Seed Retailers Test Biologicals Against Cost and Compatibility

By Olivia Hart

Ag retailers building seed treatment packages for the 2027 season face a hard threshold: a biological must prove performance equal to synthetics before growers will swap it out. Todd Pilcher, Corteva Agriscience's Biologicals and Seed Applied Technologies Marketing Leader, framed that standard as a requirement rather than a preference.

"If we can bring a biological that performs as good as synthetics, then we want to definitely bring that. But we have to be able to prove that it is a worthy swap out," Pilcher said.

That standard sits at the center of a wider shift. Biological seed treatments are expanding what ag retailers can offer grower-customers, and the interest is clustering around nutrient availability.

Why are growers asking about biologicals?

Kurt Seevers, technical development manager at Verdesian Life Sciences, identifies nutrient availability as one of the fastest-growing areas of interest. Growers are scrutinizing fertilizer expenses, so products that help make existing soil nutrients available to plants draw attention.

Seevers said many of these products also provide biostimulant effects at the same time, and he believes fertilizer cost will be the main driver of their popularity. Neither he nor the other voices in the discussion put a price on fertilizer, on biologicals or on grower savings, and no survey method or reporting window was given.

The takeaway: fertilizer expense is the sales argument, but no dollar, acreage or margin figure in the source lets anyone size it.

Does stacking biologicals improve field performance?

Jon Treloar, senior technical agronomist at Novonesis, sees increasing interest in stacking multiple biological organisms and modes of action.

"When we have consistently tested the concept of stacking these actives with these modes of action, we see better efficacy out in the field," Treloar said. "I think that will be a continued trend."

The source reports no trial locations, replicated data set or comparison against conventional treatments, so the claim rests on company field testing rather than a published benchmark. Farm-level results that growers could check are not part of the discussion.

The takeaway: stacking looks promising on company tests, but the evidence needed to price or recommend it is missing.

What breaks when more products meet on the seed?

The combinations create practical challenges for ag retailers. Many conventional fungicide and insecticide treatments are relatively compatible with biologicals, but certain micronutrients and fertility components can negatively affect microbial viability.

"If the biological uses spores, those products tend to be a bit more resistant to detrimental effects from a variety of materials," Seevers said.

"Living cells are the most sensitive to other products, and compatibility should be assessed before growers spend money on combinations that might not be delivering the benefit from everything on the seed."

Retailers therefore cannot assume individual products will perform equally well when combined. Before adding biologicals to a standard package, they should confirm compatibility with existing ingredients and consider whether the organisms remain viable through treatment and planting.

The takeaway: compatibility has to be confirmed before the sale and at planting, not assumed from the label.

Can biologicals replace conventional treatments?

Costs are squeezing seed treatment budgets from both sides. Growers are questioning overall input costs as options multiply, and difficult farm economics have already pressured purchases of both biological and traditional treatments. Nematicides could face additional scrutiny because their benefits often appear later and less visibly than early stand protection.

Cutting established treatments to make room for newer biologicals introduces another risk rather than removing it. That is why Pilcher said any biological replacement must deliver comparable reliability and control before growers feel comfortable adopting it fully.

The takeaway: a swap only makes sense when the biological delivers the same reliability and control, and at a cost the grower accepts.

Which additions justify their cost?

For ag retailers assembling 2027 seed treatment packages, the challenge is determining which additions justify their cost. The source offers three questions to answer before introducing a product:

• Understand the organism's mode of action.
• Match its benefits to specific field conditions.
• Review replicated performance data.

No biological product, price point, trial location or data set appears in the reporting, which leaves the checklist as the most concrete guidance available to retailers and growers.

The takeaway: the decision rests on replicated data tied to field conditions, and the source offers no product that meets that test.

The discussion ends with an expectation rather than proof: retailers able to stack more benefits into a package may protect crop stand establishment and deliver demonstrable value that grower-customers will pay for.

For the 2027 season, that promise will stand or fall on the compatibility checks, replicated results and cost comparisons still missing from the record.