I’d like to focus on three graphs from recent publications that can contradict our assumptions on different elements of the agrifood value chain.
1 – Agriculture: what is the level of tech adoption?
There is an increasing number of new solutions (services, inputs and robotics) available, notably developed by startups, but adoption is lagging. Even now, investments in AgTech startups are still doing relatively well compared to the rest of FoodTech. However, adoption is lagging: very few of these solutions are being adopted by many farmers. Indeed, as shown by the graph below, growers are mostly repurchasing solutions they already use instead of buying new ones.
That’s where this study by the BCG becomes interesting. It interviewed a thousand US farmers and found that beyond functional reasons to adopt a new solution such as reliability, lowered operating costs or increased revenues (which are the top 3), there are “emotional needs” to be fulfilled. These notably include the need to save time from work, being a good steward of the soil and the feeling of being in control.
The study then identifies multiple archetypes of farmers to which the solution providers should talk with specific arguments rather than just appealing to their rational side, among which:
🪴Next-generation greens: younger farmers with a strong environmental conscience blended with a strong business focus. They experiment with a lot of new technology solutions and are less sensitive to the time-saving and overall “quality” of the suppliers of these solutions.
👨🌾 Legacy and trust: a huge segment of the farmer population which is older (over 65) and considering how to transmit their farms to the next generation. While they can be interested in new solutions, they will source them from family and friends rather than from experts.
Having this vision of how the farmers are split into segments and respond to different rational and emotional messages may be what is lacking in many AgTech startups that only appeal to the rational side of young, tech-driven (both for business and environmental) farmers.
2 – Alternative Proteins: research is still up
While funding is clearly down for alternative proteins, that’s not the case for research. The Good Food Institute published a couple of reports on alternative protein research in Europe. Below is a graph displaying the number of publications on the different technologies used in that space over the past 12 years.
Another report also showed that public investments in alternative protein research are increasing really fast in different European countries. And even more interestingly, as you can see on the chart below, this is absolutely not spread evenly across the continent. Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) stand out quite significantly with much more “funding per capita” on these topics than the bigger states. That’s even more the case if you consider the more “long-term” technologies such as fermentation and cellular agriculture.
This research, again specifically in Northern European countries, translates into innovation quite well. That explains the recent surge in the number of exciting new ventures and deals in those countries. They are creating not only research hubs but also startup and innovation hubs that we should all follow quite closely.
