Biological crop inputs are growing fast but face a test of consistency and a slide toward commodity pricing, Gustavo Mamao writes in a guest column for AgFunderNews. He sets out four scenarios for the next 10 years. The views are the writer's own. Mamao co-founded a biocontrol company two decades ago that was acquired by Stoller 10 years later, and he now advises the Brazilian contract manufacturer IdeeLab on international partnerships.
He begins with the market's strengths and its weak points. A once peripheral field is becoming mainstream in some crops and regions, with double-digit growth according to DunhamTrimmer. But biologicals are less stable than synthetic chemistry, activity can be lost between the factory door and the field, and performance can fall short when a product is poorly fitted into crop and pest management. In the most commoditized products, tens or even hundreds of companies compete, and growers often decide on relationships and the lowest price.
His scenarios rest on two uncertain forces: whether new platforms such as metabolites, proteins and peptides, genetically modified microorganisms and RNAi deliver real gains in performance, and how well they fit existing manufacturing, distribution and application systems.
In the first, "Biologicals at scale", both go well, and companies that combine differentiated technology with market reach benefit. In the second, "New system required", the technology works but does not fit, two markets emerge, and specialized manufacturers and formulators who bridge the gap win ground.
In the third, "Integrated but incremental", products improve steadily and slot into existing portfolios, but competition shifts to price, brand and bundling, which favors large portfolio companies. In the fourth, "Fragmented process", variable results and costly commercialization persist, and biologicals remain a set of niches around particular crops, regions and problems.
Mamao's advice differs by player. Incumbents, he says, should treat integration as the main task and still teach growers how modes of action work. Specialized companies with more than $20 million in revenue must lead on innovation to avoid the commodity trap. Startups must prove superior performance while capital is scarce, and may benefit from working with incumbents or specialists.
He is sharply critical of the large input companies, arguing that their hesitation has left them sharing the market with specialists in the $200-500 million range and fueling new competitors. He urges companies to run their own scenario exercises and to track early signals such as commoditization, startup pipelines and the economics of new products.
For farmers, the question behind the column is whether the next generation of products will work more reliably in the field. Mamao does not offer a forecast, only a way of watching for the answer.
Source: AgFunderNews
Comments
(0)