생물 농약 시장 : 유형별, 제제별, 용도별, 작물 유형별, 작용기전별 예측(2026-2032년)

The Biological Pesticide Market was valued at USD 3.76 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 4.15 billion in 2026, with a CAGR of 11.75%, reaching USD 8.19 billion by 2032.

A strategic orientation that situates biological crop protection within modern agronomy regulatory expectations and adoption drivers for decision makers

The introduction frames biological pesticides as a strategic convergence of biological science, sustainable agriculture imperatives, and precision crop protection techniques. The narrative situates biologicals within an evolving agronomic context where growers, distributors, and crop consultants evaluate efficacy, safety profiles, and system compatibility against conventional chemistries. This orientation emphasizes the fundamental distinctions that define biologicals: diverse modes of action that leverage living organisms or naturally derived compounds, formulation and application considerations that govern field performance, and regulatory pathways that balance efficacy validation with environmental stewardship.

Moving from conceptual foundations to operational considerations, the introduction highlights practical adoption drivers such as integrated pest management programs, residue management priorities for high-value crops, and retailer and brand commitments to sustainability credentials. It also acknowledges persistent barriers, including variability in field performance under heterogeneous agronomic conditions, supply chain constraints for biological active ingredients, and the incremental costs associated with registration and local validation studies. Transitioning from these constraints, the introduction underscores the role of innovation in stabilizing performance through improved formulations, adjuvants, and application technology, which together are shifting grower confidence and expanding use cases across crop types.

Finally, the introduction positions this document as a concise, decision-oriented distillation of trends, regulatory dynamics, and strategic priorities intended for senior management, product development leaders, and channel partners. It sets expectations for the subsequent sections, which explore landscape shifts, trade impacts, segmentation intelligence, regional dynamics, competitor behaviors, and practical recommendations designed to accelerate responsible market participation and commercial success.

Major scientific and commercial inflection points reshaping biological crop protection with implications for commercialization adoption and regulatory clarity

The landscape of biological crop protection is experiencing transformative shifts driven by scientific advances, market demand for sustainable inputs, and shifting regulatory frameworks that favor lower-risk solutions. Advances in microbiology, molecular biology, and formulation chemistry are enabling more consistent field performance by improving active stability, delivery mechanisms, and target specificity. In parallel, a stronger focus on integrated pest management and residue minimization is prompting retailers, food brands, and large growers to request validated biological alternatives, which in turn is reshaping procurement criteria and product evaluation protocols.

Transitional technologies such as seed treatments coupled with targeted foliar delivery systems are broadening the viable application set for biologicals, while digital agronomy tools provide the diagnostic precision needed to match mode of action to pest pressure. At the same time, regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions are clarifying registration pathways and data requirements for biological actives, creating more predictable timelines for market entry though also demanding rigorous environmental fate and non-target organism assessments. This regulatory maturity reduces uncertainty for investors and encourages larger firms to allocate resources toward scale-up of manufacturing and distribution.

These dynamics collectively raise expectations for commercialization sophistication: companies must demonstrate reproducible efficacy, ensure supply chain robustness, and provide technical service models that support on-farm optimization. As a result, the most successful participants are those combining technical credibility with pragmatic commercialization strategies, forming partnerships across the value chain to accelerate adoption and reduce perceived risk for end users.

How recent tariff policy adjustments are creating supply chain volatility cost pressure and strategic sourcing responses across biological pesticide value chains

The cumulative impact of tariffs announced by the United States in 2025 reverberates across the biological pesticide value chain through increased input costs, disrupted trade flows, and altered sourcing decisions. Tariff adjustments on raw inputs, carrier materials, and specialty chemicals raise production cost baselines for manufacturers that rely on cross-border supply of reagents, fermentation substrates, and packaging components. In response, some producers are re-evaluating supplier contracts, accelerating qualification of alternate sources, and examining nearshoring options to reduce exposure to fluctuating trade barriers.

Beyond direct cost implications, tariffs contribute to volatility that complicates inventory planning and contract pricing for distributors and formulators. This uncertainty nudges channel partners to seek longer-term agreements, diversified supplier lists, and hedging strategies that smooth procurement cycles. Moreover, trade policy shifts can influence research and development priorities when specific intermediates become intermittently costly or scarce, prompting product developers to validate alternative synthetic routes or adopt different microbial strains that rely on locally abundant feedstocks.

