Biologicals Experts Address Biologicals Subcategories, Remaining Challenges, and More
20 May 2026 In a recent AgriBusiness Global LIVE! webinar, biologicals experts dove deep into what’s driving market value, the pros and cons of partnerships, and how biologicals companies can position themselves to succeed.
The panelists included Sebastian Bachem, CEO of Accumont; José Nolasco, Head of Global R&D Bionutrition, Rovensa Next; Kevin Price, Head of Corporate Affairs, Certis Belchim; and Ignacio Moyano Córdoba, Vice President of Business Development, LATAM for DunhamTrimmer LLC.
In the Q+A segment, the panelists answered attendees’ questions about biologicals subcategories, remaining barriers to integration, and more.
Q: In microbe-based products such as Trichoderma, Beauveria and other genera, do you see certain commoditization, similar to generic chemicals? If so, how do you think biologicals companies can protect the IP and the consequent value capturing, given the fact that microbes as AI cannot be patented?
Bachem: While many different strains exist, there is a degree of commoditization. The best way to protect IP is to develop excellent formulations that add value by improving product performance, ease of handling, better storage stability, etc.
Nolasco: There is certainly a degree of commoditization in microbe‑based products, particularly in well‑established genera such as Trichoderma, Beauveria, and widely used Bacillus species. As these active ingredients become standardized and more broadly available, differentiation based solely on the strain tends to diminish, leading to pricing pressure similar to what has long occurred in generic chemical products.
However, in biologicals, value rarely resides exclusively in the microorganism itself. While microbes as such are generally not patentable, value capture and protection are achieved through other key elements, including proprietary strain selection processes, fermentation and scale‑up know‑how, formulation technologies that ensure stability and consistency in the field, and clearly defined agronomic positioning.
In this context, the generation of robust and reproducible data plays a central role. Products supported by solid field trials, well‑defined use patterns, and clearly demonstrated agronomic benefits tend to achieve more sustainable differentiation, even in markets where similar organisms are present.
As a result, intellectual property and value creation in biologicals are increasingly shifting away from the organism itself toward performance systems, execution, and applied know‑how, rather than the ability to patent the microbe.
Córdoba: We are beginning to see some commoditization in established microbial categories such as Trichoderma, Bacillus, and Beauveria, but future differentiation will come less from the microorganism itself and more from the value built around it. Formulation quality, consistency of field performance, technical positioning, and the ability to integrate biological products into broader agronomic programs are becoming increasingly important. Growers are not simply buying a microorganism; they are investing in confidence, predictability, technical support, and economic return.
As the market matures, companies that invest in technical expertise, field validation, grower education, and consultative selling will be better positioned to differentiate themselves than those competing primarily on price. Formulation technology, shelf life, application stability, and performance across varying environmental conditions will also play a growing role in determining success. Ultimately, the biologicals market is evolving from a product-focused model toward one centered on integrated solutions and services
Q: How can you find focus/niches in the big row crop market?
Nolasco: In big row crop markets, the focus is not typically on the crop itself, but on the specific agronomic problem being addressed. In large, mature markets, differentiation is achieved by identifying niches defined by critical crop stages, specific soil or stress conditions, specific agronomic practices, and regulatory constraints.
Value can be captured even in highly competitive markets by focusing development and positioning on very clear use cases. In this context, the key message is that the niche is defined by the agronomic need, not by the total crop area.
Bachem: Access to the bio row crop market will be through price competitive positioning and clear benefit cases. This is a slower process and not easy but will be driven by a “biologicals first, chemistry only in emergency” principle. This needs to be accompanied by digital support tools (precision detection, application) improved varietal resistance, and better soil management techniques.
Córdoba: One of the biggest mistakes companies make in row crops is trying to address the entire market before they understand where their product creates the most value. Successful market entry starts with identifying specific agronomic challenges, regions with strong economic incentives, and growers who are most receptive to biological solutions. In large markets such as Brazil, broad expansion strategies often underperform compared with targeted approaches built around clear pain points and measurable returns.
