AgTech's Tech Stack is something I had never thought of before. Seems like many disparate pieces at this point, the idea of a Computer Associates to strongly supplement this seems like an open gap in the market.
Everything you are suggesting that we should be investing in will do nothing more than accelerate the creative destruction that has been happening to our agri-food system for the past 70 years. The numbers speak for themselves. "The bulk of US ag production is from 85k farms, which will go to 60K over the next 20 years, each getting bigger. And reducing the need for many service providers in agriculture."
Instead start thinking about creative construction. Invest in people like the1.6 million farmers who need nurturing and capital to expand regenerative practices and operate profitable farms while they rebuild soil health, save and purify water, grow nutritious whole foods. Support those entrepreneurs who will help build local food systems and restore our rural communities and those who seek to improve human health through guiding people to eat healthier nutritious food.
I think we agree. The principle of Creative Destruction is innovators doing what you suggest and disrupting incumbents. That is what Schumpeter said. Not sure changing the name does nothing different because the underlying action is the same.
Each of the parts of the tech stack create the disruption that move to the next form of innovation that solves for farmer profitability, soil health, etc.
Perhaps if that is true I think we may disagree on how to get there even though I know we are aligned on the outcomes we are seeking for system improvement.
I was referring to a prior post of yours, but can't seem to find it so I retract my statement. Generally, I believe the problem with the AgTech VC world is their irrational chasing of new shiny and very costly objects, when there are so many obvious less costly pragmatic solutions available. In your 16 Point follow up on your trip to SF, in my opinion #14 stands out as the right path. "Best returns may come from companies that exhibit: customer centric product, track record of iteration and experimentation, and the ability to solve acute customers pain while driving deflation with innovation." The reason this is the right path is because it closely aligns with what farmers do and what they appreciate.
AgTech's Tech Stack is something I had never thought of before. Seems like many disparate pieces at this point, the idea of a Computer Associates to strongly supplement this seems like an open gap in the market.
Everything you are suggesting that we should be investing in will do nothing more than accelerate the creative destruction that has been happening to our agri-food system for the past 70 years. The numbers speak for themselves. "The bulk of US ag production is from 85k farms, which will go to 60K over the next 20 years, each getting bigger. And reducing the need for many service providers in agriculture."
Instead start thinking about creative construction. Invest in people like the1.6 million farmers who need nurturing and capital to expand regenerative practices and operate profitable farms while they rebuild soil health, save and purify water, grow nutritious whole foods. Support those entrepreneurs who will help build local food systems and restore our rural communities and those who seek to improve human health through guiding people to eat healthier nutritious food.
I think we agree. The principle of Creative Destruction is innovators doing what you suggest and disrupting incumbents. That is what Schumpeter said. Not sure changing the name does nothing different because the underlying action is the same.
Each of the parts of the tech stack create the disruption that move to the next form of innovation that solves for farmer profitability, soil health, etc.
Perhaps if that is true I think we may disagree on how to get there even though I know we are aligned on the outcomes we are seeking for system improvement.
Did I make a proposal on how to get there? Other than have innovators disrupt incumbents? And focus on nutrient density?
I was referring to a prior post of yours, but can't seem to find it so I retract my statement. Generally, I believe the problem with the AgTech VC world is their irrational chasing of new shiny and very costly objects, when there are so many obvious less costly pragmatic solutions available. In your 16 Point follow up on your trip to SF, in my opinion #14 stands out as the right path. "Best returns may come from companies that exhibit: customer centric product, track record of iteration and experimentation, and the ability to solve acute customers pain while driving deflation with innovation." The reason this is the right path is because it closely aligns with what farmers do and what they appreciate.
iSelects concentration is on Food is Health, leveraging Agriculture, Food, and Healthcare to eliminate the 1.9T in healthcare cost of poor nutrition.
Invention is new technology
Innovation are the business models that result in adoption of systems that improve performance, profitability, productivity.
So would you say that when you combine invention with innovation it is the perfect recipe for success?