In last year’s AgFunderNews investor survey, some predicted more consolidation, rollups, and even “category-defining exits.”
Spoiler alert: That didn’t happen.
“Most companies and boards in 2025 were focused on finding any source of capital they could to extend their runways to make it through the trough of the down cycle,” observes David Pierson, managing director at Syngenta Group Ventures, one of the longest-running ag CVC units.
Meanwhile, “Mergers are tough and less likely when both parties have weak financials and are burning cash; you end up with a bigger cash burn and a greater need to raise money.”
While some players have been acquisitive (notably CropX, which has continued its buying spree), rollups “are hard because of the significant complexity of combining multiple organizations and product portfolios,” adds Pierson.
As for a “category defining exit” in ag, he says, “Many people thought Monsanto’s acquisition of Climate Corp was category-defining, but it fizzled as the business model failed to pan out. And the SPAC craze was a bust.”
That said, “agtech is not dead,” stresses Pierson, who says he’s particularly excited about biocontrols, precision application and the use of AI/ML to accelerate discovery of new crop-protection actives, enable more targeted and sustainable use of inputs, and drive efficiencies across manufacturing, supply chains, and digital sales channels.
“If anything, there is more tech innovation in this sector than ever before. It is most often the case that investments made at the bottom of a cycle when terms are investor friendly yield the best long-term returns for a fund. Now is the time to deploy capital for the best future returns.”
And in this environment, patient capital with deep sector knowledge—which defines corporate venture capital (CVC)—will play an outsized role in deciding which technologies make it through the downturn, he says.
AgFunderNews (AFN) caught up with Pierson (DP) to discuss where exits might come from in 2026, where AI/ML tools that can make a potentially significant impact in ag, what raises red flags for him in a pitch, and what he’s learned over the years: “Be very choosy and then practice patience.”
AFN: How would you characterize the last few years in agrifoodtech investing? If generalist cash is disappearing, where is the money going to come from?
DP: The period of prolonged low interest rates between the mid-2010s through 2022 created an overhang of excess capital chasing returns and pushing up valuations for deals that would not have been done in saner times. We are now living through the hangover.
The inevitable shakeout—similar to the post 2001 and 2008 crises—is underway, and weak companies and funds are going out of business. In the long run, this is healthy for the venture ecosystem because it rewards disciplined investors and well managed companies focused on delivering innovation in a capital-efficient way.
Funds still in the game include the CVCs with corporate leadership committed to supporting innovation at a time when opportunities are everywhere. It also includes VC funds with a good track record of returns who were fortunate to raise a new fund before the cycle turned negative.
AFN: Do we need to recalibrate return expectations in agtech?
DP: Agtech is still a very young space that started to come into vogue around 2010 versus other areas of venture capital that have been around since the 1980s. As the ag VC ecosystem and entrepreneurial talent pool develops, business models improve, and specialist VCs learn their business good returns will follow. Be choosy and have patience.
AFN: Where do you see exits coming from in 2026?
DP: The exit environment will continue to be challenging in 2026 as the first- and second-tier ag majors continue to focus on their financial health or sort out major organizational changes.
However, there are always buyers for well managed companies with valuable IP, accelerating customer traction, and attractive financials that would be immediately accretive to a buyer who can tuck them in for dependable growth that fills gaps in a portfolio.
As an example, the major crop fertilizer and plant nutrition companies are acquisitive at the moment, searching for product differentiation and better margins.
AFN: Every conference has a panel ruminating on whether the VC model fits food and ag. Does it?
DP: I don’t think the model is broken. We just need to focus on the fundamentals: team, technology, market. I used to be in human therapeutics, which has a similarly long time frame from discovery to approval to generating revenue, with even higher regulatory hurdles, and the VC model works just fine there, and it can work just fine here, too.
AFN: Where are we in the downcycle?
DP: 2026 is probably the bottom of the trough. From what I’m hearing, the big ag companies are feeling like 2026 will be a better year than last year, and so that trickles down into the farm economy. But venture capital typically lags the market by 12 months or so, so maybe in the second half of 2026, first half of next year, we’ll be back to easier times for raising LP cash and more companies will be coming out of desperation mode.