Finding the right opportunity requires strong market intelligence, including an understanding of crop systems, regional production practices, adoption barriers, competitive dynamics, and grower economics. For example, a company may find greater success targeting soybean regions with significant nematode pressure rather than pursuing all soybean hectares at once. Ultimately, commercial success depends not only on product performance but also on the ability to combine technical validation with a focused market strategy.
Q: With biologicals being such a wide category, what are subcategories like biostimulants like? Which segment of the biological market will see the biggest growth?
Nolasco: Biostimulants currently represent one of the fastest‑growing segments within the biologicals market. However, regulatory restrictions are increasingly emerging as the main limiting factor, meaning that continued growth will largely depend on regulatory changes, clearer claim frameworks, and greater harmonization across key markets.
In parallel, microbial solutions targeting yield improvement linked to nutrient use efficiency and stress mitigation are gaining momentum. While historically this segment has grown at a more moderate pace, it is increasingly considered defensible and strategically well positioned. Structural drivers such as mandated reductions in fertilizer use, sustainability initiatives, and rising fertilizer prices linked to geopolitical tensions are accelerating adoption. As a result, some of the strongest growth is expected in biostimulants and biological solutions that can demonstrably reduce fertilizer inputs, improve nutrient uptake efficiency, and help compensate for restricted nutrient availability under current agronomic and regulatory conditions.
Bachem: Access to the bio row crop market will be through price competitive positioning and clear benefit cases. This is a slower process and not easy but will be driven by a “biologicals first, chemistry only in emergency” principle. This needs to be accompanied by digital support tools (precision detection, application) improved varietal resistance and better soil management techniques
Córdoba: While biologicals encompass a wide range of technologies, biostimulants aimed at managing abiotic stress are likely to be among the fastest-growing segments in the coming years. Increasingly, yield losses are being driven not only by pests and diseases but also by environmental stresses such as drought, heat, salinity, nutrient imbalances, and temperature fluctuations. As climate variability intensifies, growers are seeking tools that help crops maintain performance and protect yield potential under challenging conditions.
Advances in digital agriculture are expected to accelerate this trend. The growing use of satellite imagery, field monitoring, predictive analytics, and AI is improving the industry’s ability to identify when and where stress occurs, enabling more precise use of biological and biostimulant products. As a result, future growth in biologicals is likely to come not only from replacing conventional inputs but also from helping growers improve resilience, efficiency, and yield stability.
Q: In terms of microbiological actives, what are the remaining biggest challenges for established spore forming actives and emerging Gram- species? What is your take on what the future looks like for these two categories of actives?
Nolasco: The major scientific hurdles for established spore‑forming active ingredients, such as Bacillus species, no longer center on whether they can survive, but on how consistently they perform in real farming systems. Spores give these products a clear advantage in terms of storage stability and transport robustness, but field efficacy still depends on delivering the right dose, at the right time, and in the right micro‑environment. Variability across soils, climates, and cropping systems remains a challenge, as does compatibility with standard agronomic practices such as seed treatments, pesticides and fertilizers. In practice, even biologically resilient spores can underperform if formulation, placement, and chemical co‑applications are not carefully managed.
The challenges are more complex for emerging Gram‑negative bacteria, including Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Rhizobia, and Pseudomonas. These organisms have robust biological activity and sophisticated plant interactions, but are far more sensitive to dehydration, heat, and long storage periods. Shelf life, formulation stability, quality control, and compatibility with chemical inputs are still major barriers to large‑scale adoption. Regulatory scrutiny is also higher for certain taxa in some countries, adding further complexity to commercialization.
Compatibility with conventional inputs is a shared challenge between these two types of active ingredients, though it is particularly critical for Gram‑negative bacteria. Tank mixes, water quality, pH, and co‑application with agrochemicals can all affect cell survival and activity. While this is well recognized across agronomy, the microbial dimension adds biological sensitivity to physical and chemical compatibility constraints, reinforcing the need for formulation‑driven solutions rather than ad‑hoc recommendations.
The future for spore‑forming active ingredients is one of refinement rather than disruption. These organisms are likely to be the backbone of many microbial portfolios, with innovation focusing on smarter formulations, improved consistency, and better integration into farming practices. Incremental advances in carriers, adjuvants, and delivery technologies can still unlock meaningful gains in performance and reliability.
