Loam Bio
Agricultural biotech developing microbial seed treatments and carbon-farming services to store carbon in soil.
Website: https://www.loambio.com/
Cover Block
PUBLIC
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Name | Loam Bio |
| Tagline | Agricultural biotech developing microbial seed treatments and carbon-farming services to store carbon in soil. |
| Headquarters | Orange, NSW, Australia [AgFunderNews, October 2021] |
| Founded | 2019 [AgFunderNews, October 2021] |
| Stage | Series B [CEFC, February 2023] |
| Business model | B2B |
| Industry | Agtech |
| Technology | Biotech / Life Sciences |
| Geography | Oceania |
| Growth profile | Venture Scale |
| Founding team | Co-Founders (3+) [Business News Australia] [Loam Bio] |
| Funding label | $100M+ |
| Total disclosed | Approximately US$103,000,000, based on the disclosed US$30 million Series A in October 2021 and US$73 million Series B in February 2023 [AgFunderNews, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023] |
Links
Public sources
- Website: https://www.loambio.com/
- Careers: https://www.loambio.com/us/careers/
Executive Summary
PUBLIC Loam Bio develops microbial seed treatments and carbon-farming services aimed at increasing the amount of carbon stored in agricultural soils, a proposition that has attracted meaningful climate-tech capital because it tries to fit sequestration into existing cropping systems rather than asking farmers to redesign the farm from scratch [AgFunderNews, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023] [Business News Australia]. Founded in 2019, initially as Soil Carbon Co., the company has positioned itself at the intersection of ag biotech and carbon markets, with operations in Australia and North America and, as of 2021, four laboratories and field activity across 25 sites [AgFunderNews, October 2021] [Startup Daily, October 2021].
The commercial stack is straightforward on paper: CarbonBuilder is a microbial seed inoculum and SecondCrop is the associated carbon-farming program, with the differentiation resting on the claim that microbial inputs can both improve on-farm economics and support higher-quality soil carbon outcomes, though much of the performance evidence in the reviewed material remains company-supplied [CEFC] [Loam Bio] [Farm Progress]. Publicly identified founders include Guy Hudson, Tegan Nock, Mick Wettenhall, Guy Webb, Joanne Brennan, and Nityaa Khaire, and the disclosed team background suggests a blend of strategy, agronomy, product, and commercial experience rather than a single-lab spinout profile; leadership also shifted in 2026 when Rob Hranac was appointed CEO and Hudson moved to executive chairman [MSEQ.VC] [Forbes, March 2022] [LinkedIn, Retrieved 2026] [Loam Bio, June 2026].
The financing record is substantial for an Australian agtech company: Loam raised a A$40 million Series A in October 2021, then a A$105 million Series B in February 2023, with backing from TIME Ventures, Lowercarbon Capital, Main Sequence, CEFC, Horizons Ventures, Acre Venture Partners, Grok Ventures, Wollemi Capital, and others; reporting around the Series B said total funding had reached about A$150 million [AgFunderNews, October 2021] [Startup Daily, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023] [Business News Australia] [Agri Investor]. The business model is B2B, selling into farmer and agricultural-partner workflows while also participating in the economics of carbon projects, which gives the company more than one route to monetization but also exposes it to two adoption hurdles at once, agronomic proof and carbon-credit credibility [CEFC] [Business News Australia].
Over the next 12 to 18 months, the main points to watch are whether Loam can convert trial and pilot evidence into repeat commercial adoption, whether third-party validation of yield and carbon outcomes broadens beyond company materials, and whether its go-to-market can scale across geographies without losing scientific or program integrity [Loam Bio] [Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal] [CEFC, February 2023]. The setup is interesting because the company has capital, category relevance, and a product that appears designed for low-friction farm adoption; the remaining question is whether that design translates into durable unit economics and trusted carbon outcomes at commercial scale [CEFC, February 2023] [Business News Australia] [Startup Daily, October 2021].
Company-stated, unverified -- This section combines independently reported funding and operating footprint with product and performance claims that are still materially company-supplied.
