Last week, @TheDailyScoop wrote about proprietary products in ag retail, a topic that's been near and dear to me for a long time and one I have emphasized in @UpstreamAg for years because it brings up many strategic avenues for ag retailers to navigate. There is key rationale highlighted behind building a proprietary strategy, like competing with generics, offsetting margin erosion, and differentiating the portfolio, all of which are key. I'd add three more. 1. Optionality - Innovation is coming from more places than ever: startups, biologicals companies, and discovery companies in China, Japan and India looking for a route to market. A group without its own brand has no vehicle to bring that innovation in and stays reliant on its suppliers' pipelines. 2. Control - Reliance on supplier programs can govern your growth and cash flow. And as we saw with Bayer and Simplot or WinField last month, you can be cut off from product access. Control is king. 3. Loyalty - Your own brand lets you shape the customer experience, like bringing in a product built for your region's specific needs. When growers get results from a product they can't buy from the retailer down the road, that turns differentiation into something that compounds. However, all of this is difficult. I view building it as a ladder. I think about it in four tiers, each taking more capability and capital and earning more differentiation and pricing power: 1. Value - Off-patent generics that compete on price. You get a better margin percent but low absolute dollars, and the highest supplier conflict risk of any tier. 2. Enhanced - Reformulated to beat the leading brand on some specific measure or feature, like Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC's Moveo and SolvX (eg: handleability, odor, less foaming etc) 3. Exclusive - In-licensed chemistry or biologicals competitors can't access, like Wilbur-Ellis with AgroSpheres or Nutrien Ag Solutions with Ascribe BioBio. This can be built out beyond crop protection, too. 4. Systems - A product bundled with a service, data or some guarantee. It's the hardest to execute and the hardest to shop on price. It's a mistake to treat proprietary strategy as Tier 1 only. Value brands drive the beginning, but differentiation, control and loyalty increasingly come from the tiers above. For the full deep dive I breakdown the above, and then get into assessing capabilities, like What to Measure, Sourcing, How Proprietary Programs Fail, Managing Supplier Conflict, KPIs and more.

I love reading through patent filings. They give interesting insight into how companies think about competitive advantage, the future of ag, and solving problems for their customers. This week I published a new overview of 5 ag patent filings that stood out from the last month or so. 1. @JohnDeere: a weed-pressure model sizes See & Spray tank fills so tanks run close to empty. It solves a real problem with variable-rate spraying. 2. @MeristemAg: a screw-on cap capsule releases live biologicals into the jug at the point of use. 3. @Inner_Plant: sensor plants that fluoresce under stress integrated into an entire cohesive system delivering a "data trait.” 4. @pivotbio: microbe edits that bypass the microbe's N-fixation governor, so it fixes even with soil N present. 5. @Mosaic: input integration (eg: microbe, biostimulant) delivery via the dry granule fertilizer. For deeper applicability and analysis, check out the full @UpstreamAg article.

Corteva is set to split in 6 weeks time. Many of the details of what is going where is quite obvious and previously stated: germplasm and traits to the newly established Vylor, and crop protection and biologicals going to Corteva. There is some nuance though, such as around Enlist data, or digital solutions, and what happens to the seed treatment on Pioneer branded seed? Last week, Vylor filed the first amendment to its Form 10. Within that filing are the two agreements (with some redactions), that illustrate what the split actually means in terms of asset and IP split, but also a look at the seed applied technology agreements and Enlist aspects get broken out. One notable aspect surrounding digital is that Corteva will become the only big 5 crop protection player without a digital asset - @BASF has @xarviodf, @Bayer has Climate, @Syngenta has Cropwise and FMC Corporation has Arc. For a brief overview, check out the slides below. For a deeper breakdown, subscribe to @UpstreamAg and get more details direct to your inbox this Sunday. Does anything surprise you?

