成都新讯探讨生物刺激剂市场、机遇及其他

Dr. Huang Jin, the Vice Dean of the Biotechnology Research Institute at Chengdu Newsun Crop Science Co., Ltd., delves into biostimulant market opportunities, data and go-to market strategies, and more.

AgriBusiness Global: What market opportunities exist for biostimulant products in the coming years, especially with increasing climate change?

Dr. Huang Jin: According to the World Meteorological Organization’s June 2026 report, the current El Niño event has intensified into an extreme phase, contributing to record heatwaves and prolonged drought across major agricultural regions. As production becomes more uncertain, demand for biostimulants and plant growth regulators (PGRs) is increasing because they can help crops manage abiotic stress and maintain more stable performance.

For biostimulants, the opportunity extends beyond stress tolerance. They can improve root development, nutrient uptake, and fertilizer-use efficiency, helping growers reduce production costs while supporting yield and quality. As fertilizer, labor, and other input costs rise, products that improve both input efficiency and crop performance will become increasingly valuable.

The PGR market is smaller, and awareness remains limited. Many growers still associate this category mainly with regulation of plant height, flowering, or maturity. However, newer-generation PGRs can also modulate internal signaling pathways and improve crop responses to drought, heat, and other stresses.

In this sense, they serve as production insurance. They may not always deliver the highest yield increase under ideal conditions, but when stress occurs, they help preserve physiological activity and protect yield potential.

Coronatine (COR) is a good example. In a Brazilian soybean trial affected by drought and heat stress, COR-treated soybean plants retained significantly more green leaves, maintained a stronger canopy, leading to an estimated about 13.2% yield increase over untreated controls under severe stress (data from 25/26 summer trials in Brazil). While it cannot eliminate drought or replace irrigation, COR demonstrates how such products can help crops preserve more of their yield potential when abiotic stress hits.

ABG: What kind of data and go-to-market strategies should manufacturers provide to help prove efficacy and engage with the grower, showing the benefits under unpredictable weather?

HJ: Data for biological products should answer three questions: why the product works, under what conditions it works, and how it should be used.

At an early stage, manufacturers can use mode-of-action studies and technical principles to identify potential applications. However, biological products often have multiple functions, and their strongest market positioning is frequently discovered and refined through systematic field trials.

Validation should therefore go beyond final yield. Mutiparameter field data, including root growth, stress recovery, and nutrient-us efficiency, could more effectively convince growers and advisers when evaluating a new biostimulant under unpredictable weather. It should encompass root development, leaf and canopy condition, nutrient uptake, stress response, crop quality, yield, and return on investment. Results should also be compared across crops, regions, growth stages, weather conditions, and management systems.

This approach helps manufacturers identify where the product creates the greatest value and turn an active technology into a clear, practical application program. Under unpredictable weather, companies should not promise identical results everywhere. Data should instead define consistency, suitable conditions, and performance boundaries. Many biostimulant trials indicate that products explicitly defining their “zone of reliability,” including the weather and soil conditions, achieved two to three times faster grower adoption in new markets compared with products making broad, undifferentiated claims.

Our experience in Brazil further shows that localized validation must be tightly connected to the local technical network. We work with researchers, agronomic advisers, distributors, and influential growers on trial design, data interpretation, and application development.

When champion growers host field days and assess practical value under real production conditions, the impact on surrounding adoption is measurable. Ultimately, manufacturers should provide not only proof of efficacy, but a locally adapted solution that is agronomically sound, backed by the right data, and practical for agronomists and growers to use with confidence.

ABG: There are a wide array of biostimulants and plant growth regulators. What are the newest R&D advancements in this product category?

HJ: Biostimulant R&D is undergoing a fundamental shift from an ingredient-led model toward a crop-need, function, and mechanism-led approach.

The goal is not to claim that one product can deliver every function, but to develop precise, targeted solutions for specific crop needs and application scenarios.

Another important R&D trend is the deeper study of interactions among active substances. Future combination products should not simply contain more ingredients. They must be built on an understanding of mechanisms, ratios, and timing. Two active ingredients that work well individually may not perform better together and may even produce antagonistic effects.

The next generation of biostimulants will therefore be defined by clear functional positioning, scientifically explainable mechanisms, and repeatable performance in the intended crop and scenario.

ABG: What else should the industry know about biological products?

The industry needs a more objective understanding of biological products. They are not universal solutions and should not be positioned as simple replacements for chemical inputs. Every product requires clear conditions of use, a specific functional role, and recognized performance boundaries.

A good example is the combination of coronatine and fluopyram in Brazilian potato trials. Fluopyram was used to manage nematode and/or soil-borne disease pressure, while coronatine supported crop physiology and stress tolerance. The value came from a clear division of functions: One technology managed the external biological pressure, and the other strengthened the plant’s physiological response. This does not mean coronatine can replace fungicides, nematicides, or other crop-protection measures. Rather, it complements them within an integrated program.

Biological and chemical products can create a result greater than the sum of their parts, but not through simple mixing. Even two strong products may create antagonism or plant inhibition if the mechanism, rate, timing, or formulations are not properly designed. True synergy requires a clear understanding of how each product works, what role it plays, and how the technologies should be combined within an integrated agronomic program.

The key is to recognize where biological products work, what they can solve, and what they cannot. This disciplined approach is what ultimately builds long-term grower trust and supports the healthy development of biological agriculture.