FINDING solutions to labour challenges, ways to source funding for less glamourous projects, and the need to treat ‘research’ and ‘development’ as separate silos were some of the hot topics raised during an opening panel session at the EvokeAg ag technology conference held in Brisbane this week.

More than 1500 stakeholders drawn from a wide cross section of the agribusiness community attended the event, although grassroots primary producers were clearly few in number. Most of the audience came from the agtech development community, investors, regulators, academics, government personnel, service delivery and larger corporates.

Here’s some of the hot topics that emerged:

Creating agtech products that the ‘industry wants’

“Agtech promises to solve some of agriculture’s biggest challenges – yet agtech funding seems to favour ‘shiny ideas’ over proven impact. Are we chasing hype over substance and real-world solutions? a delegate asked.

SwarmFarm founder Andrew Bate

Queensland grainfarmer and agtech pioneer Andrew Bate is the developer of the successful SwarmFarm autonomous robot technology used for in-field weed control using camera recognition across more than five million acres of cultivation across the world.

He told the gathering there was too much emphasis placed on ‘somebody who raised some money’ as being considered ‘successful.’

“That’s BS,” Mr Bate said. “Money runs through the ceiling for some agtech companies. All that really matters is: are you developing and building something that farmers want, and are prepared to pay for?

“That’s how agtech success should be measured – it’s not about who raised what money, or how shiny they are.”

“But thinking about how we make this better, I believe we need to disconnect the way we do research with universities,” Mr Bate said.

“We keep talking about research and development in the same sentence. But they are totally separate things – they should not go together, they’re like oysters and custard. Development is about taking the idea, and getting it ready for industry to use commercially. Universities don’t do that, and don’t do it well.”

But until those two streams were split up, research would continue to happen that farmers weren’t benefiting from.

The reality was, agtech developers in Australia had to go overseas to access sufficient capital, Mr Bate said.

“But if we can optimise our research, and development – separately – to actually accelerate smart thinking and develop it through so it can be commercialised, Australian agtechs can get to the next stage so they can scale, and build stuff that farmers actually want.

“But its not about the shiny rounds (of fundraising), it’s about building things that producers want, and delivering to industry. We have this opportunity to fund things the right way, that actually delivers for our industry and allows agtech to flourish.

“And ultimately, agtech is another export industry – taking our Australian agtech to the world, along with beef and coal. Our agtech industry is absolutely an export industry that brings income and opportunity back into Australia – and that’s what we are missing.”

Also on the panel was Anthony Lee, chief executive officer for Queensland’s Australian Country Choice beef processing and supply chain business.  He was asked whether there was investment ‘hype’ around agtech.

ACC’s Anthony Lee

“The first thing is that any agribusiness wants real impact,” he said.

“That is a non-negotiable, but one of the challenges we have (including the research and development corporations) is that there is so much coming at us. To work out what’s real and what isn’t, is a challenge, and whether it can it be scaled-up and made commercially viable.

“If that’s all possible, then absolutely there is real opportunity, but I’d encourage agtech developers, before they approach RDCs, to engage with (end-user) businesses. If they like your tech, you will have a lot bigger impact with the RDCs, if they go in with you.”

“If they don’t, you have to ask yourself, are you developing something you want, or something the industry wants?”

Revenue trumps costs

Another delegate asked why many agribusinesses leaders fixated on high wages as a default excuse, rather than focussing on innovation, productivity, R&D and competitive advantage to drive growth.

Anthony Lee said any prudent business was always watching its costs.

“Labour is the biggest line-item in the profit and loss statement, but the cheapest cost is not always the best cost. More importantly, revenue is the key. It’s much easier to add ten percent to your revenue than it is to take 10pc off your costs, in most ag sector businesses,” he said.

“There’s an unlimited opportunity to be value-adding our product. What’s the next opportunity to use beef and its by-products in interesting ways. Most people think of agriculture as producing only food and fibre, but there is so much more – we’re powering aircraft, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and others, that increase value.”

“Control your cost as best you can, but absolutely the upside is the revenue opportunity.”

Trump tariffs impact

The impact of Trump tariffs on US near neighbours and potentially, export suppliers like Australia also came into focus during the panel session.

“Loyalty does not equal exemption. Does Australia need a new strategy to diversify export markets away from targets like the US?,” one delegate asked.

It’s the first time Australian exports have been caught in the crossfire of the US trade war – so what the Federal Government doing about it? Adam Fennessy, secretary of the Federal Department of Agriculture was asked.

Adam Fennessy

“The Government is doing a lot of work with our US colleagues, both behind the scenes and up-front,” Mr Fennessy said.

“Australia exports more than $15 billion worth of ag products to the US each year – our second biggest trade partner – but at the same time, the US has a two-to-one trade surplus with Australia. We also have a 20-year-old free trade agreement, and a long tradition of partnership working with the US,” he said.

