The term ‘agtech’ is broad and ambiguous, a fact highlighted by farming specialists during a recent AgTechWebinar event focused on farmer adoption. The discussion underscored a significant disconnect between technology providers and farmers, often exacerbated by the use of jargon that can alienate those the technology aims to serve.
Tom Slattery, farming innovation support manager at the UK Agritech Centre, pointed out that terms like ‘agtech’ or ‘innovation’ can be off-putting to farmers. “Farmers don’t see themselves as innovators,” he said. “They are open to technology if it is practical, solves real, on-farm challenges, and is respectful of their time. Often, those things aren’t considered enough.” This sentiment was echoed by John Seed, a fourth-generation farmer in Scotland, who noted that tech developers frequently fail to tailor their language and products to the specific needs of users. “A lot of the technology that’s pushed forward comes from technology companies and academics, which are both discipline-bound,” Seed remarked. “Whereas most farms are based on interconnected systems.”
The lack of clear, farmer-centric communication can confuse not just farmers but also policymakers and technology providers, making it difficult to convey the specific benefits and applications of new technologies. For instance, Seed, who describes himself as an early tech adopter, was unfamiliar with the term “ag biologicals,” despite using such products on his farm. This highlights a recurring issue where the sector uses terminology that doesn’t resonate with those who are actually using the products.
The panellists agreed that the terminology becomes particularly problematic when venture capital and other funding are needed to bring new technologies to market. If the language isn’t aligned with farming needs, it can create barriers to understanding and adoption. Slattery emphasized that technology doesn’t need to be cutting-edge to be valuable. “Tech can mean much simpler things,” he said. “It’s anything that helps to solve problems on the farm.” This could include solutions that improve farm safety, an area often overlooked by the industry. Karl Behrendt, professor in agri-tech economic modelling at Harper Adams University, pointed to technology aimed at improving farm safety through projects like the Hands-Free Farm. “Improving farmworker safety is a really good use of simple technology that tries to remove people from dangerous situations,” Behrendt noted. “Farm accidents are a real concern and can have a massive economic impact.”
To bridge the gap between technology providers and farmers, the panellists stressed the need for more collaboration, co-development, and co-design. By involving farmers, researchers, and technology providers from the earliest stages, solutions can be made more practical, user-friendly, and tailored to real-world challenges. This collaborative approach requires not just better technology but also clearer, more practical communication that prioritizes being understood.
The webinar made it clear that putting the ‘ag’ into ‘agtech’ means ensuring that technology is developed with farmers’ needs in mind, communicated in a way that resonates with them, and ultimately solves the problems they face on a daily basis.