Die Sitzung endet in Sekunden.
After the DLG Feldtage 2026, one topic stayed with me: biostimulants.
Many conversations with manufacturers felt different from just a few years ago. There was more confidence, more clarity and more discussion about specific use cases. A new generation of biostimulants was mentioned frequently, as were combination products that could make the category easier for farmers to adopt.
That was encouraging. But from a market research perspective, it also raised the key question:
So the challenge for manufacturers may no longer be only to create awareness.
The more relevant question is:
At Produkt + Markt, we have been following the development of biologicals and biostimulants for several years.
Already in our earlier research, the category was clearly visible in the German market. Many farmers were aware of biologicals, and a relevant share had already tested biostimulants or biological plant protection products. At the same time, farmers, retailers and other market actors pointed to recurring challenges: clearer proof of efficacy, better user-friendliness, reliable advice and a stronger understanding of when these products actually deliver value.
The basic condition has not changed: the products need to prove that they work.
What has changed is the tone of the market conversation.
At the DLG Feldtage, many manufacturers no longer spoke about biostimulants as a vague future opportunity. They spoke about targeted applications, improved formulations, stronger efficacy claims and combination products. The category seemed to have moved from general promise to more concrete positioning.
That makes the farmer perspective even more important.
Because when a category becomes more concrete, farmers’ questions become more concrete too.
With biostimulants, this question may now be too small.
Recent farmer conversations show that many farmers are already experimenting. They test products in specific crops, compare treated and untreated areas, look at yield maps, observe plant development and try to understand whether an effect is real, repeatable and economically relevant.
One farmer described how he started with smaller test areas and then expanded selected biostimulants to larger areas after seeing promising results. Another described biostimulants as already being used as standard in certain applications where the product clearly fits the crop and production system.
This changes the task for manufacturers.
Farmers who are already testing are not passive recipients of product claims. They are active evaluators. They develop their own rules for what counts as evidence.
For manufacturers, this is good news - but also a challenge.
The category has arrived in practice. But it is being judged carefully.
The farmer described how he evaluates biostimulants with untreated strips. His rule was simple: the untreated area should not be pointed out to him. He wants to find it himself in the field.
If he can see where the product was not used, then the product has done something meaningful.
This is a very practical definition of trust.
It is not about rejecting manufacturer information. It is about wanting evidence that can be related to one’s own farm reality.
That matters because biostimulant effects can be difficult to interpret.
Farmers may ask:
• Was the effect really caused by the product?
• Or was it the year?
• The weather?
• The soil?
• The crop?
• The application timing?
• Or simply normal field variation?
This is where market research becomes particularly valuable. It helps manufacturers understand not only whether farmers believe in a category, but how they build belief.
For some farmers, official trial results may be important. For others, regional experience, trusted advisors or on-farm tests matter more.
Manufacturers need to know which kind of proof works for which type of farmer.
Farmers are aware that biological components can be sensitive. They talk about oxygen, heat, moisture, timing, soil conditions and the interval between seed treatment and sowing. In other words, they do not only ask whether a product works in principle. They ask whether it can work under real farm conditions.
This has major implications for manufacturers.
If a product requires a specific application window, careful handling or certain weather conditions, this needs to be communicated clearly and realistically. Otherwise, disappointed experiences are likely — and these experiences can shape the perception of the whole category.
Application simplicity is therefore not a minor detail.
It can be a key driver of adoption.
In one conversation, a farmer described a product that appeared to have a positive effect on root growth. But it also seemed to stimulate problematic root weeds. In critical years, this became a serious issue and the product was removed from the farm’s system.
This example shows how farmers evaluate biostimulants within the whole production system, not in isolation.
A product can be biologically interesting and still fail commercially if it creates additional risk, operational uncertainty or unwanted side effects.
For manufacturers, this means that communication should not only focus on benefits. It should also address boundaries, risks and conditions of use honestly.
Farmers do not necessarily expect miracles. In many cases, they appreciate realistic guidance.
A biostimulant has to justify its cost. This does not always mean a simple yield increase. The value may also come from improved nitrogen efficiency, better stress tolerance, more stable performance or reduced risk. But the benefit still needs to be translated into a business case farmers can understand.
This becomes especially important when additional effort or equipment is required.
If a product can be applied through existing machinery, as part of familiar operations or in combination with established input applications, the barrier is lower. If it requires special equipment, additional handling or a separate operation, many farmers will wait and observe what others experience first.
This is particularly relevant for combination products.
At the DLG Feldtage, combination products came up again and again. From a farmer perspective, this could be promising, if the combination reduces complexity, fits existing routines and makes the value easier to understand.
But this assumption should not be taken for granted.
It needs to be tested with farmers.
For some farmers, established suppliers and known brands create reassurance. For others, independent trials, official advisory services or experiences from neighbouring farms are essential. Retailers and advisors can play an important role — but only if they are seen as credible and technically competent.
This connects directly to what we already saw in earlier research on biologicals: market actors see potential, but proof of efficacy and the quality of advice remain decisive.
Product innovation alone is not enough. Manufacturers also need to think about the trust infrastructure around the product:
• Who explains the product?
• Who demonstrates it?
• Who helps interpret the results?
• Who supports correct application?
• Who gives the farmer confidence that the product fits the farm’s situation?
In a category where effects can be context-dependent, the ecosystem around the product may be almost as important as the product itself.
Important questions include:
• Which biostimulant applications are already being tested or used?
• What makes farmers move from trial use to regular use?
• Which product effects are considered credible and valuable?
• What kind of evidence do farmers trust most?
• How do farmers interpret inconsistent or year-dependent effects?
• Which application requirements are still practical — and which are too difficult?
• What role do untreated strips, on-farm trials and regional experience play?
• Which risks or negative experiences influence future willingness to use?
• How important are established brands, retailers, advisors or official trials?
• How are combination products perceived?
• Which messages build confidence — and which create scepticism?
These questions matter because the next phase of the biostimulants market will not be won by optimism alone.
It will be won by understanding how farmers evaluate proof, risk, value and fit.
Quantitative research can show how many farmers know, test or use a product category. It can identify segments, usage rates, satisfaction and future interest.
Qualitative research adds the layer behind these numbers. It reveals how farmers think, compare, test and decide. It shows the language they use, the doubts they have, the moments that build confidence and the experiences that reduce trust.
In our recent farmer conversations, the most valuable insights were often concrete stories:
And that is where research becomes actionable.
This is the real challenge for manufacturers:
Not only to create attention, but to build trust. Not only to communicate efficacy, but to show when, where and for whom the product works. Not only to launch innovations, but to understand how they become part of the farm system.
With the P+M Submarine, we speak directly with farmers and explore the questions that matter for product development, positioning, communication, advisory concepts and market access.
Potential topics for the next dive could include:
• biostimulants under drought and stress conditions
• nitrogen efficiency and regulatory pressure
• the role of on-farm trials and untreated strips
• application simplicity and integration into existing machinery
• differences between conventional and organic farms
• combination products and their role in category adoption
• trusted information channels, advisors and retail structures
• messages that build confidence — and messages that raise doubts
For me, the most interesting point is this: the market has moved beyond the simple question of whether farmers are open to biostimulants.
Many already are.
The more important question now is what happens next.
How does testing become confidence? How does confidence become demand? And how does demand become regular, long-term use?
This is exactly where we believe further farmer research can create value.
