The most important number in specialty crop agtech is $5 billion in automation revenue in a single year. I’ve written before about the importance of automation becoming a category with more than $1 billion in annual sales. That metric is significant from a segment perspective because, across many technology categories, there is precedent for that level of revenue generating meaningful follow-on segments.

In automation, the opportunities include: (1) systems integration, which helps agricultural operators incorporate robots into their farming operations; (2) data and analytics, which take data from multiple robots and turn it into a recommendation engine for agronomic decision-making on future rotations; and (3) the manufacturing and service ecosystem, where at a certain scale it becomes worthwhile for manufacturers to build equipment close to their customers, regardless of where headquarters are located.

In enterprise data centers, as various forms of storage reached $1 billion in revenue, the supporting infrastructure around systems integration and data and analytics tools often grew to 25 percent to 50 percent of the size of the underlying category.

I then started analyzing what automation revenue projections could look like over the next five to 10 years and beyond. As I examined the amount of venture capital already invested, the amount and trajectory of current revenue from known players in the sector, and likely trends in venture capital and revenue growth, two things became apparent.

First, based only on known players and expected growth trajectories, agtech automation is poised to grow from approximately $310 million to $325 million in 2025 to $1 billion by 2030. That represents a 26 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR). Growth during the past several years has been at least 25 percent to 30 percent, with some years showing larger spikes.

Second, if you look at expected agrifoodtech venture capital funding over the next five years and the anticipated percentage allocated to automation, a path to $2.5 billion within the next decade appears not only possible but increasingly probable.

How does the $1 billion materialize? Over the past 10 years, automation has attracted between $2.8 billion and $3.2 billion in investment, generating the momentum needed to reach $1 billion in revenue by 2030.

Much of that growth will come from non-harvest automation, including weeding robots from Carbon Robotics (Laserweeders) and Stout (mechanical weeders); spraying robots from GUSS, Ecorobotix and Verdant; thinning robots from Niqo (it is also worth noting that some weeding robots can eventually perform thinning tasks, and vice versa); harvest-assist platforms such as Burro; and autonomous mobility platforms, such as Bonsai/Farm-ng and Agtonomy.

These companies can drive most of the growth needed to reach $1 billion without new market entrants. Any new entrants—and some are expected—would accelerate the growth rate and bring the $1 billion milestone into reach sooner. That creates a clear path for automation to achieve $1 billion category status within five years.

Now let’s examine the path to $2.5 billion. Even with agrifoodtech venture capital declining 70 percent over four years—from $54 billion in 2021 to $16 billion in 2025—annual investment has stabilized around $16 billion after totaling approximately $16 billion to $17 billion during the previous two years.

For now, it is reasonable to model the next five years of venture capital at approximately $15 billion annually. That estimate falls within, but slightly below, the range of the past three years in case additional reductions occur. Based on that assumption, total agrifoodtech venture capital investment over the next five years would reach approximately $75 billion.

Next, we can examine what percentage of that funding is likely to flow into automation. It should not be surprising that after investment in vertical farming and alternative proteins slowed significantly, the percentage directed toward categories solving more immediate operational challenges increased. Automation, which addresses the ongoing labor challenge, grew from 1.6 percent of total investment to 5.6 percent.

If I had to project the trend, I would expect automation’s share of investment to increase rather than decline during the next five years. For modeling purposes, I used a flat allocation of 5.6 percent of the projected $75 billion. That results in approximately $4.2 billion in projected automation investment over five years.

Now we can make some assumptions about the impact of that $4.2 billion based on what we have seen in other segments. We know that capital efficiency increases as a segment grows from $0 to $1 billion and then from $1 billion to $2.5 billion. This progression makes sense. The first billion dollars in revenue supports the build-out of infrastructure, while subsequent billions can leverage the installed base and ecosystem created during the development of the first phase of growth.

Recall that the path to the first $1 billion in revenue was based on approximately $3 billion in agrifoodtech venture capital investment. Based on historical patterns, it is reasonable to model the next $4.2 billion as more than capable of generating an additional $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion in revenue. A simple straight-line projection from the original $3 billion investment-to-$1 billion revenue relationship suggests that $4.2 billion would generate approximately $1.4 billion in additional revenue. I believe there is potential upside beyond that estimate because progress generated by automation startups funded through the initial $3 billion investment should create gains that exceed the baseline model.

For those reasons, I believe that $4.2 billion in projected automation investment creates a clear path to $2.5 billion in annual automation revenue.

Now the next question becomes: What is required to reach $5 billion in revenue? A related question is what that level of growth would enable in terms of new business opportunities and, more importantly, what it would mean for job creation.