Last week I joined @MeristemAg for their Breakthrough to Excellence event. There were many takeaways that stood out to me, but one really resonated: "We don't ship water" If we look at the consumer world, it has a Coca-Cola-like component to it. Coca-Cola generates most of their profits from selling syrup concentrate than selling finished bottles of Coke. Coca-Cola primarily sells their secret syrup to outside bottling companies that do the work of manufacturing and distributing the final bottles to vending machines, convenience stores etc. This portion of its business is known as its "concentrate operations." A huge portion of Coca-Cola’s revenue (and profit) is generated by this unique selling of its syrup. The key here is that this allows Coca-Cola to have higher margins in their business and an ability to reach all corners of the market thanks to less demand on their balance sheet and last mile leg work. The way to think about this applied to our agriculture setting is that Meristem is the Coca-Cola company, selling proprietary adjuvant and fertilizer ingredients to retailers who act equivalent to the bottling companies, making the product into it’s final usable form and then selling to farmers. The outcomes become: - Higher operating margins for Meristem and increased ability/agility to scale up growth across the USA. - Lower cost of goods for the dealer equalling potentially higher margins - And lower product costs to the farmer. You get a win for farmers, a win for dealers and a win for Meristem. They have created a win-win-win scenario at all points of the value chain, and just one of the components that go into them taking costs out of the acre for farmers. Accessing innovation doesn't always have to cost more for farmers.

Input distribution in the United States is shifting. Last week it was announced that beginning with the 2027 season, Simplot Grower Solutions will no longer distribute or sell Bayer-branded crop protection or seed. And, starting in 2028, WinField United would not be selling Dekalb, Asgrow, and Deltapine seed brands, though it retains Bayer crop protection. Simplot's Innvictis brand retains licensing access to Bayer genetics, and WinField's Croplan and Armor brands keep Bayer traits. A shift was bound to happen and I doubt it's the last announcement we will see. Bayer signaled a change in its May 2025 strategy update, emphasizing new GTM motions with the US called out specifically as a region where shifts would happen. Bayer has forecast a mid-twenties EBITDA margin in Crop Science by 2029, from roughly 20% today, and while new and novel products are one avenue to improve margin, the other requirement is managing costs and working capital on the other end. I wrote a year ago that distributors and retailers should be ready for changes in product access, rebate dollars, and more high-touch demand generation from Bayer. If I'm a retailer, distributor, or manufacturer, there are several different questions that need to be asked and strategic focus needs to be top of mind. I broke it all down in more detail in this week's Upstream Ag Professional, alongside: - The Law of Conservation of Attractive Profits in crop protection - Q2 2026 results across Bayer, Nutrien, The Mosaic Company, UPL, TELUS Agriculture & Consumer Goods, and CNH - Influence Erosion in Ag Retail - Ambrook Raise - Salience Bias and how it needs to be considered in the context of sensor technology - InnerPlant Data Traits and Increasing Returns + much more How do you think the future of crop input distribution will shift in the next 5 years?

A Winner's Mindset: Influencing the Market vs. Letting the Market Influence You ◼︎◼︎◼︎ In a 2014 study, researchers hooked participants up to sleep monitoring equipment and handed them fake readouts. Some were told they got above-average REM sleep. Others were told they slept poorly. However, the readouts were actually random. The group told they slept well performed significantly better on cognitive tests. What people believed about their situation changed their performance, even though the environment or circumstances themselves did not. I've been thinking about that study a lot lately, because I keep having conversations about how tough the ag market is. And yet, often I've talked with some founders and agribusiness professionals who are still growing their business and seeing success. The difference in who's winning often comes down to the mentality they have around the current environment. Some ask "what is the market allowing me to get?" while others ask "what can I do to influence the market?" In this week's Upstream Ag Insights article, I dig into why that difference compounds into measurably different outcomes, including examples: - Two micronutrient companies looking at the exact same season and commodity prices, one forecasting growth and one forecasting struggle. - How The Mosaic Company's internal view of the market shows up in the numbers behind MicroEssentials and its biologicals business. - A story from my first year in ag retail, where a list of "waste of time" farmers taught me how perception closes doors on real opportunities. - The principle that explains why a sales team's belief that "growers aren't spending this year" becomes a self-fulfilling outcome. No mindset turns low corn prices high. But within any set of fundamentals there is a wide range of outcomes, and where your organization lands in that range depends heavily on the story your team believes about the market. @UpstreamAg