Taxonomy Snapshot
| Axis | Value |
|---|---|
| Stage | Series B |
| Business Model | B2B |
| Industry / Vertical | Agtech |
| Technology Type | Biotech / Life Sciences |
| Geography | Oceania |
| Growth Profile | Venture Scale |
| Founding Team | Co-Founders (3+) |
| Funding | $100M+ total disclosed, approximately $103,000,000 |
How the Company Got Here
PUBLIC
Loam Bio traces back to 2019, when the company was founded in Orange, New South Wales, Australia, initially under the name Soil Carbon Co [Loam Bio] [AgFunderNews, October 2021]. The basic proposition is unusually specific for an agtech startup of its age: microbial seed treatments paired with a carbon-farming program, aimed at increasing the amount of carbon crops move into soil while fitting into existing farm practice rather than requiring a new land-use model [Loam Bio] [CEFC].
The public record shows a business that moved quickly from formation into capital-intensive scale-up. By October 2021, Loam had rebranded from Soil Carbon Co and announced a Series A round led by TIME Ventures [AgFunderNews, October 2021]. Startup Daily reported at that point that the company was operating four laboratories, running field activity at 25 sites, and maintaining teams in Australia and the United States, which is early evidence that management was building for commercial reach, not just lab-stage development [Startup Daily, October 2021].
The next clear milestone came in February 2023, when CEFC announced Loam's A$105 million Series B, stating that the round increased Loam's total funding and deepened CEFC's support for the company's soil-carbon approach [CEFC, February 2023]. Loam's own public materials identify products including CarbonBuilder and the SecondCrop program, and the company later announced a leadership transition in June 2026, with co-founder Guy Hudson moving to executive chairman and Rob Hranac appointed CEO effective 1 July [Loam Bio, June 2026] [Loam Bio]. The chronology suggests a company shifting from technical validation and field deployment toward broader commercialization, though the public evidence remains strongest on financing and product positioning rather than on disclosed customer adoption.
Lightly corroborated -- Founded year, location, rebrand, and 2026 leadership transition are supported by company and third-party sources; several milestone details rely in part on company materials and CEFC disclosures.
Product and Technology
MIXED
Loam Bio’s product story is relatively clear even where third-party technical validation is still thin. Public materials and investor-backed coverage describe a two-part offering: CarbonBuilder™, a microbial seed treatment applied to crops, and SecondCrop™, a carbon-farming program intended to help farmers participate in soil-carbon projects [CEFC] [AgFunderNews, October 2021]. In plain terms, the company is not selling software first. It is selling a biological input tied to a services layer, with the commercial claim that farmers can build soil carbon inside existing cropping systems rather than shift to a separate land-use model [CEFC] [Business News Australia].
The technical mechanism, as described by the company and CEFC, rests on microbial seed inoculation and endophytic fungi intended to increase how much carbon plants move into soil and how stably that carbon is retained over time [CEFC] [Loam Bio]. That framing is directionally consistent across sources, but most performance detail remains company-led. Loam says CarbonBuilder™ products are released when replicated trials show consistent yield improvement, and company product pages cite crop-specific trial outcomes for barley, pulses, and wheat, including both yield and tCO2e-per-hectare effects [Loam Bio]. One external farming trade source also reported a barley trial near Moree, New South Wales, with a 10.3% yield increase and additional carbon retained relative to control plots [Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal].
SecondCrop™ extends the product into a farmer-facing carbon program. CEFC describes it as a more supported and flexible route into carbon projects, while Loam’s US site says the program is designed for corn and soybean growers seeking carbon-credit participation without changing equipment, rotation, or tillage practices [CEFC] [Loam Bio USA]. Farm Progress separately characterized the model as outcome-based, with an emphasis on the stability and performance of stored carbon for higher-quality credits [Farm Progress]. The investable question is less whether the product suite is legible, it is, and more whether the biological effect, credit quality, and farm-level economics continue to hold up outside company-run and early-stage trial settings.
Company-stated, unverified -- Product architecture is corroborated by CEFC and press coverage, but the core technical and performance claims in this section rely materially on company-controlled sources, with limited independent validation.
Where the Demand Sits
PUBLIC
The market matters now because Loam Bio sits at the intersection of two spending pools that have both moved from policy discussion to budget line, agricultural input spend and carbon-market formation, but the public record is still much stronger on funding momentum than on independently verified market size for microbial soil-carbon products specifically [AgFunderNews, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023].