First, let’s examine the capital needed to reach $5 billion. Based on the results from the initial $3 billion and projected $4.2 billion investments—and the earlier rationale that capital becomes more efficient as revenue grows—we know it should require less than $7.2 billion, which is projected to generate $2.5 billion in revenue, to create the next $2.5 billion and reach $5 billion overall.

For modeling purposes, it is reasonable to assume that $5 billion to $6 billion in additional investment capital would be sufficient.

That leads to the next questions: Where will the money come from, and how should it be deployed? I have been examining both potential capital sources and opportunities to reallocate spending from existing programs into agtech automation. In that process, I identified several programs that rely on weak metrics or do not adequately measure success or failure.

The three major areas for potential reallocation are climate-smart funding, regenerative agriculture practice payments and federal economic development grants. Let’s examine each of those areas.

First, there’s the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Climate-Smart Agriculture Funding program, which represents $19.5 billion and is designed to expand existing conservation programs through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The funding supports payments for practices intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses or sequester carbon.

Major spending categories include: (1) $8.5 billion for cost-share practice payments through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); (2) $5 billion for regional partner-led conservation projects through the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), including nonprofit and university partnerships; (3) $3.3 billion for multi-year conservation stewardship contracts; (4) $1.4 billion for wetlands easements through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP); and (5) $1 billion for conservation technical assistance.

While there is clear demand for the program—which should not be surprising given that it is a government subsidy—it provides what I would characterize as limited climate accounting while offering little improvement to grower economics. Success metrics are primarily based on carbon sequestration and funding deployment. The program is already being modified to allow broader funding reallocations.

Much of this funding would be better directed toward subsidizing grower automation purchases. Many climate-smart agriculture programs are positioned as efforts to improve farm economics. In practice, however, many of these programs do not establish or measure grower success metrics at either baseline or incremental performance levels, and those measures are rarely used in evaluating program outcomes.

The impact of automation spending can be measured more directly through labor outcomes, grower economics and job creation, creating a more concrete framework for assessing economic development results.

Second, let’s look at the USDA Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, a 2022 Pilot Grant Program which is going to spend $3.1 billion on 141 projects for: (1) technical and financial aid to farmers; (2) monitoring, reporting and verification; and (3) market development (premiums for “climate smart” products). The Trump Administration reframed the program as “farmer first” and added a requirement that 65 percent of funds go to farmers (by putting in place lower admin cost caps).

So how is this program doing? Well, the original USDA targets were 60,000 participating farms, 25 million-plus acres and 60 million metric tons CO2e. The actual results two years in are: 14,000 farms, 3.2 million acres and 400,000 metric tons. As with the IRA program, there are no farmer success metrics established as targets or measured.

Now let’s take a look at the model for building the agtech incentives infrastructure to help support accelerating agtech purchases. It already exists and is part of the Climate Smart Funding efforts of the last 10 years. It’s the electric (EV) tractor subsidies program that uses California Air Resources Board (CARB) payments. The first program is FARMER, which pays for EV tractors that replace diesel FARMER, requires proof that the replacement tractor was turned into scrap and provides an average check size of $80,000 to $100,000. FARMER represents 85 percent of program payments through CARB. The second program is CORE, which pays to incent EV tractor purchases, represents 15 percent of program payments, and has an average check size of $50,000 to $60,000.

As an example, one of the program participants, Monarch Tractor, made EV tractors that received significant CARB dollars. The business model for Monarch was selling 40 horsepower (HP) tractors for $85,000 and receiving a $50,000 to $60,000 payment from CARB. Even after receiving $155 million in VC funding and significant CARB funding to help support their EV tractors being purchased by growers, Monarch was unable to raise more capital and was acquired by Caterpillar after attempting to pivot from a tractor company to an IP company.

Now let’s look at the success metric for these two programs. The program win was based on emissions reductions tied to the number of hours the EV tractor was driven. But here’s where the EV tractors meet the road. It’s very hard to prove these emissions because it appears that the system was largely based on an honor system of self-reporting and top-down economic models that are not verified through any bottom-up analysis. I have seen some of these EV tractors in their native habitat at growing operations. They are very rarely in use because of the lack of a compelling use case, but the same unused tractors are getting credit for success metrics because of the factors mentioned above.

Next, let’s look at the Regenerative Pilot Program, USDA’s $700 million program that was announced Dec. 10, 2025. It is being run by NRCS as a fiscal 2026 pilot that redirects and sets aside funding inside two existing conservation programs: $400 million through EQIP and $300 million through CSP. The stated goal is to move USDA conservation funding from isolated practice-by-practice payments toward whole-farm regenerative conservation plans focused on soil health, water management and natural vitality. It is a large conservation delivery pilot layered on top of EQIP and CSP, with a stronger emphasis on whole-farm planning, soil health testing, bundled practices and public-private supply chain partnerships.

