The North American Agricultural Market Data Company recently completed its fourth annual tracking survey on the attitudes of North American growers and agrochemical retailers towards biological stimulants. The results of the 2025 survey show that biological stimulants are gaining increasing commercial recognition. This change is not due to significant changes in the product itself, but rather is more attributed to the transformation in the industry’s communication methods and product positioning.
Contrary to some reports suggesting a cooling of market enthusiasm and a decrease in industry investment, in 2025, the number of users of biological stimulants in both the United States and Canada achieved significant growth.
The survey shows that farmers increased the use of various biological stimulants in 2025. Among them, the growth of beneficial bacteria and fungi, plant growth regulators (PGR), and nitrogen-fixing biological preparations was the most notable.
It is worth noting that plant growth regulators were not included in this tracking survey before, but they were added for the first time in 2025. Although the overall usage rate and satisfaction were partially affected by this, even if the data of plant growth regulators is excluded, the overall growth rate is still very significant.
The survey subjects were growers from the United States and Canada in the database. The survey times were all after the harvest season. The sample size was 800 to 1,000 growers and agricultural supply retailers each year.
Acceptance continues to increase
Over the past few years, farmers’ overall attitude towards biological stimulants has been continuously improving.
As part of a follow-up survey, respondents were asked to select the option that best represented their views from five descriptions. In 2023, only 8% of farmers believed that “biological stimulants have significant value”; by 2025, this proportion had risen to 25%, and respondents regarded biological stimulants as an indispensable part of agricultural production.
Although the satisfaction ratings fluctuated over the four years, the overall attitude has continued to improve, indicating that the industry is gradually moving from the early application stage to a more widespread market penetration stage.
Reduce the gap between expectations and actual results
Compared to 2024, farmers’ satisfaction with the brands of biological stimulants they use further increased in 2025. In almost all product categories, there was a higher willingness to continue using the products.
The improvement in satisfaction mainly came from users who originally held a “neutral/uncertain” attitude. This indicates that as the usage experience accumulated, farmers gradually understood the actual effects that biological stimulants could bring, and their expectations began to align more closely with the actual performance of the products. In other words, it was not that the products suddenly became more effective; rather, users began to clearly understand what a reasonable expectation of effect should be.
However, there are still significant differences in the actual effects of biological stimulants across different regions, different product categories, and different years. For example, the average satisfaction of growers in the northern plains was significantly lower than that in other regions.
This is because the effectiveness of biological stimulants is highly dependent on specific application scenarios, including fertilization plans, climate conditions, soil conditions, and environmental stressors during application. Achieving good results in one year does not necessarily mean the same performance in the next season.
Rather than making vague claims, it is better to explain the mechanism of action.
For this reason, product positioning and communication methods become particularly important.
In this survey, farmers were asked which support from manufacturers and retailers was most helpful for their decision-making. The results showed that growers preferred to receive guidance on how and when to use biological stimulants, as well as a detailed explanation of the product’s mechanism of action, so as to help them correctly evaluate the product’s effectiveness.
Companies often prefer to promote broad selling points such as “promoting plant health” and “increasing yield”, but such general statements cannot reflect the complex mechanism of action of biological stimulants, nor can they explain how the product truly affects crop growth.
In contrast, those companies that can precisely describe the applicable scenarios of the product and position it specifically for specific problems are more likely to gain market recognition.
The survey further confirmed this point. When asked about their preference for product promotion, farmers generally preferred detailed explanations that could clearly show how the product affects the physiological processes of crops, rather than vague marketing slogans. Brands that can propose solutions for specific crop problems and help users establish reasonable expectations are more likely to achieve long-term development.
The Insights from Nitrogen Fixation Products
The improvement in the satisfaction of nitrogen-fixing biological preparations is a typical case resulting from the adjustment of product positioning.
According to annual surveys, the user satisfaction of nitrogen-fixation products has always been lower than that of other biological stimulants. However, this situation began to improve in 2025.
One of the reasons is that the early market promotion gave nitrogen-fixation products overly high expectations. Many growers believed that nitrogen-fixation products not only could increase yield but also would change the entire agriculture’s reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. However, the actual usage effects often failed to meet such expectations, thus long-term affecting user satisfaction.
In recent years, enterprises have gradually adjusted their communication strategies, emphasizing the improvement of nitrogen fertilizer utilization efficiency, optimizing root zone nutrient supply, and enhancing product stability, rather than focusing solely on direct yield increase.
This more pragmatic information dissemination approach enables users to establish more reasonable expectations and has become an important reason for the satisfaction improvement in 2025.
This case demonstrates that when biological stimulants are positioned as a risk management tool rather than just a yield-increasing tool, growers tend to be more accepting of the actual performance of the products.
Building trust is a long-term process.
As the industry continues to explore the balance between product positioning and actual effectiveness, the application of biological stimulants is also continuously expanding.
Surveys show that when farmers first try a certain biological stimulant, the most important driving factor is still the recommendation from a trustworthy advisor, followed by reliable test data.
Although the technical support provided by manufacturers and retailers is of great value, growers trust sources of opinions without any vested interests even more, especially other farmers and independent agronomists.
At the same time, they also hope to see field trials conducted over multiple years and in multiple locations. If these trials are carried out by local farmers or third-party institutions and completed on their own farms or in the surrounding areas, their persuasiveness will be further enhanced.
Trustworthy recommendations can encourage farmers to be willing to try the product, while solid test verification and clear and transparent communication are the true keys to driving purchasing decisions.
Winning trust is more important than increasing sales volume.
Ultimately, the development of the biological stimulant market not only means faster product promotion and wider application scope, but also implies that the entire industry is gradually building the trust of growers.
As more and more farmers start to try biological stimulants, the opportunities faced by producers and retailers are not just about promoting the products, but about helping users truly understand when, why, and under which conditions the products are effective.
The brands that will truly stand out in the future will be those that can set reasonable expectations, continuously provide technical support to growers, and fully demonstrate the product value in specific application scenarios.
Post time: Aug-17-2026
