USA - Widespread root rot crop loss in 2022-23

19.04.2024 461 views

Root rot has been established in some pea and lentil fields across North Dakota and Montana, with widespread crop loss observed in 2022-23. To help, North Dakota State University (NDSU) research is focusing on what farmers can do to reduce their root rot risk as they begin seeding their pulse crops this spring.

“What makes root rot particularly challenging to manage is the pathogens that can cause root rot produce survival structures that can survive in the soil for many years,” said Audrey Kalil, former NDSU plant pathologist at Williston Research Extension Center’s field days in 2023. “The Fusarium and Aphanomyces pathogens that cause root rot in our region can infect fields all season long.”

Kalil has moved on to become the agronomist/outreach coordinator at Horizon Resources (January 2024), but she has conducted several studies on root rot in peas and lentils, and she takes that knowledge with her to help farmers mitigate losses at Horizon.

From 2018-2023, Kalil worked closely with Michael Wunsch, NDSU plant pathologist at Carrington Research Extension Center, on a range of trials evaluating management tactics for root rot diseases.

Most recently, they were evaluating managing root rot by using a combination of tactics, including early planting, fungicide seed treatment, crop rotation and variety resistance. From their previous work conducted in field peas, they had discovered that yield loss can be reduced by using fungicide seed treatment, planting early, and crop rotation.

“When you first plant a susceptible host crop in a field, such as peas and lentils, and you have a wet year, that crop looks fantastic. However, below ground, you end up with lots of reproduction of Aphanomyces on the root,” she said. “The spores produced by this pathogen can survive in the soil for more than 10 years. Then, the next time you plant peas or lentils in that field and get wet conditions, you are at risk for root rot on that crop.”

Aphanomyces and Fusarium pathogens, the predominant pathogens causing root rot diseases, thrive in warm soil conditions, so seeding early can boost yields.

Kalil and Wunsch evaluated early, moderate, and late planting dates in multiple trials across several years to see which was best for lowering root rot risk and discovered root rot increased sharply with delays in planting.

“To reduce root rot, target a soil temperature at seeding depth below 50 degrees the day of planting and the six days following it,” Kalil said.

However, Kalil pointed out in 2023 their earliest planting date of April 25 had a soil temperature that was already above 50 degrees averaged across the week following seeding.

“Actually, none of these planting dates hit the ideal temperature, and we did not see an impact of planting date on root rot,” she said.

However, under these conditions, the fungicide seed treatment lowered root rot severity.

“Seed treatment can be really beneficial when you’re seeding into these cool soil temperatures. You can get a lot of problems with seed rot and seedling blight diseases caused by soil-borne pathogens pythium and rhizoctonia. With seedling blight, the plant dies after emergence, and with seed rot, the seed literally rots in the ground,” Kalil said.

When these diseases are severe, growers will see bare patches in their fields.

“Based on the trials we have conducted, without question, we should be using fungicide seed treatments with field peas and probably with lentils, as well, when seeding into cool soils,” she said. “Combined with early planting, we observed a 5-7 bushel per acre pea yield increase due to the fungicide seed treatment.”

Root rot caused by Aphanomyces and Fusarium can be less responsive to fungicide seed treatments because the disease can occur season long.

“These pathogens can infect the plant beginning at emergence, especially in warm soils,” Kalil said. “That is why if you seed early, you give the crop a head start, but if you are seeding later, that pathogen could be attacking your plant at emergence. It can be particularly damaging if we get heavy rains when the crop is emerging.”

Kalil and Wunsch conducted crop rotational trials with peas and lentils, finding the best results occurred when the field had a 5-year break.

“Wunsch has found that by going from a 2- to 3-year rotation to a 6-year rotation on field peas, you can get a 9-11 bushel per acre increase,” she said.“My lentil study is a little more recent, so I’m kind of waiting to get more data, but I’m seeing a similar pattern. What we’ve seen is you really need a minimum 5-year break to see a reduction in root rot.”

The environment can also complicate management of root rot based on field history.

“It’s not just how much rainfall, it’s when it falls and when it falls relative to when you seeded,” Kalil said. “We are working on giving you a better picture of your root rot risk, because right now, it’s very challenging.”

Wunsch will continue to conduct studies to help understand the effect of crop history along with root rot risk management tactics.

Diagnosis is the first step in root disease management.

“When you’re looking for root rot, it’s that brown discoloration. There may also be reduced nodulation and lateral roots. When it’s mild, you might just see some brown discoloration right around that seed attachment site,” she said. “The whole crop should be green during flowering and pod fill, but when you see plants turning yellow or brown early – that might be root rot,” she said.

