The biostimulant category is not winning grower trust through bigger promises, but through narrower claims, better agronomic explanations and proof that fits the farmer’s field.
Biostimulants are gaining broader acceptance with growers, but the shift might not be because the products themselves have suddenly changed. Instead, new tracking work from Stratus Ag Research suggests the category may be benefiting from something more fundamental: better expectation-setting.
After four years of tracking grower and retailer attitudes toward biostimulants in North America, Stratus found more farmers using biostimulants in 2025, higher satisfaction among users and greater commitment to continue using the products. In the U.S. grower report, farmer attitudes toward the category also continued to improve. In 2023, only 8% of farmers placed themselves in the “biostimulants are valuable” category. By 2025, that number had increased to 25%.
The Stratus study is conducted through online surveys sent to its database of U.S. and Canadian farmers after harvest, with annual sample sizes generally ranging from 800 to 1,000 growers and retailers. The findings cited here are primarily from the U.S. grower report, with additional context from Stratus’ retailer tracking.
Sarah Healy, author of the Stratus report, says the data show a category moving in the right direction — but she is careful not to oversimplify what is driving the shift. The question, she says, is whether that higher satisfaction reflects improved product performance, more realistic grower expectations or better communication from manufacturers and retailers.
Her answer: likely some combination of all three. But the clearest industry lesson may be that messaging matters.
“Anecdotally, what we’re seeing from messaging from some of these companies is that they have been softening some of the claims and talking about agronomic-specific problems that biostimulants can help address on the farm,” Healy says.
That shift matters because biostimulants are highly context-dependent. Performance can vary by geography, crop, soil condition, fertility program, weather and the specific stress present at the time of application.
“It’s not really about the active ingredient. It’s not really about the category,” Healy says. “It’s about what the product can deliver. They’re seeking out a product that can help them solve an agronomic-specific problem.”
PGRs Helped, But Didn’t Explain the Whole Increase
One important caveat in the 2025 Stratus data is the addition of plant growth regulators, or PGRs, to the study. PGRs had not been included in previous years, and they tend to be viewed by some in the industry as more consistent or closer to a conventional crop input than some other biostimulant categories.
Stratus also analyzed the results with PGRs removed from the dataset.
“The increases in use and satisfaction were still statistically significant,” Healy says.
That matters because it suggests the 2025 gains were not simply the result of broadening the category definition. Even without PGRs, Stratus still saw significant increases in use and satisfaction across the other biostimulant categories tracked.
Satisfaction Is Not Equal Across Categories
Biostimulants are often discussed as one market, but growers do not rate every category the same.
Healy says seaweed extracts and organic acids consistently rank near the top in grower satisfaction. PGRs also performed well after being added to the U.S. study in 2025. N-fixing biologicals, by contrast, remain at the bottom.
“In the U.S., seaweed extracts and organic acids have the highest satisfaction,” Healy says. “Nitrogen-fixing biologicals have the lowest satisfaction, and that’s reflected in commitment as well.”
Part of that difference may come down to expectations. Growers using seaweed extracts or organic acids may be looking for plant health, stress tolerance or other benefits that align more closely with what the products can realistically provide. They also may be more experienced users of biostimulants.
“The expectation for something like a seaweed extract or an organic acid is more reflective of what the product is actually delivering,” Healy says.
By comparison, Healy notes that N-fixing biologicals have had a higher percentage of first-time users, which can add volatility to satisfaction scores if expectations are not well managed.
The Nitrogen-Fixing Biological Lesson
No segment illustrates the cost of overpromising better than nitrogen-fixing biologicals.
Healy says N-fixing biologicals continue to have the lowest grower satisfaction and commitment compared with other biostimulant categories, such as seaweed extracts and organic acids. Yet 2025 also marked an important turning point: satisfaction with N-fixing biologicals increased for the first time in the four years Stratus has tracked the category.
“This was the first year in the four years that I’ve been doing this that we saw an increase in satisfaction,” Healy says. “But it’s still at the bottom.”
The category’s credibility problem, she says, can be traced in part to early messaging that set very high expectations.
“Overpromising and having very strong messaging around what these products can deliver and trying to get on every acre in every year didn’t work,” Healy says. “That is the biggest lesson from the nitrogen-fixing category.”
