New Survey Highlights Farmer Adoption of Seed Treatment Applications

Oct 24, 2024

By Jacquie Holland, ASA Economist

Seed treatments are widely used by U.S. soybean producers to protect against early season pests. These treatments typically comprise one or more pesticides applied to seeds as a coating before planting, when plants are most susceptible and face the highest pressures, to limit early season risks to pest damage.

A recent survey conducted by the American Soybean Association and the United Soybean Board sought to measure the value of seed treatments and the feasibility of alternatives on the U.S. farm economy. The United Soybean Board is a farmer-led, non-policy organization funded by the checkoff to support soybean promotion, research and education programs at both the state and national levels. The American Soybean Association is a membership based non-profit organization that is tasked with accomplishing the policy goals established by its farmer members.

The survey, conducted during July 2024, gathered 491 online responses from farmers growing at least 150 acres of soybeans during the 2023 season across the 17 largest soybean-producing states in the United States.

On average, 90% of soybean acres in the ASA/USB survey were planted with treated seeds. Only 3% of respondents had never planted any treated soybean seeds. Because seed treatments are so widely used by farmers, the technology impacts farms across the United States.

Table 1. Pesticides used for seed treatments

Source: CropLife Foundation [i]

The importance of seed treatments

Fungicides and insecticides are the most widely used seed treatments (Figure 1), with 72% and 66%, respectively, of farmers surveyed indicating these products are applied before planting. Nematicides are less commonly used (34%) across the top 17 soybean-producing states in the U.S. but were reported by producers in the Southern Corn Belt more often.

Figure 1

Other products accounted for 6% of reported treatment products. These treatments can include but are not limited to biological products that deter pathogen growth and boost root development, as well as micronutrients that aid in enzymatic processes (nitrogen fixation) during the soybean seedling’s development.

Seed treatments are meant to be applied during the early stages of the soybean’s life cycle for a couple reasons. First, the early application helps to protect seeds and young plants when they are the most susceptible to pest damage. Pest pressure can typically be higher early in the growing season as soil and air temperatures warm, triggering life cycles for not only freshly planted soybean seeds, but also pathogens, insects, and nematodes that feed on newly germinated seedlings.

Second, the early use of seed treatment applications helps minimize the ecological impacts of pesticides on surrounding environments and species. Seed treatments reduce the volume and frequency [ii] of total pesticide applications while providing the most timely protection for soybean seedlings at their most vulnerable stage of development. Furthermore, subsoil applications generally have reduced ecological effects relative to other application types.

Alternative options

Without seed treatments, farmers may resort to alternative practices to maintain yield vigor and reduce early season pest pressure within a reasonable cost. These options include higher seeding population rates to account for seedling damage, later planting dates to avoid prime pest pressure, increased starter applications at planting and more foliar pesticide applications.

Around two of five (36%) growers in the ASA/USB survey preferred to increase seeding population rates over the other three methods (Figure 2), with smaller operators more likely to utilize this option than their larger counterparts. In addition, growers in states along the entire Mississippi River Valley (see appendix) cited higher seeding as their preferred alternative to seed treatments.

Figure 2

Average seeding rates for U.S. soybeans declined nearly 22% between 1997 and 2018, according to USDA-ERS’s May 2024 Oil Crops Outlook [iii]. Larger row widths, improved genetics, seed treatments with multiple pesticides and a widespread shift toward planting in conventional rows instead of drilling or broadcasting were key contributors to the downward trend in seeding rates, which could be reversed if seed treatments become restricted.

Increasing foliar pesticide applications was the next preferred alternative, with 27% of respondents favoring this practice in the absence of seed treatments. Growers in the Eastern Corn Belt voiced a stronger preference for increasing foliar applications over higher seeding rates.

About 26% of growers indicated increasing pesticide applications at planting would be their preferred practice, with larger producers favoring this method more than smaller producers. Growers in the Upper Plains and Southeastern Corn Belt were more likely to favor increasing pesticide applications at planting in lieu of seed treatments.

About 45% of growers thought they may need additional pesticide volumes without seed treatments, though it would depend highly on other factors not listed. More than two in five farmers surveyed would expect to need more pesticides.

Later planting was the least preferred option farmers chose of all four alternatives to seed treatment. Planting start dates have trended earlier in recent years to maximize plant size [iv]. While a later start date would avoid peak early season pest pressure, it risks optimal yield development. Only producers in Kansas felt that a later planting date would be a viable alternative to the other three options in the absence of seed treatments.

If farmers pursue alternatives to seed treatments, just over half the farmers would be at least “somewhat willing” to increase seeding populations to offset seed treatment benefits. Growers were evenly split on their willingness (or unwillingness) to increase foliar pesticide applications. About 42% of soy producers in the ASA/USB survey were at least “somewhat willing” to increase pesticide applications, while a staggering 80% were “somewhat” to “not at all" willing to plant later.

