What has become an annual must attend for anyone in and around agriculture, evokeAg 2026 delivered for both producers and the growing AgTech providers.
Our team was on the ground and took the opportunity to speak with founders, producers and investors, which as always is where the real insight sits. One of the key takeaways, from our lens and having the fortune of working across mining, logistics and agriculture, was the similarity in how technology is developing and where investment is flowing. AI and large language models continue to dominate the conversation, alongside automation, electrification and decarbonisation. All very familiar themes, and with real progress that we are already seeing on the mining and logistics side.
While the applications vary, including a really cool way to predict production maturity in berries, the underlying approach is consistent. Problems that have persisted for decades are now within reach of genuine, transformative change. Data, automation and smarter decision making are being layered onto industries that historically relied on manual processes and experience based judgement. The tools may differ, but the trajectory feels very similar. A session that really brought this to life, moderated by the excellent Sarah Nolet, Co founder and MD at Tenacious Ventures, explored the often too linear debate of when money meets founders. When, how much and for what?
The discussion centred on proving beyond MVP that a platform or service can scale and sustain. From there, the conversation shifts to the type of capital on offer and the expectations attached. Independent capital seeking return brings one set of dynamics. Strategic capital seeking influence or integration brings another.
In our humble opinion, this should not be reduced to a simple yes, no or when discussion. It really has to be for what and what time frame too. Too often the hockey stick curve is built to justify the investment, rather than enough focus being placed on the path to get there. There is also a very real alternative in steady sales growth, with less risk and more discipline, instead of immediately scaling headcount across dev or sales.
Money is needed, it provides options, but it should be treated as fuel with a gauge you actively track and measure, not something to splash in pursuit of the next round. The other major takeaway, and one that highlighted genuine progress, was the need to invest more time and capital into the deployment side of AgTech. Again, something we consistently see in mining and logistics.
Without consistent and real-world deployment data, feedback and adjustment, and let’s face it nothing is perfect from day one, even the best research, platforms and ideas can stagnate and ultimately fail. Deployment is not an afterthought. It is critical.
The ability to capture timely feedback and adjust the technology accordingly cannot be underestimated. A great idea with poor deployment is damaging not just to that product, but to future innovation. It erodes trust. It creates resistance. How often have we heard, “we tried something similar a few years ago and it was a disaster.”
Taking care through implementation, genuinely engaging the end user, and setting realistic or even conservative outcome expectations is essential. Without that, you risk creating a barrier not just for yourself, but for the next innovator who comes along. As we wrapped up our first, but certainly not last, attendance at evokeAg, we were again reminded of the opportunity, the uniqueness of operating from what is a very big island, and the challenges facing Australia’s agricultural sector.
Our next stop on the agritech circuit will be FutureAg in July 2026. We are looking forward to continuing the conversation and reconnecting on the themes raised at evokeAg.
Well done to AgriFutures and to all the innovators and AgTech founders.