“It’s about taking a coordinated approach between government and industry in everything we do. For the red meat industry, the US represents both a huge opportunity and a risk.

“The US domestic herd has been heavily impacted over the past few years by drought, so Australia really complements what the US needs – and its not just raw material but value-added mince – and Australian trimmings helps supply the volume and quality of hamburgers in the US.

Australia’s agriculture minister Julie Collins was about to engage with the newly appointed US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in coming days, Mr Fennessy said.

“We are using every hour to be well prepared for that conversation,” he said, with some gravitas.

ACC’s Anthony Lee said there was always ‘something going on globally’ that could impact Australian beef exports’ performance.

“There’s never been a time when its all been perfect, and this year with the tariff issue is no different,” he said.

“For that reason, we as an industry have to have market diversification. Any red meat business that is too over-extended in one market is asking for trouble.”

“The second part is how do we constantly innovate? How do we keep coming up with new products, so the demand for our products is always there overseas, in as many markets as possible?

“New products (whether it be in value-adding or other fields) draws in new trade opportunities, so we can never rest on our laurals.”

Labour, training and workforce impact

Labour, training and workforce impact from an agtech perspective was a well-explored topic during the panel session.

One EvokeAg delegate asked whether agtech represented a risk for jobs in agriculture, and by extension, the future of rural communities.

Andrew Bate said people often asked him why he built an agtech development company at Gindie on the Central Highlands (population 15, 700km from Brisbane).

“It’s been our natural advantage,” he said. “We are completely immersed in farming, and our ability to turn engineers into farmers has been our secret sauce that has got us to market,” he said.

“We’ve made stuff that people want, by building it and testing it, on-farm, and if something goes wrong at 3am, we can work it out right then, and fix it.”

“People say robotics and other tech like that will take jobs away from rural communities. But nobody has ever bought one of our field robots and fired someone. The conversation we have, over and over again, is that we want this technology on our farm, because we want to attract more young people into agriculture, and get them involved in our operation, and we need tech like this if we are going to engage with the next generation,” Mr Bate said.

“It allows small businesses, micro-businesses and medium-sized support businesses out in rural and regional towns to support technology like ours. There’s now 15 companies across regional Australia building attachments of various types that go on our robots.”

Queensland Farmers’ Federation’s Jo Sheppard said a national workforce strategy and vision for all ag sectors was needed, for ag to be in its most effective form.

She gave an example. “QFF is sponsoring permanent residency for a highly skilled young agricultural engineer from an overseas country. It has taken 18 months for QFF to be approved as a sponsoring organisation. In the meantime this highly skilled young man is in limbo, waiting to see if his residency comes through,” she said.

Andrew Bate lamented the loss of agricultural colleges in Queensland, as a means of underpinning ag labour.

“There was no strategy – they simply disappeared,” he said.

“I keep meeting young kids that want to get into ag, but they just need that bridge to get a start. There needs to be some skill base, allowing them to decide whether they want to work in intensive horticulture, grain or the grazing industry.

“Ag colleges used to provide that service, but since they closed, there’s been nothing to replace them. I’m seeing that lack of a bridge more and more, mand just wish we had that back,” he said.

Asymmetry between ag and city views

In his opening remarks to the EvokeAg audience, Elders managing director Mark Allison highlighted what he saw as a distinct power imbalance in agriculture between those who produce the food and fibre, and the institutions and bodies that govern it.

“I see a distinct asymmetry between the power of policy-makers and influencers with a small but loud inner-city agenda that informs core policy, against the interests of agriculture, and Australia,” Mr Allison said.

Mark Allison

“We have seen many idealogy-based decisions across land and water management, energy transition and environmental management – often referred to as red, green or black tape.”

“Land and natural capital is increasingly being subject to red tape and green tape, and multi-generational farmland has been sacrificed in the name of transmission lines that serve the city and erode the productivity and the aesthetic value of rural and regional Australia,” he said.

“Agrifood tech power is similarly unknown. While investment in agtech in the Americas was equal to US$6.1 billion in 2023, Australian and New Zealand investment was dwarfed, at US$253m – less than one quarter of the US$1.4b that the US raised in China that year alone.

“There is a clear distinction between the size and sway of global counterparts, and the capital investment in their industries. Australian farmers are in an asymmetric conflict with the powerful, small inner-city minority – just as the agtech ecosystem is dominated by large companies which drive the agenda.

Stakeholders with an interest in agtech should use programs like EvokeAg to inspire different and appropriate tactics to remain competitive, and to grow Australia’s presence on the global agtech stage, Mr Allison said.

“Our advantages are not size and scale, but resilience and a curious Australian farming approach hardened by decades of producing foods and fibre against the odds in one of the most environmentally challenging landscapes on earth.”

“We need to focus on our points of difference, harnessing our uniqueness, and respond on a global and national level against a dominant opposition,” he said.

“Just as importantly, we need to correctly service the Australian farming sector with (agtech) solutions linked to our own unique challenges and operating environments.”