Adding up the costs

Around a fifth of total soybean production expenses (Figure 3) are consumed by seed and pesticide investments in 2024, as current 2024 crop budgets hover at or slightly below break-even points for most farmers across the Heartland [v]. Feasible alternatives to seed treatments would require an increase in these costs to account for more pesticide applications, additional plant populations and changes to the seed supply chain.

Figure 3

Looking at the revenue side of the farming profit equation, yields are helped by seed treatment technology. In the ASA/USB survey, 37% of growers would expect to see a 6%-10% loss in yields from 2023 APH county yield estimates without access to seed treatments (Figure 4).

For perspective, an 8% yield downgrade from the current 2024 national yield estimate of 53.2 bushels per acre results in a 4.3-bushel-per-acre loss. With November 2024 Chicago soybean futures trading at $10.14/bushel, that is $43.60/acre loss in revenue. For a grower producing 1,500 acres of soybeans, this would constitute a $65,400 change in operational revenue for just this one crop.

However, yield loss concerns vary across geographic regions (see appendix). While most respondents in major soybean-producing states expect a 6%-10% lower yield without seed treatments, growers in the Upper Midwest and Lower Mississippi River Valley were expecting an 11%-15% annual yield reduction. Producers in Michigan and Missouri were concerned about even higher yield losses.

Figure 4

U.S. farmers’ yield expectations due to seed treatments are consistent with international experience. On average, European Union rapeseed yields were trimmed 4% lower [vi] in the three years following a 2013 ban on neonicotinoid treatments. The ban included prohibited use of neonicotinoid seed treatments as well as soil applications and foliar sprays.

Without the neonicotinoid insecticide treatments, the cabbage stem flea beetle has proliferated across EU rapeseed fields. The beetle feeds on seedlings in the fall and lays eggs on the young crops. The eggs hatch during warm fall and winter weather, feeding on rapeseed leaves and stems into the spring, which limits plant nutrient uptake ahead of its peak reproductive phases.

EU farmers have turned to increased foliar applications of pyrethroid insecticides to offset the lost protection from the neonic bans. On average, farmers had to make an additional 0.73 insecticide applications per hectare [vii] to make up for the pest protection lost from the “neonic” ban. Overreliance on pyrethroids—the only insecticide the EU allows [viii] in lieu of neonicotinoid treatments—has also increased the cabbage stem flea beetle’s resistance to this class of insecticides, further constraining EU rapeseed production.

The neonic ban in the EU added a conservative €120 million [ix] ($172 million, inflation adjusted) in annual costs to producers’ tabs, bringing the total cost to €400 million ($574 million, inflation adjusted) in lost annual market revenues. The neonic bans and subsequent additional field passes not only increased EU farmers’ production costs, but also incentivized 533,000 hectares (1.3 million acres) of EU rapeseed acreage to be converted to other uses.

Handling practices

The survey also sought information about farmer safety when handling treated seeds. The ASA/USB study indicated occupational exposure risk potential for growers, applicators and farm labor from these sources is limited.

Just over a third of seed treatment users rely on their dealers to treat their soybeans. Only 6% of respondents treat their own soybean seed, with the remainder of producers treating soybean seed relying on seed companies (31%) or retailers (25%) to treat their soybean seed ahead of planting.

Of the producers utilizing treated seed, nearly two out of five reported storing their treated seed in an enclosed storage building. About 6% use temporary methods when storage is required.

It is worth noting that oftentimes these treated seeds are not stored for long after being delivered to the farm: Around 31% of growers reported not using any on-farm storage methods because they plant treated seed immediately after taking delivery from their retailer. Another 23% of respondents allow retailers to store treated seed until they can take delivery ahead of planting, meaning over half of respondents are not storing treated seed directly on the farm.

Most growers (93%) did not report any issues with seed treatment dusting off during planting. Biodegradable polymer coatings are increasingly an industry standard to help reduce dust-off risks and enhance seed vigor while running smoothly through planting equipment.

While the ASA/USB survey did not ask growers any questions about their use of polymer coatings, it could be an optimal solution for continuing to reduce occupational or ecological risks while maximizing crop protection potential, especially if biodegradable materials are used in the coating.

Conclusion

The ASA/USB survey found seed treatments to be widely used in U.S. soybean production as a proactive means of ensuring plant health and yield vigor while minimizing environmental impacts. Alternative methods to seed treatments exist, yet few are widely accepted by producers as being feasible options for the majority.

Because seed treatments are so widely adopted by U.S. soybean producers, disruptions to this technology could alter on-farm operational strategies and product delivery methods. This work finds that farmers would likely face lower yields and higher costs without seed treatments.