Early positioning around some N-fixing biologicals focused on replacing synthetic nitrogen, maintaining yield or boosting yield while reducing traditional nitrogen applications. That message generated attention, but it also created a large gap between what many farmers expected and what they saw in the field.
“There were some really strong claims about replacing synthetic nitrogen and maintaining yield or boosting yield,” Healy says. “That gap between performance and expectations is really prevalent with the N-fixing category.”
More recently, however, Healy says company messaging has begun to shift. Instead of framing these products primarily as synthetic nitrogen replacements or yield builders, some companies are emphasizing nitrogen use efficiency, nitrogen delivered near the root, consistency and risk management.
That softer, more agronomically specific positioning may be helping growers evaluate the products against a more realistic standard.
“The expectation for what the product can deliver is starting to match,” Healy says. “I think I attribute that to the softening of the messages from the company, the focus on nitrogen use efficiency and consistent performance.”
Retailers Are Still Cautious
That improvement did not translate into greater retailer confidence. In fact, the retail channel appeared to move in the opposite direction.
In the U.S., Healy says 35% of retailers surveyed by Stratus sold nitrogen-fixing biologicals in 2024. In 2025, that dropped to 24%, a statistically significant decline. In Canada, the share of retailers selling N-fixing biologicals fell from 48% in 2024 to 39.4% in 2025.
That decline is notable because other biostimulant categories saw more retailers selling them.
“More growers are using them and satisfaction increased overall across the category among farmers, but at the channel, they seem to be recommending them less,” Healy says.
The hesitation, she says, is understandable. Retailers put their own credibility on the line when they recommend a product, especially one tied to a grower’s nitrogen program.
“The perceived risk of recommending an N-fixing biological seems to be a barrier,” Healy says. “The reputational risk and the uncertainty of performance are part of recommending that product.”
That creates a disconnect. Growers may be becoming more open to the category, but retailers still need stronger proof, clearer positioning and more confidence before making broad recommendations.
Local Proof Still Matters Most
If there is a formula for building credibility in biostimulants, Healy says advice from a trusted advisor was the top reason biostimulant users said they tried a product in the first place, followed by reliable trial data.
“What’s going to get their foot in the door is that recommendation from a trusted source,” Healy says. “Then they want the data to be as close to home as possible.”
That means local trials, side-by-sides, multiple years of data and results from farms that look like their own.
“The closer to the farm, the better,” Healy says. “Just showing one of those bar graphs with the yield benefit over 10 years is great, but it’s not going to make a difference until they can actually see it performing themselves on their farm.”
That creates both an opportunity and a burden for manufacturers and retailers. To sell biostimulants successfully, they need more than a product sheet. They need local proof, clear use instructions and the confidence to tell a grower when the product may not be the right fit.
“It’s not apply it no matter what,” Healy says. “It could be a situation where there’s no limiting factor in the field and you may not see a result.”
The Retailer Playbook: Agronomy First
For retailers, the implication is clear: don’t sell the category first. Solve the agronomic problem first.
Biostimulants may be attractive to retailers because of grower interest and potential margin opportunities, but Healy says the recommendation still has to be grounded in agronomy. That means understanding the crop, the stressor, the fertility program, the timing and the expected outcome.
“Bottom line, they have to perform,” Healy says. “Performance is table stakes.”
But performance claims need support. Healy says farmers increasingly want companies and retailers to explain how a product works in the plant or soil, how it complements the existing program and why it fits a specific situation.
That is a tall order for retail sales teams already managing a large number of products and brands. Healy says manufacturers have a responsibility to equip the channel with better tools.
“I think that’s exactly what the farmer needs,” Healy says. “But it’s up to the manufacturer to make sure that the retailer has the right toolkit.”
That toolkit should include trial data, training, clear positioning, application guidance and realistic expectations. It should also include the courage to avoid blanket claims.
The biostimulant market remains fragmented. Healy says the U.S. grower study included more than 100 brands, yet only a few were used by more than 5% of growers. In a crowded market, clearer positioning may become one of the most important differentiators.
For now, the Stratus data suggest biostimulants are moving from curiosity toward broader consideration. But the next phase of growth may depend less on bold promises and more on disciplined communication.
The brands that last will likely be the ones that explain where the product fits, prove it under local conditions and set expectations that match what the product can actually deliver.
