Abamectin Returns to Low Levels: Where Could a Rebound Come From Amid Cost Pressure?

Abamectin has once again dropped into the low-price range that the market is watching closely.

According to historical price data compiled by Sino-Agri, the average monthly quoted price for abamectin in August 2026 was RMB 365,000/tonne, and for emamectin benzoate RMB 548,000/tonne — down 28.8% and 23.1% respectively from May 2025.

At the same time, soybean meal has strengthened recently and port thermal coal prices have risen markedly, so some of the input costs facing fermentation producers are increasing. Whether low prices can push producers to cut output, and whether any output cuts can keep pace with downstream restocking, will be the key to reading the market from here.

Abamectin's rebound potential is worth watching. The available data already show signs that the rate of decline is narrowing, but whether any price increase can be sustained will depend on actual supply and order volumes.

Start by placing the price back into the full cycle.

In March 2024, the average monthly quoted price for abamectin was RMB 352,500/tonne and for emamectin benzoate RMB 497,500/tonne. Both products then went through a sustained rally, reaching a period high in spring 2025. Prices pulled back in the second half of 2025, staged a brief rebound in spring 2026, and turned weak again after May.

Source: Historical price data from Sino-Agri, compiled by AgroPages. Multiple same-day records were first averaged before calculating the monthly mean; figures are not volume-weighted.

This history shows that abamectin has already been through one recovery from a low, and is now pulling back again after that recovery. The earlier low has reference value, but a company's process, costs and supply-demand conditions can all change, so a historical low should not be treated directly as the price floor for this cycle.

The rate of decline is even more worth watching.

In July 2026, abamectin's average monthly price fell by about 10.2% month on month; in August, the decline narrowed to about 2.0%. Emamectin benzoate's decline narrowed from about 4.6% to about 3.0% over the same period. Neither product has yet posted a month-on-month increase, but the pace of the rapid decline has eased.

A narrower monthly decline is not enough to confirm a reversal, but it gives a reason to keep watching for prices to bottom out. If quotations subsequently stabilize, actual transaction volumes keep pace, and supply also contracts, a price rebound would have a stronger basis.

Emamectin benzoate needs to be watched alongside abamectin. As a downstream derivative of abamectin, its production and procurement affect demand for abamectin. If both products improve in step, that helps confirm whether a recovery is passing through the value chain.

In August 2026, the monthly price gap between emamectin benzoate and abamectin was RMB 183,000/tonne. This gap is useful only for tracking price co-movement. Calculating emamectin benzoate's processing margin would still require deducting actual abamectin consumption per tonne, reaction losses, auxiliary materials, energy and other manufacturing costs. If abamectin rises first and emamectin benzoate is slow to follow, processors that buy in abamectin as a raw material may feel the pressure first.

Judging the momentum for a price increase also requires breaking the cost structure apart.

Abamectin's cost structure covers culture media, fermentation energy, extraction and purification, environmental treatment, and labor and equipment costs. Within this, corn starch and glucose provide the carbon source, while soybean meal cake and corn steep liquor can supply nitrogen and other nutrients; the specific materials used depend on the strain and the process route.

Published process patents show that changing the carbon-source combination simultaneously affects broth viscosity, oxygen-supply requirements, extraction steps and the wastewater-treatment burden. Raw-material unit prices are therefore only part of the cost picture; fermentation potency, extraction yield and energy consumption per unit also have to be factored in. A rise in the price of one raw material does not mean every company's per-tonne cost rises by the same margin.

The historical data available so far show a clear divergence in raw-material prices.

Corn prices fell as low as RMB 2,037.14/tonne at one point in 2024, recovered to RMB 2,250/tonne in 2025 — a rise of 10.45% — and have been hovering between RMB 2,380 and RMB 2,410/tonne in 2026. For companies that purchase starch rather than corn directly, corn is an upstream indicator to watch; actual cost calculations should use the real starch purchase price, to avoid double counting.

Corn starch fell from RMB 2,898/tonne to RMB 2,804/tonne in 2025. Its end-of-day reference price on September 4, 2026 was RMB 2,878/tonne, essentially flat versus 2025. At least based on recent trends, starch prices have been relatively stable.

