Podcasts about Corteva

flexibility corn proven crops soybeans enlist brownfield weed control residuals corteva farm income

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 8, 2026 3:59

Corteva Agriscience Market Development Specialist, Jared Walls, says Enlist One herbicide has more than 1,700 qualified tank-mix partners so farmers can choose from a long list of herbicides to add to the tank for a great program approach with residuals. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort

Podcast Association

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 3, 2026 3:29

Welcome to The Turf Zone Podcast. This episode features the article “A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort” After five decades of advancing the turfgrass profession in Maryland, the 50th Annual Maryland Turfgrass Council (MTC) Conference convened on December 16, 2025, at the scenic Turf Valley Resort. The event marked a major milestone for our Council in celebrating half a century of education, innovation, and collaboration across all sectors of the turf industry. A Full Day of Learning and Networking Attendees were welcomed with a breakfast beside the Trade Show, where sponsors showcased the latest tools, products, and services serving the turfgrass community. After a warm welcome and the annual meeting, the program shifted into a series of breakout education sessions tailored to lawn and landscape, sports turf, and golf course professionals. Members, industry professionals, sponsors, and exhibitors gathered to share insights, tackle challenges, and explore emerging technologies shaping turf management today. A special thanks to the conference sponsors; Harrells, Corteva, Landscape Supply, Nutrien Ag Solutions, Quantico Creek Sod Farms, Pocono Turf, SiteOne, and Green Industries. Education Opportunities The 2025 conference featured a dynamic lineup of speakers and panel discussions addressing cutting-edge topics: A technology panel sparking conversation on how robotics and AI are impacting turfgrass operations, reflecting innovations rapidly entering the industry. Sessions exploring new and persistent turf diseases, advancements in application technologies, and precision turfgrass management. Expert insights on managing pest pressures, optimizing root zone environments, and improving efficiency in integrated pest management approaches. Each session delivered practical takeaways and research-based strategies that turf managers can apply through the coming season. The Turfgrass Community Central to the MTC mission is strengthening connections across our profession, and this year was no exception. Whether catching up with colleagues between sessions, discussing solutions with exhibitors on the Trade Show floor, or sharing a meal during a lively lunch break, the conference fostered engagement at every turn. Looking Ahead This 50th Conference celebration was a testament to the enduring spirit of Maryland's turfgrass professionals whose work shapes landscapes, recreational spaces, and playing fields across the state. As we reflect on this milestone year, we also look forward to building on this legacy at future gatherings and continuing to raise the standard of excellence in our industry. Please mark your calendars for the 2026 Maryland Turfgrass Conference on December 15th, 2026. We look forward to seeing everyone there for the 51st year. You have been listening to The Turf Zone Podcast. Follow The Turf Zone on X, Facebook and LinkedIn for all things turfgrass, featuring podcasts, magazines, events and more. Visit www.theturfzone.com for more. The post A Golden Milestone, The 50th Annual MTC Conference at Turf Valley Resort appeared first on The Turf Zone.

learning ai conference maryland valley golden council expert milestone 50th resort turf trade shows mtc full day corteva

Alckmin avalia como 'injusta' nova taxação dos EUA aos produtos brasileiros

Portal Agrolink o maior produtor de conteúdo Agro

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 3, 2026 19:39

Taxa definida Estados Unidos sobre produtos brasileiros pode entrar em vigor a partir de 15 de julho. Vice-presidente Geraldo Alckmin cita Lei da Reciprocidade contra EUA, mas mantém diálogo com Washington. Após 20 anos de negociações, China reconhece Brasil como livre de febre aftosa, ampliando exportações de carne. Corteva e Aprosoja lançam cartilha sobre pragas quarentenárias para reforçar exportações do agronegócio. Tempo: chuva forte no Nordeste, alertas para Salvador e Recife, temporais no Norte e chuva no Sudeste.

china washington brasil estados unidos vice tempo norte eua lei brasileiros nordeste avalia recife produtos taxa sudeste alckmin reciprocidade geraldo alckmin corteva aprosoja

Proactive Pest Management

proactive crops soybeans brownfield pest management corteva farm income

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 1, 2026 3:59

As planting winds down across the U.S., Corteva Agriscience Market Development Specialist, Jeff Moon, says it's not too early to start thinking about how to combat in-season pests. He tells Brownfield one of those pests is soybean aphid, which can have a devastating impact on yield. But Moon says there are products to help control the insect. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Non-technical Features For Assessing Inventive Step – Alternatives to the Problem Solution Approach – Emotional Perception AI Limited Case of the UK Supreme Court – Abbout vs. Sinocare UPC Case – Interview with Bruce Dearling ̵

IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2026 50:04

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Aplicações mais eficientes e seguras fortalecem produtividade nas lavouras

Portal Agrolink o maior produtor de conteúdo Agro

Play Episode Listen Later May 28, 2026 22:08

Nesta edição especial do Agrolink News, o coordenador de Boas Práticas Agrícolas da Corteva Agriscience, Jair Maggioni, destaca a importância do manejo responsável e das aplicações eficientes para garantir produtividade, segurança e sustentabilidade no campo. Em um cenário de desafios climáticos e busca por maior eficiência, a entrevista aborda temas como regulagem de pulverizadores, prevenção da deriva, influência do clima nas aplicações, uso de EPIs e tecnologias que ajudam o produtor a produzir mais, com responsabilidade e menor risco ambiental.

epis rivas aplica produtividade jair agr deriva seguras boas pr corteva corteva agriscience

Planteavlerne 2026 - E22: 180 kilo ekstra raps – eller bare hokus pokus?