Transitionally, tariffs also affect international collaboration and knowledge flows, as costlier cross-border movement of prototypes and trial materials can delay multi-jurisdictional field studies and regulatory submissions. To mitigate these impacts, stakeholders are deploying a mix of operational and strategic responses, including reinforcing domestic manufacturing capacity, investing in supply chain visibility tools, and engaging proactively with trade and regulatory policymakers to communicate the downstream agricultural implications of tariff policy shifts.

Comprehensive segmentation analysis revealing how product type formulation application crop focus and mode of action define commercial pathways and technical requirements

Key segmentation insights reveal how product design, formulation choices, application routes, crop targets, and modes of action create distinct commercial and technical requirements across the biological pesticide landscape. Based on Type, the market divides into biochemical, botanical, and microbial categories where biochemical actives include enzymes, growth regulators, and pheromones that often require precision formulation to achieve consistency; botanical actives such as alkaloids, essential oils, limonoids, phenolics, pyrethrum, and rotenoid present complexity in standardization of active fractions and stability; and microbial solutions span bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses each with specific production, storage, and registration considerations. These type distinctions have downstream consequences for formulation and delivery as well as for protective measures required during handling and application.

Based on Formulation, products are assessed across dry and liquid preparations where dry formats encompass dusts, granules, pellets, and wettable powders and are often preferred for certain seed and soil applications due to handling and release profiles, while liquid forms such as emulsifiable concentrates, soluble concentrates, and suspension concentrates enable targeted foliar and post-harvest treatments and can incorporate adjuvants to enhance uptake and persistence. These formulation pathways affect shelf life, cold chain requirements, and compatibility with existing application equipment.

Based on Application, the primary use cases include foliar spray, post-harvest treatment, seed treatment, and soil treatment, each demanding different performance metrics such as residual efficacy, systemic translocation potential, or localized contact activity. Based on Crop Type, deployment spans fruits and vegetables, grains and cereals, oilseeds and pulses, and turf and ornamentals, with adoption patterns influenced by crop value, residue tolerance, and pest complex. Based on Mode Of Action, products fall into contact action and systemic action categories that shape label instructions, timing strategies, and integration with chemical programs. Together, these segmentation axes inform product positioning, technical support needs, and channel prioritization for market entrants and incumbents alike.

Regional imperatives and regulatory complexities that determine differentiated commercialization strategies across Americas Europe Middle East and Africa and Asia Pacific markets

Regional dynamics shape commercialization strategies and investment priorities, reflecting differing regulatory environments, crop mixes, and distribution systems across the Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific. In the Americas, robust commercial channels for both high-value horticultural crops and large-scale row crops create opportunities for biologicals that demonstrate consistent performance and favorable residue profiles, prompting manufacturers to focus on localized registrations and grower education programs. The regulatory environment in some jurisdictions within the Americas is evolving toward clearer guidance for biological registrations, encouraging companies to pursue broader label coverage while tailoring stewardship programs to diverse climatic zones.

Across Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory scrutiny and environmental policy priorities frequently drive demand for lower-toxicity solutions, but regional heterogeneity requires nuanced market entry plans that account for differing maximum residue limits and national approval processes. In many parts of this combined region, premium supply chains and retailer sustainability commitments create pull-through for biologicals in specialty crops and high-visibility supply chains. Conversely, in several markets, cost sensitivity and smaller farm sizes require simplified product profiles and efficient distribution models.

Asia-Pacific presents a mix of high adoption potential in export-oriented horticulture and complex logistical challenges for cold chain management and registration timelines. Rapid growth in precision ag and increasing private investment in agri-technology foster an environment where biologicals can be integrated with digital advisory services and commercial farming platforms. Collectively, these regional nuances necessitate differentiated go-to-market strategies that align regulatory planning, technical support, and supply logistics with local agronomic realities and commercial channel structures.

Corporate strategies and operational priorities that drive competitive advantage through formulation innovation regulatory depth supply chain flexibility and customer centricity

Companies operating in the biological pesticide space are adopting a range of strategies to balance technical credibility with scale economics and go-to-market effectiveness. Leading actors emphasize differentiated formulation capabilities, investing in proprietary stabilizing technologies and adjuvant systems that improve field consistency while facilitating integration into existing spray programs. Others prioritize regulatory depth, accumulating dossiers and conducting multi-location trials to support broader label claims and to meet stringent data requirements in multiple jurisdictions.

