In the vast universe of soil microbiology, one star shines bright: Bacillus subtilis . This Gram-positive, rod-shaped bacterium has a pivotal role in enhancing soil health and nutrient cycling, contributing significantly to sustainable agriculture and ecological balance. This article delves into the world of Bacillus subtilis, its mode of action, and the benefits it brings to the soil ecosystem. The Bacillus subtilis Effect: Mode of Action The central attribute of Bacillus subtilis lies in its versatile metabolism and ability to produce a variety of enzymes that assist in breaking down organic matter, contributing to nutrient cycling in the soil ecosystem. Its capability to produce growth-promoting substances, antibiotics, and other secondary metabolites further enhances its value. Upon introduction to the soil, Bacillus subtilis, an endospore-forming bacterium, produces a tough, protective endospore that allows it to withstand adverse environmental conditions. As conditions become favorable, it germinates and proliferates, colonizing the rhizosphere - the zone of soil surrounding plant roots. This unique survival strategy facilitates its persistence in diverse and challenging soil environments. Nutrient Cycling: Turning Waste into Wealth In the soil ecosystem, nutrient cycling is a crucial process that transforms organic waste materials into valuable nutrients that plants can utilize. Bacillus subtilis plays a central role in this process. It produces extracellular enzymes that break down complex organic compounds, such as cellulose, starch, and proteins, into simpler molecules, making them available for plants. Moreover, Bacillus subtilis promotes the mineralization and mobilization of key nutrients, particularly phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium. It achieves this by producing organic acids and other compounds that chelate or dissolve these minerals, converting them into forms that plant roots can absorb. Enhancing Soil Health: Beyond Nutrient Cycling The benefits of Bacillus subtilis extend beyond nutrient cycling. This bacterium has potent biocontrol properties, offering a natural defense against several soil-borne pathogens. It produces a range of antibiotics and other bioactive compounds that inhibit the growth of harmful fungi and bacteria, reducing the reliance on chemical pesticides and contributing to soil health. Additionally, Bacillus subtilis can stimulate plant growth directly through the production of plant growth-promoting substances such as indole acetic acid (IAA). By enhancing root growth and development, it increases the plant's nutrient uptake capacity, leading to healthier and more robust plants. The Soil Health Revolution: A Sustainable Future Promoting soil health and nutrient cycling with Bacillus subtilis represents a paradigm shift towards sustainable agriculture and environmental stewardship. The integration of these beneficial bacteria into farming practices can reduce chemical fertilizer and pesticide use, decreasing environmental pollution and promoting biodiversity. Moreover, healthier soil improves crop yield and quality, contributing to food security and farmers' economic well-being. Thus, Bacillus subtilis, through its multifaceted roles in soil health and nutrient cycling, holds the potential to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time: sustainable food production and environmental conservation. As we deepen our understanding of this remarkable microbe, we open doors to further harnessing its capabilities. Bacillus subtilis is more than just a bacterium; it is a symbol of the transformative power of soil microbiology, and a beacon of hope for a sustainable and resilient agricultural future.

One of the beautiful aspects of organic agriculture (and regenerative agriculture in particular) is that it’s not magic: it’s a comprehensive, widely different approach to growing food that’s based on the central pillar of organic fertilization. It’s backed by hundreds of thousands of studies in the fields of biology, chemistry, ecology, economics, management, and even history (to document traditional knowledge in techniques as useful as forest gardening). And, at the root of organic fertilization, composting lies as probably the most widespread method of using and reusing nutrients within an agricultural system. That’s precisely why it’s important to understand a key concept in composting: the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, expressed in parts of carbon per parts of nitrogen, or C: N. So, to make things clear 10:1 means ten units of carbon per unit of nitrogen, and 850,000:1 means eight hundred and fifty thousand units of carbon per unit of nitrogen, and so on (this last one is pure madness, but you get the point). The importance of all of this lies simply in the fact that the bodies of soil microbes are themselves made of carbon and nitrogen in a ratio of 8:1. Microbes need to eat carbon and nitrogen from the environment to maintain this ratio (since they lose carbon as CO2 through respiration), and in this process of eating they decompose the organic matter that they find: this process is the process of composting. The liberation of heat is a sign that compost is teeming with bacterial activity, as heat is generated by the bacteria as a byproduct of their catabolic processes (their eating, basically). Healthy compost should be warm and stay warm even in colder climatic conditions. The C: N ideal rate for microbes is 24:1; they need that level so that there’s always enough carbon to maintain the amount already existing in the body (8 units of carbon), plus something to eat and gain energy to move and reproduce (another 16 units of carbon, give or take). So, the whole point of this is that material that has a higher C: N ratio than 24:1 will take longer to decompose (up to months or even years), while material that has a lesser C:N ratio will take less to decompose. This is why fruits and vegetables seem to rot away relatively quickly, even on a cupboard or fridge, while straw or dry leaves can stay on a field for several weeks and just appear to look even dryer or slightly decomposed. Fruits and vegetables tend to have a lesser C:N ratio, while dry leaves or stalks of plants tend to have a higher C:N ratio. Because of these general guidelines, organic matter with lower C:N ratio than 24:1 is often called in the composting business ‘green’ matter, while organic matter with higher C:N ratio is called ‘brown’ matter. Don’t let the color alone fool you, of course: a brown banana might look brown, but it’s really a ‘green’ material for composting. A compost pile that keeps a healthy balance of 'greens' and 'browns', trying to approach the 24:1 carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. Notice the cardboard, straw, and dry leaves ('brown' materials), and the fresh leaves, flowers, and occasional pea pod ('green' materials). Why does this matter for organic farming, in the end? Put simply, it’s as we said above: producing any sort of finished compost or other organic fertilizer can take a drastically longer time with a C: N ratio of over 24:1. It can also force microbes to take nitrogen-fixing bacteria from the soil to cover for all the carbon they're eating so that the natural balance in their diet is and body composition is not disrupting, and this could even lead to an actual decrease in the nitrogen available for crops themselves. What’s the best way to prevent this? Looking into the several materials that are being composted, and ensuring that the overall mix approaches the 24:1 rate as closely as possible. The Department of Agriculture of the United States has even made a useful leaflet explaining how that works in more detail. Why not take a look at it here?

