On 3 September, RaboResearch published an analysis of the outlook for biological crop protection in Europe. Its central conclusion is significant: biological crop protection is moving beyond a niche segment and becoming a structural part of European agriculture. At the same time, as the market matures, farmers are becoming more selective about the products and technologies they use.
According to Rabobank, the most promising areas for biological crop protection currently include fruit and vegetables, vineyards, greenhouse crops and potatoes. Cereals and oilseeds represent a potentially much larger market in terms of cultivated area, but widespread adoption of biological solutions remains constrained by technical limitations, product availability and farmers’ confidence in their efficacy.
One particularly difficult area is biological weed control, where commercially viable solutions remain limited.
Rabobank also makes an important point that is sometimes lost in discussions about “green” agriculture: biological crop protection is unlikely simply to replace conventional chemistry. Instead, the future lies in integrated pest management (IPM), combining biological, chemical, agronomic, mechanical and increasingly digital approaches.
EastFruit asked Marite Gailite, an expert with the Latvian vegetable growers’ association Latvijas dārznieks, who has hands-on experience with biological crop protection, to comment on these conclusions.
“It is difficult to disagree with Rabobank. However, it is noteworthy that the author does not mention the expansion of organic production linked to the objectives of the European Green Deal. In principle, growth in the area under organic farming should also stimulate demand for biological plant protection products.”
Beneficial organisms can outperform insecticides — but delivery is critical
One of the most interesting aspects of Gailite’s experience concerns beneficial organisms, or natural enemies of crop pests, used as biological control agents.
“In my experience, beneficial organisms can be more effective than chemical insecticides, but much depends on how they are released. Various manual and mechanical dispensers have been available for greenhouses for quite some time. In open-field production, however, releasing them effectively is technically much more difficult.”
This is also where new technologies could create opportunities.
“Oilseed rape fields could potentially become a large market for beneficial organisms. The main constraint is not necessarily cost, but the technical ability to release different species at exactly the right time. Wider use of drones in crop protection could help considerably.”
Where biological crop protection makes the most sense
Gailite also stresses that the potential for biological control differs significantly between crops.
In cereals, weeds are often the principal crop protection challenge, while effective biological weed-control options remain scarce. Insecticides and fungicides are also generally used less intensively in cereals than in vegetables or potatoes.
Another major constraint is simply access to biological products.
“For example, several species of entomopathogenic nematodes are registered in Latvia, but in practice they are very difficult to obtain. They are produced in the UK, while transportation and crossing the EU border is relatively complicated. Demand remains limited partly because growers have little opportunity to test the products themselves under practical conditions.”
In her view, biological nematicides may be particularly relevant for crops such as carrots. The situation is different for potatoes, where a relatively wide range of nematode-resistant varieties is available, although the total potato-growing area is considerably larger.
“Biological” does not automatically mean environmentally harmless
Perhaps the most provocative point in Gailite’s comments concerns a question that receives much less attention in the marketing of biological crop protection products: their potential impact on non-target organisms and ecosystems.
“We should be prepared for the possibility that environmental groups will eventually discover that biological control is not necessarily harmless to the environment either. In Australia and New Zealand, for example, the import of many beneficial insects and even bumblebees is prohibited because they are non-native species.”
She is particularly cautious about the large-scale use of Trichogramma, tiny parasitoid wasps widely released to control the eggs of agricultural pests.
“I have had doubts about the environmental harmlessness of Trichogramma for quite some time. It is a parasitoid with a very broad host range. So far, we have mainly been interested in its impact on crop pests. Trichogramma itself normally disperses only over relatively short distances, but when it is released from the air, wind can carry it much farther. We still know relatively little about what this means for wild insect fauna.”
The point is not that biological control is inherently unsafe. Rather, switching from synthetic chemistry to biological control does not remove the need for proper ecological risk assessment. Biological origin alone should not be treated as proof of environmental safety.
FAO similarly distinguishes among different types of biological pest-control agents and notes that biological control agents are subject to specific risk-assessment and regulatory considerations.
The real future is not “biology versus chemistry”
On this point, Gailite’s view largely coincides with the central argument made by Rabobank.
“Effective crop protection combines all available tools — from the choice of varieties and hybrids and crop nutrition and irrigation strategies to the combination of chemical and biological crop protection methods.”
This may also be the most important commercial conclusion.
The winners in the biological crop protection market may not necessarily be the companies offering the largest number of “biological” products. They are more likely to be those able to demonstrate consistent field efficacy, economic value for growers and a clearly defined role for each product within a crop production system.
That is also broadly consistent with Rabobank’s assessment that future adoption will depend on field performance, farm economics, regulation and demand from downstream supply chains.
There is another risk: overpromising
Gailite points to one further issue that could become critical as the market expands — the credibility of product claims.
“The development of the biological crop protection market will depend to a very large extent on the honesty of marketing claims. At the moment, many producers are willing to promise almost anything in order to make a sale. This is a very dangerous approach. It can undermine confidence not only in an individual supplier, but in the entire method.”
For a rapidly growing industry, this may prove to be one of the greatest risks.
A poorly performing product sold on the back of an attractive “green” story can do considerably more damage than lose one customer. It can undermine farmers’ confidence in an entire category of technologies.
The biological crop protection market therefore appears to be entering a more demanding stage of development: less ideology, fewer promises and considerably more emphasis on evidence, economics and practical performance.
The use of the site materials is free if there is a direct and open for search engines hyperlink to a specific publication of the East-Fruit.com website.