A strict TAM, SAM, and SOM build is not possible from the cited materials because no named third-party market report for Loam Bio's exact category appears in the source set. The defensible public read is narrower: Loam is selling into broad row-crop agriculture while also attaching to carbon-project participation for farmers, with CarbonBuilder positioned as a seed-applied microbial input and SecondCrop as a programmatic route into carbon projects [CEFC] [Business News Australia] [Loam Bio]. That framing suggests an addressable market shaped less by pure biotech adoption and more by whether growers will pay for a new agronomic input that can fit existing operations, and whether carbon-credit economics remain credible enough to support farmer participation [Business News Australia] [Farm Progress].
The available public numbers are therefore better treated as analogous market anchors than as direct sizing claims for Loam itself.
| Market lens | Public signal | Why it matters to Loam |
|---|---|---|
| Loam total funding by February 2023 | A$150 million total funding reported [Agri Investor] [Business News Australia] | Capital availability suggests investors see a large enough eventual market to support venture-scale company building |
| Series B financing in February 2023 | A$105 million / about US$73 million [CEFC, February 2023] [AVCJ] | Large round size indicates investor conviction in the underlying category, even without a disclosed market-size report |
| Operating footprint in 2021 | 25 field sites and four laboratories [Startup Daily, October 2021] | The company was already spending against multi-site validation, which is typical of categories expecting broad crop-market applicability |
| Team scale captured publicly | 135+ employees across four countries [Invest Regional NSW] | Headcount expansion points to an ambition beyond pilot-scale services |
The table does not size the market directly, but it does show that public investors and company operators have behaved as if the opportunity is materially larger than a niche trial business. That is supportive, though still one step removed from a cited third-party TAM.
Demand drivers are easier to substantiate than headline market size. First, Loam's products are described as fitting into existing farm operations rather than requiring farmers to change equipment, crop rotation, or tillage practices, a feature that matters because adoption in agriculture usually slows when a climate product asks growers to rewrite the operating model [Business News Australia] [Loam Bio USA]. Second, the company and CEFC both frame the value proposition around soil-carbon storage plus agronomic performance, with public trial claims pointing to yield uplift alongside carbon outcomes, although most of those trial data remain company-sourced and should be treated cautiously [CEFC] [Loam Bio] [Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal]. Third, investor participation from climate-focused funds and a government-backed clean-energy financier suggests that buyers and financiers both see carbon sequestration in soils as a commercial, not purely research, theme [CEFC, February 2023] [AgFunderNews, October 2021].
Adjacent and substitute markets matter because Loam is unlikely to be judged only against microbial inoculants. In practice, the company competes for farm budget against conventional seed treatments, biological crop inputs, and carbon-program offerings that promise monetizable credits without necessarily using Loam's microbial pathway [CEFC] [Business News Australia]. It also sits near the broader soil-health and regenerative-agriculture market, where the decision-maker is often the same grower but the product comparison can shift from per-hectare input economics to whole-farm practice change. That adjacency cuts both ways: it enlarges the pool of possible demand, but it also means Loam must prove that a product-led route to soil carbon is more measurable or easier to adopt than practice-led alternatives.
Regulation and macro conditions are central to the category even when product biology does the near-term selling. CEFC's repeated support since 2020 indicates that climate-policy infrastructure in Australia has helped finance the company's development path [CEFC]. The corollary is that market formation may remain sensitive to carbon-credit standards, permanence expectations, and the broader credibility of nature-based removals. The public materials repeatedly emphasize permanence, measurable outcomes, and premium credits, which reads less like branding than a response to a market that knows scrutiny is coming [Loam Bio] [Farm Progress]. For investors, that makes this a category with real tailwinds, but also one where revenue durability may depend on regulatory acceptance and buyer trust as much as on field efficacy.
Company-stated, unverified -- This section relies on public funding coverage and company or company-linked descriptions to frame the market, with no cited third-party market-sizing report for Loam Bio's exact category.
Competitive Landscape
MIXED Loam Bio appears to sit between agricultural biologicals and carbon-market services, which matters because its real competitors are less likely to be one direct peer and more likely to be the existing farm-input stack, the prevailing carbon-program model, and any alternative path a grower can use to improve soil outcomes without adding a new microbial product [CEFC] [Business News Australia] [Startup Daily, October 2021].
