Precision ≠ Less: Rethinking AgTech’s Impact on Input Demand

I recently read AgTech: Are We Still Building for Reaction or Precision? by Mikayla Mooney.

The article raises an important consideration: are agtech builders solving today’s fire or designing for tomorrow’s system? While the article highlights the value of proactive, precision-driven solutions, I think there’s nuance in how precision and proaction actually plays out in agronomy— particularly when it comes to input usage, and true risks to crop input providers unrelated to volume.

Moving from reactive to proactive is a useful framework for much of crop production. However, it is incomplete as it pertains to agronomy and input usage.

In the article Mooney highlights that reactive solutions address problems after they appear offering quicker ROI, clear value, and easier adoption since they meet more burning needs. Proactive solutions on the other hand aim to prevent issues before they arise. They require foresight, education, and behavior change (and systems change), making them harder to implement but often more sustainable and impactful over time.

The suggestion in the article is that Precision = Proactive and Proactive = Less product volumes and treatment intensity. Precision tools leading to lower input volumes is widely accepted in agriculture and thatv proactive is always better. But, I’m not certain that will be true.

In practice, “precision” often enables more reactive tactics, not fewer. And even where it supports proactive decision-making, it tends to increase usage intensity, not reduce it.

Consider See & Spray for weed management or fungicides.

The idea of See & Spray is inherently reactive, responding to already emerged weeds that are using nutrients and moisture. Proactive is a less precise, broadcast application of residual herbicide, killing the weeds much earlier. Not to mention, being really efficient at reaction could generate more demand thanks to Jevons Paradox.

Where as fungicides are applied proactively, and because of that they are generally applied in broadcast fashion (less precise). Reacting to visual disease symptoms typically delivers poor results. There are other proactive approaches such as crop rotation, intercropping, or leveraging fungus eating products, but attaining the same level of mitigation without ancillary inputs— whether biological, or synthetic, seems unlikely in most circumstances for most farmers.

Mikayla goes on to say:

My estimate is that precision technology will increase the volume and treatment intensity of most inputs. However, less inputs will be wasted (applied where they deliver a low return and/or cause harm).

There are two main reasons and frameworks for my belief: