By Carol Miller, Content Lead,American Vegetable Grower
Growers aren’t asking for miracles. They want math that holds up in the field, programs that fit their spray schedules, and results that show up at harvest. That simple expectation guided a recent conversation we had with Keith Vodrazka, CEO of Evoia; Greg Rogers, Director of Technical Marketing and Communications at Certis Biologicals; and Nathan Kemp, Technical Development Manager for Rovensa Next.
A Familiar Rule of Thumb
“I think growers want to see it proved,” Vodrazka said. “The proof is really something, rather than it just being in numbers. I think it’s proving it to them on their own farm.”
He still uses the traditional ROI measure of increased revenue-to-cost when introducing a new input.
Keep Reading →
“In the past, I’ve kind of used a rule of three-to-one, but honestly, I think you’re better to shoot for higher,” he said. “Especially with new products that are launched into the market.”
Rogers agreed that dollars-and-cents ROI isn’t the only payoff.
“Part of the return on investment is being a little cleaner and a little greener,” he said. “Consumers want it. If you’re exporting, regulators want it.”
Kemp kept the equation simple.
“Nothing represents yield quite like yield,” he said.
Proof that Travels in Combines, not Spreadsheets
Over and over, our group discussion returned to a single theme: data matters, but proof sticks when it’s earned side-by-side in the field.
“We put our product in the field, and we went out and saw them apply it,” Vodrazka said. “In one case I was there with the grower when he harvested that trial in his field. It wasn’t a small-plot trial. I got to ride the combine with him and saw the numbers for myself. He clearly saw the ROI, two years in a row.”
Rogers offered a specialty-crop story that mirrored the same lesson. A large pepper operation was losing ground to bacterial disease and had reached the limits of standard copper programs.
“This is about four years ago now,” he said. “I was just out this summer with one of the growers, standing in peppers as far as you could see, and they all had our product because it worked.”
“Part of the return on investment is being a little cleaner and a little greener. Consumers want it. If you’re exporting, regulators want it.” – Keith Vodrazka, Evoia
Kemp recalled a similar moment in soybeans after a retailer used one of Rovensa Next’s biological programs to tackle white mold.
“We see about a 15 percent reduction in disease, and we were getting about a 6½-bushel-per-acre bump,” he said. “It’s really neat when it kind of gets reverse engineered. We conduct the research, and then the research starts to match the field results.”
When Payback Hides in Plain Sight
Yield may still be the anchor, but the panelists agreed that biological ROI often hides in other forms: quality, market access, and risk management.
“There’s value in spending a little more for products that allow you to sell your product wherever you want to sell it,” Rogers said. He pointed to examples like cranberries exported to Europe, where residue limits dictate what growers can spray, or the profitability gap between conventional and organic apple programs.
Kemp added that ease of use and saved time matter too.
“If you can save a spray, that’s a very direct savings,” he said. “There are so many different scenarios—we’re dealing with a crop, which is a host, a disease, and the environment.”
Vodrazka urged realism when setting expectations.
“Going into this year, I took a look at a few enterprise budgets on row crops, and it was not pretty,” he said. “The grower is underwater. Price and value both have to be realistic.”
Rotation Usually Beats the Tank
One practical outcome of the discussion was clear: for most programs, rotating biological and conventional products tends to outperform tank mixing them.
“As we look at this, we’ve tried it by itself, in rotation, and in tank mixes,” Rogers said. “Almost every single time, the rotation outperforms any of the other ways of using these products.”
Kemp has seen the same pattern.
“I would absolutely agree from everything I’ve seen,” he said. “Interjecting a biological mode of action strengthens programs and supports resistance management.”
“That’s a huge return on investment,” Rogers added. “If you can use those high-powered conventionals for another five or ten years because you’re managing them properly, that’s real money.”
Compatibility remains a common concern, especially with living actives.
“Tank-mix compatibility has got to be the biggest question that we get,” Kemp said. “Don’t put them together before you add water. Water’s a good thing—we like that in there.”
Vodrazka noted that universal testing isn’t feasible, but thoughtful formulation work helps.
“Testing compatibility across everything in the market is virtually impossible,” he said. “But we look at the types and categories of products that are normal practice for the grower to use. We’ve tried to do our homework.”
“We’ve tried it by itself, in rotation, and in tank mixes. Almost every single time, the rotation outperforms any of the other ways of using these products.” – Greg Rogers, Certis Biologicals
Don’t Add Passes
Regardless of the crop, all three agreed that ROI falls apart if biologicals add trips across the field.
“It’s either got to fit in with what the grower’s doing, which means it has to be compatible, or it has to substitute,” Vodrazka said. “Asking him to do an extra pass would not be a good idea.”
“We generally do not want to add passes to a production system,” Kemp said. “That tends to be pretty expensive.”
Residue-free products, he added, can sometimes allow a late-season spray where chemistry cannot—another form of value.
Consistency and credibility
For growers deciding which biologicals to trust, consistency remains a sticking point.
“Getting consistency—that’s a question I would bet all three of us have heard over and over again,” Vodrazka said. “Synthetic chemistry sets a high standard, and getting consistency is really key.”
That makes formulation quality and independent data critical.
“Having that sort of really independent third party say, ‘Hey, this stuff works.’ That’s highly valuable,” Rogers said. “And sometimes they’ll say it didn’t. Either way, it builds trust.”
“We generally do not want to add passes to a production system. That tends to be pretty expensive.” – Nathan Kemp, Rovensa Next
A Cautious Optimism
The panel concluded with cautious optimism about where biologicals ROI is headed.
“We’re really in the beginning part of the evolution of this industry,” Vodrazka said. “Maybe the grower’s skeptical today because he hasn’t yet seen the consistency, but I’m really hopeful and have high expectations of what the market will eventually get to. It’s exciting.”