Today, Bayer signed an exclusive licensing deal with RAGT Groupe for wheat germplasm, with plans to launch hybrid wheat in Europe and North America simultaneously by the early 2030s. Previously, Bayer had an R&D agreement with RAGT, and was citing a €700 million peak sales, however, today they announced a €1 Billion peak in the 2040s. Bayer has seemingly become more bullish on the potential of hybrid wheat, growing their peak revenue expectations by 40%. Hybrid wheat has been "almost here" for decades, but now the technology has evolved and seed-production economics are being solved. Four of the major players have various initiatives around the crop. 1. Corteva Agriscience began amping up messaging ijn 2024 surrounding North America, highlighting their nuclear male-sterility system and a color-marker seed process to fix the cost problem. They are targeting a 2027 North America launch, and have stated they are looking at licensing their tech in other parts of the world. 2. Bayer | Crop Science is partnering with RAGT's for germplasm in Europe on winter wheat and leveraging its WestBred germplasm for winter and spring wheat in the United States. Notably, the GTM for Bayer has been alluded to as a "system" of digital and agronomy tools. 3. BASF (Ideltis) is EU-first and deliberately paused in North America, emphasizing protein premiums where a smaller yield bump pays off. 4. Syngenta has its AgriPro initiative in North America (which has launched in the Northern Plains), and its X-Terra effort targeting Europe. Syngenta has emphasized a systems approach similar to Bayer for Europe. Interestingly, Bayer and Corteva both now cite their pipeline sales in hybrid wheat as 1 Billion (dollars for Corteva, Euro for Bayer). The other interesting aspect to watch is how winning in the segment will occur: All are claiming and marketing ~10-15% yield gains, which means if they all effectively execute in that range, there is going to be a cost battle, or a systems battle. I broke down the science, the seed-production math, and each company's strategy in more detail here and will be expanding in this weekend's edition: upstream.ag/p/revolutionizin…

AgbioInvestor's latest crop protection R&D survey for CropLife International came out last week. The cost to bring a new active ingredient to market hit $307 million, up from $301 million over the previous time period - it is the smallest increase in the 30-year history of the survey. Time to commercialization also decreased for the first time, from over 12 years to just over 11. The next report will be interesting to watch on this front given AI capabilities only came out towards the end of the reporting period. The composition of spend is interesting to look at: Synthesis and formulation jumped 17.4% to $75 million (of the $307 million) and are now the single largest line item. Large-scale field trials are up 22.9% while broad biological screening is down 9.9%. The industry is moving away from brute-force discovery toward hypothesis-driven chemistry and working to overcome Eroom's Law. Proprietary product share of the total CP market has fallen to roughly 10%. When looking at that data ijn conjunction with the data on proprietary off-patent dynamics, including how prices erode about 50% in the first decade post-patent on top of the 11.4 years from synthesis to first sale and a commercializer has 5-6 years of real pricing power to earn back $307 million plus a return on capital. The math explains a lot of what we are seeing today in terms of start-up partnerships, spin-outs and even how companies are emphasizing only very large scale molecules markets. Lastly, biological R&D allocation now sits at 10% of the total, though the line between biological and synthetic is getting fuzzy depending on how companies label naturally derived molecules. Full breakdown available at @UpstreamAg

