The Future of Agriculture Isn’t Less Chemistry. It’s Better Agriculture.

Every few months, the same debate returns.

Glyphosate. Pesticides. Bans. Court cases. Regulation.

The conversation quickly descends into two opposing camps. One side argues pesticides are indispensable.
The other argues agriculture should eliminate them as quickly as possible.

I don’t believe either position, on its own, will feed the world. Agriculture deserves better than binary thinking.

The question should never be, “Pesticides or no pesticides?”

The question should be:
“How do we continuously reduce our dependence on agricultural inputs while producing more food more sustainably and keeping farms economically viable?”

Because that is the challenge facing every farmer on the planet. Let’s acknowledge something that often gets lost in these debates.

Without crop protection, global agriculture would lose an enormous proportion of its harvest to weeds, insects and disease. Depending on the crop, losses could approach 40–60%.

Meanwhile, more than 700 million people already suffer from chronic hunger, while billions more experience food insecurity.

Reducing food production is not a responsible option.
But neither is accepting unnecessary environmental loading.

This isn’t an “either-or” problem.
It’s an optimisation problem.

Farmers are expected to perform an almost impossible balancing act.

Produce more food.
Use fewer pesticides.
Use less fertiliser.
Use less water.
Reduce carbon emissions.
Protect biodiversity.
Improve soil health.
Increase traceability.
Adopt regenerative practices.
Manage increasing climate volatility.
Meet ever-expanding regulatory requirements.
And somehow remain profitable.

All while receiving only around 15 cents of every consumer food dollar.

We continue to ask more from farmers while making the economics of farming increasingly difficult. Then we wonder why succession has become one of agriculture’s biggest challenges.

Consumers aren’t wrong either.
They want food produced with fewer chemical inputs.
Cleaner rivers.
Healthier soils.
Greater biodiversity.
Lower emissions.
Affordable food.

I want exactly the same things.
So do the farmers I have met throughout my career.

After visiting farms across North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, I have yet to meet a farmer who wakes up wanting to waste pesticides, pollute waterways or damage biodiversity.

Every litre of spray that drifts away, evaporates or runs off a leaf is money lost. Waste is not good farming.

Efficiency is.

The answer isn’t simply inventing fewer pesticides. Nor is it banning existing ones without practical alternatives.

Developing a new crop protection product now requires more than a decade of research, hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, and only a small percentage ever reach commercial use.

The pipeline of new chemistry is becoming smaller.
At the same time, biological crop protection products are growing rapidly and represent an exciting part of agriculture’s future.

But many biologicals are contact products. 
Coverage becomes everything.
Application quality becomes everything.
Multiple passes become expensive.
Again, the answer isn’t binary.

The future of agriculture will be built through continuous improvement.
Smarter chemistry.
Better biologicals.
Artificial intelligence.
Precision agriculture.
Autonomous machinery.
Digital agronomy.
Robotics.
Advanced genetics.
Application technologies that dramatically reduce waste.

None of these innovations, individually, will solve agriculture’s challenges.
Together, they will.

At MagrowTec, our contribution is straightforward.

We don’t replace chemistry.
We don’t replace biologicals.
We help both perform more efficiently.

Independent research and commercial farming have consistently demonstrated improved spray coverage, deeper canopy penetration, significant drift reduction, lower water volumes and fewer repeat applications.

If a substantial proportion of conventional spraying never reaches its intended target, then surely improving application efficiency should be one of agriculture’s highest priorities.

Why argue about using less chemistry while accepting unnecessary waste?

Surely the smarter objective is to make every droplet count.
That is better for farmers.
Better for consumers.
Better for the environment.

I don’t believe the future belongs to those arguing for more pesticides. Nor do I believe it belongs to those demanding agriculture simply remove them overnight.

The future belongs to those who can help agriculture produce more food using fewer resources, with less waste, lower environmental impact and stronger farm profitability.

That isn’t compromise.
That’s progress.
And progress has always been driven by science, innovation and continuous improvement—not by choosing one extreme over the other.

The real debate isn’t about glyphosate.

It’s about whether we have the courage to build a better agricultural system.
I believe we do.
And I believe innovation will get us there.