replacement for conventional phosphates and increases the availability and efficiency of on-farm use.

“It has the same handling characteristics as MAP or DAP but is twice as efficient and therefore costs less per acre for the grower,” Dick says. “We’re applying slightly less per acre but seeing the same amount of phosphorus be taken up by the plant. That’s while reducing the grower’s cost per acre for phosphorus by 15% on average.”

Because it can be used in the same way as MAP or DAP, RhizoSorb doesn’t require a change in application for users.

“If the grower broadcasts his phosphorus fertilizer, he can still broadcast RhizoSorb. If he’s a strip tiller, he can just replace his MAP with our product,” Dick says. “It’s a very easy swap for not only the grower, but for the retailers and how they’re used to handling products. They don’t need additional equipment to coat a product. It’s seamless.”

A Long Time Coming
While the product’s launch came just as farmers were looking to cut back expenses, the research behind the technology has been in the works for some time — originally developed 30 years ago by a Penn State professor.

“Our CEO, Hunter Swisher, was an undergraduate in that professor’s class, and he licensed the patent for the technology,” Dick says. “Over the last nine years, we’ve raised over $38 million and done nearly 600 trials.”

Spending less per acre while increasing the absorption of phosphorus has translated into strong commercial success for RhizoSorb and also provides unique efficiencies for retailers.

“As we’ve thought about the grower and manufacturer, we thought just as much about the retailer. They’re the linchpin to making this all work,” Dick says. “When they compare RhizoSorb to MAP, they can achieve a 20% higher margin than with the higher volume of MAP, and they’re still able to pass on a 10% savings to the grower. Then, they’re handling 33% less product in their warehouse.”

He adds that as phosphorus continues to be the least efficient of the three macro nutrients used to grow our food, there’s more work to be done to bring RhizoSorb to farmers.

“Our goal is to make phosphate more efficient, and that comes with making it more cost effective,” Dick says. “We want to further expand our market reach and continue to work on finding the right retailers and distributors to partner with and bring this to market in a very thoughtful way.”

Your Next Read: New Product of The Year 2024: Loveland’s Awaken FlowBoost

New Product of the Year 2024: Loveland's Awaken FlowBoost

Mon, 03 Feb 2025 14:51:44 GMT

We asked, you answered. With more than 1,300 votes tabulated, Awaken FlowBoost from Loveland Products has officially been named the winner of The Scoop’s 18th annual New Product of the Year contest.

Awaken FlowBoost marks a new path for Loveland’s seed treatment products, adding a talc/graphite replacement to the company’s portfolio.

“People are getting away from talc and graphite for a lot of different reasons, which is ultimately why we went with a corn-based product,” says Rian Bernhardt, Loveland’s crop protection marketing manager. “We just recognized it as a growing market space and an opportunity for us to bring something to our growers that’s unique, and from an agronomic standpoint, makes a lot of sense for them.”

Awaken FlowBoost’s benefits are two-fold:

Seed singulation and flowability. The product is applied at plant and maintains a 99% effective use rate as seeds are flowing through the planter, which is comparable to a standard 80/20 talc/graphite mix.
A micronutrient package (5% phosphate, 1% iron, 3% manganese, 2.5% molybdenum, 10.5% zinc) helps mitigate the stresses that come with planting early in cold, wet soils.

Bernhardt says these advantages brought growers improved yield, test weight and moisture across all geographies during the product’s first official year on the market.

“The trials that we have seen range anywhere from 4- to 6- to 8-bu. differences,” Bernhardt says.

Casey McDaniel, vice president of Loveland Products, adds that quicker emergence was also a common result, due to the product’s micronutrient package.

“Not everybody has the opportunity to put an in-furrow starter or two-by-two applications. This allows them to get some micronutrients on that seed and in that furrow where it’s most effective,” McDaniel says. “They saw a quicker emergence when it’s most important — in that first 20 to 30 days.”

The addition of micronutrients is what Loveland believes sets Awaken FlowBoost apart and is contributing to its popularity.

“The uniqueness of the product got a lot of people’s attention,” Bernhardt explains. “I think that is what’s ultimately driving its success.”

During Awaken FlowBoost’s first year on the market, it far exceeded what the Loveland team had initially expected in overall sales.

“We had to go into production a couple of extra times,” McDaniel says. “This isn’t a space we had historically played in, and you’ll generally get some skeptics the first time around. But we did our homework and thoroughly tested the product.”

As for 2025, Loveland has 10 new products that are headed to the U.S., and an expansion of the Awaken FlowBoost lineup could be on the horizon as well.

“We definitely see room for expansion with this product line, specifically from a seed treatment standpoint,” Bernhardt says. “It’s a cool concept that will just get better from here.”