Soybean meal's recent rise is more clear-cut. The reference price from Sunsirs rose from RMB 3,066/tonne in early August 2026 to RMB 3,328/tonne on September 4 — an increase of about 8.5%. Companies that use soy-based raw materials need to watch the procurement pressure this creates going forward.

For glucose, the only available comparison at present is historical annual data: publicly available industry sources put the average ex-factory price of crystalline glucose at RMB 3,513/tonne in 2024 and RMB 3,366/tonne in 2025. Because continuous, like-for-like data for 2026 is not available, this set of historical averages can only illustrate past movement; fermentation processes also differ from company to company, so it should not be used to infer current glucose procurement costs.

Pressure on the energy side is more pronounced. The CCTD mainstream price for 5,500 kcal port thermal coal stood at RMB 687/tonne at the end of 2025; according to an interview with Jiemian News, the mainstream quote for coal of the same calorific value at Qinhuangdao Port on September 4, 2026 was RMB 935–945/tonne.

But there is a gap between rising coal prices and a plant's actual costs — namely, purchasing contracts and how energy is supplied. Companies that generate their own steam from coal, those that use centralized steam from an industrial park, and those that buy in electricity may all feel the timing and scale of cost changes differently. A coal-price rise can signal pressure, but it cannot be converted directly, on a like-for-like basis, into higher steam and electricity costs.

Raw-material and energy series in the chart use publicly available historical data points; dashed lines simply connect known data and do not represent day-by-day movement within each period. Glucose uses annual averages only and is not spliced together with real-time spot quotes.

The clearest cost signals right now are the recent rise in soybean meal and the strength in coal prices. The pressure on abamectin producers may be increasing, but it is not yet enough to calculate a single, industry-wide cost line from this.

This pressure could still become the starting point for a rebound.

For higher-cost plants, a falling technical/active-ingredient price combined with rising input costs squeezes the return on continuing to produce. If cutting output becomes more advantageous than maintaining production, companies may reduce feedstock input, extend maintenance shutdowns, or run at lower load. Supply then falls, giving price increases some support.

What really needs tracking is whether cost pressure is translating into changes in output.

Maintenance shutdowns during the high-temperature season can reduce supply in the short term. Even once a plant restarts, if the shutdown coincides with concentrated downstream restocking, lead times can still lengthen, producing a round of short-term price increases. A rebound of this kind does not require any permanent exit of capacity from the industry.

Sustaining a longer rally would require supply and demand to stay aligned for longer. Because fermentation cycles are long, once maintenance ends, abamectin's complex fermentation process — with lengthy strain cultivation and capacity ramp-up — makes a quick return to full load difficult in the short term; if factory and channel inventories keep falling at the same time, a supply shortfall becomes hard to avoid.

For this cycle, the upward path most worth watching is: low prices driving a contraction in production, low inventories amplifying restocking demand, and that in turn pushing up transaction prices. At present, low prices and a narrowing rate of decline are already visible in the pricing data; industry operating rates, sellable inventory and order flow still need further verification.

Inventories also do not need to be fully drawn down before prices can rebound. As long as near-term deliverable supply shrinks while purchasing demand is released in a concentrated way, spot prices could rise first. But a shortage at a handful of channels is a different situation from an industry-wide inventory decline. Plant inventory, trader inventory and formulator raw-material inventory should be tracked separately.

Going forward, the market can be tracked against three scenarios:

For formulators and traders, it makes sense to pay closer attention to a possible rebound now, and to schedule purchases in batches against confirmed orders. Locking in part of genuine demand while prices are still low can ease the pressure of concentrated restocking later on; building up larger inventories, on the other hand, needs more evidence from transactions, lead times and the pace of restarts.

Abamectin has not yet produced the full set of evidence needed for a sustained rally, but a rebound does not need every indicator to improve at the same time. The narrowing rate of decline already offers one clue, and rising input costs in some areas may push the next round of supply adjustment. If output cuts materialize, deliverable inventory falls, and this lines up with downstream restocking, this low-price cycle would have a chance to see prices recover.