26 Principles for the Modern Agribusiness Professional ◼︎◼︎◼︎ Since 2020, I have published an annual “professionals tips” article for new College grads entering the agriculture industry, aimed at amplifying their ability to get up to speed and improve professionally. One of the most common pieces of feedback I received around it was that it shouldn’t be emphasized to just new grads, but all agribusiness professionals. Taking that into account, I have re-positioned it beyond students and new grads towards agribusiness professionals of all experience levels. Some of these were stumbled on myself, others are borrowed from reading and listening to other much more experienced individuals from agriculture or other industries. I think this year these concepts are especially important to call out as we see AI increase in prominence. Today, intelligence, and action are increasingly becoming commoditized — automated by AI or handled by systems which means the real edge lies not in simply doing, but in knowing what is the most high leverage action to take. When everyone has access to the same tools, technologies, and playbooks, advantage shifts to those who can think clearly, prioritize wisely, and act with conviction. That means leaders who develop discernment and improved judgement — the ability to cut through noise, choose the right path, and anticipate second and third order consequences, will outperform those who simply move faster or “do more.” I hope highlighting these concepts can help individuals build better judgement, make higher-quality decisions, and improve career prospects. These 26 examples have been a constant source of leverage for me and while I won’t claim the principles to be novel for industry veterans, I think they can be a useful reminder for everyone striving for professional and personal development. @UpstreamAg

Do you like the new Corteva SpinCo (Seed company) name, ‘Vylor’?

A look at the AgBiTech Acquisition by @BASF. In Q1 2026 BASF announced the acquisition of AgBiTech. One thing to note from their report is the “Investments” line. The AgBiTech acquisition was finalized in Q1 and investments were up ~€120 million YoY, and about the same above the 5-year average for the same period. In looking at the cashflow commentary there is a call out of the acquisition: Payments were made in the amount of €124 million in connection with the acquisition of AgBiTech, Brisbane, Australia, and for a purchase price adjustment of €33 million relating to the sale of the global pigments business in 2021. The statement is confusing to me given the second half of the sentence. However, given the investment and acquisition line item suggesting a ~ €120 million price for AgBiTech, and the line seemingly suggests €124 million in deal price, it seems safe to assume €124 million is the price that was paid. I speculated on the price paid, and I was way off. But since we roughly know their revenue, and now the value, we can look at revenue multiple paid, which gives a base barometer for other future acquisitions: AgBiTech seemingly had ~$20 million USD in revenue. Using a USD to EURO of 0.85 we get a revenue of ~€17 million, which means a revenue multiple of 7.3x. Higher than I expected. For context, Corteva acquired Stoller (not biocontrol) for ~3x revenue, Syngenta acquired Valagro for around the same and BASF’s previous large acquisition, Becker Underwood, was for around 4x.

Clockspeed, Capital, and Conviction: Considerations for R&D and M&A in Agribusiness There is a recurring critique that incumbent agribusinesses are "asleep at the wheel" because they do not spend higher percentages of revenue on R&D like big tech or pharma, or don't acquire like other industries. The framing, while well-intentioned, doesn't consider the structural dynamics of large companies and the greater industry incentives. I believe there are frameworks that can help us understand why we don't see more. One of those is industry "clockspeed" — a concept coined by Charles Fine in his book by the same name. Industries have different rates of evolutionary change. Software and semiconductors sit at the fast end, where hesitation is fatal. Agriculture, however, is a slow-clockspeed industry. In fast-clockspeed industries, the cost of being wrong is high, but the cost of inaction is higher. In agriculture, premature commitment can be destructive. This is why simply asking for more M&A or R&D is a tactical oversimplification. The most successful incumbents in agriculture are not trying to act like software companies. They are leveraging slow-clockspeed realities to their advantage. They observe market traction, identify "consensus bets" and then leverage their distribution moats to scale these technologies in ways startups cannot. Capital allocation is not just about spending; it is about disciplined orchestration across all potential uses of capital. The CEOs who deliver long-term returns are those who resist the pressure to chase growth for its own sake and instead deploy capital based on competitive positioning and internal cash flow. These also tend to be the companies that deliver the better products and outcomes to customers long term, too. In my latest breakdown, I look at the intersection of clockspeed, capital allocation, and why the disruption narrative often misses the mark in agriculture. Check out a brief overview of Clockspeed in the video below. @UpstreamAg