The competitive map is easiest to read in three layers. First are incumbent farm-input channels, meaning seed treatments, crop-input advisors, and established on-farm agronomy relationships that already shape planting decisions, although the source set here does not name specific companies [Business News Australia] [Startup Daily, October 2021]. Second are carbon-program operators and project developers, where Loam's own SecondCrop is positioned as a farmer-facing route into carbon projects rather than a pure input sale [CEFC] [Farm Progress]. Third are adjacent substitutes, including any agronomic practice that promises soil resilience, carbon outcomes, or yield support without requiring Loam's fungal seed application, again a category present by implication in the sources rather than by named vendor [Loam Bio] [CEFC].
That structure leaves Loam competing on workflow fit as much as on science. Public reporting says the company was building a product intended to fit existing cropping operations, and its US materials say SecondCrop is designed for corn and soybean growers who want to generate carbon credits without changing equipment, rotation, or tillage practices [Business News Australia] [Loam Bio USA]. If that claim holds in commercial use, the company is not asking growers to adopt a separate land-use system, which is a meaningful advantage over programs that depend on visible practice change and heavier measurement friction [Business News Australia] [CEFC].
Loam's edge today looks strongest in capital access and early platform breadth, though both are only partly proven. By February 2023, the company had raised A$105 million in its Series B and reported total funding of A$150 million, with backing from Lowercarbon Capital, Wollemi Capital, Main Sequence Ventures, Horizons Ventures, Acre Venture Partners, CEFC, Grok Ventures, TIME Ventures, and Thistledown Capital across its financing history [CEFC, February 2023] [AgFunderNews, October 2021] [Business News Australia] [Agri Investor]. Startup Daily also reported four laboratories, field activity at 25 sites, and teams in Australia and the United States as of 2021, which suggests a development footprint larger than many early ag-biological programs achieve at a similar age [Startup Daily, October 2021].
That advantage is durable only if Loam can convert scientific and financing depth into repeatable distribution. Investor syndicate quality and laboratory count can help fund trials, regulatory work, and grower support, but they do not by themselves create channel ownership with farmers or input retailers [Startup Daily, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023]. The more perishable piece of the moat is the company's current differentiation around outcome claims, because much of the detailed performance data in the reviewed set comes from Loam's own materials rather than independent comparative studies [Loam Bio] [Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal].
The main exposure is that Loam does not seem to own the incumbent buying path. The reviewed sources identify products, funding, field activity, and farmer-facing programs, but they do not identify named commercial farm customers, major seed-channel partners, or large agribusiness distributors [Business News Australia] [Startup Daily, October 2021]. In practice, that means the company may be strongest where farmers are already motivated by carbon-credit participation, and weaker where procurement is controlled by entrenched agronomy and seed-treatment relationships that were in place long before Loam entered the market [CEFC] [Business News Australia].
A second exposure is category complexity. Loam is asking the market to underwrite both biological efficacy and carbon-credit quality at the same time, and those are separate trust hurdles [CEFC] [Farm Progress]. The company may benefit if growers see CarbonBuilder as an input that can stand on its own yield or soil-health economics, but it is more exposed if adoption depends on a buyer first accepting permanence, measurement, and premium-credit arguments that remain only partly validated in independent public sources [Loam Bio] [Farm Progress].
Over the next 18 months, the most plausible competitive scenario is not a clean winner-take-all outcome but a sorting of products that integrate cleanly into existing farm operations from those that remain diligence-heavy. Loam is the most plausible winner if growers and carbon-credit buyers continue to prefer a low-disruption path tied to a seed-applied product and supported program infrastructure, because that is the positioning the company has built publicly across CarbonBuilder and SecondCrop [CEFC] [Loam Bio USA]. Loam is also the most plausible loser if customers decide they want independently validated agronomic returns before adopting a carbon-linked biological at scale, since the public evidence reviewed here is still weighted toward company claims and financing coverage rather than named customer case studies or third-party benchmark data [Loam Bio] [Business News Australia].
Company-stated, unverified -- Core competitive framing is grounded in public sources, but the reviewed source set names no direct competitors and relies heavily on company and investor materials for product differentiation and performance claims.