To date, many of the success metrics for similar practice payment programs seek credit for approving a budget and spending the money. You can excuse farmers for not being overly impressed with passing a budget and actually spending the money. That’s basically table scraps for any grower operations team. The real key is measuring the success of the spending. For many pilots and launched programs around regenerative practices, success is measured only through the allocation and spending stage. It never makes it to actual grower metrics that improve their economics. As above, reallocating some of this capital toward automation incentives provides a much better set of metrics for rural economies.

I am in the middle of an analysis of federal economic development grants. For now, know that there appears to be $4.7 billion to $5.2 billion a year in federal grants through programs such as Community Project Funding (EDI) ($3.3 billion in fiscal 2024), the Economic Development Administration ($1.1 billion), Revitalization Grants ($320 million) and USDA and DOE economic development ($800 million). The next action item is to identify which of these apply to rural economies and how the success metrics are measured to determine how competitive the economic development impact of automation incentives is compared with existing programs.

So now we come to the final topic: What does it mean when we get to $5 billion in annual automation revenue? First, it means that we create three separate but related billion-dollar categories of opportunity. The first is systems integration work—the work of integrating the robots into grower operations, supporting them and providing repairs. At $5 billion in automation revenue, this category could easily be worth $1 billion to $2 billion in annual revenue. The second is data and analytics built around all the data produced by the $5 billion in robots being operated on farms for multiple non-harvest tasks. The third is manufacturing and support. At a certain level, it will be worthwhile for manufacturers to consider bringing manufacturing for their robots to California because of the volume of business they are creating for their products here.

Each of these three could generate $1 billion in annual revenue. In addition, there’s an AI optimization layer that’s hard to measure in revenue terms, but we know it will emerge as the core automation category grows.

Furthermore, $5 billion in annual revenue means that 42,000 to 50,000 new jobs are created based on comparisons with other technology segments. And unlike many rural sectors, these are not construction jobs to build solar farms, energy production facilities, lumber processing operations or mining facilities. These are permanent, ongoing jobs, and they are highly skilled and well paid. This is why we all need to start looking at agtech automation not only as something that creates successful startups and helps solve the real and ongoing labor challenges, but also as a key piece of rural economic infrastructure.

We have a clear path to $1 billion based on existing results and an equally clear, emerging path to $2.5 billion based on forecast venture capital and automation sales growth. We need an additional $5 billion to $6 billion in funding to reach our target of $5 billion in annual automation revenue. The combination of climate-smart funding from the IRA and the USDA Regenerative Pilot should be reallocated toward an EV tractor subsidy-style program to help accelerate the push to $5 billion in automation revenue. The sooner we get there, the sooner the new $1 billion categories emerge and scale, and the faster the 42,000 to 50,000 new jobs are added to support rural economies wherever specialty crops are grown.

For as long as I’ve worked in and around agriculture, I’ve heard the same misconception repeated: growers are slow to adopt new technology. I don’t believe that’s true.

In fact, I think agriculture is one of the most innovative industries in the world. The difference is that growers have always demanded proof before making an investment. They aren’t resistant to innovation; they’re disciplined investors. That distinction has never been more important than it is today.

As computer vision, artificial intelligence, robotics, machine learning and automation rapidly reshape specialty crop agriculture, we’re entering a new chapter of innovation. The technologies are more sophisticated than anything our industry has seen before, but the fundamental question every grower asks hasn’t changed: Will this improve my operation enough to justify the investment?

That question has become the foundation of the work we’re doing through the Western Growers Innovation team and our financial case study program.

Innovation Has Always Been Part of Agriculture

Agriculture has never stood still. Long before anyone talked about artificial intelligence or autonomous equipment, growers were adopting technologies that fundamentally changed how fresh produce was grown, harvested, cooled, transported and marketed.

Ice-packed railcars made it possible to ship lettuce and other perishable crops across the country while maintaining quality. Vacuum cooling revolutionized post-harvest handling by rapidly removing field heat and extending shelf life. Plastic packaging transformed food safety, freshness, transportation and merchandising. Mechanical harvesting aids, precision irrigation, GPS guidance, improved breeding and countless other innovations have continuously reshaped the economics of farming.

None of these technologies were adopted because they were new. They were adopted because they solved real problems and delivered measurable value.