Landbrugspodcasten

Play Episode Listen Later May 25, 2026 38:10

Anders og Finn har besøg af Stefan Fick og Niels Mamsen fra Corteva til en snak om biostimulanter, majs, raps og plantebeskyttelse i forandring. Kærb er på vej ud, gamle løsninger forsvinder, og nye produkter som BlueN og Sosemba banker på døren. Men virker det i praksis – og kan det ses på bundlinjen? Der bliver både nørdet markforsøg, biomasse, merudbytte og skepsis, når Planteavlerne tager temperaturen på nogle af de nye værktøjer i marken. Anders Lau og planterådgiver Finn Poulsen bliver klogere på aktuelle emner indenfor plantesektoren og der vil både være tid til nørderi og god stemning. Planteavlerne præsenteres i samarbejde med SAGRO & Nordic Microbes.

men eller bare kilo raps ekstra hokuspokus corteva

What's Working in Ag: Weed Pressure & Fungicide Strategy

Play Episode Listen Later May 20, 2026 10:30

In this What's Working in Ag segment the Farm4Profit crew sits down with Corteva technical and fungicide specialists to discuss one of the biggest topics facing growers today: protecting yield in a tight-margin environment. The conversation focuses on how weed control, insects, and disease pressure all work together — and why cutting corners on crop protection can end up costing farmers far more in lost yield potential. Corteva experts Eric and Madison explain why starting clean with effective herbicide programs remains critical, especially as growers continue adapting to early soybean planting and evolving resistance challenges. The episode dives into: Why weed escapes create environments for insects and disease pressure How weeds compete for nutrients and rob yield potential Southern rust's major impact during the 2025 season Why fungicides continue to deliver ROI despite tighter farm margins Tar spot, gray leaf spot, northern corn leaf blight, and other disease concerns The importance of multiple herbicide modes of action How dry conditions impact herbicide performance Why pre-emerge programs still matter Fungicide timing strategies for 2026 Corteva's new fungicide timing solution launched at Commodity Classic The role AI and predictive analytics may play in disease management Pairing fungicides and insecticides for maximum field efficiency Why scouting remains one of the most important management tools The discussion also highlights Corteva's newest fungicide, Forcivo™, and how modern fungicide technology is being combined with predictive tools and Pioneer genetics to help growers better manage disease pressure and protect bushels. If you're making crop protection decisions for the 2026 season, this episode delivers practical insight on how to think through herbicides, fungicides, insects, and profitability in a challenging farm economy. Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/Farm4Profit Media is not a financial, legal, or tax advisor. Content is provided for informational purposes only, and we serve solely as a platform for third-party opinions. Any actions taken based on this content are at your own risk. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

tiktok ai strategy pressure roi southern weed pioneer tar pairing simplecast agronomy weed control fungicide corteva precision agriculture crop protection agriculture podcast farming podcast

Stabilize for Success

success corn crops fertilizer nitrogen stabilize brownfield corteva farm income

Play Episode Listen Later May 18, 2026 3:59

As farmers finish planting and prepare in-season nutrient management plans, Corteva Agriscience Market Development Specialist, Chris Kluemke, says spring nitrogen stabilization can pay dividends. He tells Brownfield Instinct NXTGEN nitrogen stabilizer keeps nitrogen in the corn root zone longer, protecting against nitrogen losses caused by leaching.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

California Agriculture Faces Early Harvests, Water Pressure, and Growing Regulatory Concerns

Farm City Newsday by AgNet West

Play Episode Listen Later May 12, 2026 48:05

The AgNet News Hour covered a wide range of issues impacting California agriculture, including unusually early crop harvests, ongoing water challenges, labor concerns, and mounting frustration over regulations affecting growers across the state. The episode opened with discussion surrounding California's early growing season, as warmer spring temperatures continue accelerating crop development statewide. Hosts noted that blueberries, strawberries, and table grapes are all running ahead of schedule this year after a hot March pushed production earlier than normal. “Everything's two weeks early,” hosts explained during the broadcast. While early harvest timing can create strong market opportunities for growers, it also raises concerns about compressed production windows and weather-related stress later in the season. Industry leaders are closely monitoring conditions as temperatures climb across the Central Valley and other growing regions. Labor and worker safety also remained a major topic throughout the show as California entered another heat wave. Hosts emphasized that growers are working to protect farmworkers through hydration, shade, and safety precautions during extreme temperatures. “Farmers are good people that take good care of their farm workers,” the show noted. The program also featured part two of an extended interview with Western Tree Nut Association President and CEO Roger Isom, who continued discussing major concerns facing California agriculture. One of the biggest issues raised during the conversation involved water allocations and long-term infrastructure failures tied to SGMA groundwater restrictions and limited storage capacity. “We need meaningful water storage,” Isom said while discussing California's ongoing water crisis. Isom warned that insufficient water deliveries continue forcing growers to fallow acreage and reduce production, particularly on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley where allocations remain extremely limited. Cotton acreage is expected to decline again this season as growers struggle to justify planting under current water restrictions. “Twenty percent water allocation is not enough to do it,” Isom explained. Beyond water, the interview highlighted growing frustration over California's regulatory climate, including restrictions tied to pesticides, air quality, automation, and labor compliance. “We're continuing down that same path,” Isom said regarding increasing regulations impacting farming operations. The discussion also focused on California's growing rodent and gopher problem in abandoned orchards and fields. Isom explained that abandoned acreage tied to low commodity prices and SGMA-related fallowing has created expanding pest populations that are damaging orchards, irrigation systems, and surrounding infrastructure. “The problem still exists,” Isom said while outlining the scale of the rodent issue. In addition to policy discussions, the episode featured a conversation with Corteva market development specialist Bryce Borges about nematode pressure in vineyards, orchards, and vegetable crops. Borges emphasized the importance of soil sampling and early treatment to protect root systems and maintain healthy crop production. As California agriculture heads deeper into the growing season, producers continue balancing early harvest opportunities with increasing concerns over water, regulation, labor, and long-term sustainability. Listen to the full interview below or on your favorite podcast app.

