Adoption is not driven by sustainability claims alone. It depends on performance, operational fit, economics, evidence and technical support.
Commercial growers do not adopt biological crop protection because it sounds progressive. They adopt it when it solves a costly problem without introducing unacceptable production risk.
That distinction matters.
The biologicals industry has often concentrated on explaining why synthetic pesticide use should be reduced. Growers already understand the pressures: active ingredients are being reviewed or withdrawn, resistance is reducing the value of existing tools, retailers are tightening residue requirements, and government policy increasingly supports integrated pest management.
The unanswered question is whether a particular biological product will protect the crop, fit the production system and make commercial sense.
Adoption therefore depends on more than the biological active. It requires a complete system combining formulation, delivery, application timing, field evidence, technical guidance and reliable supply.
Regulation creates pressure, but performance closes the sale
The policy direction is clear. The UK Pesticides National Action Plan 2025 supports greater use of integrated pest management and alternative approaches, including biological and physical controls, to reduce dependence on conventional pesticides.
The same plan also acknowledges an important commercial reality: some farmers perceive integrated pest management as a higher-risk approach that could compromise economic returns.
That is the central adoption barrier. Regulation can create demand for alternatives, but it cannot make growers accept inconsistent performance. A biological product must still earn its place in the programme.
This is why the strongest commercial case for biologicals is not simply that they use a microorganism or naturally derived active. It is that they can solve a defined production problem while helping growers manage regulatory, resistance, residue or environmental pressures.
The five tests that determine commercial adoption
1. Does the product solve a problem worth paying for?
Every successful adoption starts with a specific problem.
It may be a soil pest damaging turf, a foliar insect reducing the value of a horticultural crop, a withdrawn active leaving a portfolio gap, or resistance making an established treatment less reliable. The grower is not buying biology. The grower is buying control, protected yield, crop quality, operational certainty or access to a market.
A biological product becomes commercially relevant when the value of solving that problem is greater than the cost and complexity of adopting the solution.
This requires precise positioning. Claims such as “supports sustainable agriculture” are not enough. The product must answer practical questions:
- Which pest, disease or production constraint does it address?
- At what stage of the pest or crop lifecycle should it be used?
- Under which environmental conditions does it perform?
- What outcome should the grower realistically expect?
- Where does it fit within the existing programme?
If those answers are unclear, the product is not ready for commercial adoption.
2. Is the performance consistent outside controlled trials?
Laboratory efficacy is the beginning of product development, not the end.
Commercial conditions introduce variability in temperature, ultraviolet exposure, humidity, rainfall, soil moisture, water quality, crop canopy, application equipment and operator practice. These factors can determine whether a biological active reaches the target and remains viable for long enough to work.
Growers therefore need evidence that reflects how the product will actually be used. Small-plot trials are valuable, but commercial confidence grows when the programme is tested across relevant sites, seasons and operating conditions.
The comparison between formulated and unformulated biological treatments is particularly important. In Bionema's UK strawberry trials against Western flower thrips, a formulated biological treatment achieved 97.5% control, compared with 58% from the unformulated biological treatment.
The active ingredient had biological potential in both treatments. Formulation was what translated that potential into much stronger performance.
This is the standard the market increasingly requires: evidence that the complete product, not merely the organism, performs under practical conditions.
3. Does it fit normal commercial operations?
A technically effective product can still fail commercially if it is difficult to store, prepare or apply.
Growers and contractors work within fixed labour, equipment and weather constraints. A biological programme must therefore be designed around the realities of commercial application.
Important considerations include:
- shelf life and storage conditions
- compatibility with standard spray, irrigation or soil-application equipment
- water volume and water quality requirements
- tank-mix and input compatibility
- application timing and environmental conditions
- the number and frequency of treatments
- operator training and handling requirements
For living organisms, these are not secondary details. They are part of the product's mode of use.