Your Next Read: New Product of the Year Runner Up: RhizoSorb from Phospholutions

A New Toxicant Tool Decreases Feral Hog Populations in Texas

Fri, 01 Sep 2023 12:16:14 GMT

Explosive numbers , deadly destruction , devastating economic impact . Is it possible to control the spiraling feral hog population in Texas?

A new Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service study shows a warfarin-based toxicant could help slow the out-of-control feral hog numbers by serving as an effective option for landowners and to help minimize damage on their property.

“Texas A&M AgriLife experts are the leading authorities on feral hog control in the nation, and we are the first to test this in a real-world application and to show that this warfarin-based toxicant can be effective for reducing these pests,” explains John Sharp, Chancellor of the Texas A&M University System. “Unabated feral hog populations threaten our natural resources, our livelihoods and our quality of life, and our goal, as a land-grant institution, is to provide safe, effective, science-backed solutions for all Texans.”

The two-year study took place on 23 sites in 10 counties across the various regions of the state. Conducted by Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management associate professor and AgriLife Extension wildlife specialist John Tomeček, and Michael Bodenchuk, director of Texas Wildlife Services, the teams were able to effectively and efficiently reduce feral hog numbers with diligent application of the product, according to a release .

“Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service was tasked with evaluating the product’s ability to reduce feral hog numbers and damage in regions across the state and seasons of the year,” Tomeček says. “We found that it can be highly effective when utilized correctly and saw no access to the toxicant by non-target species when all feeder devices functioned properly.”

This study is an important step in the fight to curb the economic and environmental impact of feral hogs in Texas and across the nation, Sharp says. With more than 3 million feral hogs causing more than $500 million in damage to agriculture and private property throughout Texas each year , feral hogs are a burden that also destroy native wildlife and disturb native ecosystems.

Toxicant as a Tool

Researchers conducted field evaluations of a low-dose warfarin-based toxicant to determine its efficacy in various regions of the state and to assess the product’s ability to help landowners prevent property damage and economic harm from feral hogs. AgriLife Extension specialists worked with private landowners on recommended application methodologies to provide real-world testing conditions for the product and the suggested best practices, the release explains.

Bait that included warfarin was placed in specially designed dispensers that prevent access by non-target species, Tomeček says. Feral hogs were conditioned to access the bait before the product was applied. Once the product was applied, feral hogs consumed lethal doses within five days of consistent access to the bait.

Tomeček points out that the product is not considered acutely toxic to non-target animals in the event some might gain limited access to the bait. It’s also not found at lethal levels within the tissue of deceased feral hogs.

The key is to “correctly and consistently” use the warfarin-based toxicant.

After a trial period of close supervision and instruction, landowners in the study applied and managed the bait themselves. During the project, the Texas A&M AgriLife team made several discoveries that will help increase efficacy of the product when applied, the release said.

Landowners who checked the feeder for mechanical issues and replaced bait consistently as part of their regular maintenance schedule reported sharp declines in feral hog numbers and damage levels over the seasons of the year.
Landowners who did not adhere to instruction reported mixed to low success in curbing feral hog numbers on their property. These results were true, regardless of the season of the year or the region of the state where the trial was being conducted.

With threats of African swine fever (ASF) and other foreign animal diseases getting closer to the U.S., wild hog control is becoming an even more critical topic as wild hogs serve as vectors of disease.

Read More About Feral Hogs:

Feral Swine: USDA Monitors World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species

A Sport Utility Vehicle for Disease: Wild Pigs Wreak Havoc in Louisiana

Missouri’s Feral Hog Problem Turns a Corner

Texas Pork Producers Face Uphill Battle with Wild Pigs

Is Aerial Gunning the Answer for Uptick of Wild Hogs?

Is Missouri’s Feral Hog Population on the Decline?

Feral Swine Eradication Program Should Be Permanent, Senators Urge

Destructive, Formidable, Invasive: How is the U.S. Managing the Feral Hog Population?

Feral Swine Test Positive for Pseudorabies at Colorado Farm

Livestock and mRNA Vaccines: What You Need To Know

Tue, 02 May 2023 17:04:52 GMT

As misinformation regarding the use of mRNA vaccines in livestock filter through social media, there are facts begging to be set straight.

Recently, a claim was made saying producers are required to inject livestock with mRNA vaccines.

According to USDA spokesperson, Marissa Perry says, “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease. It is a personal and business decision left up to the producer and will remain that way,” in response to the claim, Associated Press shared in an article .

National Pork Board’s Director of Consumer Public Relations, Jason Menke echoed the statement to AP, noting that the decision to use vaccines and other medical treatments to protect animal health and well-being are made by the farmer under the direction of the herd veterinarian.

To further explain mRNA vaccines and shed light on controversies, Dr. Kevin Folta, a molecular biologist and professor at the University of Florida, shares his viewpoint and experience with the technology.