california water pressure concerns farmers labor hosts harvest faces twenty cotton regulatory borges central valley isom san joaquin valley corteva california agriculture

Tips for AI'ing Cattle

Play Episode Listen Later May 11, 2026 39:03

On this episode of Casual Cattle Conversations podcast, Shaye interviews Jaclyn Ketchum, who grew up on a registered Red Angus ranch using AI and embryo technologies, earned advanced degrees in reproductive physiology, and now runs her family's custom AI business while expanding embryo work. Ketchum explains benefits of AI and fixed-time AI with synchronization, including access to superior genetics at lower cost than buying bulls, use of sexed semen, improved early conception linked to heavier calves, more uniform calf crops, and reduced bull-to-cow ratios with cleanup bulls. She discusses why some producers still heat-detect, heifer protocol considerations, and how weather can reduce estrus expression and conception. Key success factors include communication, strict protocol timing, facility readiness, proper product handling and dosing, semen storage and shipping, skilled technicians, and managing expectations before and after AI. Mentioned Episodes Lacey Quail on Improving Preg Rates: https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/casual-cattle-conversations-podcast-shownotes/lacey-quail Jennifer Koziol on Bull Fertility: https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/casual-cattle-conversations-podcast-shownotes/p4fffrydex27m1zkm1cj7bmrgpp56d Links and Resources Learn more about Cargill here: https://bit.ly/4e1qygS Learn more about Corteva here: RangeAndPasture.com/CattleConversations Learn more about CattleMax Here: https://bit.ly/4aG7K5q Catch more conversations like this one and learn more at https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/ 00:00 Why AI Matters 00:18 Meet Jaclyn Ketchum 01:50 AI and Fixed Time Benefits 07:53 Why Skip Synchronization 11:17 Heifer Protocol Basics 13:20 Planning a Successful AI Day 22:07 Heat Detecting 21 Day AI 24:35 Weather and Conception 27:45 Resync and Backup Plans 30:18 Sync for Natural Service 32:37 Repro Efficiency Big Picture 34:45 Final Takeaways and Wrap

ai planning wrap weather cattle sync conception cargill ketchum shaye corteva resync

Teaming up with Enlist

corn crops soybeans teaming up enlist brownfield corteva corteva agriscience farm income

Play Episode Listen Later May 11, 2026 3:35

Corteva Agriscience market development specialist Scott Pringnitz says the Enlist weed control system provides farmers with excellent control of tough weeds that have already emerged. When tank mixed with a residual herbicide, he tells Brownfield growers can get additional modes of action for more powerful weed control.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

AAFC closure reversal, Monette lessons learned, & Corteva brand changes | RealAg Radio, May 8, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later May 8, 2026 70:53

Thanks for making RealAg Radio part of your Friday! Welcome to the RealAg Issues Panel. Today on the show, host Shaun Haney is joined by Kelvin Heppner and Lyndsey Smith of RealAgriculture and Evan Shout of Maverick Ag and Farmer Coach! 00:00 - Coming up... 1:49 - Leafs lottery luck, hockey talk, and reconsidering AAFC... Read More

brand lessons learned closure reversal toronto maple leafs monette corteva aafc shaun haney realagriculture lyndsey smith realag radio

AAFC closure reversal, Monette lessons learned, & Corteva brand changes | RealAg Radio, May 8, 2026

debate progress planting data centers decaf corteva

Play Episode Listen Later May 8, 2026 70:53

brand lessons learned closure reversal toronto maple leafs monette corteva aafc shaun haney realagriculture lyndsey smith realag radio

Decaf: Planting Progress, Corteva, and Data Center Debate

The Agriculture Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 8, 2026 33:31

Presented by Agri Financial: https://linkly.link/2iQk2Follow Josh: https://www.instagram.com/josh.pretzer.9/Welcome back to Atlas Ag News! We are back! Planting Progress, Corteva, and Data Center DebateThanks for coming! Produced by Atlas AG Media Solutions:https://www.atlasmediagroup.usFollow Clayton:https://www.instagram.com/clayton.atlas/Find Neil on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/neil_denton_farms/Subscribe to @Atlas-Agriculture

Tractor OEM's Quarterly Comparison, Corteva's Rough Rebrand, and USDA Trust Declines

The Agriculture Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 7, 2026 119:40