Entomopathogenic nematodes provide a clear example. Successful control of leatherjackets depends on the nematode species and strain, pest stage, soil temperature, moisture, application timing and movement of the organisms into the target zone. Bionema trials have achieved approximately 85–90% leatherjacket control under suitable application conditions, but the outcome depends on applying the complete protocol correctly.
The commercial product is therefore not just the pack. It is the pack, the delivery system and the application programme.
4. Does the total commercial case work?
Comparing biological and conventional products only on cost per litre or kilogram can give the wrong answer.
Growers assess the total value of the programme. This may include treatment cost, labour, application frequency, avoided crop losses, residue management, resistance management, re-entry considerations, repair costs, market access and the consequences of product failure.
A biological product does not have to be the cheapest input to be commercially attractive. It must provide a credible return against the problem it is solving.
In high-value horticulture, protecting marketable yield and meeting retailer requirements may justify a different treatment cost from broad-acre agriculture. In turf, avoiding surface damage and expensive repairs may be more important than the price of an individual application. In forestry, protecting newly planted trees can prevent losses that affect site productivity for years.
The business case must therefore be developed for the crop, sector and customer rather than inferred from a generic biologicals market forecast.
5. Is there enough technical support to reduce adoption risk?
Biological products are often more dependent on timing and application conditions than conventional chemistry. This makes technical support a commercial requirement, not an optional service.
Growers need clear protocols, realistic performance boundaries and access to advice when conditions change. Distributors need training that enables their teams to diagnose the problem, select the correct biological and explain how it should be used.
Poor support creates two risks. The grower may apply the product incorrectly and conclude that biologicals do not work. The distributor may lose confidence in the category after preventable failures.
The strongest suppliers therefore provide more than products. They provide application knowledge, field evidence, compatibility guidance, training and post-application support. This reduces the perceived risk of adoption and increases the likelihood of repeat use.
Adoption looks different across sectors
The five commercial tests remain the same, but the weight given to each one changes by sector.
Horticulture
Horticultural growers often manage high-value crops with low tolerance for cosmetic damage or residue problems. Biologicals must provide precise control, integrate with beneficial insects and fit protected or open-field production systems. Formulation, coverage and compatibility are therefore decisive.
Turf and amenity
Turf managers work with highly visible surfaces and narrow treatment windows. Soil moisture, thatch, irrigation and pest lifecycle can determine success. The decision is strongly influenced by avoided damage, repair costs, surface quality and access to application support.
Agriculture
Field agriculture places greater pressure on scale, cost per hectare, shelf life and compatibility with established equipment. Biologicals must fit normal farm operations and demonstrate sufficient consistency across variable field conditions. Adoption is most credible when the product addresses a defined gap within an integrated programme rather than claiming to replace an entire chemical system.
Forestry
Forestry combines difficult access, variable site conditions and long production cycles. Products must tolerate storage and transport to remote sites and provide sufficient protection during vulnerable establishment periods. The cost of failure may not be visible immediately, but it can affect the value of a site for years.
Why formulation and delivery determine repeat use
Discovering an effective microorganism or natural active is not enough. The active must be converted into a product that can be manufactured, stored, applied and used consistently.
Bionema has developed three proprietary technology platforms that address different parts of this commercialisation challenge.
Incapsulex®
Incapsulex® is Bionema's patented microencapsulation platform. It is designed to protect biological and other active ingredients within specialised delivery systems, with the objective of improving stability, controlled delivery and performance under practical application conditions.
The technology is evaluated for specific actives and applications. It is not presented as a universal treatment for every biological organism.
Adhesulex™
Adhesulex™ addresses physical delivery barriers, including soil wetting and movement, foliar spreading, adhesion and retention. Different application pathways require different delivery solutions. A soil-applied nematode programme, for example, has different requirements from a foliar microbial treatment.
Compatibility testing is essential to ensure that the delivery technology improves target contact without compromising biological viability.
