Reviewed September 2026 against USDA Economic Research Service, US EPA, and Stratovation Group/AgFunder News data.

Try it: Run your own numbers →

Ag biologicals are products derived from living organisms — bacteria, fungi, insects, or plant extracts — used to protect crops or improve plant growth as an alternative to synthetic chemistry. The US biopesticides market (the biological-controls slice of the wider biologicals category) was valued at $1.54 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $3.68 billion by 2034, according to GM Insights market data. Below are the specific examples of biological controls in commercial use today, the adoption numbers behind them, and the market data that explains why this category keeps growing.

Table of Contents

• Biologicals Market Size: US Numbers
• Biological Controls Examples: Categories & Agents
• How Biological Controls Work
• Adoption Data: Who’s Using Biologicals and Why
• EPA Registration and Regulatory Status
• Biostimulants and Biofertilizers: The Rest of the Category
• Biological Control Cost-Comparison Calculator
• Beyond the Farm: Forestry, Reclamation, and Mining Land
• Biologicals Market Data Table
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Try it: Run your own numbers

Biologicals Market Size: US Numbers

The biologicals market in the United States splits into two overlapping data sets depending on which research firm you check, and both are worth citing because they answer slightly different questions. GM Insights values the US biopesticides market — the segment that includes microbial insecticides, fungicides, and bioherbicides — at $1.54 billion in 2024, projected to grow to $3.68 billion by 2034. IMARC Group tracks a narrower biocontrol agents figure specifically: $942.18 million in 2024, projected to reach $2,046.30 million by 2033.

Within the biopesticides category, microbial products (bacteria, fungi, viruses) account for 65.2% of market share as of 2025, per GM Insights — meaning organisms like Bacillus thuringiensis and Trichoderma species dominate the dollar volume, not pheromone lures or macrobial predators.

Both figures are compound projections from private market-research firms, not government statistics — treat them as directional rather than exact. To get a current figure when you read this, search GM Insights’ biopesticides industry page and IMARC’s US biocontrol agents report directly; these firms update valuations as new data becomes available, typically annually.

Why the Two Numbers Diverge

“Biopesticides” is the EPA’s regulatory category and includes anything registered as a pest-control product derived from natural materials. “Biocontrol agents” as IMARC defines it leans toward living organisms used for direct pest suppression — predators, parasitoids, and microbial pathogens — and excludes some biochemical pesticides that GM Insights counts. Neither firm publishes a reconciled combined total, so cite whichever matches the claim you’re making: use biopesticides for the full regulatory category, biocontrol agents when the topic is specifically living organisms deployed against pests.

Curious how remote sensing and satellite intelligence can modernize resource exploration? Explore Farmonaut’s Satellite-Based Mineral Detection — leveraging AI, Earth observation, and multispectral technology for non-invasive, cost-effective mineral prospecting worldwide.

Biological Controls Examples: Categories & Agents

When people search for examples of biological controls, they usually want named organisms and how each is deployed — not a market-size figure. Here are the four working categories in commercial use across US row crops, orchards, and nurseries.

Biological Controls: Core Categories & Named Agents

• Beneficial Insects (Predators & Parasitoids): Lady beetles, lacewings, and parasitoid wasps suppress aphids, whiteflies, and borers in field crops, orchards, and nurseries.
• Microbial Pathogens: Beauveria bassiana (fungus, targets insects), Bacillus thuringiensis — Bt — (bacterium, targets caterpillars and beetle larvae), and Trichoderma species (fungus, targets soil-borne plant pathogens).
• Pheromone-Based Attractants: Semiochemical lures disrupt mating cycles of moths and other lepidopteran pests, reducing the next generation without a contact pesticide.
• Beneficial Nematodes: Soil-dwelling roundworms that attack root-feeding insect larvae — grubs, root weevils — with minimal impact on non-target species.

Visual List: Named Agents in US Commercial Use

• 🐞 Ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae) — predators of aphids in orchards and field crops
• 🦋 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) — targets caterpillars and mosquito larvae; also the basis for Bt corn and Bt cotton traits
• 🍄 Trichoderma spp. — suppresses soil-borne fungal diseases
• 🌱 Beneficial nematodes (Steinernema, Heterorhabditis) — soil pest suppression in vegetable systems
• 🦠 Bacillus subtilis — biological fungicide used across vegetables and grains

One of the best-documented US biological control programs is the fight against the Asian citrus psyllid in California and Florida urban and commercial citrus. Since the program began in 2011, USDA reports psyllid density has declined 70% in urban citrus plantings — a rare case where a biological control program’s population-level effect has been tracked over more than a decade rather than a single season.

How Biological Controls Work

Biological controls operate through four distinct mechanisms, and knowing which one a given product uses tells you how to time and apply it correctly.