Presented by Agri Financial: https://linkly.link/2iQk2Follow Josh: https://www.instagram.com/josh.pretzer.9/Welcome back to Atlas Ag News! We are back! Tractor comparisons, planting progress, beef dollars and more!Thanks for coming! Produced by Atlas AG Media Solutions:https://www.atlasmediagroup.usFollow Clayton:https://www.instagram.com/clayton.atlas/Find Neil on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/neil_denton_farms/Subscribe to @Atlas-Agriculture

trust comparison rough usda rebrand tractor declines corteva

Cybersecurity: The Biggest Overlooked Threat to American Agriculture

Play Episode Listen Later May 4, 2026 39:19

On this episode of Casual Cattle Conversation, Shaye interviews Chris Sherman of Tech Support Farm about why farmers and ranchers are at risk for cybercrime and how to improve security. Sherman explains that cybercriminals target finance, information, and service disruption, and notes agriculture's scale, liquidity, critical-infrastructure status, rapid tech adoption without “security by design,” a culture of trust, generational transition risks, and reliance on residential-grade hardware. He cites examples, including a Minnesota cooperative ransomware attack during harvest and spoofed bank emails that led to lost money and a land deal, plus invoice fraud against ag businesses. Action steps include using a custom domain with commercial email and security tools, stronger 12+ character passwords and multifactor authentication, reviewing social media/device access, locking phones/computers, spotting phishing via headers, links, timestamps, and PDFs, segmenting farm Wi‑Fi, and using tools like antivirus, endpoint monitoring, and mobile device management. Wrapping up, Chris also recommends Tech Support Farm's “Fence Check” assessment. Learn more about what Chris does at https://techsupport.farm/services/. Links and Resources Learn more about Cargill here: https://bit.ly/4e1qygS Learn more about Corteva here: RangeAndPasture.com/CattleConversations Learn more about CattleScales Here: https://bit.ly/4dqqTtr Catch more conversations like this one and learn more at https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/ 00:00 Cyber Risk Warning 01:34 Why Ag Is Targeted 04:08 Five Ag Cyber Gaps 08:41 Spyware Routers Cameras 09:55 Chris Background Mission 13:07 Email Domains Encryption 16:37 Real World Attack Stories 20:31 Action Steps Passwords MFA 27:52 Phishing Emails Links 30:05 Security Tools MDM WiFi 35:48 Fence Check Takeaway

action minnesota threats cybersecurity wifi wrapping sherman overlooked pdfs cargill shaye corteva american agriculture chris sherman

Tank Mix Compatibility

tank crops compatibility herbicide enlist brownfield corteva farm income

Play Episode Listen Later May 4, 2026 3:59

Corteva Agriscience Market Development Specialist, Scott Pringnitz, says farmers have access to 1,700 qualified tank-mix partners to use with Enlist One herbicide to get maximum results for their unique needs. He tells Brownfield there are several tips to ensure safer, more effective herbicide applications. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

4/30/26 First Reactions to the 2026 Farm Bill

The Big Show

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 30, 2026 38:57

Just before the start of The Big Show today, the US House passed their version of the Farm Bill. We talk about the first things that stick out. We talk agronomy with Virgil Schmidt from Iowa State Extension and Michael Fosdick from Corteva. AgTraderTalk's Garrett Toay looks at how markets are reacting to the Farm Bill news. And we'll look at how weather is affecting #Plant26 with Dr. Justin Glisan.

us house big show farm bills first reactions corteva iowa state extension justin glisan

Stop Haying to Improve Your Bottom Line

university missouri bottom line cargill corteva

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 27, 2026 45:11

Have you ever considered that haying might not fit your operation anymore? This week on the podcast, Carson Roberts, a University of Missouri state forage specialist with a background in alfalfa production and cattle, discusses why producers must treat haying as a separate business enterprise and know the true cost of production to evaluate profitability. He outlines using regional hay budget sheets and accounting for income, seed, fertilizer, herbicides, custom hire, labor (including the producer's time), fuel, repairs, overhead, land charge, and especially machinery ownership and opportunity interest. Carson argues hay often becomes unprofitable due to rising and excess equipment costs, over-equipped farms, and mismatched cattle-to-equipment inflation, suggesting some operations may profit more by selling hay equipment, converting hay acres to pasture, and buying tested hay while building reliable supplier relationships. He highlights cheaper feed alternatives such as grazing/stockpiled fescue, corn stalks, and grazing milo, and notes that aligning calving date with spring forage can reduce winter hay needs and costs. Links and Resources Learn more about Cargill here: https://bit.ly/4e1qygS Learn more about Corteva here: RangeAndPasture.com/CattleConversations Learn more about CattleScales Here: https://bit.ly/4dqqTtr Catch more conversations like this one and learn more at https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/ 02:56 From Agronomy to Forages 05:00 Why Know Hay Costs 06:52 Building a Hay Budget 11:31 Equipment Overload Trap 15:50 When Hay Doesn't Pencil 19:45 Scale and Reality Check 22:10 Buying Hay Strategically 26:43 Grazing Beats Haying 29:32 Hay Testing and Sourcing 33:11 Winter Grazing Options 36:35 Calving Date and Profit 39:40 Weaning Weights Myth

Enlist One Applications: Tips for On-Target Success

success target applications corn crops soybeans herbicide enlist brownfield corteva farm income

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 27, 2026 3:59

As farmers get ready to start making herbicide applications, Corteva Enlist Portfolio Marketing Lead, Jillian Schmiedt, says it's important for them to take the right steps to make successful sprays. She tells Brownfield when it comes to making on-target applications of Enlist One herbicide, farmers have access to a variety of resources to ensure they're applying with confidence. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Killing wild oats, meaty soybean nodules, & spraying by drone | RealAg Radio, April 20, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 20, 2026 57:35

Welcome to Agronomic Monday on RealAg Radio with your host Lyndsey Smith! Today on the show, Lyndsey is joined by: Troy Basaraba of Bayer Crop Science, to talk wild oats in wheat; Dr. Steve Li of Auburn University on Drone Spraying ; Loralee Orr of Corteva on 100 years of Pioneer; Nikki Burnett of Lallemand... Read More

killing drones pioneer auburn university soybeans meaty spraying corteva bayer crop science nodules lallemand wild oats lyndsey smith realag radio agronomic monday

