1. Farmers are bearing the cost of implementing tech.
2. They own field data but in fragmented data sets.
3. Data is valuable when it’s collected over contiguous fields and when in large datasets.(think 100k acres)
4. We can’t pass it on to the food/consumer because farmers are at bottom of supply chain and have thin margins.
5. How can farmers..big and small..make money from the tech we pay for...afterall, we already know how to grow, but we need ROI and not something that ..net net..eats into margins.
6. Tech is too expensive now. Investors make money. Farmers don’t. It might be right to say that Agtech is a sector that is newly birthed and has nothing to do with agriculture. Because returns go to tech sector and investors in it. How is it helping farmers in $$ terms..in any meaningful sense.
7. Tech should be easy as and as cost effective as a pencil. Because we can make most of our decisions..especially small farmers..with a pencil and paper.
Our problem is labour..we need physics and mechanical tech..not AI and ML and data driven tech that first dumps our field data in silos and then give it away to someone else to profit. It’s like Bizzaro World!
8. Big tractor and equipment companies (yes, I am looking at you, John Deere) won’t create affordable field because it would cannibalise their existing product line.
Ok. What now? Perhaps this is why Ag bots and practical Agtech comes from the EU/outside USA. I don’t know if I am right in surmising that. Thoughts?