Resistance management, rather than replacing conventional pesticides, is emerging as one of the biggest drivers behind the shift. Elriza Theron, operations manager at CropLife South Africa, told Farmer’s Weekly that several factors were converging to drive biologicals into the mainstream.
“Farmers are dealing with increasing resistance pressure and need products with different modes of action. Biological products can provide additional tools within an integrated pest management (IPM) programme and may help reduce reliance on a limited number of conventional modes of action.”
Theron said export markets were also accelerating demand as retailers and importing countries imposed stricter residue limits and phased out certain active ingredients.
“Biological and lower-residue solutions can be especially valuable towards the end of a production programme, where growers must manage pre-harvest intervals and market-specific maximum residue limits,” Theron said.
This need is increasingly reflected in product development. Bayer recently introduced FLiPPER, a biological insecticide for crops including citrus, table grapes, and blueberries. The product has no pre-harvest interval, leaves no detectable residue, and is exempt from European Union maximum residue limit testing. It also offers a new mode of action for resistance management, with no known resistance or cross-resistance reported.
Angeline Verster, commercial strategy integrator for horticulture and cereals at Bayer, said growers were increasingly incorporating biological products into resistance management and IPM programmes alongside conventional crop protection products.
Another recent launch was RealIPM’s Sluxx HP, a ferric phosphate-based molluscicide approved for use in organic farming. Unlike older-generation slug and snail baits, it breaks down into naturally occurring iron and phosphate while posing minimal risk to beneficial organisms, wildlife, and water systems.
Melina Lewis, marketing manager at RealIPM, believes that biological crop protection had moved beyond its niche status.
“The industry has reached a turning point. As regulatory standards tighten, many traditional chemical-based products are being phased out, opening the door for biological alternatives.”
She added that growers’ attitudes had also changed markedly.
“Five years ago, biologicals were often met with scepticism. Today, growers understand how to integrate them effectively into their programmes and actively seek out trusted, scientifically backed brands.”
While innovation is accelerating, CropLife warned that biologicals are not yet capable of replacing conventional products across all production systems. Theron said softer chemistry was expanding farmers’ toolbox, but gaps remained where rapid knockdown, prolonged residual control, or reliable performance under severe pest pressure was still required.
Minor crops such as herbs, speciality vegetables, and niche fruit also remained underserved because of the high cost of generating registration data relative to market size.
There were also continuing gaps in effective management of resistant weeds in major field crops; nematode control, particularly where older tools were being restricted or even banned; post-harvest protection where residue and export-market requirements were especially stringent; and crops where only a small number of modes of action were available, increasing resistance risk.
Lewis added that the development of highly effective, broad-spectrum biological herbicides was urgently needed.
“While we have niche biological weed control options, the industry still needs a scalable biological herbicide that can truly compete with traditional synthetic standards like glyphosate on a commercial farming scale.”
Although research and commercial investment in biologicals had increased substantially, Theron said South Africa’s regulatory system remained one of the biggest obstacles to getting new technologies onto farms.
“While there are multiple obstacles to greater uptake–research costs, regulation, registration timelines, farmer adoption–in the current South African context, regulatory capacity, and predictable registration timelines are the most immediate constraints.”