Killing wild oats, meaty soybean nodules, & spraying by drone | RealAg Radio, April 20, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 20, 2026 57:35

killing drones pioneer auburn university soybeans meaty spraying corteva bayer crop science nodules lallemand wild oats lyndsey smith realag radio agronomic monday

Small Grains, Big Weed Challenges

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2026 3:58

As farmers plant spring wheat, durum, and barley, Corteva Agriscience Market Development Specialist Grant Harms says the weeds they'll be dealing with throughout the growing season are similar to weeds seen in corn and soybeans. He tells Brownfield that Corteva offers crop protection solutions like Tolvera herbicide.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

challenges crops grains cereals herbicide brownfield corteva corteva agriscience farm income big weed

Cut Feed Costs by Improving Pastures: Weed Control and Soil Fertility Strategies

strategy improving costs ingram cargill pastures shaye weed control corteva soil fertility

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 6, 2026 29:00

On this episode of the Casual Cattle Conversations Podcast, Shaye interviews Corteva forage specialist, Sam Ingram, about prioritizing pastures and hay land to maximize forage production and improve cattle margins by lowering feed costs through grazing. Ingram explains how fertility, weed control, and grazing rest increase tonnage, forage quality, and carrying capacity, emphasizing soil testing and sticking to a consistent testing time to guide nutrient plans. He discusses the value of legumes like white clover and annual lespedeza for quality and nitrogen fixation and introduces Corteva's NovaGraz, a non-residual broadleaf herbicide that controls weeds such as biennial thistles, ironweed, buttercup, plantains, wild carrot family species, poison hemlock, and parsnip while maintaining key legumes, offering flexibility for hay sales and crop rotation. He also describes UltiGraz, which combines herbicide and fertilizer in one pass for efficiency. The conversation addresses drought and wildfire impacts, stressing post-disaster planning, avoiding grazing too soon, and using sacrifice areas and stored feed to protect forage cover. Learn more about Corteva Pasture Products here: https://www.corteva.com/us/products-and-solutions/pasture-management/product-finder.html Catch more conversations like this one and learn more at https://www.casualcattleconversations.com/ Other Links and Resources Learn more about CattleScales here: https://bit.ly/4dqqTtr Learn more about Cargill here: https://bit.ly/4e1qygS Learn more about Performance Livestock Analytics here: https://bit.ly/47PxY3W 00:00 Pasture Profit Boost 00:16 Meet The Forage Expert 01:10 Why Prioritize Pastures 03:56 Fertility And Grazing Basics 04:49 Weed Control Matters 06:26 Legumes And NovaGraz 09:02 Target Weeds And Application 11:36 Hay Fields And Residue 15:16 Soil Testing Fertility Plan 18:08 Weed Control Plus Fertility 21:19 Drought And Recovery Planning 25:24 Key Takeaways And Wrap Up

RealAg on the Weekend: Pre-seed decision making, Agracity, & who should own farmland, Apr 4 & 5, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 4, 2026 40:04

Welcome to this Easter Weekend edition of RealAg on the Weekend with your host Shaun Haney! On today’s show, Haney discusses RealAgristudies data on who farmers think should own farmland. Later on the show, Haney is joined by: Fred Thun of UFA on UFA’s recent acquisition of Agracity; Jason Smith of Corteva on pre-seed decision... Read More

decision making easter weekend haney farmland ufa jason smith pre seed corteva shaun haney realag

What's Working in Ag: Winning the Weed Control Battle

i am nutrien corteva iowa secretary

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 1, 2026 14:39

In agriculture, sometimes the best advice comes from the conversations farmers have at the coffee shop. That's exactly the spirit behind the What's Working in Ag segment — learning what is actually working in the field right now. In this episode, David Whitaker sits down with Jeff Moon of Corteva Agriscience, a Minnesota Market Development Specialist who has spent his entire career in agriculture. Together they break down one of the biggest challenges growers face every season: weed pressure and how to stay ahead of it. Jeff explains why weed management decisions today impact much more than the current crop. A single waterhemp plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds, and those seeds can remain viable in the soil for years — creating long-term weed pressure if problems aren't addressed early. The conversation covers several practical insights farmers should consider when building their weed control programs: • Why weeds reduce yield by competing for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients • How insect pressure can increase when weed patches are ignored • The importance of using multiple modes of action to prevent resistance • Why relying on the same chemistry year after year can create bigger problems • The value of scouting fields instead of only checking the field entrance • Why spraying weeds when they're 2–4 inches tall dramatically improves success Jeff also discusses how modern herbicide programs often combine multiple tools — including residual control and post-emerge options — to deliver more consistent results across different farming systems. Because every farm operates differently, the best weed control strategy depends on factors like tillage practices, cropping systems, and environmental conditions. The key takeaway: weed management is not a one-pass decision — it's a season-long strategy. Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

tiktok battle winning simplecast weed control corteva corteva agriscience david whitaker

IAM Podcast 3-31-26

Weekend Ag Matters

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 31, 2026 38:00

In today's show, Mark covers yesterday's Choose Iowa announcement from Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig, Riley talks with Madison Rugle of Corteva about Forcivo fungicide, and Dustin visits with Ron Calhoun of Nutrien.