The future is more transformative for Gram‑negative bacteria. Scientific consensus points toward advances in formulation technologies that include encapsulation, protective polymers, and micro‑environment engineering through the use of prebiotics as the key enablers for broader adoption. These technologies aim to protect sensitive cells during storage and application while releasing them effectively into the rhizosphere, where their biological value is highest.
Hybrid approaches are also likely to see significant progress, including microbial consortia, improved co‑culturing strategies, and even cell‑free or metabolite‑based solutions, to either complement or, in some cases, bypass the strict viability constraints of live cells. Together, these developments point to a future in which robust formulation science bridges biological potential and real world farming practices.
Q: What level of sales and technical development creates a foundation for consideration?
Nolasco: A strong foundation for adopting microbial‑based biosolutions starts with knowledge management and continuous education, both within sales teams and among growers. Microbial products require a different mindset to conventional chemical inputs and clarifying both their benefits and their limitations is essential to build trust and ensure long‑term success.
Aligning expectations is particularly critical. Microbial biosolutions can deliver highly valuable and sometimes unexpected results, often by increasing the baseline productivity of crops and improving nutrient efficiency. However, they do not behave like traditional chemicals and should not be positioned as direct replacements for them. Their performance depends on correct handling, accurate application timing, and suitable agronomic practices that preserve the viability of live microorganisms and maximize their activity in the rhizosphere.
This is why sales and technical teams must have comprehensive understanding of modes of action, formulation differences, and practical use conditions. This knowledge is essential not only for correct positioning, but also for guiding growers on how to integrate these products into existing production systems without compromising their performance.
It is also important to recognize that not all biological products are equal. Product quality, driven by microbial strain selection, production processes, and formulation technology, has a major impact on field performance. Even products based on the same microbial active ingredient can deliver very different results depending on quality. Therefore, both growers and sales teams must be educated to recognize the value of high‑quality formulations and to apply agronomic practices that fully unlock their potential. This combination of education, technical support, and quality awareness is what ultimately enables consistent and reliable results in the field.
Bachem: Local expertise with the right stewardship down to farm level with specialist distribution partners is probably a key to greater up take and success. Farmers co-creational exchange on experience in real world environments will also be critical.
Q: Adjuvants tend to “marry” synthetic pesticides. Do you see the same for biological actives or could adjuvants be used interchangeably among biological actives? What characteristics would be needed for these adjuvants?
Bachem: Yes. Formulation improvement has moved on considerable during the last five to 10 years, and this will continue.
Nolasco: Adjuvants have traditionally been closely linked to synthetic pesticides, where their role is well defined around spray performance and chemical behavior. However, the situation is different for biological active ingredients. Rather than moving toward one‑to‑one pairings, adjuvants for biologicals are more likely to be developed around functional compatibility across multiple active ingredients than strict product‑specific coupling.
Biological active ingredients, particularly microbials, introduce additional layers of complexity related to cell viability, physiological sensitivity, and formulation stability. As a result, adjuvants used with biologicals need to be less chemistry‑centric and more biology‑aware. Key characteristics include compatibility across a wider pH range, low toxicity to living organisms, protection against abiotic stress factors such as UV radiation and desiccation, as well as supporting uniform deposition without compromising viability.
Córdoba: I don’t believe adjuvants will be as interchangeable across biological products as they often are with conventional crop protection products. Biologicals are frequently based on living organisms or highly sensitive active ingredients, which means factors such as water quality, pH, tank-mix compatibility, temperature, UV exposure, and surfactant selection can have a significant impact on performance. In many cases, the application system must be designed around the biological rather than expecting the biological to fit seamlessly into existing spray programs.
As biological adoption grows, adjuvants will likely need to be tailored to specific classes of biological actives, with a focus on compatibility, protection, stability, and delivery. One of the industry’s biggest gaps today is the limited amount of compatibility testing conducted under real-world farm conditions, particularly in complex tank mixes that include fertilizers and conventional crop protection products. Companies that invest in integrated application systems — not just standalone products — will be best positioned to deliver consistent field performance.