Partnerships and alliances are central to scaling commercial reach: technology licensors collaborate with formulators and distributors to accelerate market penetration while contract manufacturers expand capacity to support commercial launches. Investment in manufacturing flexibility-particularly fermenters, lyophilization, and aseptic fill operations-enables companies to transition quickly between actives and respond to seasonal demand fluctuations. At the same time, manufacturers are enhancing technical service layers, deploying agronomists and digital advisory tools to support adoption and to collect post-launch performance data that informs iterative product improvements.

Competitive differentiation is also achieved through stewardship commitments and supply chain transparency, which build trust with growers and global buyers. Companies that integrate rigorous quality control, traceability, and post-market surveillance into their commercial propositions position themselves to meet retailer and regulatory expectations while protecting brand reputation and long-term customer relationships.

Practical and prioritized interventions that industry leaders must implement to stabilize performance accelerate adoption and de risk commercialization pathways

Industry leaders should pursue a coordinated set of actions to convert scientific promise into durable commercial returns while managing regulatory and operational risk. First, allocate resources to formulation and delivery platforms that mitigate biological variability, including investment in stabilizers, encapsulation methods, and co-formulants that extend field persistence and broaden application windows. These technical investments should be complemented by rigorous on-farm validation protocols that generate consistent, regionally relevant performance data for extension teams and channel partners.

Second, strengthen regulatory engagement by sequencing dossier submissions across priority markets and by proactively aligning with regulators on data requirements and stewardship expectations. Early and transparent dialogue reduces approval timelines and clarifies post-registration monitoring needs. Third, build resilient supply chains through dual sourcing, strategic inventory buffers, and selective nearshoring of critical inputs to reduce exposure to trade disruptions and tariff volatility. This operational posture preserves continuity during periods of international policy shifts.

Fourth, expand commercial capability by investing in technical service teams and digital tools that provide real-time application guidance and integrate pest forecasting with product recommendations. Fifth, pursue targeted partnerships across research institutions, extension services, and channel partners to accelerate knowledge transfer and to scale adoption in priority crop segments. Finally, embed robust stewardship and traceability practices into commercialization plans to meet retailer demands and to safeguard reputation, thereby creating a sustained platform for premium positioning and long-term customer loyalty.

A rigorous mixed methods approach combining stakeholder interviews technical validation and literature synthesis to ensure reliable strategic insights and practical implications

The research methodology integrates qualitative and quantitative techniques to produce a robust and reproducible evidence base. Primary research comprised structured interviews with a cross-section of stakeholders including product developers, regulatory experts, commercial leaders, contract manufacturers, and agronomy specialists to capture technical constraints, commercialization tactics, and regional market intelligence. These interviews were complemented by on-farm observation and trial protocol reviews where feasible to validate performance narratives and application practices. Secondary research included review of peer-reviewed literature, regulatory guidance documents, patent landscapes, and technical white papers to contextualize technological trends and to triangulate insights from primary interviews.

Data analysis employed thematic coding for qualitative inputs alongside cross-case synthesis to identify recurring patterns in adoption drivers, formulation challenges, and go-to-market models. Technical assessments evaluated formulation stability metrics, handling requirements, and application compatibility using standardized criteria to ensure comparability across product types. Limitations are acknowledged: access to confidential commercial data can constrain granularity in some areas, and regional heterogeneity means that local validation remains necessary for operational planning. To mitigate these limitations, findings emphasize strategic implications and operational levers rather than prescriptive, site-specific recommendations. Wherever possible, the methodology favored rigorous triangulation to enhance the credibility and applicability of conclusions.

Synthesis of strategic priorities and operational imperatives that summarize how to translate biological innovation into sustained commercial adoption and competitive advantage

In conclusion, biological pesticides occupy an increasingly important role within sustainable crop protection strategies as scientific maturation, market demand for lower-risk alternatives, and evolving regulatory frameworks converge. Adoption is advancing where products provide reproducible efficacy, convenient application formats, and clear stewardship pathways. However, realizing the full commercial potential requires simultaneous attention to formulation science, regulatory engagement, supply chain resilience, and differentiated commercial models that support growers through technical guidance and performance validation.