The Tillage Podcast - short stint at fieldwork and a recap on weed control

Irish Farmers Journal Weekly Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 26, 2026 35:25

This week's Tillage Podcast focuses on prioritising jobs in the fields, sowing, markets, the tillage payment and the whiskey technical file. We have a chat with Alister McRobbie of Corteva on herbicides for winter and spring crops and as always, we have the grain trends and weather reports. The Tillage Podcast is supported by Bayer Crop Science. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

acast fieldwork stint weed control corteva tillage bayer crop science podcast short

23. März - Dünger-Desaster und die pure Elektrifizierungs-Wette

Alles auf Aktien

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 23, 2026 22:54

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Nando Sommerfeldt und Holger Zschäpitz über Öl-Frachter-Deals mit dem Iran, das China-Lob des VW-Chefs und ein erfolgreiches Rüstungs-Debüt. Außerdem geht es um XPeng, Polestar, Vincorium, Rheinmetall, Yara, K+S, Mosaic, CF Industries, Nutrien, Archer-Daniels Midland, Bunge, Corteva, Deere, E.on, Enel, Siemens, ABB, Fastned. Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Anzeige: Diese Folge enthält Werbung für Smartbroker+. Depot eröffnen & 60 € ETF sichern! Riesige ETF-Auswahl, flexible Trades & persönlicher Support bei Smartbroker+. Alle Informationen gibt es unter: https://get.smartbrokerplus.de/triple-aaa-podcast/ Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Hier könnt ihr den AAA-Newsletter abonnieren: https://www.welt.de/newsletter/article232797673/Alles-auf-Aktien-Der-taegliche-Boersen-Newsletter-fuer-WELTplus-Abonnenten.html Und - ganz neu: AAA gibt es jetzt auch auf Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alles_auf_aktien/ Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

iran welt alles hosts pure ihr gedanken noch trades ideen antworten aaa werbung umsetzung mosaic etf ks kauf siemens fonds verlag depot aktien verluste desaster wette abb polestar finanz rabatte alle informationen werbepartner deere enel rheinmetall impressum bunge nutrien corteva archer daniels midland fastned zsch

IAM Podcast 3-23-26

Weekend Ag Matters

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 23, 2026 36:08

In today's show, Mark has a clip from the latest episode of Pods of Potential, Riley visits with Drake Robards of Corteva, and special correspondent Russ Parker wraps up his conversation with Keith Byerly of Mosaic.

i am mosaic pods corteva

3/20/26 — MyAgLife Episode 264: Interview with Corteva Agriscience's Daniel Abruzzini on Nematode Damage Risk and Control Strategies Beyond Fumigants

MyAgLife

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 20, 2026 9:44

Today Jay Visser sits down with Daniel Abruzzini, Market Development Specialist for Corteva. They discuss potential for nematode damage, and how to control nematodes, both with and beyond fumigants.

california strategy risk agriculture damage corteva corteva agriscience nematode

Der wildeste Tag beim Öl und die Immer-Gewinner-Liste

Alles auf Aktien

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 10, 2026 19:09

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Holger Zschäpitz über einen völlig verrückten Wochenstart an den Märkten, einen durchwachsenen Börsengang in Frankfurt und einen deutschen Maschinenbauer mit Zoll-Resilienz. Außerdem geht es um Alphabet, Amazon, American Airlines, Amgen, Apple, Barrick Gold, Biontech, Caterpillar, Chevron, Cisco, Coherent, ConocoPhillips, Corteva, CSG, Deere, Delta Air Lines, Echostar, Eli Lilly, ExxonMobil, Freeport-McMoRan, Gabler Group, Gea, HP Enterprise, Intuitive Surgical, Johnson & Johnson, Live Nation Entertainment, Lumentum, Meta, Microsoft, Mosaic, Newmont, Nordisk, Novo Nordisk, Nuccor, Nvidia, Occidental, Oracle, Pfizer, Powerus, Southern Copper, Southwest, T-Mobile, ThyssenKrupp, TKMS, United Airlines, Verizon, Vertiv, VW, Walmart. Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Der Börsen-Podcast Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Early-Planted Soybeans Are Winning : How Does This Change Your Weed Control?

tiktok strategy winning managing saving improving midwest regional reducing planted extended insects simplecast soybeans herbicide enlist weed control corteva

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 9, 2026 34:29

More farmers across the Midwest are pushing planting dates earlier in the season to capture longer growing seasons, improved yield potential, and better crop development. In this episode of Farm4Profit, we sit down with Eric Sherder from Corteva to talk about why early soybean planting is gaining momentum and how new genetics and herbicide systems are helping farmers manage the risks. We discuss:

Maximizing the Enlist Weed Control System

maximizing crops herbicide enlist control systems brownfield weed control corteva farm income

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 2, 2026 3:58

Corteva Agriscience U.S. Crop Protection Technical Lead Dr. Eric Scherder says the Enlist system plays a critical role in a program approach to weed control and resistance management. And he tells Brownfield there are ways farmers can get the most out of the Enlist system this season. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Gene Editing and the Future of Plant Breeding with Tom Adams of Pairwise