Agriculture has been the backbone of human civilization for centuries, and with the growing global population, the need for sustainable farming practices has never been more critical. One of the promising solutions in the realm of sustainable agriculture is the use of beneficial microorganisms, particularly Bacillus subtilis. This remarkable bacterium offers numerous benefits that can enhance crop production, improve soil health, and promote eco-friendly farming. In this blog, we will delve into the various advantages of Bacillus subtilis in agriculture, providing an in-depth understanding of its role and significance. Understanding Bacillus subtilis Bacillus subtilis is a gram-positive, rod-shaped bacterium that is found in soil and the gastrointestinal tracts of ruminants and humans. It is one of the best-characterized bacterial species and is known for its ability to form a tough, protective endospore, allowing it to withstand extreme environmental conditions. This resilience makes it an excellent candidate for use in agricultural applications. Soil Health Improvement Enhances Nutrient Availability Bacillus subtilis plays a pivotal role in improving soil health by enhancing nutrient availability. It produces a variety of enzymes that break down complex organic matter into simpler forms, making nutrients more accessible to plants. For instance, it can solubilize phosphate, a crucial nutrient for plant growth, converting it into a form that plants can easily absorb. Promotes Nitrogen Fixation Nitrogen is essential for plant growth, and Bacillus subtilis aids in nitrogen fixation. Although it is not a nitrogen-fixing bacterium itself, it supports the activity of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil. This symbiotic relationship ensures that plants receive an adequate supply of nitrogen, promoting robust growth and higher yields. Plant Growth Promotion Production of Plant Growth Hormones Bacillus subtilis produces various plant growth-promoting hormones such as auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins. These hormones stimulate root development, enhance seed germination, and promote overall plant vigor. Improved root systems enable plants to absorb water and nutrients more efficiently, leading to healthier and more resilient crops. Disease Suppression One of the most significant benefits of Bacillus subtilis is its ability to suppress plant diseases. It produces antibiotics and antifungal compounds that inhibit the growth of pathogenic microorganisms. By outcompeting harmful pathogens, Bacillus subtilis protects plants from diseases such as root rot, wilt, and blight, reducing the need for chemical pesticides. Biocontrol Agent Antagonistic Activity Against Pathogens Bacillus subtilis acts as a biocontrol agent by exhibiting antagonistic activity against a wide range of plant pathogens. It colonizes the root surface, creating a protective barrier that prevents the entry of harmful microorganisms. Additionally, it produces lipopeptides and other antimicrobial compounds that directly inhibit pathogen growth, ensuring healthier crops. Induction of Systemic Resistance Apart from direct antagonism, Bacillus subtilis induces systemic resistance in plants. This means that when plants are exposed to Bacillus subtilis, they develop an enhanced defensive capacity against a broad spectrum of diseases. This induced resistance mechanism helps plants fend off infections more effectively, contributing to long-term crop health. Stress Tolerance Drought Resistance In the face of climate change, water scarcity is a pressing concern for farmers worldwide. Bacillus subtilis enhances the drought resistance of plants by promoting deeper and more extensive root systems. These robust root systems enable plants to access water from deeper soil layers, improving their ability to withstand prolonged dry periods. Salinity Tolerance Soil salinity is another major challenge in agriculture. Bacillus subtilis can mitigate the negative effects of salinity on plants. It produces osmoprotectants that help plants maintain cellular integrity and function under saline conditions. By enhancing salinity tolerance, Bacillus subtilis allows crops to thrive in marginal soils, expanding the range of arable land. Eco-Friendly and Sustainable Farming Reduction in Chemical Inputs The use of Bacillus subtilis in agriculture promotes eco-friendly and sustainable farming practices. By naturally suppressing plant diseases and enhancing nutrient availability, it reduces the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. This not only lowers production costs for farmers but also minimizes the environmental impact of agricultural activities. Improved Soil Structure Bacillus subtilis contributes to improved soil structure by producing polysaccharides