Kalil recommends submitting seed for pathogen testing prior to planting and only planting seeds where the pathogen levels are below recommended thresholds.

“For some diseases, such as Anthracnose and Ascochyta blight, seed can carry pathogens and transmit it from seed to plant. Some diseases are challenging to manage once they enter a field, so we want to make sure we prevent that,” Kalil said. “Fungicide seed treatment can help with foliar diseases that are transmitted via seed, such as Ascochyta blight on chickpea, peas, and lentils, and Anthracnose for lentil.”

Good agronomics are the key to managing root diseases long term in peas and lentils, Kalil advised.

“Where root rot has become problematic, growers should rotate away from peas and lentils to non-host crops like small grains, canola, chickpea, soybean or flax for a minimum of five years before planting pea or lentil,” she concluded. 

There is a new testing service offered by the National Agriculture Genotyping Center in Fargo, N.D., that growers can utilize to test soil or plants for pea and lentil root rot pathogens.

Source - https://agupdate.com

21.10.2025

Uzbekistan Launches National Project to Insure Horticultural Farmers with Support from International Partners

Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture of Uzbekistan held a working meeting with members of the Insurance Development Forum (IDF) to discuss the implementation stages and prospects of the project “Agricultural Insurance for Horticultural Farmers in Uzbekistan.”

21.10.2025

Ethiopia - Pastoralists in Borana say livestock insurance failed them after drought losses

The pastoralist communities who purchased livestock insurance to safeguard their herds despite making payments have not received compensation for losses, saying, “The insurance we bought has not paid us.” Zonal and Oromia officials, however, maintain that payouts were implemented.

21.10.2025

USDA announces changes to livestock insurance programs for 2026, subsequent years

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency approved changes to improve insurance coverage for American livestock producers. These updates will take effect for the Livestock Risk Protection, Livestock Gross Margin, and Dairy Revenue Protection insurance programs beginning with the 2026 crop year.

21.10.2025

Low awareness, product gaps limit livestock insurance coverage in India

Livestock insurance remains an underutilised safety net for India’s rural households, despite its potential to protect millions of small and marginal farmers from unexpected losses. Limited awareness, low customisation, and rising climate risks continue to expose rural livelihoods to shocks.