Around 2017, however, agriculture entered a different era of innovation. Instead of simply improving machines, companies began developing machines that could see, learn, analyze and make decisions. Computer vision, deep learning, machine learning, artificial intelligence, autonomous navigation and advanced robotics introduced capabilities that had never before existed in commercial agriculture.

These technologies opened extraordinary possibilities. But they also introduced a new challenge. How do growers evaluate technologies whose value isn’t always immediately obvious?

Innovation Doesn’t Drive Adoption—Proof Does

Over the past several years, I’ve had the opportunity to work with hundreds of growers, startup companies, equipment manufacturers and investors. One lesson has become remarkably clear. Technology alone rarely drives purchasing decisions. Economic confidence does.

Every equipment purchased competes against countless other priorities on the farm. Whether it’s replacing a tractor, upgrading irrigation infrastructure, investing in automation or purchasing new harvesting equipment, every decision ultimately comes back to economics.

Growers don’t buy technology because it’s exciting. They invest because they believe it will improve profitability, reduce risk, solve labor challenges, improve operational efficiency or create a competitive advantage. The companies that understand this distinction are consistently the ones gaining traction in the marketplace.

Why We Built the Western Growers Case Study Program

One of the reasons Senior Vice President of Innovation Walt Duflock and I launched the Western Growers Innovation financial case study program was because we saw a disconnect between how technology companies presented their products and how growers evaluated investments.

Too often, I heard statements like: “This technology saves labor,” “It improves efficiency,” “Our customers love it” and “It increases yield.” While those statements may all be true, they don’t answer the questions growers ask before writing a purchase order. How much labor does it save? How many acres can it realistically cover? What does implementation cost? What is the annual operating expense? How long is the payback period? What is the return on investment? Who will fix this technology when it breaks?

Working alongside our most innovative growers willing to share operational and financial information, we’ve developed case studies that document technology adoption under real commercial farming conditions. We evaluate labor requirements, implementation costs, equipment utilization, operational efficiencies, reliability and financial performance—not to promote one company over another, but to provide credible information that growers can use to make informed decisions.

For technology developers, these case studies provide another valuable benefit. They offer direct insight into the financial metrics growers actually care about—helping companies better understand how to position and improve their products for commercial success.

Quantitative Data Builds Confidence

One of the biggest takeaways from our work is that not all evidence carries equal weight. Qualitative information absolutely matters, and so does ease of use, operator experience, customer support, reliability and training requirements. These all influence adoption.

But when growers prepare to make a significant capital investment, quantitative information becomes the deciding factor, such as measured labor savings, documented productivity improvements, verified operating costs, machine utilization, acres covered per day and return on investment. These are the numbers that transform curiosity into confidence. Every additional piece of measurable data reduces uncertainty. And reducing uncertainty makes adoption easier.

Relationships Still Matter

While data drives confidence, relationships make the data possible. Agriculture has always been a relationship business. The growers who participate in our case studies are sharing information that most businesses closely protect. Production costs, labor data, equipment utilization and operational performance aren’t numbers that companies casually publish. They participate because they trust that the information will ultimately benefit the industry.

The same is true for startups and OEMs. The companies that consistently earn grower confidence are rarely those with the flashiest demonstrations or the biggest funding announcements. They’re the companies that spend time in the field. They listen before they sell. They invite feedback. They adapt their products based on real-world experience. They build partnerships instead of transactions. Technology may begin in an engineering lab. Successful commercialization almost always begins in the field.

Sell Today’s ROI, Not Tomorrow’s Vision

If I could offer one piece of advice to every startup founder and equipment manufacturer entering agriculture, it would be this: Sell today’s return on investment, not tomorrow’s roadmap. Nearly every company has an exciting vision for future software releases, expanded crop capabilities, improved artificial intelligence or next-generation hardware. Innovation should never stop.

But growers don’t purchase future possibilities. They purchase today’s capabilities. A technology that demonstrates measurable financial value today is significantly more compelling than one promising transformational improvements several years from now.

Future innovation should strengthen the investment—not justify it.

The Future of AgTech Adoption

As labor challenges continue, regulations evolve, water becomes more constrained and production costs rise, innovation will play an increasingly important role in the future of specialty crop agriculture. I don’t believe the technologies that succeed will necessarily be those with the most sophisticated engineering or the most impressive demonstrations. I believe they’ll be the ones that can clearly prove value.

That’s ultimately what our Western Growers Innovation case studies are designed to accomplish. For growers, they provide independent, real-world information to support better investment decisions. For startups and OEMs, they provide a roadmap for how technology should be evaluated, communicated and commercialized. Innovation has never been the challenge in agriculture. Proving its value has always been the key to adoption.