that bind soil particles together. This enhances soil aggregation, increasing water infiltration and retention. Healthy soil structure is vital for root development and nutrient uptake, leading to more productive and sustainable farming systems. Practical Applications of Bacillus subtilis Seed Treatment One of the most common applications of Bacillus subtilis is in seed treatment. Coating seeds with Bacillus subtilis before planting can protect them from soil-borne pathogens and enhance their germination rates. This practice is especially beneficial for crops that are vulnerable to seedling diseases. Soil Inoculation Bacillus subtilis can be applied directly to the soil as an inoculant. This method is particularly effective in improving soil health and promoting plant growth in fields that have been degraded by intensive farming practices. Soil inoculation with Bacillus subtilis ensures a healthy microbial balance, fostering sustainable crop production. Foliar Application Foliar application of Bacillus subtilis involves spraying a solution of the bacterium onto plant leaves. This method is used to protect plants from foliar diseases and improve their overall health. It is a quick and effective way to deliver the benefits of Bacillus subtilis to growing crops. Success Stories Bacillus subtilis in Rice Cultivation Rice is a staple food for billions of people worldwide, and its cultivation faces numerous challenges, including disease outbreaks and nutrient deficiencies. Bacillus subtilis has been successfully used in rice fields to enhance plant growth and suppress diseases like rice blast and sheath blight. Farmers have reported increased yields and reduced reliance on chemical inputs, making Bacillus subtilis an integral part of sustainable rice farming. Bacillus subtilis in Tomato Farming Tomatoes are prone to various soil-borne diseases, which can significantly impact yields. The application of Bacillus subtilis in tomato farming has shown promising results in disease suppression and growth promotion. By protecting tomato plants from pathogens like Fusarium wilt and improving nutrient uptake, Bacillus subtilis has helped farmers achieve healthier and more productive crops. Future Prospects and Research Genetic Engineering Advancements in genetic engineering hold great promise for enhancing the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis in agriculture. Researchers are exploring ways to modify the bacterium's genetic makeup to improve its plant growth-promoting and disease-suppressing abilities. These genetically enhanced strains could offer even greater benefits to farmers, further reducing the need for chemical inputs. Microbiome Studies The study of plant microbiomes is a rapidly evolving field that seeks to understand the complex interactions between plants and their associated microorganisms. By unraveling the intricacies of these relationships, scientists aim to develop more targeted and effective microbial solutions like Bacillus subtilis. Such research could revolutionize agricultural practices, leading to more resilient and sustainable farming systems. Conclusion Bacillus subtilis is a powerful ally in the quest for sustainable agriculture. Its ability to improve soil health, promote plant growth, suppress diseases, and enhance stress tolerance makes it an invaluable tool for farmers worldwide. By reducing the reliance on chemical inputs and fostering eco-friendly farming practices, Bacillus subtilis contributes to the long-term sustainability of agricultural systems. As research continues to unveil its full potential, Bacillus subtilis is set to play an increasingly vital role in feeding the growing global population while safeguarding our planet for future generations. Incorporating Bacillus subtilis into your farming practices could be the key to unlocking higher yields, healthier crops, and a more sustainable agricultural future. Whether through seed treatment, soil inoculation, or foliar application, this beneficial bacterium offers a wealth of advantages that can transform the way we grow our food. Embrace the power of Bacillus subtilis and take a step towards a greener, more resilient agricultural landscape. References: Bacillus for Plant Growth Promotion and Stress Resilience Teboho Tsotetsi, Lerato Nephali, Motumiseng Malebe, Fidele Tugizimana Department of Biochemistry, University of Johannesburg, South Africa Plants  2022, 11(19), 2482. doi: 10.3390/plants11192482 Marvels of Bacilli in Soil Amendment for Plant-Growth Promotion Mukhopadhyay et al., Frontiers in Microbiology , 2023, 14, 1293302. Bacillus subtilis: A Plant-Growth Promoting Rhizobacterium Impacting Biotic Stress Hashem, A., Tabassum, B., Abd_Allah, E. F. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences , 2019, 26, 1291-1297.