Strategic participants will prioritize investments that reduce field variability, optimize formulation and delivery, and establish credible proof points across target crops and regions. Operational leaders must also address trade policy exposures and build flexible supply networks to ensure continuity. By aligning technical development with pragmatic commercialization practices and robust stewardship, companies can move beyond pilot deployments to achieve meaningful adoption at scale. The synthesis presented here is designed to inform senior decision-making by highlighting actionable priorities and by delineating the structural dynamics that will shape competitive advantage in the near to medium term.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Definition
• 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
• 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
• 1.7. Key Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Introduction
• 2.2. Research Design
  • 2.2.1. Primary Research
  • 2.2.2. Secondary Research
• 2.3. Research Framework
  • 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
  • 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
• 2.4. Market Size Estimation
  • 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
  • 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
• 2.5. Data Triangulation
• 2.6. Research Outcomes
• 2.7. Research Assumptions
• 2.8. Research Limitations

3. Executive Summary

• 3.1. Introduction
• 3.2. CXO Perspective
• 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
• 3.4. Market Share Analysis, 2025
• 3.5. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
• 3.6. New Revenue Opportunities
• 3.7. Next-Generation Business Models
• 3.8. Industry Roadmap

4. Market Overview

• 4.1. Introduction
• 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
• 4.3. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
• 4.4. PESTLE Analysis
• 4.5. Market Outlook
  • 4.5.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0-2 Years)
  • 4.5.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3-5 Years)
  • 4.5.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5-10 Years)
• 4.6. Go-to-Market Strategy

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
• 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
• 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
• 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
• 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
• 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
• 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
• 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
• 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Biological Pesticide Market, by Type

• 8.1. Biochemical
  • 8.1.1. Enzymes
  • 8.1.2. Growth Regulators
  • 8.1.3. Pheromones
• 8.2. Botanical
  • 8.2.1. Alkaloids
  • 8.2.2. Essential Oils
  • 8.2.3. Limonoids
  • 8.2.4. Phenolics
  • 8.2.5. Pyrethrum
  • 8.2.6. Rotenoid
• 8.3. Microbial
  • 8.3.1. Bacteria
  • 8.3.2. Fungi
  • 8.3.3. Protozoa
  • 8.3.4. Viruses

9. Biological Pesticide Market, by Formulation

• 9.1. Dry
  • 9.1.1. Dusts
  • 9.1.2. Granules
  • 9.1.3. Pellets
  • 9.1.4. Wettable Powders
• 9.2. Liquid
  • 9.2.1. Emulsifiable Concentrates
  • 9.2.2. Soluble Concentrates
  • 9.2.3. Suspension Concentrates

10. Biological Pesticide Market, by Application

• 10.1. Foliar Spray
• 10.2. Post-Harvest
• 10.3. Seed Treatment
• 10.4. Soil Treatment

11. Biological Pesticide Market, by Crop Type

• 11.1. Fruits & Vegetables
• 11.2. Grains & Cereals
• 11.3. Oilseeds & Pulses
• 11.4. Turf & Ornamentals

12. Biological Pesticide Market, by Mode Of Action

• 12.1. Contact Action
• 12.2. Systemic Action

13. Biological Pesticide Market, by Region

• 13.1. Americas
  • 13.1.1. North America
  • 13.1.2. Latin America
• 13.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 13.2.1. Europe
  • 13.2.2. Middle East
  • 13.2.3. Africa
• 13.3. Asia-Pacific

14. Biological Pesticide Market, by Group

• 14.1. ASEAN
• 14.2. GCC
• 14.3. European Union
• 14.4. BRICS
• 14.5. G7
• 14.6. NATO

15. Biological Pesticide Market, by Country

• 15.1. United States
• 15.2. Canada
• 15.3. Mexico
• 15.4. Brazil
• 15.5. United Kingdom
• 15.6. Germany
• 15.7. France
• 15.8. Russia
• 15.9. Italy
• 15.10. Spain
• 15.11. China
• 15.12. India
• 15.13. Japan
• 15.14. Australia
• 15.15. South Korea

16. United States Biological Pesticide Market

17. China Biological Pesticide Market

18. Competitive Landscape

• 18.1. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
  • 18.1.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
  • 18.1.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
• 18.2. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
• 18.3. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
• 18.4. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025
• 18.5. BASF SE
• 18.6. Bayer AG
• 18.7. Biobest Group NV
• 18.8. Certis U.S.A. LLC
• 18.9. Coromandel International Limited
• 18.10. Corteva Agriscience AG
• 18.11. FMC Corporation
• 18.12. Gowan Company LLC
• 18.13. Isagro S.p.A.
• 18.14. Koppert B.V.
• 18.15. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.
• 18.16. Novozymes A/S
• 18.17. Nufarm Limited
• 18.18. PI Industries Limited
• 18.19. Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
• 18.20. Syngenta Crop Protection AG
• 18.21. UPL Limited
• 18.22. Valent BioSciences Corporation