Future of Agriculture

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 23, 2026 34:03

Pairwise: https://www.pairwise.com/FoA 412: 'Biological' Is Not A Category (it's the future of agriculture)I'm excited to share today's episode with you. I've wanted to get Tom Adams back on the show ever since I had the chance to interview him at World Agritech a couple of years ago. That interview was included on episode 412 of this podcast titled “Biological is not a Category”. The work Pairwise is doing is mind boggling to me. Using CRISPR and the latest in gene editing tools, they have built a platform to enable plant breeders to make very precise changes to the genome of a plant to give farmers and consumers more of what they want. Now this is different from genetic modification or GMOs because they are not inserting foreign genes into the plant. In fact, they are doing the exact same thing that plant breeders have done for over a century, they are just able to do it in an extremely precise way. On another podcast that I host, Agriscience Explained, Corteva's Reza Rasoulpour explained natural breeding as wanting to change one word in a book by just combining all of the pages of two different books and hoping that word changes. Versus gene editing just going in and changing that one word in the book. I thought that was a good comparison. So Tom and his team are bringing this technology to agriculture by working with seed companies and other partners in a variety of use cases, many of which we'll discuss today. A little background on Tom: Dr. Tom Adams co-founded Pairwise and serves as Chief Executive Officer. Tom has over 25 years of leadership experience heading up biotechnology for global companies, serving most recently as Vice President of Global Biotechnology at Monsanto where he led the team developing a broad range of innovative products. Tom wanted to realize the possibilities of CRISPR and gene editing in plants, and co-founded Pairwise to realize this potential in a mission-based environment. Formerly a faculty member at Texas A&M University, Tom holds a PhD in microbiology and plant science from Michigan State University and a BS in botany and plant pathology from Oregon State University. Tom and I talk about Pairwise's continued work in this area, some of the cool developments that are under way, some of their strategic decisions like going the partnership route rather than being the seed company themselves, a little bit more about how the technology works, how this changes the game and who captures the value.

phd vice president bs chief executive officer michigan state university biological crispr versus m university monsanto gmos oregon state university gene editing corteva foa tom adams plant breeding pairwise using crispr

#103 Pasture Hay Fertility & Weed Control

MFA Incorporated

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 20, 2026 63:11

In Episode 103, Podcast co-host Landry Jones discusses Pasture and Hay field Fertility and Weed Control with Corteva's Brant Mettler and David Moore, MFA's Range & Pasture Guru. They go in-depth on best practices, include lots of tips, and warn about a poisonous weed that has killed some cattle across the territory. More at https://mfa-inc.com/made4ag

fertility range mfa pasture david moore weed control corteva landry jones

RealAg Radio: Winter livestock challenges, ROI on inputs, and the value of farm shows, Jan 29, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2026 59:45

Welcome to this Farmer Rapid Fire edition of RealAg Radio brought to you by Corteva Crop Protection. On the show today, Haney is joined by: Jay Lewis, Holstein, Ont.; Billy Beaudy of Que.; Eric Mclean, Oak River, Man. Shaune Harty, Foremost, Alta.; and, Corteva agronomist Rhett Duke, based in Sask., on the value of seed... Read More

man challenges farm livestock ont haney inputs foremost holstein sask corteva realag radio farmer rapid fire

RealAg Radio: Winter livestock challenges, ROI on inputs, and the value of farm shows, Jan 29, 2026

covid-19 iowa state university passionate life corteva

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2026 59:45

man challenges farm livestock ont haney inputs foremost holstein sask corteva realag radio farmer rapid fire

235: Just Go For It: Building a Multi-Passionate Life with Carley Kintzle

Small-Minded Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2026 34:45

In the very first guest interview of the Ages & Stages series, Molly sits down in person with Carley Kintzle a senior at Iowa State University studying agricultural communications and public relations, a cattle exhibitor, the founder of Wild Orchid Co., and a photographer who picked up a camera… and ran with it. Carley's story is a reminder that you don't have to pick just one lane. From starting a jewelry business in high school (despite never having made leather earrings before) to landing a dream role with Corteva while still in college, Carley shares what it looks like to say yes to opportunity, lean into mentorship, and use networking as a tool, even when it feels uncomfortable. This conversation is full of energy, practicality, and a message every woman needs: challenges aren't a stop sign, they're often the thing that fuels our growth. What You'll Hear in This Episode Why Carley started Wild Orchid Co. during COVID (and what her mom said first!) The power of being multi-passionate and embracing it instead of fighting it How Carley's mentors stretched her (even when she wasn't sure she was ready) Why networking matters more than you think and how to do it without being "weird" What the cattle showing circuit taught her about leadership, work ethic, and confidence How she landed her dream role while still in school What success means to Carley in this stage of life The mindset that keeps her moving forward The one line she wants every listener to remember: "Just go for it." Resources & Links Follow Carley: @carley.kintzle Wild Orchid Co.: @wild_orchid_co Website: wild-orchid-co.com Follow Molly: @mollyknuth Email Molly: molly@mollyknuthmedia.com

RealAg Radio: Mother nature's mood swings, de-risking the industry, and corn acres, Jan 14, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2026 55:36

Welcome to this Wednesday edition of the Farmer Rapid Fire on RealAg Radio, brought to you by Corteva! On today’s Farmer Rapid Fire, host Shaun Haney is joined by: Aaron Bowman of Hampton, Ont.; Luke Fisher of Brookfield, N.S.; Simon Ellis of Wawanesa, Man.; Andrea Stroeve-Sawa Taber, Alta.; and, Corteva Agronomist Linda Hinz, based out... Read More

man corn mother nature hampton acres ont brookfield mood swings derisking corteva shaun haney realag radio wawanesa farmer rapid fire

RealAg Radio: Mother nature's mood swings, de-risking the industry, and corn acres, Jan 14, 2026

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2026 55:36

man corn mother nature hampton acres ont brookfield mood swings derisking corteva shaun haney realag radio wawanesa farmer rapid fire

AgriTalk-December 25, 2025 PM

AgriTalk PM

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 25, 2025 40:54

Merry Christmas! Here are more conversations Chip Flory recorded at NAFB's Trade Talk: Robert White of the Renewable Fuels Association, Chris Pritchert and Brandon Walter of Pioneer, and Eric Sherder of Corteva.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

merry christmas pioneer corteva renewable fuels association brandon walter chip flory agritalk

What Worked in 2025 and What's Next for 2026 - Agronomic Update

tiktok iowa farmers montana roi nebraska worked simplecast sonic boom corteva corteva agriscience crop protection