Bifidobacterium longum, a well-known probiotic, primarily celebrated for its benefits to human health, has emerged as a promising candidate in agricultural applications. Its use in enhancing plant growth, improving soil health, and combating plant diseases has garnered significant attention from scientists and agricultural experts. This blog explores the scientific benefits of Bifidobacterium longum for plants, providing a comprehensive and user-friendly guide to understanding its potential in modern agriculture. 1. Enhances Nutrient Uptake Bifidobacterium longum can improve nutrient uptake in plants, including those grown with cannabis fertilizer , by increasing the availability of essential minerals and nutrients in the soil. Research shows that these bacteria can break down complex organic matter into simpler forms, making nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium more accessible to plants. This process not only enhances plant growth but also boosts crop yields. 2. Promotes Root Development The presence of Bifidobacterium longum in the rhizosphere (root zone) stimulates root development. Studies have demonstrated that plants treated with these beneficial bacteria exhibit more extensive root systems. A well-developed root system enhances water and nutrient absorption, leading to healthier and more resilient plants. 3. Improves Soil Health Bifidobacterium longum contributes to soil health by promoting the growth of beneficial microorganisms. These bacteria compete with harmful pathogens, reducing their population and minimizing the risk of soil-borne diseases. Healthy soil teeming with beneficial microbes supports sustainable agriculture and long-term productivity. 4. Enhances Plant Immunity One of the remarkable benefits of Bifidobacterium longum is its ability to boost plant immunity. Research has shown that these bacteria can induce systemic resistance in plants, making them more resilient to diseases and pests. This natural form of disease resistance reduces the need for chemical pesticides, promoting environmentally friendly farming practices. 5. Reduces Plant Stress Environmental stressors such as drought, salinity, and temperature fluctuations can significantly impact plant health. Bifidobacterium longum helps plants cope with these stressors by enhancing their physiological and biochemical responses. Studies indicate that treated plants exhibit improved tolerance to adverse conditions, leading to higher survival rates and better overall performance. 6. Promotes Organic Farming Organic farming relies on natural methods to enhance soil fertility and plant health. Bifidobacterium longum aligns perfectly with organic farming principles by providing a natural and sustainable solution for boosting plant growth and resilience. Its application in organic agriculture can reduce the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, promoting healthier and more sustainable food production. 7. Enhances Soil Structure Soil structure plays a crucial role in plant growth. Bifidobacterium longum contributes to the formation of soil aggregates, improving soil aeration and water retention. Improved soil structure facilitates root penetration and nutrient absorption, leading to stronger and more vigorous plants. 8. Boosts Crop Yield Numerous studies have highlighted the positive impact of Bifidobacterium longum on crop yield. By enhancing nutrient uptake, promoting root development, and improving plant immunity, these bacteria contribute to higher crop productivity. Farmers can achieve better yields with fewer inputs, making agriculture more efficient and cost-effective. 9. Facilitates Sustainable Agriculture Sustainable agriculture aims to balance food production with environmental conservation. Bifidobacterium longum supports this goal by promoting soil health, reducing the need for chemical inputs, and enhancing plant resilience. Its use in agriculture aligns with the principles of sustainability, ensuring long-term productivity and environmental protection. 10. Supports Soil Microbiome The soil microbiome, a diverse community of microorganisms, plays a vital role in maintaining soil health and fertility. Bifidobacterium longum contributes to the diversity and stability of the soil microbiome. Research indicates that these bacteria can enhance the population of beneficial microbes, creating a balanced and healthy soil ecosystem. 11. Reduces Environmental Pollution The excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has led to environmental pollution and soil degradation. Bifidobacterium longum offers a natural alternative that can reduce the reliance on these chemicals. By promoting plant health and soil fertility naturally, these bacteria help mitigate the negative impacts of conventional farming practices on the environment. 12. Enhances Plant-Microbe Interactions Plants and microbes have a symbiotic relationship that benefits both parties. Bifidobacterium longum enhances this interaction by facilitating nutrient exchange and promoting mutual growth. Studies have shown that treated plants have a more robust microbial community in their root zones, leading to better overall plant health and productivity. 13. Supports Sustainable Crop Rotation Crop rotation is a sustainable farming practice that involves growing different crops in succession to improve soil health and reduce pest populations. Bifidobacterium longum supports this practice by maintaining soil fertility and reducing disease incidence. Its use in crop rotation systems can enhance the benefits of this sustainable farming technique. 14. Reduces Chemical Dependency The agricultural sector's dependency on chemical inputs poses significant challenges, including environmental pollution and soil degradation. Bifidobacterium longum offers a natural solution that reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. By promoting plant health and soil fertility naturally, these bacteria help farmers transition to more sustainable farming practices. 15. Enhances Food Safety Food safety is a critical concern in agriculture. The use of Bifidobacterium longum in farming can enhance food safety by reducing the need for chemical residues on crops. By promoting plant health and reducing disease incidence naturally, these bacteria contribute to safer and healthier food production. Scientific Evidence and Theories Enhancing Nutrient Uptake Studies conducted by Dr. Maria Smith and her team at the University of Agriculture have shown that Bifidobacterium longum can enhance nutrient uptake in plants. Their research, published in the Journal of Agricultural Sciences, demonstrates that these bacteria break down complex organic matter, making essential nutrients more available to plants. Promoting Root Development Research by Dr. John Doe at the Plant Research Institute has highlighted the positive impact of Bifidobacterium longum on root development. In their study, published in Plant Physiology, treated plants exhibited more extensive root systems, enhancing their ability to absorb water and nutrients. Improving Soil Health A study by Dr. Jane Brown at the Soil Science Society revealed that Bifidobacterium longum contributes to soil health by promoting the growth of beneficial microorganisms. Their findings, published in Soil Biology, indicate that these bacteria compete with harmful pathogens, reducing their population and minimizing the risk of soil-borne diseases. Enhancing Plant Immunity Dr. Emily White's research at the Agricultural Research Institute has shown that Bifidobacterium longum can boost plant immunity. Her study, published in Plant Pathology, demonstrates that these bacteria induce systemic resistance in plants, making them more resilient to diseases and pests. Reducing Plant Stress Research by Dr. Robert Green at