Foresight Agronomics 2025 Biostimulant Benchmark Report Series Highlights and Analysis

Within Upstream, a central theme has been that biostimulants have less of a technology problem and more of a positioning and understanding problem, or said another way, a commercial execution problem. Given that, I was excited when Layne Harris, a plant molecular biologist at Foresight Agronomics, launched the 2025 Biostimulant Benchmark Report Series, an independently run study of how corn responds to commercial biostimulants at the gene level.

The premise is unique for the biostimulant category. Fifteen commercial biostimulants were each applied once as a foliar treatment to corn. RNA sequencing then measured gene expression in the leaves at day 3 and day 14, compared with a water control. Gene expression is the plant's earliest layer of response, so it shows how a product is working inside the plant, not just whether something changed at harvest.

This week I dug specifically into the Commercial Playbook, one of six reports in the series, which turns that data into guidance on how to position, claim and message these products, and what to test next.

The products are anonymized, which keeps the focus on how products behave rather than whose product it is. Foresight is also upfront that this is not a yield or field-performance trial, and each report spells out what the data can and can't show.

To learn more about the 2025 Biostimulant Benchmark Report Series, check out here:

Index:

Given Foresight Agronomics leverages transcriptomics, I wanted to briefly overview what that entails.

Omics covers the tools that measure a plant's biology, such as genomics (its DNA), transcriptomics (which genes are switched up or down) and metabolomics (the compounds it produces). This report uses transcriptomics: RNA sequencing showing which genes a product turns up or down, and when.

For a category often judged only by yield at harvest, it can give companies an early, measurable understanding on how a product is working inside the plant, which is the foundation for sharper timing, claims and positioning.

Timing was one component that stood out to me. The report explicitly called out that "the clearest result in the study is not which pathways' gene expression a product changes, but when."

We can see in the below chart that across ten products there were around 1.5 to 2.5x more genes changed at day 14 than at day 3, four peaked early and then largely receded:

This is interesting when we think about broad based claims of biostimulants across seed treatment, in-crop herbicide, or fungicide timing and surrounding specific focal point. Note that bigger response doesn’t mean “better,” but if you understand what genes are being changed, when, then as a company you have a better ability to understand when and where to trial, position and focus the product based on what those specific genes influence with a specific crop and considering how it interacts with other factors:

Next, the positioning map plots when each product's response begins vs. how long it remains and how distinctive its early route was, and it calls out white space, noting that "no product sits near 1×, the response that is fast and still holding at two weeks."

This even gets into something I have discussed with Layne before: what does it look like to formulate a product that has a slow release capability? Alternatively, does it suggest an opportunity for in-furrow application where a steady uptake over a longer period of time occurs based on what the results are?

The work that Foresight does begins to be very tangible surrounding how it can influence a products commercial focus.

One anecdote I liked was surrounding a hypothetical grower that put a defense-priming product on at V10, after common rust already had a foothold, and concluded it "didn't work," even though it still reduced disease severity by about 10%.

The conclusion is that the product just went on at the wrong time based on its mode of action. What the playbook suggests is that "if a product works by adjusting how a plant responds to its conditions, rather than by supplying something the plant is missing, then inconsistency is what we should expect to see."

This again is an insight that needs to be factored surrounding biostimulant positioning and target applications, and even what gets co-formulated with those products — whether it is a nutrient, or a multi-mode of action biostimulant.

Nothing is a silver bullet and there is a call out surrounding the limitation of gene expression as a stand alone. Layne uses a detective analogy throughout, noting that "a detective builds the case, but a jury delivers the verdict," and the Building the Case image shows how expression data, physiology, imposed stress and multi-site field trials each support a different strength of claim, which ultimately shows there is a ton of science, but that ultimately it is an art to decipher what the best route is commercially:

This is where the playbook overlaps with things I have published. In The Biostimulant Playbook, the linchpin frameworks are the Sauce Paradox and the Funnel of Specificity, with the idea that the more problems a product claims to solve, the less anyone believes it solves any of them, so you win by narrowing to a specific crop, stage and condition.

The claims guide helps give that specificity a backbone, sorting language into what expression data supports, what needs “care” and what is out of reach without further work.

For manufacturers, the product profiles, positioning map and trial toolkit are strong ways to set sampling windows, add a control and choose endpoints before a trial rather than after. There are also explicit outlines of how to position specific product types based on the work, with one microbial product example below:

For distributors, retailers and agronomists the report enables a strategic and structured way to build portfolios across timing patterns and types of molecules to ensure there isn’t overlap in the portfolio, which is as much an agronomic benefit as it is a working capital and efficiency benefit. And, I think, also gives them an edge when it comes to being ahead of the biostimulant companies that come in and make claims or position products to their teams.

Explicitly for agronomists, there are seven worked scenarios that tie each timing pattern to the interventions that growers already make. For example, below is a corn scenario where the value is framed as "yield stability, not yield ceiling: kernels saved in a bad year," with a seaweed extract play timed around V10 to V12, ahead of the pollination window:

The report shares a comment that I agree with "growers don't buy biostimulants because they are biostimulants. They buy an outcome."

No farmer cares what molecule is in the product. They care about what that molecule does for them and if you understand explicitly what it does and when in order to get the best chance at a positive result, your product will disproportionately win because it has the best chance of delivering that outcome.

The Commercial Playbook helps give the whole value chain a framework for timing, claims, trialling and ultimately, where to play and how to win in a commercial setting amongst a red ocean of competition.

Gene expression, as stated in the report, “is where the case begins, not where it ends," and for a segment that has ample opportunity to improve its commercial execution, I think leveraging some of the tools at Foresight Agronomics, including the Commercial Playbook become a fantastic starting point.

Foresight Agronomics is a biologicals research firm founded by plant molecular biologist Layne Ellen Harris, Ph.D., after nearly a decade in industry research. It uses molecular biology and genomics, especially transcriptomics, to show manufacturers how crops are actually responding to their biological products. The goal is to turn research data into a clear understanding of how a product works in the plant, in the field and for the grower. Its services cover genomics integration, research strategy, and teaching and speaking.

Learn more about The 2025 Biostimulant Benchmark Report Series.