Biologicals Face U.S. Test: Repeat Performance, Not Innovation

By Nathan Brooks

Reported biopesticide use among U.S. farmers rose 9 percentage points from 2024 in a survey of 604 corn, soybean and wheat growers, according to Stratovation Group findings released by the Council of Producers and Distributors of Agrotechnology (CPDA) in June 2026.

The study surveyed growers during the first quarter and compared their reported use with CPDA’s 2024 research. It signals interest, not necessarily broad adoption.

What must biologicals prove to win U.S. farmers?

Interest in biological crop inputs, including microbial technologies, biostimulants and biopesticides, is growing, especially in major row crops. Yet manufacturers, retailers and growers face a more demanding U.S. commercial phase in 2026: laboratory results and promising field trials no longer establish a competitive position.

A product now needs consistent performance, measurable economic benefits and dependable technical support. Growers ask whether biologicals fit current fertility and crop-protection programs, are practical to apply and produce measurable results. Manufacturers compete for limited budgets, so curiosity must convert into repeat purchases.

In the Corn Belt, large-acreage growers in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Nebraska test biologicals against tight production margins. Depending on the product and its registered or supported claims, potential gains include better nutrient-use efficiency, crop resilience, disease management or yield. Those benefits must cover purchase, handling and application costs.

California and other specialty-crop regions face a different calculation. High-value fruits, vegetables and permanent crops can reward biological pest management, crop-quality gains and plant-health support, but products must fit local conditions, crop requirements and regulatory limits. A California launch cannot copy the Midwestern row-crop model.

• Corn and soybeans: Nutrient efficiency, plant health and crop protection; consistent returns across large acreages.
• Wheat and other cereals: Stress management and crop protection; value relative to input costs.
• Fruits and vegetables: Biological pest management and crop quality; crop-specific performance and technical support.
• Permanent crops: Soil health and integrated pest management; multi-season validation and compatibility with farm management.

The EPA oversees biopesticides under federal pesticide law and recognizes three categories: microbial pesticides, biochemical pesticides and plant-incorporated protectants. Products marketed for pest control generally need an appropriate regulatory pathway, although exemptions may apply. Manufacturers must align supporting data, labels and commercial claims with those requirements.

Biostimulants face a different framework. U.S. classification and oversight depend partly on composition and intended claims, with state requirements also in play. A nutrient-efficiency claim does not necessarily trigger the same treatment as a pesticide claim, a distinction emphasized in North Carolina State University Extension’s 2026 overview. Product development must align with regulatory and commercial planning.

Retail shelf space also does not guarantee adoption. U.S. retailers already manage portfolios spanning seed, fertilizer, crop protection and precision agriculture. Sales teams need regional field evidence, clear application recommendations and an economic argument advisers can explain. Without them, promising products struggle to become regular recommendations.

Regional trials must span locations, seasons, soil conditions, temperatures, moisture, microbial interactions and management practices because some formulations can respond differently by region and season. Recommendations and performance expectations must fit local systems.

AgroLatam’s analysis asks, “How does the product perform against the grower’s existing management program?” Untreated plots can show a response, but growers need comparisons with current practices, fertility programs and crop-protection products. That benchmark matters when biologicals complement rather than replace conventional technologies.

The commercial requirements have shifted:

• Research: Establish repeatable field performance, not merely biological activity.
• Field trials: Test against established grower practices, not only untreated plots.
• Marketing: Explain economic and agronomic value, not only technical characteristics.
• Distribution: Strengthen adviser training and support.
• Grower adoption: Reduce uncertainty and demonstrate return on investment.
• Market expansion: Adapt recommendations to each region.

Return on investment per acre is becoming the central metric, especially with uncertainty over commodity prices, input expenses and operating margins. Biologicals do not have to raise yield to create value; they can improve nutrient efficiency, crop quality, pest management or reduce production losses. But gains must be consistent and measurable enough to justify the investment.

Regional proof becomes the export requirement

The same test travels south. Brazil offers opportunities across major field crops and has an established biological-inputs industry and specialized commercial networks, but entrants face local companies that understand regional conditions. Mexico combines broad-acre agriculture with intensive horticulture, berries and protected cultivation, creating demand for crop-specific solutions.

Argentina has experience with microbial inoculants and agricultural biotechnology, yet compatibility with established practices and expected profitability still govern purchases. Peru’s high-value export crops and biological pest-management needs create openings, but technical support and consistency remain essential. Local efficacy data, regulatory review and distributor relationships matter in every market.

A 2026 Agriculture & Food Systems Institute review documented differences in how countries classify and oversee biopesticides, biofertilizers and biostimulants. Registration pathways vary by jurisdiction and product claims, so U.S. authorization does not carry automatically into Brazil, Mexico, Argentina or Peru.

Expansion requires local trials, technical partnerships, registrations and distribution networks. Latin American manufacturers seeking U.S. access face the reverse requirement: evidence and commercial strategies tailored to American growers and regulatory requirements.

Product quality remains necessary, but the next U.S. buying decision will hinge on whether a biological works repeatedly, stays within its registered claims and earns a measurable return against current farm practices. For manufacturers, regional proof, adviser support and compliant labels will matter as much as original innovation.