The next generation of agricultural innovation won’t be defined solely by artificial intelligence, robotics or automation. It will be defined by the companies that can translate those technologies into measurable economic outcomes for growers. Because at the end of the day, innovation may capture attention—but quantifiable return on investment earns trust, drives adoption and ultimately determines long-term success.

As we continue expanding the Western Growers Innovation case study program, I want to recognize three companies that stepped forward first: Braga Fresh, JV Smith Companies and Terranova Ranch. Each of these organizations, represented by leaders who also serve on the Western Growers Board of Directors, recognized that moving our industry forward requires more than investing in innovation—it requires a willingness to share knowledge.

By opening their operations and contributing real-world operational and economic data, they have helped establish a new benchmark for how agricultural technologies should be evaluated. Their leadership extends beyond their own farming operations; it is an investment in the future of specialty crop agriculture. I hope their example inspires more growers and technology companies to participate in future case studies so that, together, we can build the credible, data-driven foundation that accelerates innovation, strengthens grower decision-making and benefits our entire industry.

Canadian startup Sami Robotics, the first Western Growers-sponsored resident at Reservoir Farms, is bringing a new generation of multifunctional harvesting robots to California fields.

A few years ago, Sami Robotics Co-founder Eric Lapalme returned to his family farm where he grew up in Quebec. As an engineer, he had spent years developing technology and watching industries transform through automation. Yet as he walked the fields, he was struck by something familiar: the harvest crews were still doing the same work by hand that he had done as a teenager.

While robotics, artificial intelligence and automation were reshaping industries around the world, many specialty crop growers continued to face the same labor-intensive challenges they had decades earlier.

That moment became the spark behind Sami Robotics, a company that is now developing large-scale robotic harvesting systems designed specifically for fresh produce growers. And what began as a conversation between Lapalme and entrepreneur and robotics expert Pascal Labrecque has evolved into a rapidly growing agtech company with employees in Canada and California, pilot-scale commercial machines and a growing presence in the specialty crop industry.

Their goal is ambitious: create a multifunctional robotic platform capable of performing a variety of field tasks, with an initial focus on harvesting broccoli and lettuce, all through interchangeable tools and software applications. And after three years of development, that vision is beginning to take shape in the field.

Looking Beyond Labor Costs

When Labrecque first heard Lapalme’s idea, he was skeptical. A serial entrepreneur with a Ph.D. in robotics, Labrecque had previously built and sold successful medical imaging companies focused on artificial intelligence. From his perspective, replacing human labor with expensive robotic equipment did not initially appear to make economic sense.

“I thought people didn’t believe in the idea because you can’t replace low-cost labor with expensive robots,” Labrecque said.

But after speaking with growers across North America, he quickly realized he had misunderstood the problem. The issue was not simply labor cost; it was labor availability.

Growers consistently told him that finding enough workers at the right time had become one of the biggest challenges facing specialty crop production. In some cases, crops were not being harvested at their optimal timing because labor simply was not available when needed.

That insight fundamentally changed the company’s direction. Rather than viewing automation as a labor replacement strategy, Sami began designing technology that could help growers maintain reliable harvest operations.

“We realized it was bigger than the cost,” Labrecque said. “It was about access to labor.”

At the same time, advances in artificial intelligence, machine vision and robotics were making automation more practical than ever before, and the timing was right.

Why California Became Essential

From the beginning, Labrecque and Lapalme understood that developing agricultural robotics would require constant field testing and grower feedback. In Canada, the harvesting season is relatively short. For a startup trying to refine complex robotic systems, that presented a challenge.

“We needed to work with growers harvesting 12 months a year,” Labrecque said.

That search led the company to California’s Salinas Valley, the heart of North America’s leafy greens industry. There, Sami found both testing opportunities and collaborators.

Labrecque credits Western Growers’ Innovation team— including Walt Duflock, Senior Vice President of Innovation, and Ben Palone, Senior Director of Commercialization—for helping navigate the specialty crop industry and connect with growers. Those introductions opened doors to field trials and ongoing collaboration with companies, such as Taylor Farms, Church Brothers and Tanimura & Antle.

“Sami Robotics brings together Eric’s decades of experience designing equipment for agriculture with Pascal’s leadership in robotics and commercialization. This combination of agricultural insight and advanced engineering gives specialty crop growers a promising path toward practical, scalable harvest automation,” said Palone.

According to Labrecque, the feedback was invaluable.

“For growers, a machine’s performance is only part of the equation. It also needs to fit seamlessly into existing production systems. We created a user requirements list,” Labrecque said. “If we answer those needs, then we have a machine that works.”