1. Direct Suppression: Biocontrol agents like Beauveria bassiana infect target insect hosts on contact, leading to mortality within days and population suppression over subsequent generations.
2. Competition & Antagonism: Microbes like Bacillus subtilis and Trichoderma spp. colonize root and leaf surfaces first, physically outcompeting or directly antagonizing the pathogens responsible for crop disease before they establish.
3. Predation & Parasitism: Predatory and parasitic insects physically reduce pest populations; effectiveness depends on release timing matching pest life-cycle stage and on habitat that supports the beneficial species between release events.
4. Behavioral Disruption: Pheromones saturate an orchard or field with a synthetic version of a pest’s mating signal, confusing males and preventing successful mating — a non-lethal but population-level control tool.

Formulation stability — how well a living organism survives storage, shipping, and field application — remains the practical bottleneck for wider adoption of microbial products specifically, more so than efficacy itself once the product reaches the field.

Adoption Data: Who’s Using Biologicals and Why

The most current, US-specific adoption numbers for ag biologicals come from Stratovation Group’s row-crop producer survey, first fielded in 2022 and repeated in 2024, reported by AgFunder News. The topline: 45% of US row-crop producers used or purchased a biological product in 2024, up from 37% in 2022. Awareness is far higher than usage — 87% of surveyed farmers were aware of biologicals in 2024, up from 83% in 2022 — meaning the adoption gap is not an awareness problem.

Among farmers who did adopt biological products in 2024, outcomes were concrete: 85% reported increased yield as a metric of success, and 45% reported measurable profitability improvements. Within the category, awareness of biostimulants and biofertilizers specifically grew 14 percentage points between 2022 and 2024 — the fastest-growing subcategory Stratovation tracked.

Adjacent Adoption Signal: Bt Trait Crops

A related but distinct data point is genetically engineered Bt trait adoption, tracked annually by USDA’s Economic Research Service. As of the most recent ERS reporting, 87% of US domestic corn acres and 91% of US cotton acres are planted with Bt varieties — crops engineered to express the same Bacillus thuringiensis toxin used as a standalone biological insecticide. This isn’t the same market as biological control products applied as sprays or soil treatments, but it shows how deeply one biocontrol organism (Bt) has penetrated US row-crop genetics. Separately, USDA data shows 70% of US farms used Integrated Pest Management practices as of the 2022 Census of Agriculture reporting cycle — the framework within which most biological controls are deployed alongside cultural and mechanical tactics.

To get adoption numbers current to your reading date, check USDA ERS’s “Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops” database, typically updated each December, and watch for the next Stratovation Group or comparable grower-survey release, usually covered by AgFunder News and other ag trade press in the months following each survey wave.

EPA Registration and Regulatory Status

The US EPA regulates biological pest-control products under two relevant categories. Since biotechnology regulation began in March 1995, EPA has registered 12 Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs) — pesticidal substances that plants produce themselves after genetic modification, the category Bt corn and Bt cotton fall under. Separately, EPA has registered 8 genetically modified microbial pesticides as of 2024 — living microorganisms altered to improve pest-control performance, a much smaller and more tightly scrutinized category than PIPs.

These counts come directly from EPA’s regulation of biotechnology page, which is the authoritative source for current registration totals. EPA updates its biopesticide registration status on a rolling basis as new products clear review — check the agency’s dedicated biopesticides page directly for the count current to your reading date, since new registrations are added continuously rather than on a fixed schedule.

Registration status matters more for buyers than it might seem: an EPA-registered biopesticide has cleared efficacy and non-target-organism review, while a product marketed only as a “biostimulant” often has no equivalent federal pesticidal-claim review because biostimulants are regulated primarily as soil amendments or fertilizer inputs, not pesticides.

Biostimulants and Biofertilizers: The Rest of the Category

Biologicals as a market category covers three overlapping product types, and only one of them — biological controls — is what most searches for “ag biologicals” are actually after. The other two are worth distinguishing because they solve different problems.

Biostimulants

Biostimulants enhance plant vigor, nutrient efficiency, and stress tolerance without directly acting as a pesticide or a fertilizer. The category spans humic and fulvic acids, seaweed extracts, amino acids and protein hydrolysates, and beneficial microbial consortia such as Trichoderma and Azospirillum species. Per the Stratovation Group data above, awareness of biostimulants and biofertilizers as a subcategory grew 14 percentage points between 2022 and 2024 — the fastest-growing awareness segment in the survey, ahead of biological controls’ own growth rate.

Biofertilizers

Biofertilizers use microbial inoculants — Rhizobium species for legume nitrogen fixation, phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, mycorrhizal fungi — to improve nutrient availability rather than suppress pests. They’re a distinct regulatory and commercial category from biological controls but are frequently sold and marketed by the same companies, which is why market reports often bundle all three under “biologicals.”

Biological Control Cost-Comparison Calculator

USDA data documents one concrete economic comparison: biological control saved an average of $22,800 per hectare versus synthetic pesticide programs in high-value fruit orchard operations. Use the calculator below to scale that figure to your own acreage and compare it against your current per-acre spray program cost.

