Biological R&D Spending Rises 43% Across Five Crop Leaders

Biological crop-protection R&D at five leading manufacturers averaged $37 million per company in 2023, up 43.4% from 2019, while conventional chemical R&D fell 9.3% to $336 million per company.

An AgbioInvestor survey on behalf of CropLife International used 2023 budgets submitted by BASF Agricultural Solutions, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta. It ran in 2025, and the May 2026 publication compared submissions with earlier editions covering 2014 and 2019. Respondents split spending between chemicals and biologicals across research, development and product launch; stewardship sat outside that split.

What changed in the research budgets?

Per-company biological spending rose from $16 million in 2014 to $26 million in 2019 and $37 million in 2023. Chemical spending climbed from $201 million to $370 million, then fell to $336 million in 2023. The combined budget dropped 5.9%, from $396 million in 2019 to $373 million in 2023.

The rounded averages do not reproduce the 43.4% change exactly. Because biological spending rose while the overall portfolio contracted, its larger share reflects committed research money, not a denominator effect. Biologicals reached 10% of combined budgets, up from 7% in 2014 and 2019. Chemistry still takes 90%.

The report defines biologicals as microbials, natural products including fermentation-derived products, semiochemicals such as pheromones, and biostimulants. It excludes biofertilizers and macrobials, including beneficial insects. The chemical-biological split leaves stewardship outside its allocation, limiting comparisons with stewardship totals reported separately.

The survey mainly captures leading crop-protection companies, some of which have acquired positions in biocontrol. Many other biocontrol businesses were not surveyed. The totals therefore describe strategy at the largest originators rather than industry-wide biological investment, which the report considers likely higher.

Where is the biological money going?

• New-ingredient research: Spending rose to almost $15 million per company in 2023, from roughly $11 million in 2019.
• Active development: Development of new biological actives roughly doubled to around $13 million, the fastest-growing functional line.
• Launch and development: Product launch and development held broadly steady at about $9 million.
• Monitoring and stewardship: A line of about $1 million appeared for the first time.

Together, these allocations suggest biological money is pushing candidates farther down the pipeline, not merely funding early discovery. The report treats the new stewardship line as evidence that more products are reaching the market and need continuing regulatory support. It signals pipeline activity, not a count of approvals or sales.

The chemical portfolio shows the opposite pattern. Across a stated full R&D budget averaging $444 million per company in 2023:

• New active development: Spending fell 16.8% to $130.3 million.
• Launch and development: Product launch and development fell 17.9%.
• Stewardship: Spending fell 24.4%.
• New active research: Research rose 9.8% to about $139 million.

The $444 million figure is not reconciled in the published account with the earlier $336 million chemical total or $373 million combined total, so it should not be added to them. Read within its own scope, the pattern shows companies still funding discovery but carrying fewer candidates into expensive development.

Why is chemical development under pressure?

The survey does not assign the biological shift to one cause. It does place it beside the rising cost and duration of conventional registration.

According to the report, bringing one new chemical active ingredient to the United States and European markets now costs an average of $307 million and takes about 11.4 years from first synthesis to first sale. Growing regulatory data requirements have added time and cost.

Companies consequently concentrate resources on fewer candidates, and fewer new substances clear approval. They also increased spending on off-patent products. The report calls this a "defensive move" to protect earnings as patents on existing molecules expire.

What does the shift mean for growers and input suppliers?

The practical answer is more pipeline activity, not an immediate reduction in farm input costs. The study tracks corporate research budgets rather than product sales, planted acreage, treatment prices, basis or grower margins. It does not show when biological products will gain registration in specific markets or what they will cost once available.

For South Asia and other developing markets, the direction may matter more than the current 10% budget share. The report anticipates a steadier flow of microbials, natural products and biostimulants to growers as multinationals advance their pipelines. Indian companies with fermentation, microbial-strain or formulation capabilities may gain licensing, contract-manufacturing and co-development opportunities.

Generic chemical makers face pressure on both sides of the portfolio. Multinationals are supporting off-patent chemistry while expanding biological development, which redirects competition toward established generic molecules and emerging biological alternatives.

Latin America offers the clearest regional spending signal. Central and South America was the only region where the companies' regionally targeted R&D spending grew, reaching $56 million. That figure covers all R&D, not biological research alone.

Taken together, the survey points to adaptation rather than abandonment of chemistry. BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC and Syngenta remain committed to selective new-molecule research, existing chemistry and expanding biological portfolios. Biologicals grew faster than any other product category. The next edition will test whether their rise beyond a 10% share persists or reflects a cyclical increase in research spending.