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2025 46:52

We sit down with Brad Burkhart, Market Development Specialist for Corteva Agriscience, to recap what really happened in the 2025 crop season — and what farmers should take forward into 2026.Brad walks us through the major trends he saw at harvest: disease pressure that showed up across multiple regions, waterhemp surges creeping from edge to row, and early-season conditions that made crop protection decisions more important than ever.We highlight the biggest “wins” of 2025, including real-world in-field results:• Forcivo™ fungicide:High pressure meant fungicide performance mattered. Brad shares field trial results — including one Iowa farm where combining Forcivo with Aproach® Prima delivered 49 bu/A more than untreated acres.• Resicore® REV & Kyro™ herbicides:Farmers leaned on flexible application windows, strong tank-mix compatibility, and long-lasting residuals. Brad shares how an Iowa grower again achieved 8 weeks of waterhemp residual with encapsulated acetochlor in Resicore REV.• Enversa™, Sonic® Boom & Kyber® Pro soy herbicides:Farmers needed solutions beyond dicamba. Brad highlights how Enversa and Enlist One® helped a Nebraska farm eliminate pigweed pressure — and how Sonic Boom and Kyber Pro performed with consistent, broad-spectrum activity and flexible timing up to V4/V5.• Tolvera® herbicide for cereals:A rare new active ingredient hit the market in 2025 — and cereal growers embraced it. Brad shares a Montana farm's success controlling kochia, narrowleaf hawksbeard and wild buckwheat while maintaining strong rotation flexibility.We close with actionable 2026 planning steps, including mapping problem areas, updating weed control programs, and using 2025 performance insights to maximize ROI next season.For more information on Corteva crop protection solutions, visit Corteva.com/us. Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Successes in 2025 and What's Next for 2026 - Agronomic Update

tiktok iowa farmers montana roi nebraska successes simplecast sonic boom corteva corteva agriscience crop protection

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2025 46:52

What Worked in 2025 and What's Next for 2026 - Agronomic Update

tiktok iowa farmers montana roi nebraska worked simplecast sonic boom corteva corteva agriscience crop protection

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 8, 2025 46:52

We sit down with Brad Burkhart, Market Development Specialist for Corteva Agriscience, to recap what really happened in the 2025 crop season — and what farmers should take forward into 2026.Brad walks us through the major trends he saw at harvest: disease pressure that showed up across multiple regions, waterhemp surges creeping from edge to row, and early-season conditions that made crop protection decisions more important than ever.We highlight the biggest “wins” of 2025, including real-world in-field results:• Forcivo™ fungicide:High pressure meant fungicide performance mattered. Brad shares field trial results — including one Iowa farm where combining Forcivo with Aproach® Prima delivered 49 bu/A more than untreated acres.• Resicore® REV & Kyro™ herbicides:Farmers leaned on flexible application windows, strong tank-mix compatibility, and long-lasting residuals. Brad shares how an Iowa grower again achieved 8 weeks of waterhemp residual with encapsulated acetochlor in Resicore REV.• Enversa™, Sonic® Boom & Kyber® Pro soy herbicides:Farmers needed solutions beyond dicamba. Brad highlights how Enversa and Enlist One® helped a Nebraska farm eliminate pigweed pressure — and how Sonic Boom and Kyber Pro performed with consistent, broad-spectrum activity and flexible timing up to V4/V5.• Tolvera® herbicide for cereals:A rare new active ingredient hit the market in 2025 — and cereal growers embraced it. Brad shares a Montana farm's success controlling kochia, narrowleaf hawksbeard and wild buckwheat while maintaining strong rotation flexibility.We close with actionable 2026 planning steps, including mapping problem areas, updating weed control programs, and using 2025 performance insights to maximize ROI next season.For more information on Corteva crop protection solutions, visit Corteva.com/us.Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Want Farm4Profit Merch? Custom order your favorite items today!https://farmfocused.com/farm-4profit/ Don't forget to like the podcast on all platforms and leave a review where ever you listen! Website: www.Farm4Profit.comShareable episode link: https://intro-to-farm4profit.simplecast.comEmail address: Farm4profitllc@gmail.comCall/Text: 515.207.9640Subscribe to YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSR8c1BrCjNDDI_Acku5XqwFollow us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farm4profitllc Connect with us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Farm4ProfitLLC/ Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

AgriTalk-November 28, 2025 PM

AgriTalk PM

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 28, 2025 40:54

We wrap up this week with more conversations recorded at NAFB’s Trade Talk: Matt Sowder and Ben Pratt of Mosaic, Chase Sanders and Josh Ladd of John Deere, and Abe Smith from Corteva.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

mosaic john deere corteva agritalk abe smith ben pratt

399. November recap from the One Health Summit + panel discussion with Elanco, Corteva, Eli Lilly, Purdue and IU

Hoosier Ag Today Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 25, 2025 41:27

Happy Thanksgiving! AgriNovus was proud to present the One Health Summit in partnership with BioCrossroads and Elanco this month at the company's newly opened global headquarters in Indianapolis. Please enjoy audio from this power panel including Elanco CEO Jeff Simmons, Corteva Agriscience CEO Chuck Magro, Eli Lilly CEO Dave Ricks, Purdue University President Mung Chiang and Indiana University President Pam Whitten. The panel was moderated by the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership (CICP) CEO Melina Kennedy to talk about the One Health opportunity and how best we can advance that here in the state.

summit happy thanksgiving indianapolis purdue panel discussion eli lilly one health corteva elanco

From Dairy Barns to Lambs & Soil Science: Andrew Luzum Balances Farming and Innovation