The ag biologicals industry is making “steady progress” compared to this time last year, Dr. Pam Marrone told the crowd on day one of the Salinas Biologicals Summit.
Onstage to give an annual progress report on the space, she noted that “a lot has happened in one year,” from technical advances in the products themselves to changes in the political and regulatory landscape.
As always, Dr. Marrone, founder and chair of the Invasive Species Corporation, covered a breathtaking amount of information in the span of a half hour—the rise of peptides, MAHA, staffing cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency, and the role of AI and machine learning in the sector, to name just a few.
When asked to grade the overall ag biologicals space, she awarded it an A- in 2025, a half-step up from the B she gave it at last year’s event.
The following are some highlights from her talk.
There’s a bigger ecosystem of partners and deals
Citing data from research firm Dunham-Trimmer, Dr. Marrone highlighted the projected $19.6 billion the ag biologicals market is expected to reach by 2027. That figure includes $12 billion for biocontrols, $7.6 billion for biostimulants, and $4 billion for biofertilizers.
“There’s a lot of companies that are getting quite large and approaching $500 million in revenue,” she noted. “And there’s a lot of big companies—Bayer, BSF, Syngenta, UPL, FMC—but also pure-play, middle-tier companies like Koppert, BioFirst, Rovenza Next, and others that are getting quite sizable.”
The latter group of companies, she added are opportunities for younger, smaller companies to partner with.
More companies are differentiating
As the Mixing Bowl’s ongoing market maps always highlight, ag biologicals is an incredibly crowded space, and in the past this has led to many different companies developing similar versions of products already available on the market. (This was a key talking point at last year’s summit.)
Not so in 2025, suggested Dr. Marrone: “I’m seeing fewer and fewer companies that are not differentiating from others. There are still the ‘bathtub brews’ and ‘bugs in a jug,’ but there a lot more [companies] managing to differentiate.”
“Entrepreneurs,” she added, “are more thoughtful, when coming with new ideas, to make sure that they look at the market map and see the unmet needs in the market instead of just repeating the story.”
Private equity has found biologicals
Despite the tough times for funding, ag biological companies are still getting capital—though at later stages than previously.
Very, very few deals are being done at seed and pre-seed stage in ag biologicals, said Dr. Marrone, echoing broader VC investment trends from the last few years.
Meanwhile, “private equity has discovered biologicals.”
That includes Paine Schwartz, which has been involved in the space for some time, but also others from around the globe: TPO in France, which helped finance the Biotrope acquisition; TPG Rise and Renaissance Group, which took over amino acids company SICIT Group; and Astanor, a well-known venture capital firm, now has its own private equity group.
“So now there’s another avenue for you to be acquired if you’re a young company and your investors need an exit,” she said. “These PE groups are on the hunt because they see the value in biologicals to the planet and their value proposition.”
Progress on bioherbicides lags
One of the smallest sub-sectors in the biologicals space, bioherbicides haven’t made a ton of progress since last year’s events, said Dr. Marrone.
However, she noted a few new entrants to the space worth tracking.
One is BindBridge, which is using molecular glues (small molecules that enable interactions between proteins by bringing them together) to find molecules that could kill weeds. Another one to watch is MOA Technology, which spun out of Oxford University with a proprietary discovery platform that can find new modes of action at greater speeds than before.
Startups need government funding for progress
Great uncertainty exists around the recent cuts to government programs, which many farmers rely on.
Without going too deeply into the specifics, Dr. Marrone stated that many startups in agriculture rely on money from the National Science Foundation, which has seen significant cuts to budgets from the Trump administration.
“A lot of startups in the US depend on that money to get to a point where venture capitalists will fund them,” she said.
“I’ve heard some members of the administration say we shouldn’t be funding [very early research and proof-of-concept stages], that the private sector should fund that.”
However, “VCs are not going to come in that early. You have to have somebody help you do that proof of concept, and that’s what NSF and also USDA and other agencies have funded.”
The cuts will be “a huge loss,” and “we’re going to see fewer startups” as a result, she claimed.
It’s time to talk about the benefits of biologicals, not the dangers of pesticides
The recent MAHA report and its criticism of the pesticide industry was a frequent topic, meanwhile.
Dr. Marrone suggested that “what’s old is new again” in this case, citing the Food Quality Protection Act that was signed into law in the 1990s and changed the way pesticides in the United States were regulated.
“Decades ago, we were talking about pesticides in the diets of infants and children,” she said. “Does that mean that we haven’t made enough progress on pesticides in children’s diets?”
One strategy going forward, she suggested, might be to talk about the benefits of biologicals, rather than honing in on the dangers of pesticides.
“Where the MAHA report talks about the negatives of chemicals, [trade organization] the Biological Products Industry Alliance is talking about the benefits of biologicals, and why that is very appropriate for making America healthy again.”
The post Report card from California: We need to talk about the benefits of biologicals, not the dangers of chemicals appeared first on AgFunderNews.