Opportunity
PUBLIC
The prize here is unusually large for an agricultural-input startup because Loam Bio is trying to sell into two budgets at once, crop productivity and carbon outcomes, with one seed-applied product and one program layer wrapped around it [CEFC, February 2023] [AgFunderNews, October 2021].
The headline opportunity is straightforward: if Loam can prove that a microbial seed treatment reliably improves yields while also producing durable soil-carbon outcomes, it could become a category-defining platform at the intersection of agronomy and carbon markets, rather than a single-product biologicals company [CEFC, February 2023] [CEFC] [Business News Australia]. That outcome is still conditional, but it is not purely aspirational. By February 2023, the company had raised A$105 million in Series B financing, with participation from specialist climate and deep-tech investors including Lowercarbon Capital, Wollemi Capital, Main Sequence, Horizons Ventures, Acre Venture Partners, CEFC, and Grok Ventures [CEFC, February 2023]. Earlier public reporting also showed four laboratories, field activity at 25 sites, and teams in Australia and the United States as of 2021, which suggests the company built scientific and field infrastructure before broad commercial claims entered the market [Startup Daily, October 2021].
A second reason the upside is reachable is product design. CarbonBuilder is positioned as a seed-applied microbial treatment, while SecondCrop is presented as the farmer-facing carbon program that helps translate field outcomes into carbon-project participation [CEFC] [Loam Bio] [Loam Bio USA]. If that pairing works in practice, Loam is not limited to selling a biological input once per season. It can sit across input selection, measurement logic, and carbon-credit participation, which is a larger economic position than either a stand-alone seed coating or a stand-alone project developer would typically hold [CEFC] [Farm Progress].
| Scenario | What happens | Catalyst | Why it's plausible |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input-first platform | CarbonBuilder becomes a repeat-purchase biological input across major row-crop acres, with carbon upside acting as the adoption wedge rather than the sole reason to buy. | More replicated field results and broader product releases tied to demonstrated yield improvement [Loam Bio] [Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal]. | Loam says products are released when increased yield is demonstrated consistently through replicated trials, and external coverage has already cited barley trial results with higher yields near Moree, NSW [Loam Bio] [Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal]. |
| Carbon program operator | SecondCrop becomes the default program layer for growers who want carbon-credit participation without major changes to equipment, rotation, or tillage. | Expansion of the US grower offer and successful conversion of supported projects into repeat participation [Loam Bio USA] [Farm Progress]. | The company already markets SecondCrop as a supported route into carbon projects, and its US positioning emphasizes compatibility with existing farm operations, which lowers behavior-change friction if the economics hold [CEFC] [Loam Bio USA]. |
| Cross-border soil-carbon infrastructure | Loam uses its Australia and North America footprint to become one of the better-capitalized operating systems for microbial soil-carbon projects across multiple crop systems. | Continued deployment in both geographies and investor support for scaling field, lab, and program infrastructure [Startup Daily, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023]. | Public reporting showed teams in Australia and the United States by 2021, and the Series B investor base includes climate and agrifood funds that typically back platform expansion rather than a narrow regional product line [Startup Daily, October 2021] [CEFC, February 2023]. |
What compounding could look like is less about a classic consumer network effect and more about stacked validation. Each additional field trial, crop-specific result set, and farmer project can improve Loam's ability to commercialize the next product release, support the next carbon project, and attract the next distribution or financing relationship [Loam Bio] [CEFC]. The early signs of that loop are visible, if still immature: four laboratories and 25 field sites by 2021 imply a deliberate effort to generate repeatable agronomic evidence, and the existence of both CarbonBuilder and SecondCrop suggests management is trying to capture value at both the biological-input layer and the program layer [Startup Daily, October 2021] [CEFC].
There is also a plausible distribution flywheel if on-farm outcomes continue to translate. Biological inputs in agriculture tend to benefit from local proof points and grower-to-grower credibility, while carbon programs benefit from lower-friction enrollment and clearer measurement claims. Loam's public case rests on the proposition that farmers do not need to redesign core operations to participate, particularly in the US corn and soybean framing for SecondCrop, which could reduce adoption resistance relative to programs that require more extensive practice change [Loam Bio USA]. If one product can sit inside normal planting decisions and also create a route to premium credits, each successful acre has the potential to strengthen both product sales and project origination economics [Farm Progress] [CEFC].