Assumptions: applies USDA’s documented $22,800/hectare savings benchmark, which was measured specifically in high-value fruit orchard operations comparing biological control against synthetic pesticide programs — it will not transfer directly to row crops, where per-acre pesticide spend and pest pressure are both typically much lower. Excludes labor, application equipment, and any yield-side effects. Use it as a starting comparison, not a guaranteed outcome for your operation.

Beyond the Farm: Forestry, Reclamation, and Mining Land

Want to see how 3D remote sensing maps can guide sustainable land and mineral site management? View a sample report at satellite-driven 3D mineral prospectivity mapping — useful for mining, forestry, and reclamation planners who need data-driven site insight before committing to a revegetation or biological-input program.

Forestry Nurseries & Plantation Establishment

• Beneficial microbial inoculants improve seedling root establishment during transplant and early growth stages.
• Biostimulant treatments can reduce irrigation dependency during establishment on low-fertility or degraded soils.

Degraded Land Reclamation & Mining Rehabilitation

• Biofertilizers and biostimulants paired with native species plantings can accelerate ground cover establishment and stabilize slopes on disturbed sites.
• Microbial inoculants reduce the environmental risk associated with chemical runoff on reclamation sites near waterways.
• Projects using biological rather than chemical inputs typically have an easier path to meeting timber-certification and ESG-reporting requirements, though specific standards vary by certifying body — check the requirements of your target certification (e.g., FSC, SFI) directly rather than assuming biological inputs alone satisfy them.

Biologicals Market Data Table

Frequently Asked Questions

What are examples of biological controls used in US agriculture?

Named examples in commercial use include Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for caterpillar and beetle-larvae control, Trichoderma species for soil fungal disease suppression, Beauveria bassiana for insect control, beneficial nematodes for root-feeding pest larvae, ladybird beetles and lacewings as aphid predators, and pheromone mating-disruption lures for orchard moth pests. The Asian citrus psyllid biological control program in California and Florida is one of the most documented, with a 70% density decline in urban citrus since it began in 2011, per USDA.

How big is the biologicals market in the United States?

By GM Insights’ measure, the US biopesticides market was $1.54 billion in 2024, projected to reach $3.68 billion by 2034. IMARC Group’s narrower biocontrol agents figure was $942.18 million in 2024, projected to reach $2,046.30 million by 2033. Both are private market-research projections — check each firm’s page directly for the estimate current to your reading date.

What percentage of US farmers use biological products?

45% of US row-crop producers reported using or purchasing biological products in 2024, up from 37% in 2022, according to Stratovation Group’s grower survey reported by AgFunder News. Awareness was higher, at 87%, meaning most of the gap between awareness and use is not an information problem.

How do biological controls compare economically to synthetic pesticides?

The one quantified US comparison in USDA data is specific to high-value fruit orchards: biological control programs saved an average of $22,800 per hectare versus synthetic pesticide programs. Per-acre or per-application pricing for individual biological products is not standardized or publicly tabulated the way commodity pesticide pricing is — get a current quote directly from a biocontrol supplier for your crop and region.

Are biological controls regulated by the EPA?

Yes. EPA has registered 12 Plant-Incorporated Protectants since biotechnology regulation began in March 1995, and 8 genetically modified microbial pesticides as of 2024. Registration status is a meaningful signal of efficacy and non-target-organism review — verify a specific product’s registration on EPA’s biopesticides page before purchase.

Can biological controls fully replace synthetic pesticides?

Not universally. USDA reports 70% of US farms already use Integrated Pest Management, the framework that combines biological controls with cultural, mechanical, and limited targeted chemical methods rather than replacing chemistry outright. Among farmers who did adopt biologicals in 2024, 85% reported a yield increase and 45% reported profitability gains — but these are grower-reported outcomes from a specific survey, not a guarantee for every crop or region.

Conclusion

The ag biologicals and biological controls category in the US has moved from a niche add-on to a documented, growing share of pest management: 45% grower adoption in 2024, a $1.54–$3.68 billion biopesticides market trajectory through 2034, and a defined federal registration path through EPA. What hasn’t changed is the underlying method for verifying whether it’s worth adopting on a specific farm — check EPA registration status for the specific product, get regional efficacy data for the specific pest and crop, and run the economics against your own per-acre spend rather than a national average.

Interested in applying satellite-powered analytics to your mining, forestry, or resource management project? Get a quote here.

Have specific queries or require tailored advice? Contact Us for a confidential discussion.

Don’t forget to map your mining site here to unlock satellite-based mineral intelligence and sustainable land management in moments.

Note: Figures in this article are drawn from USDA Economic Research Service, US EPA, GM Insights, IMARC Group, and Stratovation Group/AgFunder News as cited inline. Market-size projections are estimates from private research firms and should be verified against each source’s current publication before use in financial decisions.