21.10.2025

Canada - Beef farmers want fair shake for livestock price insurance

The government cost shares funding for crop insurance; beef producers say livestock insurance options should get the same treatment.Livestock producers face a fundamental inequality when it comes to business risk management (BRM) programs in Canada — but industry groups are proposing a fix.One of the starkest differences is in government-based insurance programs. Crop producers enjoy coverage that’s typically subject to a 60/40 government/producer split, with provincial and federal governments picking up the largest part of the tab.Organizations such as the Canadian Cattle Association are calling on the feds and provinces to share the cost of pricey livestock price insurance (LPI) premiums with beef producers along the same lines, says Tyler Fulton, president of the CCA, who also serves as co-chair of the association’s foreign trade committee.That would bring some equivalency to these BRM programs, says Fulton. Crop insurance covers yield loss, the biggest risk for crop growers. Meanwhile, downward market shifts — which LPI insures by allowing cattle producers to set a minimum price floor — present the greatest risk for those farmers.Much of the new interest in LPI is in response to the threat of US tariffs, he says. Many LPI policy holders intend to use it as a tool to manage them should livestock and meat ever be targeted.“By virtue of the fact that we sell 50 per cent to export of what we produce here in Canada, we are very reliant on the export markets to help determine our price,” says Fulton.“And so when we see the tariff threats of 25 per cent it represents probably one of the biggest risks that we could experience, bar none. It’s just very significant because the U.S. represents such a large market for Canadian beef and live cattle.”An LPI cost-share agreement would also be a relative bargain compared to the government’s cost of supporting crop insurance premiums, he says. Crop insurance requires several billion dollars in government support while a similar model of support for LPI would be closer to $150 million to $200 million, said Fulton.Although he says the federal government is coming around to the idea of LPI cost-sharing, it has previously cited trade risk and prohibitive cost as reasons to not participate.Fulton doesn’t think those arguments hold water in an environment already brimming with trade risk from U.S. tariffs, especially with many beef producers still priced out of the LPI market.“It’s really frustrating that we can’t effectively cover the risk because the government says that it’s too risky in this environment.”Ultimately, beef and crop production are related but separate ag sectors with their own specific needs, says Fulton, and a perceived “one size fits all” philosophy driving government-funded BRMs isn’t cutting it.”I think that we need to move to a model that is more industry-specific. It’s really difficult, if not impossible, to design a safety net program or a risk management program that works well for all sectors of agriculture.”Brian English, a beef producer from Rivers, Man. who runs a cow-calf, feeder and backgrounding operation at nearby Bradwardine, took out an LPI for the first time this year. He also highlights the government’s treatment of crop growers compared to beef producers.“Why shouldn’t we get the same benefits as these guys that are putting in thousands of acres of cropland?” he said. “We should be on equal footing as them. The federal and provincial governments should do the same funding schedule for livestock price insurance as they do for crop insurance now.”English took out an LPI policy this year in response to the threat of U.S. tariffs.“Trump had put on the tariffs for two-and-a-half days (and) we heard the horror stories of the cattle crossing the line getting $1,000 tariffs on each animal. And then (the U.S.) stopped that for a brief period of time and there was a chance that it was going to come back on right away.”LPI has historically been a hard sell to beef producers due to policy cost. Fulton estimates a high rate of $50-$60 per calf for a calf policy (the program has three cattle policies available: calf, feeder and fed) on a 10-year margin.However, thanks to high prices in all cattle categories in recent years, margins are much better today. That offers extra incentive to take out an LPI policy because beef producers will have more to lose once the bull market (in investment terms) goes bearish, he says.“$50 to $60 in today’s market is not as significant. It’s not as big a barrier, but it’s still a large barrier when talking about an individual animal (and) having to pay $50 or $60 just to be able to cover it.“If you get 60 per cent of the cost of your insurance policy covered, it really changes the motivation and the desire to actually cover off that risk because you’re not using up a bunch of your profit margin just to insure it.”Beef cattle graze in a pasture in Saskatchewan. Photo: Michael RobinOther LPI changes neededFulton would also like to see a widening of LPI’s application window. Although applications for feeder and fed policies are accepted year-round, calf policies are only available from February to June each year. However, risk exposure continues long past June.“So for most of the year the tool is not accessible.” English has a technology-based suggestion for improving the program. He says the application website needs to be more user-friendly for cell phone users and especially those who live in areas with limited internet bandwidth.“It’s just a little daunting the first time that you’re (applying) … It’s kind of clunky. It’s not iPhone friendly and I do everything on my phone.“We put all our records of our cattle on our phone, check on our weather. Everyone uses their phones more than a laptop and so I think if they made it so that it was a little easier to use on your phone, it’d be that much easier also.”Balanced outcomesThere could be some positive tradeoffs with other government BRMs if a cost-share arrangement for LPI is developed, says Fulton. For example, AgriStability payments wouldn’t trigger as easily if beef producers already had coverage through LPI.(AgriStability is a federal-provincial-territorial program meant to protect farmers from extreme market price declines that threaten the viability of their farms.)“Let’s say a 20 per cent tariff is implemented by President Trump and our prices here in Canada drop by 15 to 20 per cent. That would likely trigger a payment in AgriStability normally,” explains Fulton.“But if we had coverage with livestock price insurance, for those that had a policy it would result in a payment through livestock price insurance and therefore would not result in a drop in your farm income and consequently you wouldn’t need to trigger an AgriStability claim.”It’s a scenario Canadian crop producers already enjoy, he says.“Because people have crop insurance, they can experience a 40 per cent hit in their yield (and) they get a payment through their crop insurance policy. They don’t make an AgriStability claim because they’re already covered off through their insurance.”Government willing to talkThe beef industry is slowly but surely catching the ear of government on cost-shared LPI policies. Fulton says both the federal Conservative and Liberal parties — motivated in part by U.S. tariff threats — were interested in providing better risk management tools to farmers prior to the federal election.“This represents a cattle industry-developed program that works really well and so when we started to get exposed to the tariff issues, it really changed the conversation. It just made it very obvious that there was a deficiency here and they identified that.”Fulton has spoken with new federal Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Heath MacDonald and hopes to meet with him soon to address the uncertainty and risk the industry is facing. He’s counting on the Prince Edward Island-dwelling MacDonald having an understanding of LPI, given Maritime producers have been eligible since last year.Countervail fearsAn attendee of Manitoba Ag’s Navigating Livestock Price Insurance webinar on May 8 asked if cost-shared premiums would trigger countervail action from the U.S. The answer is “unequivocally no,” says Fulton.“The industry is not at all concerned about a countervail duty related to livestock price insurance cost-shared premiums,” he says.“Our American counterparts have a very similar program that is cost-shared and it is really structured similarly to their crop insurance program, and so they’re addressing what they’ve identified to be a gap in risk management tools offered for farmers and inequity for livestock operations.”Source - Manitoba Cooperator