I spent considerable time with farmer friends this last year and have spoken about several conversations in prior LinkedIn articles. A lot comes from those conversations and often comes in the form of a question like this one.
Why is Agtech investing making things more expensive and not less expensive? My phone, TV, and laptop give me more for my dollar, but not my AgTech.
He is correct, but I might state it differently: why are the billions going into AgTech investments mainly targeting the top 6% (large operations) while ignoring the other 94% of potential customers?
One reason might be that 62% of crops come from that 6%, based on the recently released USDA 2020 farming and farming income data.
A second reason might be the 94% need to be more profitable to afford today’s AgTech.
But is that Correlation and Causation?
Does the slow adoption of technology and practices make the 94% grow less than the 6%?
If we assume so, is it because of the la
ck of affordable and accessible options for most of the 94%?
If we believe so, we need affordable AgTech to close the growing gap between the two groups, which might simultaneously address today’s and future global food issues.
Doing so should be good business and stewardship since AgTech lets us do more with less.
If doing so also brings about better rural communities and livelihoods with healthier and more resilient farms, that is a two-for-one.
Comments