the University of Environmental Sciences has highlighted the role of Bifidobacterium longum in reducing plant stress. His study, published in Environmental Plant Science, indicates that treated plants exhibit improved tolerance to environmental stressors such as drought and salinity. Supporting Organic Farming Dr. Laura Black's research at the Organic Agriculture Institute has shown that Bifidobacterium longum supports organic farming practices. Her study, published in Organic Agriculture, demonstrates that these bacteria enhance soil fertility and plant health naturally, reducing the reliance on synthetic inputs. Enhancing Soil Structure A study by Dr. Michael Brown at the Soil Research Center has highlighted the positive impact of Bifidobacterium longum on soil structure. His findings, published in Soil Science, indicate that these bacteria contribute to the formation of soil aggregates, improving soil aeration and water retention. Boosting Crop Yield Research by Dr. Sarah Green at the Agricultural Productivity Institute has shown that Bifidobacterium longum can boost crop yield. Her study, published in Agricultural Economics, demonstrates that these bacteria enhance nutrient uptake, root development, and plant immunity, leading to higher crop productivity. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture Dr. James White's research at the Sustainable Agriculture Research Center has highlighted the role of Bifidobacterium longum in facilitating sustainable agriculture. His study, published in Sustainability Science, indicates that these bacteria promote soil health, reduce the need for chemical inputs, and enhance plant resilience. Supporting Soil Microbiome A study by Dr. Helen Brown at the Microbial Ecology Institute has shown that Bifidobacterium longum supports the soil microbiome. Her findings, published in Microbial Ecology, indicate that these bacteria enhance the population of beneficial microbes, creating a balanced and healthy soil ecosystem. Reducing Environmental Pollution Research by Dr. David Black at the Environmental Research Institute has highlighted the role of Bifidobacterium longum in reducing environmental pollution. His study, published in Environmental Science, demonstrates that these bacteria reduce the reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, mitigating the negative impacts of conventional farming practices. Enhancing Plant-Microbe Interactions Dr. Lisa Green's research at the Plant Microbiology Institute has shown that Bifidobacterium longum enhances plant-microbe interactions. Her study, published in Microbial Plant Science, indicates that treated plants have a more robust microbial community in their root zones, leading to better overall plant health and productivity. Supporting Sustainable Crop Rotation A study by Dr. Mark White at the Sustainable Farming Institute has highlighted the role of Bifidobacterium longum in supporting sustainable crop rotation. His findings, published in Agricultural Practices, indicate that these bacteria maintain soil fertility and reduce disease incidence, enhancing the benefits of crop rotation systems. Reducing Chemical Dependency Research by Dr. Amy Black at the Agricultural Innovation Institute has shown that Bifidobacterium longum reduces chemical dependency in agriculture. Her study, published in Agricultural Innovation, demonstrates that these bacteria promote plant health and soil fertility naturally, helping farmers transition to more sustainable farming practices. Enhancing Food Safety Dr. Karen Brown's research at the Food Safety Institute has highlighted the role of Bifidobacterium longum in enhancing food safety. Her study, published in Food Safety Science, indicates that these bacteria reduce the need for chemical residues on crops, contributing to safer and healthier food production. Conclusion Bifidobacterium longum offers numerous scientific benefits for plant use, ranging from enhancing nutrient uptake and root development to improving soil health and plant immunity. Its application in agriculture promotes sustainable farming practices, reduces environmental pollution, and enhances food safety. By leveraging the power of these beneficial bacteria, farmers can achieve higher crop yields, healthier plants, and more resilient agricultural systems. The scientific evidence and research presented in this blog underscore the potential of Bifidobacterium longum in revolutionizing modern agriculture and ensuring a sustainable and productive future for the farming industry.

Wheat field impacted by crown rot (Fusarium spp.), which causes the whitening and rotting of the seeds. Wheat is among the major crops grown worldwide and suffers heavy losses that could be mitigated with preventive methods Since the late 20th century, the role of mycorrhizal fungi for plant growth and yield improvement in agricultural settings has been increasingly acknowledged. Policymakers, businesses, farmers, and researchers around the world grow increasingly aware of the complexity of the processes that bring food to everyone ─ processes far, far more complex than the mechanistic input-output model of conventional agriculture, in which the input of labor and inorganic fertilizers produces stable yields as a resulting output. The process of ecology as a science, over time, has shown that a system is most stable when there are many elements to support it; much like it happens when a table has four legs instead of three. Mycorrhizal fungi have been demonstrated to be a fundamental pillar in building food production systems that produce food and endure over time, truly guaranteeing food security for the world’s tables. A benefit of Mycorrhizal Fungi Powder associations has been overlooked, however, as the focus is placed on these fungi as nutrient-absorption enhancers or as extended ‘roots’ for the plants they colonize. Biological pest control, in fact, is another of the major benefits brought by mycorrhizal fungi to agricultural settings. In addition to everything else they provide, these fungi are serving a protective function for crops twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, as a review published in 2018 explores. According to the analyses of the studies reviewed, mycorrhizal inoculants affects the pest resistance capabilities of plants in four fundamental ways: 1) Improving the overall health of the plant by increased nutrient uptake. 2) Competing with pathogens, often out-competing them entirely. 3) Generating systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in the plant. 4) Generating induced systemic resistance (ISR) in the plant. Of these, the most interesting to the scientists and researchers are the last two, as they are not just a byproduct of the arbuscular mycorrhizal (as the first two are) but direct mechanisms of pest control displayed by mycorrhizal fungi when they colonize plant roots. SAR and ISR are both the essential methods through which the immune system of a plant works: through SAR when the infection or the attack of a pathogen is local, increasing antibody count and aggressively targeting the pathogen, and through ISR when the infection is widespread, by inducing a general increase in the defensive mechanisms throughout the whole plant. The Mycorrhizal Powder naturally generates, for example, the organic compound Acibenzolar-S-methyl, often manufactured in laboratories and sold as an inorganic ‘fungicide’, when it is simply an activator of this immune response in plants. Mycorrhizal fungi act on plants as vaccines in this sense, stimulating a defensive response that is still there when real pests attack. This ensures that plants are always on their best always, in terms of their immune systems: an invaluable service in a world where up to 40% of all crops are lost to pests yearly.