BiofilmTech®
BiofilmTech® focuses on beneficial microorganisms used in plant health and nutrition. It is being developed to improve microbial establishment, persistence and activity around the plant root zone, supporting biofertiliser, biostimulant and nutrient-use-efficiency applications.
Together, these platforms enable Bionema to address biological crop protection and plant health at product, formulation and delivery level. This platform approach is commercially more valuable than relying on a single product or active ingredient.
What distributors and portfolio managers should examine
The growth of biologicals does not mean every biological product deserves a place in a commercial portfolio.
Before entering a distribution, licensing or co-development agreement, portfolio managers should test the opportunity against a disciplined evidence package:
- a clearly defined crop, pest and customer problem
- relevant field efficacy across realistic operating conditions
- formulation stability and manufacturing scalability
- regulatory status and a credible route to authorisation
- defensible intellectual property or proprietary know-how
- acceptable margins and repeat-purchase potential
- reliable supply and quality control
- training and technical support for the commercial channel
This assessment distinguishes a promising biological active from a scalable commercial product.
Partners should also consider whether they need a finished product or broader technology access. Distribution may be appropriate for an established product. Licensing or co-development may be more valuable where a company has a specific active, crop, geography or portfolio gap that requires formulation and development capability.
Bionema’s commercial evidence
Bionema has built its model around moving biological science into commercially usable products and technology platforms.
In 2021, Syngenta Crop Protection acquired two Bionema bioinsecticides, NemaTrident® and UniSpore®, together with supporting technology and intellectual property. The transaction provides external validation that Bionema can develop biological crop-protection technologies of interest to a global industry partner.
Bionema has also received the King's Award for Enterprise: Innovation 2024 and the King's Award for Enterprise: Sustainable Development 2026.
These signals matter, but they are not the final adoption argument. Growers still require the right product, evidence, protocol and support for their particular problem.
That is the discipline behind Bionema's approach: Bionema makes biologicals work.
The adoption question has changed
The question is no longer whether biological crop protection has a role in commercial production. It already does.
The more useful questions are:
- Which problem is the biological solving?
- What evidence supports its performance?
- Can it be used reliably within normal commercial operations?
- Does the total economic case justify adoption?
- Is the supplier capable of supporting repeatable use at scale?
Products that answer those questions clearly can earn a lasting place in commercial programmes. Products that rely only on sustainability messaging will not.
Bionema works with growers, distributors, manufacturers and crop-protection companies through product supply, distribution, licensing, co-development and technology transfer.
To discuss a defined crop, pest, formulation, delivery or portfolio opportunity, contact Bionema at bionema.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are commercial growers adopting biological crop protection?
Growers adopt biological products when they solve a defined pest or production problem, fit existing operations and provide an acceptable commercial return. Regulatory change, resistance, residue requirements and environmental targets can accelerate demand, but field performance remains the deciding factor.
Are biological products direct replacements for synthetic pesticides?
Sometimes they can replace a specific treatment, but they should not be presented as universal one-for-one substitutes. Biological products are most effective when selected for the correct pest, crop and conditions and integrated into a wider pest-management programme.
What evidence should growers request?
Growers should look for relevant field data, not laboratory activity alone. Evidence should reflect the intended crop, pest, formulation, application method and operating conditions. Clear instructions and realistic performance boundaries are equally important.
Why is formulation important in biological crop protection?
Formulation can influence stability, viability, coverage, adhesion, movement and delivery to the target. A strong biological active can still underperform if it is not formulated and applied appropriately.
What should distributors assess before adding a biological product?
Distributors should examine efficacy, regulatory status, intellectual property, supply reliability, manufacturing quality, commercial margins, repeat-purchase potential and the level of training and technical support available.
What partnership models does Bionema offer?
Bionema works through product supply, distribution, licensing, co-development, manufacturing partnerships and technology transfer. The appropriate structure depends on the technology, geography, sector, development stage and partner capability.
Written by Dr Minshad Ansari, Founder and CEO of Bionema Group.
