- Panel of experts discussed how sustainable agriculture can feed the world.
- Biologicals are part of the solution, not the whole solution
- Sustainable agriculture is as much a business challenge as a scientific one
Four experts were speaking on a panel discussing how sustainable agriculture can feed a growing global population at an industry event held by Pacific Agriscience in Singapore on July 9.
While much of the industry’s sustainability debate has centred on biologicals versus conventional crop protection products, growers are primarily concerned with whether a solution solves a problem in the field, highlighted Kumar Datta, director of marketing, strategy and growth at US agricultural science company FMC Corporation.
“We need to think from the grower’s perspective. What does it mean for the grower? When we talk about biologicals and synthetics, that’s the lens we use as manufacturers and technology innovators. But growers have a problem that needs to be solved. Whatever solution is offered has to work on the farm, be commercially viable for the grower, and be scalable.”
In order to feed the world sustainably, Datta said the industry needed to combine biological and synthetic technologies into products and systems tailored to growers’ needs.
“If we’re imagining a world where growers have only biological options available to them, that’s a tough proposition… I see a significant opportunity in combining synthetics and biologicals into grower-focused solutions that make sense and are sustainable.”
Datta’s views were echoed by Sandeepa Kanitkar, founder and managing director of Kan Biosys, and president of the Biological Agri Solutions Association of India (BASAI).
“Sustainability is essential. Without it, agriculture will not be productive enough. But sustainability does not mean the absence of chemicals. Rather, it means using chemicals judiciously alongside new technologies. And I am not referring only to biologicals. I am also talking about precision technologies, so that we can achieve higher yields with fewer resources.”
‘We fought the wrong fight’
Laurent Martel, chief executive of InVivo Ag, the agricultural arm of French cooperative group InVivo, said the industry in Europe wasted its chance by defending chemical use rather than embracing technologies that could reduce application volumes while maintaining productivity.
“I think we fought the wrong fight by trying at all costs to keep chemical use. Much earlier in the process, we should have accepted reducing application volumes through precision farming. By staying firm on our position, we lost the fight,” said Martel.
Martel said the industry’s focus should now be on reducing inputs where technology allows, rather than pursuing blanket reductions or simple product substitutions.
“My recommendation is really to go in the spirit of decreasing inputs whenever possible through innovation and precision technologies, but not at any cost and not by simply replacing one product with another.”
Microbial breakthroughs
Kanitkar believes microbial products will play a critical role in the future of agriculture, but their success will depend on much more than simply discovering new microbes.
“The major breakthroughs will come from how effectively we utilise microbes in agriculture. Finding the right microbes is only one part of the equation. The real challenge is taking them through the entire value chain, from fermentation and formulation to positioning the microbial product within the farmer’s package of practices.”
Among the most pressing commercialisation challenges is shelf life, as farmers expect products to remain stable and effective during storage and transport.
“Significant improvements are needed in what I call market preparedness for biologicals. Product positioning and supply chain management will be critical,” said Kanitkar.
She added that companies would need to upgrade production, quality control and strain-development programmes to compete on a global level.
“At present, if you look at many agribiological companies, the containment and production standards are often not at the level required for global competitiveness. To succeed in international markets, agribiological products must be manufactured according to much higher standards. This includes improvements in production systems, mother culture management, and strain development programmes.”
‘A matter of business’
CS Liew, founder and managing director of Pacific Agriscience, said the biggest barrier to sustainable agriculture was not scientific innovation but economics.
“It’s really a matter of business. If farmers can get a return on investment, adoption will follow.”
He said sustainable agriculture technologies already exist and have proven their value, yet adoption remains limited because farmers need to see a clear benefit before changing practices.
“There is already a tremendous amount of agricultural technology available that has yet to be widely deployed. Instead, I believe it is primarily a business issue. Farmers need to see a positive return on investment before they adopt new technologies. If they cannot generate a return, many of these innovations will remain underutilised regardless of their scientific merits.”
Liew also pointed to government policy as an important factor influencing grower behaviour, warning that some interventions can create unintended consequences.
He cited fertiliser subsidies as one example, arguing that policies supporting products such as urea can encourage overreliance and discourage more balanced approaches to soil management.
“Some of these government policies are actually dead wrong to subsidise urea. This makes the farmers hooked on urea, and if they keep dumping it, they will destroy soil health – and I am a big believer in soil health.”
