A walk through Ben Riensche’s cornfields reveals a crop that checks nearly every box: planted on time, strong pollination, timely summer rains, few insects and minimal disease pressure. Barring trouble from Mother Nature, the Iowa farmer expects yields to meet — or even exceed — his actual production history.
So far, Riensche has a lot of company from fellow Iowa farmers. As of early August, USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service weekly crop report shows nearly 80% of the state’s corn crop is rated good to excellent.
Despite that, he thinks area farmers used significantly fewer inputs than in previous years.
“This crop went in with a lot less groceries in my area than usual,” Riensche says. “I think there was real demand destruction on crop inputs this year.”
His observation points to one of the biggest shifts occurring across U.S. agriculture. As margins tighten, growers aren’t simply slashing costs; they’re becoming far more selective about where every dollar goes. Increasingly, that means replacing branded crop inputs with post-patent (or generic) alternatives when performance justifies the savings.
Every Input Must Earn Its Keep
On Riensche’s operation, one significant change this season involved his fungicide selection. Rather than purchasing premium branded products, he chose a different route.
“We [went] with post-patent products, about half the bill,” he says. The decision wasn’t simply about spending less. It was about protecting the crop from disease while lowering cost per acre. He also adjusted application timing based on past crop observations.
“This is just my secret sauce. I think we’ve lost more yield from blights at the end of the season, and that fungicide is only good for a few weeks,” he explains.
By pairing lower-cost products with carefully timed applications, Riensche thinks he can continue protecting yield potential without paying premiums where he doesn’t see an economic advantage. He suspects other farmers adopted that same mindset this season, and it extended beyond fungicides.
“When I picked up dry fertilizer at the warehouse, the theme was, ‘We sold 30% to 40% less than usual,’” Riensche recalls. “Nitrogen got scaled back.”
A Trend Much Bigger Than One Farm Or One Product
A shift toward using post-patent crop protection products has been building for years. The move is fueled by a wave of patent expirations and growing grower confidence that many off-patent products perform comparably to branded counterparts.
Glyphosate was one of the earliest examples after its U.S. patent expired in 2000. Since then, dozens of widely used active ingredients have come off patent, dramatically expanding the range of herbicides, fungicides and insecticides available to growers.
According to Rabobank analysts, more than two dozen agrichemical active ingredient patents expired in the past five years alone. Off-patent chemistry now represents roughly 80% of the global crop protection market, with the U.S. closely reflecting that trend.
A recent grower survey tells a similar story. L.E.K. Consulting’s 2025 survey of more than 200 U.S. farmers found a steady increase in purchases of generic crop protection products. Since the COVID-19 period, row-crop and specialty-crop producers reported increasing generic purchases by an average of 5 to 6 percentage points, with row-crop growers saying they expect that share to continue growing through 2029.
The primary drivers? Lower cost and greater confidence in product quality and reliability.
Post Patent Won’t Replace Innovation
The move toward using more post-patent formulations doesn’t mean farmers are completely abandoning branded products. Instead, many growers appear to be separating products into two categories: established chemistries where post-patent products provide cost-effective options and newer technologies where branded products continue to command premiums by delivering unique value.
That distinction is becoming increasingly important as agriculture balances two competing realities: the need to manage tighter margins today while continuing to invest in the technologies that will define productivity and resilience tomorrow.
Many companies throughout the agriculture industry continue to invest heavily in research and development to bring new tools to farmers. For example, BASF says it invests 11 cents of every dollar of revenue back into research and development, fueling a pipeline of integrated solutions that range from next-generation seed traits and biologicals to advanced crop protection products.
Those investments reflect a broader reality in agriculture: Farmers need solutions that address immediate economic pressures while also helping them manage longer-term challenges.
Herbicide-resistant weeds, evolving pest pressures, disease threats and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns require more than simply lower-cost inputs. They require new technologies and agronomic approaches that help protect yield potential and build resilience. Growers appear willing to pay for innovation — but they are less willing to pay a premium simply for a familiar brand name.
Economics Are Driving The Conversation
For Riensche, the shift toward post patent products and generics reflects more than individual purchasing decisions. He thinks it also reflects structural changes within ag input markets.
“We don’t have much competition in the ag supply space,” he says. “We’re down to a few fertilizer companies, a few equipment companies, a few seed companies, and they’ve turned Washington around. It’s kind of a wall for new entrants to come in and bring new products and new competitive companies in.”
The most important takeaway might not be that farmers are buying more generic products. It’s that they’re becoming more disciplined buyers. Rather than applying blanket cost-cutting measures, many producers are asking tougher questions about each input: Does it protect yield? Does it deliver measurable value? Is there a lower-cost alternative with the same active ingredient? Does this field require the premium option, or will a generic product perform just as well?
Those questions are reshaping farmers’ purchasing decisions across the countryside. For many operations, the goal isn’t simply spending less; it’s spending smarter.
What Comes Next for Crop Protection Products
As major crop protection active ingredients mature, the registrants often attempt to preserve market share through differentiated formulations, new premixes, proprietary delivery systems, safener technologies and improved application profiles.
Generic competition typically develops after “meaningful exclusivity” expires, though the timing varies depending on remaining composition patents, formulation protections, regulatory data requirements and state registrations.
A report developed by S&P Global details herbicide, fungicide, insecticide and nematicide active ingredients coming off patent from 2020 to 2028. Examples of major U.S. products for corn and/or soybeans containing active ingredients that are recently off patent — or soon will be — can be reviewed at S&P Global Energy.
