The Easy Wins Are Over

By: Mikayla Mooney

As investors, we’re drawn to founders who imagine a future that feels a little outrageous. Ideas that sound almost impossible but still plausible if you squint your eyes. Lately, though, it seems like those visions are drifting further and further into the realm of science fiction, partly because the obvious opportunities have already been solved.

I had lunch with a researcher last month and that was the first time I heard someone say:

"We've already solved all the easy problems in agriculture.”

A few decades ago, the breakthroughs were things that felt obvious as soon as you saw them in action: GPS-guided tractors, yield monitors, automated irrigation, better seeds, and digital record keeping. They made farming faster and more efficient, and they paid for themselves almost immediately. Farmers adopted them quickly because the value was undeniable and the changes to daily practice were manageable.

But here’s the thing: those wins look “easy” only in hindsight. At the time, they required years of research and development, heavy investment, season after season of trials, and the kind of trust with farmers that doesn’t happen overnight.

Turning from Fast Wins to Long Hauls

The ag problems we’re staring at now are not quick and easy. They’re hard, tangled up in biology, supply chains, and big systems that resist change. We’re talking about breakthroughs in scaling nitrogen-use efficiency, developing autonomous harvesters for specialty crops, making biological substitutes for synthetic inputs, and delivering complete supply chain transparency.

These challenges don’t wrap up in 18 months. We’re looking at decade-long efforts: regionally diverse trials, regulatory hurdles, shifting farmer habits. All while keeping an eye on feasible business models and markets.

Capital is Pulling Back and That’s Frightening

Venture capital in ag and food is contracting fast, honestly at a time when we need it most. AgFunder data shows that agrifoodtech startups raised just $5.1 billion across 551 deals in the first half of 2025, a 37% drop from the $8.1 billion raised in H1 2024. That’s the lowest first-half total since 2015 when the space was still finding its feet.

We’re also seeing a preference for late-stage deals. Investors want commercially viable solutions.

On top of that, the number of funds willing to back companies in the early-commercialization stage between research and scale, is shrinking.

There just aren’t enough checks being written for founders who need to bridge the gap between proof of concept and real market traction.

So how do we expect startups to make it to the stage where they’re “de-risked” enough for growth capital? Are we relying on grants to fill the void? Corporate partnerships? Non-dilutive funding?

Right now, the pipeline feels fragile, and while the need for long-horizon innovation is clear, the capital to support it is increasingly scarce.

Risking an Innovation Void

This pullback in capital isn’t just a cyclical dip. It’s a structural risk. If early-stage investors step back, the research coming out of universities, labs, incubators, and accelerators will stall before it ever has the chance to reach the market.

At Ag Startup Engine, we’re not immune to this. As we’ve looked at opportunities, we’ve ultimately pressed pause on a few, not because the science wasn’t compelling, but because we couldn’t answer: where will the follow-on capital come from? If a company can’t see a path to Seed or Series A funding, it feels like we’re just writing a check to light money on fire.

Part of the issue feels structural. There are only a handful of funds in the U.S. willing to write $1M early checks. The other part is that many of these solutions require significant capital and years of trials, which don’t fit neatly inside a traditional 10-year fund horizon.

When early capital dries up, we don’t just lose startups; we lose the chance to spin out decades of research into the market. That’s the true innovation gap: not technologies failing, but technologies never even getting the chance to start.

Being an Entrepreneur in the Thick of It

For founders chasing these hard problems, I don’t see it actually getting any easier. You need to align ambition with capital patience, build proof points season after season, and structure funding in phases that match development milestones, not market-facing timelines. Surviving long enough to deliver is already half the battle.

More founders are focusing on profitability earlier, pursuing non-dilutive funding, and leaning on corporate research partnerships. It’s not about abandoning venture altogether, but buying time and creating optionality.

Investors: It’s About Patience, Not Just Returns

For investors, we need to rethink timelines and what it will actually take to bring these solutions to market. We need to plan for long cycles. We need to think through what it means to provide sustained support, writing checks in multiple rounds, backing deep technical validation, and recognizing that adoption in agriculture is measured in seasons, not quarters. Strategy has to blend the near-term with the long-term bets or risk erosion during tough cycles.

The good news is, people are starting to recognize this. There’s more conversation around alternative models: evergreen structures, impact funds, milestone-based financing, and revenue-based approaches. All of which can provide liquidity while still supporting the long arcs ag innovation requires.

So, Are the “Easy Wins” Done?

No. In agriculture, I don’t think anything is ever truly easy. The early wins just aligned perfectly with favorable economics, quick adoption, and existing infrastructure. Now, we’re in a different era: slower, tougher, more capital-intensive, but that also means there’s even bigger upside.