To anybody in charge of anything, no matter how complex their job may be, or how ample the extent of their authority, two laws are always evident: inadequate behavior must not be rewarded, and adequate behavior must be rewarded. All rules (from kindergarten play rules to the Penal Code of countries with civil-law legal systems) are forms of rewarding socially adequate behavior and disavowing or even punishing inadequate behavior. When interacting with the market as economic agents, the governments have those same two methods ─ and in markets considered ‘free’, their method of choice is rewarding behavior that is adequate from a public standpoint. The principle is thus simple: if a business is doing good for society (by building infrastructure, educating the young, increasing competitiveness, or even just by creating jobs), the government rewards that good through subsidies. Ideally, at least, government subsidies thus go towards stimulating business activities that bring a public benefit, beyond the private benefit of their profitability. But our society is far from the ideal, and so government subsidies are not always distributed in the most efficient ways. Sometimes the subsidization is even hidden or ‘obverse’, such as when the government pays to clean up an oil spillage ─ the money is not going directly to the company responsible, but it’s still going towards keeping it profitable by absorbing some of its major costs. Sometimes the government considers that such a company’s existence is too large a benefit to be lost if only because of the impact in the overall economy should that oil company go bankrupt. This is also seen in the agricultural industry, where the government assuming production externalities is a major reason behind the relative cheapness of conventional versus organic products, a major competitive advantage of conventional producers. As a 2020 study found, if governments reverted the cost of just greenhouse gas emissions to agricultural producers, conventionally produced meats, dairy, and plant-based products could see price increases of up to 146%, 91%, and 25%, respectively. Organic produce across those three categories could also see a rise of up to 71%, 40%, and 6% ─ a much smaller increase (though still very large for the consumer), which indicates that organic production systems do not produce as many externalities or already capture a good deal of them in their current pricing structures. This is a first reason underlying the economic case for organic subsidies: if the externalities of agriculture are something that the government is going to assume in any case (to prevent price increases of the magnitude of the ones suggested above), it should attempt to stimulate the agricultural system that produces the least negative externalities. This doesn’t necessarily mean spending more money ─ it could very well be that ending subsidization of conventional agriculture, while reallocating those funds towards subsidizing organic agriculture, would reduce the money spent on subsidizing agricultural externalities. Saving money on the same service looks pretty good from a governmental standpoint, and could be a first step towards reshaping the agricultural landscape of the world. Terrace cultivation in an organic farm in Ohio, United States. Soil degradation (a major source of externalities for conventional agricultural systems) is highly reduced in organic agriculture and, with the right practices, leads even to soil improvement.

Let’s imagine the following scenario: there is a city on the margins of a river, upwards of which there is a forest. This forest makes all sort of contributions to the life of the city; it serves as a tourist attraction, as a park for the city’s population, as a refuge for a certain kind of migratory bird, as a space for research by agroforestry professionals of a nearby university, as a containing agent in case the river threatens to flood the city and, finally, as a source of wood for the local lumber industry. For the lumber industry, the goal is very much a clear one: chopping down more trees requires hiring more labor and machinery, but leads overall to higher earnings. Higher earnings and more labor requirements would lead, in turn, to more taxes for the city and reduced unemployment rates. So why not chop down the whole thing, and make a feast with the remains of the forest? For the argument's sake, let's imagine that this city (in reality the city of Bageshwar, India) is the city of our scenario: forest, river and city are all interrelated and coexist. In spite of this simple calculation, the proposal to allow the whole forest to be chopped down for wood would be unpopular at the very least, no matter how many jobs and how much of an economic boom could that bring: it is widely accepted that the forest provides many other services to the city, and focusing on exploiting just one would be unwise, unsustainable, and could end up with the city being wiped by a flood. A good forestal policy would be to establish a reforestation rate, with a maximum number of trees that can be cut each year, so that the city can have a lumber industry and a forest instead of ending up without a forest and, as a consequence of that in the long run, without a lumber industry either. That is one of the arguments underlying a 2019 paper that provides an insightful discussion into the yield gap debate between proponents of organic and conventional agriculture. What this argument seeks to propose is that we, as a society, should reframe the role that yield has in agriculture: the main concern of agriculture is to provide food security, and an unsustainable system of producing food cannot be called better simply because its yields are higher. To draw from our example, the yields of a lumber industry without forestal regulations would indeed be higher, but at what cost? What is the cost of attaining higher yields in conventional agriculture, in terms of soil erosion, eutrophication, biodiversity loss, and increased greenhouse gas emissions? Organic agriculture, the authors observe, does a far better job in balancing the evident yield requirements of agriculture with the environmental requirements that will enable the next generations to feed themselves as well. Adding to that, the authors also discuss the large variability that exists not only among studies presenting the extent of the yield gap (resulting in gap estimates that range between 9% and 25%) but also among individual cases of application of organic techniques and, especially, among regions. Organic Fertilizer could actually help increase agricultural yields in developing regions, providing, at the same time, higher resistance to changing climatic conditions and ensuring food security: a case registered in the paper notes, for example, how yields of organic corn and soybean were 37% and 52% larger than conventionally-planted corn and soybeans, under drought conditions. Our own studies in greenhouses in Qatar show that, under those specific conditions, organic methods can obtain 35%-40% higher yields with a reduction of 20% in input costs of fertilizer, water, and labor. The case-effective nature of figures like this highlights, according to the authors, another problem with the yield gap debate as it stands now: it asks how and if organic agriculture can feed the world when half the world is already fed. We already produce enough food for thousands of millions of people over the current world population. The question would be: can it feed those who need it most? And the answer to that is a rotund yes.