These connections and the requirements list process helped Sami focus on realities that many technology startups overlook: sanitation requirements, transportation logistics, field operations, reliability and food safety.

Building a Robotic Workforce

At first glance, Sami’s machine resembles a large harvesting platform moving across a field. But underneath, it’s a complex network of cameras, artificial intelligence, robotics and machine vision. The system scans crops in real time and identifies harvest-ready produce based on grower-defined specifications.

For broccoli, growers can select preferred crown sizes and quality parameters. AI evaluates individual heads, identifying defects, such as flowering, disease symptoms or other quality concerns before determining whether a head should be harvested. The same approach is being adapted for romaine lettuce and other crops.

What makes the platform unique is its flexibility. Rather than building a robot designed for only one crop, Sami developed a multifunctional system capable of switching between tasks and crops through interchangeable tools, or what the company calls applications.

A grower harvesting broccoli in the morning could theoretically switch hardware and software configurations to harvest romaine later in the day. Future applications could include weeding, thinning and other field operations.

“The platform is like the tractor,” Labrecque said. “The grippers and tools are like the implements.”

The company hopes to create an open ecosystem where universities, researchers and other technology companies can develop specialized tools that operate on the SAMI platform.

While many agricultural robots focus on smaller-scale operations, Sami deliberately pursued a larger design, and according to Labrecque, the reason comes down to throughput.

Fresh produce moves on a tight timeline. Once harvested, crops need to reach cooling facilities quickly to preserve quality. A robot that harvests accurately but too slowly creates bottlenecks elsewhere in the supply chain.

“We have big fields and big production systems in North America,” Labrecque said.

To address that reality, Sami’s current commercial platform design features between 12 and 18 robotic arms operating simultaneously.

Depending on the application, each arm can perform work equivalent to approximately 1.8 field cutters. A 12-arm configuration can therefore perform work comparable to roughly 20 harvest workers, while larger configurations approach the equivalent of 30 workers, Labrecque explained.

The machine spans multiple rows at once and uses advanced camera systems to map the harvesting area in real time. Because the robots work collaboratively within a shared workspace, the system can operate in any type of bed configurations.

The company also designed the machine with practical field realities in mind. Its tracked undercarriage helps distribute weight and reduce soil compaction while maintaining maneuverability in field roads and challenging conditions.

Reliability Above All Else

If there is one word Labrecque returns to repeatedly, it’s reliability. For growers, a machine that occasionally works is not enough, he explained. Harvest crews often begin work before sunrise. Equipment must perform consistently throughout long days and changing field conditions.

“When you start at 3 a.m., it needs to work until 3 p.m. nonstop,” Labrecque said.

That focus reflects Labrecque’s background in medical technology, and Lapalme’s background in aeronautics, where safety, validation and rigorous testing are fundamental requirements. While agriculture presents a different operating environment, the underlying philosophy remains the same.

“We have spent significant effort ensuring that individual hardware, software and robotic systems function together as an integrated platform capable of enduring harsh field conditions,” he said.

As Sami continues expanding into additional crops, maintaining reliability while adding new capabilities will remain a central focus.

The Economics of Adoption

For agtech, return on investment remains a critical consideration. Sami established an early target, which is that growers should be able to recover their investment within two years or less.

According to the company’s modeling, replacing a 25-person harvesting crew can generate substantial labor savings depending on crop type and operating schedules. A harvesting crew can cost between $1.8 million and $2 million annually, Labrecque said.

Because the machines can potentially operate multiple shifts, some growers have suggested they could achieve even faster payback periods by maximizing machine utilization.

The company’s business model reflects feedback from larger growers who prefer ownership rather than robotics-as-a-service arrangements.

Looking Ahead

This summer marks a significant milestone for Sami Robotics. The company is officially entering the commercial market, offering its harvesting systems for sale while scaling manufacturing and support capabilities.

At the same time, Sami is expanding its presence within Western Growers’ Reservoir Farms innovation ecosystem, where the company will continue testing and demonstrating its technology alongside growers and industry partners.

For Labrecque, the long-term vision extends beyond selling machines. He sees a future where intelligent robotic systems become essential infrastructure supporting food production, helping growers overcome labor shortages while strengthening food security.

Over the next five years, the company hopes to scale production, introduce multiple machine configurations and deploy more than 150 units throughout California, Arizona and beyond.

For an idea that began with one farmer’s observation that harvest crews were still working the same way they had decades ago, the progress has been impressive. And if Sami’s founders are successful, the next generation of farmworkers may include not only people, but also fleets of intelligent robotic partners working alongside them to keep fresh produce moving from field to table.