Q: How can networks like Extension and university specialists and agronomists be better leveraged?
Nolasco: The main opportunity lies in breaking down the traditional boundaries between industry and academia. Universities should not be viewed solely as trial executors or validators, but as strategic partners embedded in the innovation process. Closer collaboration, starting at the problem‑definition stage, enables academic expertise to directly inform product design, positioning, and realistic use scenarios. The gap between scientific innovation and applicability is significantly reduced when objectives, incentives, and timelines are better aligned.
The greatest opportunity lies in reframing the role of universities and extension networks, from downstream trial executors to strategic partners in innovation, positioning, and adoption. Academic institutions should not be engaged solely to validate products after development, but embedded much earlier in the process. At Rovensa Next, we have partnerships with 170 universities and research centers.
In many cases, R&D validation of microbial products stops at the mode of action assay stage. While these studies are essential to understand how a product works, they are often insufficient to define how the product should be used in real, integrated management systems. Universities operate at the forefront of agronomic innovation and are uniquely positioned to introduce additional layers of complexity (soil health, crop physiology, rotations, nutrient strategies, and biological–chemical interactions) that ultimately determine field performance.
Academic partners also play a critical role as trusted, neutral validators of microbial product positioning because of their independence. Their insights help refine claims, adjust expectations, and contextualize performance across regions and production systems. This independent validation is essential for building credibility with growers and avoiding the disconnect between laboratory results and on‑farm outcomes.
Closer collaboration, starting at the problem definition stage, enables academic expertise to inform not only product validation, but also formulation choices, use recommendations, and integration with modern practices, such as integrated nutrient management, crop rotation management, regenerative systems, and optimized‑input strategies. When objectives, incentives, and timelines are better aligned between industry and academia, the gap between scientific innovation and practical adoption narrows significantly.
In this context, extension specialists and agronomists become powerful multipliers of impact. By transforming academically validated knowledge into locally adapted recommendations, they help ensure that microbial bio-inputs are used correctly, consistently, and as part of coherent agronomic systems, maximizing productivity while minimizing frustration and misuse.
Córdoba: Extension networks, universities, agronomists, consultants, industry associations, and government institutions are essential to accelerating biological adoption because these technologies are far more knowledge-intensive than traditional crop protection products. Growers need trusted sources of information, local field validation, and practical guidance on how biologicals fit within existing crop management programs. Adoption tends to move fastest when research, education, and industry efforts are closely aligned.
Brazil offers a strong example of this collaborative approach. The country’s growth in biologicals has been supported by coordinated efforts among industry, researchers, regulators, and technical advisors to generate local data, validate technologies, and educate growers. Going forward, these networks will become even more important for developing regional expertise, improving application practices, and helping farmers integrate biological solutions more effectively into modern production systems.
Q: Compatibility between biologicals and conventional chemical pesticides tends to be one of the largest talking points and difficulties in field. Is enough R&D being diverted into compatibility before product launch?
Bachem: Successful growers are adopting a biocontrol first approach, only falling back on conventional chemistry when it is absolutely needed. This has been the case for around 10 years in high-value crops, but the concept is moving into field crops and cereals. It is not easy and requires a lot of experimentation in the local environments. Consumer demand and higher prices for produce are the incentive (similar to grass-fed beef). This trend will continue and with scale and understanding the use of biocontrols will increase, but it will probably be a slow process.
Córdoba: I don’t believe the industry is investing enough in compatibility research before launch. Most biological products undergo extensive efficacy testing, but far less attention is given to how they perform in real-world tank mixes alongside fertilizers, adjuvants, and conventional crop protection products. Yet this is exactly how growers use products in the field.
As biological adoption increases, compatibility testing must become a larger part of product development. Companies need to evaluate not only whether a biological works under ideal conditions, but also how it performs across different water qualities, pH levels, tank-mix partners, and application environments. Consistent field performance will depend as much on compatibility and application systems as on the biological active ingredient itself.
Get The Newsletter Today!