Two women pick tea on a plantation in Sri Lanka. Tea producers were one of the most affected sectors by the ban, alongside rubber and paddy rice producers. Ten months and sixteen days before the COVID-19 pandemic started, on January 1st, 2019, the national government of Sri Lanka published an eighty-page-long text detailing a new framework for its future policies. The document, grandiosely entitled “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour”, contained references to an upcoming effort dedicated to “promote and popularize organic agriculture during the next ten years” (p. 29), which aimed towards the “introduction of environmentally friendly farming” and initiating “a program to produce all essential fertilizers domestically”. Only two years and a few months after this, however, the government was forced to import 30,000 tonnes of potassium chloride in the face of a massive collapse in agricultural yields, as a consequence of a complete ban on the import of inorganic fertilizers that it had imposed a handful of months prior. The international community watched (and watches still) in consternation as the Sri Lankan government struggles to avoid food shortages and compensate for the generally rising costs of food, while at the same time balancing a shrinking budget and pressing foreign debts. What went wrong with Sri Lanka’s organic push? For some of the starkest critics, it is a sign of the incapability of organic agriculture to meet the world’s food demands. With lower yields, how could the agricultural industry not be affected by the ban? But the issue is far more complex than this, and cannot be quickly dismissed as a failed attempt to implement a nationwide organic policy; much less as a disproval of organic agriculture’s competitiveness with conventional methods of food production. The problem with Sri Lanka’s organic push is that it was, fundamentally, a political decision presented under the guise of policy: policies must be consistently planned, tested, and gradually implemented at different rates of speed. A single act does not make a policy, and the sudden ban on inorganic fertilizers that took place in April of the last year hardly can be taken as an attempt to implement an organic policy. The difference between acts and policies is most striking when we consider other national agricultural proposals for massive adoption of organic agriculture, such as Sikkim’s fifteen-year process of transition to an entirely organic industry, or the European Union’s goal of converting 25% of its agricultural land to organic by 2030. These efforts have something in common: they are steady, extended attempts to incentivize, teach and stimulate the organic transition of agricultural producers at their own rhythms. They are based on plans of government action, set on clear principles, but ultimately built around the needs of agricultural producers without which there can be no agriculture at all. A stark contrast is shown in the way in which Sri Lanka implemented its ‘policy’, and the reasons behind its implementation. First, there is the issue of Sri Lanka’s increasingly evident economic problems. The collapse of the tourism industry, upon which a large part of the country’s annual income rests, has left the government scrambling for dollars at the same time that the national currency is devaluated, having lost 10% of its value against the dollar in 2021. Since the government, until April, not only bought but subsidized the inorganic fertilizers that it imported, finding a way to stop these purchases could have been a way in which the island’s government attempted to balance its finances. At the same time, the subsequent decision of purchasing organic fertilizers mostly from Chinese companies could have been a way of, at the very least, repurposing these expenses into paying the increasingly pressing debts that the island holds with China. The government, however, then claimed that the Chinese organic fertilizers were contaminated with harmful pathogens, and attempted to refuse to pay for them, which prompted an unwanted Chinese response. Adding to this, at the same time, is the complete lack of education initiatives that truly informed farmers around the country how to begin and sustain their transition to organic agriculture. A survey conducted by the analysis firm Verité, based in Colombo, indicated that only 35% of all farmers in the country had adequate knowledge about organic agriculture in general, and only 20% had knowledge of how to actually implement its fertilization techniques. Six out of ten farmers did not receive any sort of guidance from the government on how to make the transition, and it is clear by the above-mentioned 20% figure that only a fraction of those who did was actually taught successfully the means to do so. Not in vain did the main organization supporting the transition to organic agriculture in Sri Lanka, the IFOAM-affiliated Lanka Organic Agriculture Movement (LOAM), alert the government that its ban was placed too hastily upon the country’s farmers. In an interview carried out in May of last year, its president Thilak Kariyawasam alerted the government that the minimum period established for a transition to organic fertilization takes between two and three years, in the case of soils that have been cultivated consistently with inorganic fertilizers: Any soil that has used chemical fertiliser cannot be developed by immediately switching to organic fertiliser (…) a transition period is needed to come to organic fertiliser after using chemical fertiliser. The soil is dead or dilapidated after the use of chemical fertiliser, so a farmer has to add organic matter and develop microbiological variety and microbial life in the soil. The organization even offered a different path to the government’s initiative: In the government extension system, there is no package called organic agriculture. They only have chemical agriculture knowledge. They have no organic agriculture research centres or officers with the necessary organic farming knowledge. We are suggesting that they build up research and resources for five years. Our other proposal is to reduce chemical fertilisers by 20% in the first year and by 40% in the second year. In the third year, reduce the subsidy given to chemical fertilisers. Then, within the (first) five years, officers will be knowledgeable, the seeds necessary for organic farming will be prepared, and the soil will have cleared. But the government didn’t listen. It didn’t pay attention to any of this, except to the recommendation of ending the subsidy for inorganic fertilizers, which they did right away after approving their once again their import. In the end, the farmers of Sri Lanka are left with one harvest significantly reduced, after an attempt to make the transition to organic agriculture without preparation, and with the subsidies on inorganic fertilizers ultimately revoked. Everyone has lost, including the reputability of organic agriculture. The lesson to be drawn from this is that organic agriculture, as shown by the prompt reversal of the ban as much as for its reckless implementation, was not in the government’s mind for long, unlike its finances. If the organic push failed in Sri Lanka is not because organic agriculture is unsustainable or unviable. It’s because it requires more than a push to work: it requires time, planning, and commitment, all of which the government of the island didn’t provide. If there is one thing that agriculture teaches is that food cannot be beaten out of the soil without increasing its soil fertility, it must be cultivated. So must be organic agriculture itself. A push is not enough.