Cognitive Biases and Improved Decision Making for Agribusiness Leaders ◼︎◼︎◼︎ A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from rational judgment. It's a predictable way our brains diverge from effective reasoning when processing information, evaluating risk, or making decisions. I believe understanding them can vastly improve decisions making, along with influence. So I put together a breakdown of 40 biases I find relevant, across 6 related clusters. Every one is framed around actual agribusiness situations, including capital allocation, M&A, trading desks, R&D pipelines, selling, product launches, marketing, or board dynamics. A few examples from inside: - The ag retailer who sunk $4M into a proprietary digital platform because walking away felt like "wasting" the spend. The $7M budget was gone either way. The real cost was 18 months of delayed partnership revenue. - The seed company that kept funding a declining $80M legacy platform because visible revenue felt more real than a next-gen pipeline. Clayton Christensen's disruption theory in action. - The boardroom spending 90 minutes on an $80K break room and 30 minutes on a $12M acquisition. Each bias includes what it is, the agribusiness example, and science-based tactics for overcoming it. I also recorded a podcast on 7 of the biases, with an overview of one of my favorites, The IKEA Effect. Researchers showed people value what they build themselves far more than identical items built by others — even when the self-built version is objectively inferior. In agribusiness, this is the custom-built CRM defended against a superior commercial alternative, or even less tangible things like strategies or initiatives. I think it is worth paying attention to. @UpstreamAg

Every major crop input company now has a biologicals strategy. The question is how are they progressing and what specifically are they doing? I just published an updated report that tracks the biologicals and specialty nutrition strategies, revenues, acquisitions, partnerships, pipelines, and commercial progress of 16 companies across crop protection, fertilizer, and the independent biologicals landscape. Crop protection: Corteva, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, FMC, and UPL. Fertilizer: Yara, Mosaic, Nutrien, and ICL. New to this edition are profiles on six scaled independent players that rarely get this level of coverage: Rovensa Next, BioFirst Group (formerly Biobest), Verdesian Life Sciences, Koppert, Acadian Plant Health, and DE SANGOSSE. A few things you'll find inside: Mosaic's Biosciences business doubled revenue to $68 million in 2025, hit EBITDA positive in 2025, and is targeting $200 million in EBITDA by 2030. How they're applying the MicroEssentials playbook to biologicals, and where their nitrogen fixation go-to-market approach may get challenged. Corteva posted $519 million in biological revenue in 2025. What the planned Corteva split means for the biologicals portfolio, and why the NEXTA launch through Pioneer dealers is an important initiative. BASF acquired AgBiTech in early 2026, their first meaningful bio acquisition since Becker Underwood in 2012. The report looks at why NPV-based bioinsecticides are a fit, and what the coming Ag Solutions IPO means for their biologicals investment appetite. Nutrien's proprietary crop nutrition and biostimulant gross margins are approaching $500 million, with 70% of future proprietary product growth expected from biologicals and nutritionals. The report also includes side-by-side comparison snapshots across segments, the largest bio-based and specialty acquisitions to date, an acquisition timeline since 2010, the key market drivers behind the growth of this segment and images illustrating acquisitions and partnerships, along with future considerations for the companies. @UpstreamAg