The size of the win is best framed through capital already committed to the thesis rather than through a precise market-size model, because no confirmed TAM figure is provided in the public source set. By February 2023, Loam had reached roughly A$150 million in total funding according to multiple reports, including CEFC-backed coverage of the A$105 million Series B and third-party reporting that put total funding at A$150 million [CEFC, February 2023] [Agri Investor] [Business News Australia]. That level of backing does not establish value, but it does indicate that investors see room for a company much larger than a niche microbial-input supplier. If the "input-first platform" or "carbon program operator" scenario plays out, the company could plausibly become a multi-product climate-ag platform with strategic value to major agribusiness, carbon-market operators, or late-stage climate investors, potentially supporting a business worth several multiples of invested capital from current private levels (scenario, not a forecast) [CEFC, February 2023] [AgFunderNews, October 2021]. Public evidence is still too thin to defend a tighter valuation range than that.
Lightly corroborated -- Core funding and operating-footprint claims are supported by CEFC, Startup Daily, AgFunderNews, and related public reporting, but product-performance and program-outcome claims remain partly company-sourced or singly corroborated.
Sources
Public sources
[AgFunderNews, October 2021] Loam Bio, previously Soil Carbon Co, raises $30m | https://agfundernews.com/loam-bio-previously-soil-carbon-co-raises-30m
[CEFC, February 2023] CEFC increases investment in Loam Bio through a $105 million Series B round | https://www.cefc.com.au/media/media-release/cefc-increases-investment-in-loam-bio-through-a-105-million-series-b-round/
[Business News Australia] Capturing carbon and funds: Loam Bio raises $105 million in Series B | https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/capturing-carbon-and-funds--loam-bio-raises--105-million-in-series-b.html
[Loam Bio] Carbon Farming & Soil Carbon Projects Australia | Loam Bio Australia | https://www.loambio.com/
[CEFC] Loam Bio brings innovative biotech to soil carbon | https://www.cefc.com.au/case-studies/loam-bio-brings-innovative-biotech-to-soil-carbon/
[Farm Progress] Turn climate ambition into measurable, permanent carbon impact | Loam Bio USA | https://www.loambio.com/us/
[MSEQ.VC] MSV Company Page: Loam | https://www.mseq.vc/msv-company-page/loam
[Forbes, March 2022] 8 Women Entrepreneurs Tackling The Climate Crisis - With Tech And Funding | https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2022/03/21/8-women-entrepreneurs-tackling-the-climate-crisiswith-tech-and-funding/
[LinkedIn, Retrieved 2026] Tegan Nock - New South Wales, Australia | Professional Profile | LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/tegan-nock-a4079499/
[Loam Bio, June 2026] Loam Bio appoints Rob Hranac as CEO as company enters next phase of commercial growth | https://www.loambio.com/resources/loam-bio-appoints-rob-hranac-as-ceo-as-company-enters-next-phase-of-commercial-growth/
[Startup Daily, October 2021] Climate change agritech Loam Bio raises $40 million in Series A | https://www.startupdaily.net/topic/funding/climate-change-agritech-loam-bio-raises-40-million-in-series-a/
[Loam Bio USA] Turn climate ambition into measurable, permanent carbon impact | Loam Bio USA | https://www.loambio.com/us/
[Australasian Farmers' & Dealers' Journal] CarbonBuilder Inoculum gives growers a chance to improve yields and increase soil carbon | https://www.afdj.com.au/cropping/carbonbuilder-inoculum-gives-growers-a-chance-to-improve-yields-and-increase-soil-carbon/
[Agri Investor] Loam Bio raises A$105m in Series B financing | https://www.agriinvestor.com/loam-bio-raises-a105m-in-series-b-financing/
[AVCJ] Australia's Loam Bio raises USD73m Series B | https://www.avcj.com/avcj/news/3028702/australias-loam-bio-raises-usd73m-series-b
[Invest Regional NSW] Loam Bio | https://investregionalnsw.com.au/case-study/loam-bio/
Articles about Loam Bio
- A Fungal Seed Coating Anchors Loam Bio's Carbon Farming Ambitions — The Australian agtech startup, now led by a US CEO, is pushing a microbial inoculum and carbon credit program into North America.