Terms have gotten very nasty—by which I mean investor-friendly—over the last couple of years, but that’s a pendulum that swings back.
AFN: You steered clear of some of agrifoodtech’s most overheated sectors. Was that luck or foresight?
DP: With a straight face, I can say that from the beginning, our team thought that the alt protein, carbon credit, vertical farming, insect farming terms and amounts were crazy, so I’m really happy to say we avoided all that. And thank God we did, because that stuff caused a lot of funds to go out of business.
That said, I think the survivors, both the entrepreneurs and the investors in that space, will have learned a lot of good lessons, and there will be a second wave.
AFN: What role do/should corporates and CVCs play in the current challenging funding environment?
DP: CVCs offer stable capital, deep technical expertise for due diligence, and the advantage of a long-term perspective. Ideally, our validation builds the confidence necessary to attract traditional VC investment.
AFN: How does Syngenta Group Ventures operate compared with a pureplay VC company?
DP: Our investment committee has given us the ability to recommend pure-play VC investments in agtech where there is no immediate existing rationale for Syngenta Group’s (SG’s) strategic interest, but where there is a strong potential for financial returns.
It has often been the case that SGV will invest in a deal without SG’s engagement and a few years later SG realizes that there is a strategic rationale for being in the deal. For example, drones, satellite imagery, e-commerce, and fintech are examples where SGV was “ahead of the curve” recognizing strategic opportunities before SG saw it. Our job is to peek around corners. That’s part of the fun.
Since SGV invests off the balance sheet, we can take a longer view, whereas VC funds feel pressure to be in and out of a deal based on where they are in their fund’s lifespan. VCs are on an artificial timeline to deploy and harvest capital to close their fund within the 10-year life span. CVCs don’t have this pressure.
AFN: Does the ability to have experts in the “mother ship” validate startups’ tech offer unique benefits?
DP: Definitely. We have the benefit of a large number of internal experts on a wide range of topics to help us with diligence questions. After making an investment, we continue to tap into internal expertise to help the management of portfolio companies as questions arise or for networking that the entrepreneurs feel is high value.
Our internal relationships with senior stakeholders also help us facilitate conversations between SG and portfolio companies that lead to formal collaborations. But I should emphasize that SGV is strict about respecting confidentiality and maintains a firewall between SGV and SG.
AFN: What areas of agtech are you most excited about at the moment?
DP: We remain opportunistic to a certain extent, like all VCs, because disruptive innovation has a way of making an unannounced appearance, so we are careful not to wear blinders.
With that said, we have a bias at the moment for biocontrols, precision application, and all things digital because they align well with SG’s strategic ambition and usually fit the VC investment model well (capital efficient value creation toward an attractive exit).
AFN: Why are you especially bullish on biocontrols?
DP: They’re really starting to come into their own; we have more players with better products and more consistent performance. We’ve got the delisting of small molecule chemistry in a lot of countries around the world; there are a lot of resistance management issues with existing small molecule chemistry; and farmers across the board in the major markets are desperate for new solutions.
AFN: Looking at AI/ML in ag and food particularly, what’s catching your eye?
DP: I see three initial big opportunities for near term application of AI/ML tools that can make a potentially significant impact in ag:
1) There will be a significant impact on discovery of new active ingredients, whether synthetic chemistry or biological molecules. As an example, AI platforms being developed by big pharma can do the same for ag; cutting time and cost while boosting the efficiency of identifying promising lead candidates for development. AI platforms are already in use for identifying novel peptides for crop protection applications. Ditto for natural small molecules that have potential as biocontrol or biostimulants.
2) Precision application of crop protection. AI and ML tools can help farmers make better decisions about what to apply, how much, and where to improve efficacy while significantly reducing the amount of product being applied to the field (see Greeneye Technology and AgZen). This provides a boost to ROI and a sustainability impact for the farmer.
3) AI tools are already having an impact on all the non-sexy stuff: operational efficiencies in manufacturing and supply chains to management of field development activities to improving customer engagement over online platforms in the form of chatbots for e-commerce, pricing, and more targeted sales promotions.