DunhamTrimmer Biostimulant Report Highlights and Analysis ◼︎◼︎◼︎ The global biostimulant market hit $4.47B in 2024 and is projected to reach $7.88B by 2030. But the headline number obscures what's actually happening structurally in the category. Latin America and Asia-Pacific have overtaken Europe as the largest biostimulant-using regions. North America crossed $1B for the first time. Humic and fulvic acids dominate North American sales, driven by access to high-quality leonardite deposits, but amino acids and protein hydrolysates are gaining ground fast. Meanwhile, commoditization is accelerating. Low barriers to entry, shared raw material suppliers, weak IP, and undifferentiated go-to-market strategies have put much of the industry on a path toward price-based competition. The companies that built this category now face the most pressure from it. The most important forward-looking concept in the DunhamTrimmer report is Single Biostimulant Molecules. Rather than working with complex blends and differentiating purely through marketing, SBM players are identifying specific molecules with defined modes of action on plant metabolism and rhizosphere pathways. More specificity means more consistent efficacy, more replicable results, and a defensible value proposition, similar to how crop protection efforts have been executed. I recorded a full video walkthrough of the DunhamTrimmer 2025 Global Biostimulant Report covering: - Drivers of Interest - Regional growth dynamics and where the market is headed - Commoditization pressures and strategic responses - The Single Biostimulant Molecule opportunity - What this means for companies and investors in the space Check out the full video below. @UpstreamAg

Cognitive Biases and Improved Decision Making ■■■ Every strategic decision in agribusiness passes through a human brain before it becomes action. That brain, regardless of the education or the decades of experience informing it, is running on cognitive software that evolved to avoid predators, and prioritize short term constraints, like food management or safety, not to optimize for being different, thinking long term or building systems that create success in business. These sub-optimal approaches to thinking and decision making are known as cognitive biases. They are patterns deviating from rational judgment and are not occasional mistakes or signs of low intelligence, however, they are predictable, measurable, and universal tendencies that affect how we process information, evaluate risk, remember outcomes, and interact with others. They have long been central to my considerations when decision-making — though I remain far from perfect at managing them. I think anyone operating in agriculture should be even aware of these biases – for those farming, and allocating capital and resources, or at a company and managing a team, or setting strategic priorities. The higher the stakes and complexity of a role, the more cognitive biases can distort our judgment in ways that are hard to detect in the moment. The full breakdown examines 40 cognitive biases through the lens of decision-making, for the likes of boardrooms, R&D labs, commercial teams, and executive suites where strategic decisions can influence billion dollar outcomes. For each bias, there are four main areas covered: 1. what it is 2. why it matters 3. a specific agribusiness example of how it distorts decisions (occasionally, I will highlight how they can be used inversely, as well). 4. science-based strategies for overcoming it. The full report is available for subscribers at upstream. ag. @UpstreamAg

Upstream Ag Professional - The Big Three Stories of the Week ◼︎◼︎◼︎ A look at what agribusiness leaders will find in this weekend's edition of Upstream Ag Professional: 1. Cognitive Biases and Improved Decision Making for Agribusiness Professionals Often we focus on making smarter decisions, but as good of an opportunity to improve our decison making and effectiveness is to remove predictably bad ones. Over a decade of collecting cognitive biases led me to build a practical guide with 40 biases I reference often, organized into six clusters, each with agribusiness-specific examples and science-based strategies for overcoming them. The aim is to have a reference piece for agribusiness professionals to imrpove their decision making, or enhance their influence. 2. Biostimulant Sales: Like selling seed? Or something else? Check out a small clip from this week's @UpstreamAg Professional audio coverage highlighting the similarities to crop protection, but it goes further than that and I dive in in this weekend's edition. 3. Mental Models for Agribusiness Leaders with Shane Thomas on The Future of Agriculture This week I joined @timhammerich on The Future of Agriculture podcast to discuss 7 useful mental models that are directly applicable to agribusiness professionals. Models include some popular, and some lesser known ones: Jevons Paradox, Influence Erosion, Strategy Tax, Friction Reduction, Contrarian Decisions, Jobs to be Done and One-Way Doors vs Two-Way Doors Plus much more in this weekend's edition.