What are mRNA Vaccines?

First introduced to the population through the COVID-19 vaccines, mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines have been in development for decades, says Folta in a recent AgriTalk segment.

He adds that the technology’s potential in human health makes it a likely candidate to have a place in animal health as well. However, “the technology is being maligned in social media, and is now shaping decisions at the level of state legislature,” Folta says. This leads to the growing importance that producers and consumers become more educated on the topic.

What Folta believes began in January of this year, based on claims with very little data, certain advocates against mRNA vaccines are concerned that mRNA vaccines are in use and development in livestock. Additionally, these vaccines may then be present in the food these animals provide.

Why mRNA Vaccines Are Not Present in Food

“It’s not in your food. It’s a vaccine for the animal that, just like any vaccine, protects the animal from disease,” Folta says.

Current mRNA vaccines being used in swine are injected into the muscle, Folta explains, which causes the development of the immune response protein to then stimulate the body to work against the virus.

“In the absence of the virus, it’s kind of like giving the virus or giving the body a ‘wanted’ poster that says, ‘when this individual comes along, and this virus comes along, work against it,’ and it’s all gone within hours,” he adds.

The mRNA never leaves the cells from where it was injected. RNA is a very unstable molecule that must be kept cold, buffered and in solvent, to remain viable, Folta explains.

Additionally, any licensed vaccine comes with a minimum time before that animal can enter the food chain, also known as the “withdrawal time,” says Alan Young, professor in the Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences at South Dakota State University and founder of protein platform (non-mRNA) vaccine company Medgene.

The Animal’s Genes Are Not Altered

While mRNA vaccines include genetic code, Folta says the use of a mRNA vaccines does not alter the animal’s genes in any way.

“This [mRNA] is an intermediate between the gene itself and the products that the gene encodes. So, it’s like having a blueprint and a house. The mRNA is like the construction worker. It takes the blueprint and manufactures the house. In the case of the cell, it takes the DNA blueprint and then takes a little bit of that information to build part of the final structure. The mRNA is just that intermediate, it does not change the genes. It doesn’t change the DNA itself,” he explains.

What are the Benefits of mRNA Vaccines?

More flexibility and faster response to new disease, Folta describes as reasons why mRNA vaccines are becoming more popular.

Traditional vaccines require large amounts of a virus to be raised and purified before being injected to elicit an immune response, he adds. Meanwhile, mRNA encourages the body to make a little piece of protein to elicit the desired immune response.

“It’s much cleaner, much easier. If you’re moving parts in this machine, to make this product that induces an immune response, it’s so good in so many ways,” Folta says.

In pork production specifically, researchers are working with mRNA vaccines that will work this way against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), which is a viral disease that causes economic loss totals around $664 million per year in the U.S. (Holtkamp et al., 2013).

Additionally, the use of mRNA technology adds another tool to the toolbox, which may be helpful in combating diseases, such as African swine fever (ASF), avian influenza and other food-animal diseases.
“This stands to be a revolutionary technology if we don’t get in the way,” Folta adds.

Are There Risks to mRNA Vaccines?

Folta says everything has some sort of risk, but it’s important to weigh the benefits against the risk.
As seen with the COVID-19 vaccines, in rare cases, people experienced side effects from the vaccine. However, Folta is encouraged by the initial results in livestock.

“If you look in animals where these [vaccines] have been used, there have been no unusual effects noted. Everything potentially has risk, but it’s monitored, and especially in large animal populations, we can look very carefully at that for surveillance,” he explains.

mRNA Enters State Legislation

While some consumers spread misinformation about the use of mRNA vaccines, the ideas have also crept into state legislation.

The Missouri House Bill 1169 , with a special hearing set for Apr. 19 on the matter, aims to require a label be used on meat from animals treated with an mRNA vaccine, identifying the “potential gene therapy product.”
This bill falsely claims that mRNA vaccines would modify the genes of the organism, Folta explains.

mRNA vaccines are simply another modality that can protect animal health, which results in healthy animals producing the best and safest food products, Folta says, and provides producers with more options to help combat disease.

“To have affordable food, we need to have continual innovation in the animal, medical, veterinary space and mRNA vaccines are safe and an effective way to treat the animal that does not change the final product,” he adds.

The COVID-19 pandemic simply “broke the seal” to the development of these new modalities that will change the way human and animal diseases will be treated in the years to come.

More on Vaccines:

Genvax Technologies Secures $6.5 Million to Advance Novel Vaccine Platform

Cattle Veterinarians Have New Vaccination Guidelines

Don’t Assume That Old Refrigerator Is Good Enough To Store Vaccines

OTC Livestock Antibiotics Will Require Prescription June 11