AFN: Can’t big companies build AI tools inhouse?
DP: Large companies will often say, ‘We can build that [in-house].’ And then two years later, they figure out, no, we need to work with one of these smaller, more nimble companies that have already got a platform that demonstrably can do much better.
We don’t have as many AI startups specifically targeting ag, but there’s a lot of outreach going on right now to companies outside of ag, who have already invested a lot of money into AI tools for efficiency that can port it over to ag.
AFN: What raises red flags for you in a pitch?
DP: I look for three categories of risk that are difficult to mitigate:
- Execution: Teams with little experience as entrepreneurs or in the ag sector present high execution risk.
- Technology: This includes lack of solid IP, unrealistic barriers to entry, or products requiring multiple technical breakthroughs. I also watch for solutions that only offer incremental improvements in crowded markets.
- Financing: I assess whether financial projections are realistic and if there is a path to building a strong investor syndicate.
AFN: What lessons have you learned/mistakes made along the way in ag investing and how has your approach evolved accordingly?
DP: Avoid falling in love with technology in search of a problem to solve. Keep the customers’ needs at the center of your investment thesis. Focus on the fundamentals of investment and don’t chase valuations. Advise your CEOs and boards to prioritize capital efficiency. Boards need to set appropriate goals and hold management accountable.
AFN: What’s your investment thesis/criteria at Syngenta Group Ventures?
DP: We seek to balance a strong strategic rationale while requiring a venture capital return. We have a bias for Series A through C stage deals in technology platform, product, and business model innovation. We give priority to crop protection, seeds, biologicals, precision application and robotics, and all things digital.
AFN: What’s your geographical remit?
DP: SGV has a global footprint, with four managing director level investment professionals, two in Basel who cover Europe, Israel, India, Asia, and ROW [rest of the world], and two in the US including myself, who cover North and South America.
AFN: Do you have a fixed amount of money to work with and a certain number of investments you plan to make a year?
DP: SGV invests off the balance sheet of the parent corporation and is an evergreen investor, which gives us flexibility in the size, type, and number of deals in which we may invest. So, we do not have a formal fund, per se, but we do manage our portfolio as if it were a fund so that we may focus on how capital is being allocated, cash for new investments, reserves for follow-on investments, and the range of typical fund performance metrics so that we may compare our performance vs the VC industry benchmarks.
AFN: What’s the approval process like to sign off on an investment—how quickly can you move?
DP: SGV has structured its operating model so that we behave like and move at the speed of an independent financial VC. After due diligence we make an investment proposal to an investment committee (IC) chaired by the corporate CFO with executive level leaders of the major global business units and R&D. Our process is streamlined for quick decision making. We get an up or down vote in one IC meeting.
AFN: Do you ever build right of first refusal into deals?
DP: No. We believe all investors in a syndicate should invest on the same terms and rights to maintain alignment of incentives. Granting special rights to one investor frequently causes problems during follow-on rounds and potentially encumbers the upside value at exit.
AFN: How does Syngenta Group Ventures work with portfolio companies?
DP: We strive to promote good governance at the board level, provide coaching and advice for the C-level teams, and advice with capital strategy. Each of us has a good network in the VC ecosystem we tap to help raise follow-on financing.
Finally, each MD has annual performance objectives that include how effectively we facilitate engagement between the portfolio companies and internal senior SG stakeholders, hopefully leading to formal collaborations. Historically, over 75% of our portfolio companies have had one or more partnerships or collaboration attempts with Syngenta.
AFN: How does Syngenta Group Ventures work with the external innovation (Shoots by Syngenta) team?
DP: SGV collaborates with Shoots and others, offering that team introductions, advice, educated opinions, and leads on interesting new technology and whether it is investible. The Shoots program typically looks at earlier stage technology, although not exclusively. SGV usually wants to see more validation of the technology or products though proof-of-concept data or early customer traction before seriously engaging.
👉 Check out other interviews in our Investor Q&A series.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter.