At the height of the supply chain crisis, cargo ships floated offshore for days, sometimes weeks, waiting to enter California ports. But not at the Port of Hueneme. There, containers kept moving.

Trucks rolled in and out, perishables made their deadlines and exporters found space for freight that other ports couldn’t handle. While congestion dominated headlines across the industry, this relatively small-but-nimble port tucked along the Ventura County coastline quietly built a reputation for something rare: reliability.

Long known as a specialized perishables gateway, the port is now emerging as an increasingly important player for California agriculture exports; not because it’s the biggest, but because it operates differently.

Port leaders are betting that growers want more than vessel space. Growers want flexibility, speed, communication and education on how to navigate an export system that can feel intimidating, especially for first-time exporters.

It’s an ambitious goal for a port originally built by local farmers who believed Ventura County needed its own export gateway. Nearly a century later, that agricultural mindset still shapes how Hueneme approaches business: asking growers what their needs are first, then building operations around them.

A Port Built for Agriculture

Known as “The Port That Farmers Built,” the harbor was originally funded through private investment after local agricultural leaders pushed for a port that could better serve Ventura County’s growing agricultural economy.

“We’re founded as a port that was built for the needs of the farmers who said, ‘We need a port here to export our goods,’” said Stacy Lange, Chief Commercial and Public Affairs Officer for the Port of Hueneme.

That legacy still shapes the port’s identity today, particularly as it works to educate growers about export opportunities that may not exist at larger, more congested ports.

Unlike many major port complexes, the Port of Hueneme functions with a much smaller footprint, operating on roughly 120 acres. But despite its size, it ranks fifth nationally for fresh produce imports.

Instead of competing directly with the scale of larger ports, Hueneme has built its reputation on flexibility, speed and problem-solving.

The Port That Avoided the Backup

When images of cargo ships stacked offshore became symbolic of pandemic-era supply chain failures, the Port of Hueneme experienced something very different.

Cargo kept moving.

While many ports struggled with congestion and backlogs, Hueneme maintained fluid operations thanks to a logistics strategy built years before the crisis began.

A key factor was the Port’s operating-port model. Unlike most major ports, which function primarily as landlords and rely on third-party terminal operators, the Port of Hueneme owns and operates its marine terminal. That direct control over terminal operations, cargo flow and infrastructure planning allows the Port to make decisions quickly and design solutions tailored to its customers and community.

Years before COVID exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, Hueneme had already developed a different approach to container handling. Rather than stacking large volumes of containers on terminal property waiting for pickup, Hueneme moves containers almost immediately off port property to nearby private off-site container yards. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspections, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) processing and logistics coordination all happen away from the waterfront, preserving valuable terminal capacity and keeping cargo flowing.

The system was originally designed out of necessity. The port sits directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods, condos and beach communities. Trucks backing up into neighborhoods was not an option.

“We don’t have trucks queuing up to pick up containers that are stacked on port,” Lange said. “That would not work very well with our community.”

Instead, containers are discharged from vessels, placed directly onto chassis and moved off site within minutes. That operational model gave the port a major advantage during COVID disruptions.

“We actually created a congestion-free service,” Lange said.

As larger ports experienced gridlock, Hueneme worked with logistics partners, including carriers, trucking providers and federal agencies to establish alternative cargo flows. The port handled essential goods, personal protective equipment and perishables while helping exporters continue moving products during one of the most chaotic logistics periods in modern history.

The experience became a powerful case study in how smaller, more agile ports can complement and even outperform larger facilities during disruptions.

Educating Growers on Export Logistics

Today, one of the port’s biggest priorities is helping agricultural producers better understand export logistics and how Hueneme’s model can work for them. The port regularly attends produce and agricultural trade shows, hosts export workshops and collaborates with economic development organizations and the U.S. Department of Commerce to guide new exporters through the process.

“We really look at ourselves as the conduit to international trade,” Lange said.

That role has become increasingly important as more growers explore overseas markets but lack experience navigating export requirements, documentation, shipping schedules and cold chain logistics.

For first-time exporters especially, the process can feel intimidating. “It’s a daunting thing to be a first-time exporter,” Lange said.

To help bridge that knowledge gap, the Port of Hueneme leverages its role as the license holder for the Oxnard World Trade Center. The designation allows the port to connect businesses with export resources, regulatory guidance and trade development support.

Last year, the port hosted California’s Go-Biz Export Launchpad program, designed to teach businesses how to begin exporting products internationally.