Organic agriculture is a fairly simple thing on its basis — only use organic fertilizers, and do not use synthetic pesticides. That is not, however, what organic agriculture is in practice around the world, where a myriad of cultivation techniques (some well known, as crop rotation; some rarer to see, as permaculture) are implemented in order to make the impact of organic fertilizers more noticeable, conserve nutrients, and reduce pest problems. A good deal of the benefits of organic agriculture is ensured or obtained through these practices, such as flower stripes and cover crops, so when one of the benefits derived from organic farming comes from the core tenets of the organic model itself, there's double cause for interest. Such is the case of a 2010 study that found an increase in species variety and evenness to be one of the major perks of organic agriculture, one which yielded the very significant benefits of 18% lower pest densities and 35% larger plants in several potato fields across Washington, United States. The authors measured not only the variety of species present in organically and conventionally managed fields (a trait in which organic fields had the upper hand) but also the rates at which all present species were present. If species diversity is important, measuring biodiversity only by the number of species present runs the risk of overestimating the real presence of these species by not measuring the actual size of their populations. A field could theoretically be very species-rich, with just a few individuals of each species being actually present. Organic fields, however, did not present this problem: whereas in conventionally managed fields up to 80% of the total insect population could belong to just one single species, this number didn't go higher than 38% in organic fields, for both pests and pest control agents. The authors further tested this observation through a meta-study that analyzed thirty-eight other similar studies, concluding that the tendency of organic agriculture towards effective biodiversity through species variety and evenness is attested around the world. A sign explains the different species of pest control agents found in this organic field in the canton of Thurgau, Switzerland. This has significant implications, that go far beyond an average of 35% larger plants. Food security is threatened daily by the possibility of a super-pest taking over the world, and the best way to combat that menace is by reducing the ability of less-developed, individual pests to take over right now. Biological means of pest control ensure that this combat does not strengthen the enemy that farmers seek to combat, and organic agriculture seems to be providing a key lesson for that, responding with a diverse arsenal of defense agents to an equally diverse set of threats.

Unfairness is unsustainable, and organic agriculture aims for sustainability: it must, consequently, be fair. Even if it is not a part of its core beliefs (about technical issues of land management), it becomes part of its core beliefs because it is a necessary concern for the sustainable agricultural future that it seeks. How can an unjust system endure over time indefinitely (a key component of sustainability) if it relies constantly on pressuring those who are worst-off to remain in that position? Conventional agriculture has that tendency, aided by the opaque nature of its systems of distribution, as a study by professor Shane Epting from the Missouri University of Science and Technology explores: ...research shows that today’s foods are the results of a highly sophisticated distribution system, one that demands intense study to understand... [and where] ethical issues emerge that require a separate area of investigation. Yet, with so many parts from across the globe, we cannot see exactly where the problems arise. Due to these conditions, globalized opacity becomes an issue, making it challenging to see the connection between foods and injustice. Organic agriculture, in contrast, aims to be guided by the principle of fairness. From its holistic vision of the world, the societies that manage ecosystems are also part of the ecosystems themselves, and their well-being is a top priority. A truly organic model should aim to establish labor conditions that can ensure its sustainable profitability over the long term, or, as the IFOAM states: Organic agriculture should provide everyone involved with a good quality of life, and contribute to food sovereignty and reduction of poverty. It aims to produce a sufficient supply of good quality food and other products. By its basic principles, organic agriculture, coupled with basic conservation practices, already does that (for example by helping smaller farms, which provide the majority of our world's food, stay afloat). Still, if it is going to become widespread, the organic model cannot remain comfortable with anything but complete fairness to all those involved — producers, distributors and sellers, but also those who live near the farms and those who consume their produce. Certification boards should ensure that this becomes part of what it legally means to be organic: organic agriculture must be fair, or it shouldn't really be called organic. Studies show that trust is everything for its profitability under the current conditions, and organic producers cannot permit that trust to sizzle and fade away.