The educational approach reflects a broader philosophy at the port: collaboration over bureaucracy. Rather than forcing growers into rigid systems, port leaders say they actively adjust operations around harvest schedules, shipping needs and customer feedback.

Weekly coordination meetings bring together stevedores, logistics operators and other stakeholders to align shipping windows with agricultural realities.

“They were talking about apple harvesting yesterday,” Lange said during the interview. “They want to harvest through Friday, which means they need receiving on Monday. So, we asked, ‘How do we all work together to make that happen?’”

That customer-first mentality is something the port sees as a competitive advantage.

Building an Export-Focused Future

Historically, the Port of Hueneme built much of its reputation around imports, especially refrigerated perishables arriving from Latin America. Now, the port is aggressively focused on expanding exports.

Many global shipping systems prioritize imports into the U.S. because carriers often want to quickly return empty containers overseas for refilling. As a result, exporters can sometimes struggle to secure equipment, favorable schedules or reliable vessel access.

The Port of Hueneme wants to flip that model. “We want to make the export the head haul,” Lange said.

Port leaders are currently working to develop expanded export-focused services, including potential trans-Pacific opportunities tailored specifically around agricultural exporters’ needs.

Instead of creating schedules solely around import efficiency, the port is asking growers direct questions: What sailing days work best for harvest timing? What receiving windows support perishables most effectively? How can carriers better support year-round agricultural exports?

“The goal is to create a shipping ecosystem where exporters are not treated as secondary considerations, but as primary customers,” Lange said.

That matters for commodities ranging from grapes and citrus to proteins, dairy and other refrigerated products requiring highly coordinated logistics.

“We want the operational setup of the service to be based on the needs of the exporters,” Lange said.

A Port Embedded in Its Community

Another element that distinguishes the Port of Hueneme is how closely connected it remains to the surrounding community. Unlike many ports governed through city structures, Hueneme operates as a California special district with elected harbor commissioners chosen directly by local residents.

That governance structure, combined with the port’s physical proximity to neighborhoods, creates a different dynamic than many industrial ports.

“It’s interwoven into the fabric of the community,” said Miguel Rodriguez, the Port’s Director of Community Relations and Workforce Development.

That connection influences everything from operational decisions to community outreach efforts.

One example is the port’s annual Banana Festival, which opens the waterfront to the public and celebrates the produce industry with educational exhibits, food vendors and family activities.

During the pandemic, when the festival could not be held, the port pivoted to large-scale food distribution efforts called “Feeding the Front Lines,” delivering fresh produce to families in need throughout the community.

For port leaders, those programs reflect a broader responsibility.

“We find ways to do food distributions,” Lange said. “We find ways to support the community when communities are in need.”

Changing Perceptions

One of the biggest misconceptions the port continues trying to correct is that it is part of the Navy. While Navy Base Ventura County shares the same harbor area, the Port of Hueneme is an independent commercial seaport.

Still, the unique relationship between the two entities provides operational advantages. During cargo surges, the port can sometimes use Navy berths through joint-use agreements, creating additional flexibility during busy periods. It is yet another example of how Hueneme has built systems around adaptability rather than scale.

And as California agriculture continues searching for faster, more resilient export pathways, that flexibility may become increasingly valuable.

For growers unfamiliar with the port, Lange hopes the message is simple:

“We’re open to explore opportunities,” she said. “If we’re not offering a service yet, it doesn’t mean we’re not willing to build it.”

For an industry built on timing, perishability and relationships, that willingness to adapt may ultimately be the Port of Hueneme’s greatest export advantage.

For growers across the country, rising electricity costs continue to challenge already slim margins, making energy efficiency and sustainability more important than ever. But while solar energy has become an increasingly attractive solution, many agricultural operations face a major barrier before installation even begins: securing the financial resources to make large-scale energy investments possible.

For Jordan Energy, solving that challenge goes far beyond developing solar projects.

Founded in 2009 by William “Bill” Jordan and supported by his family, including his daughter Bernadette “Bernie” Jordan, Jordan Energy has built its reputation not only as a solar developer for agriculture but as one of the industry’s most successful grant-writing partners for growers seeking renewable energy solutions.

With an impressive 97 percent grant success rate in the last two decades, Jordan Energy has transformed grant funding into one of its most powerful tools for strengthening family farms and accelerating the return on investment for ag solar projects.

Jordan Energy’s mission has always been centered on supporting the long-term health of family agriculture.

“We were convinced that solar could save farmers significant money and strengthen their family farms,” Bill said. “If you can lower or eliminate one of your largest operational costs— electricity—you create a stronger family business.”

But Bill quickly recognized that for many growers, the biggest hurdle wasn’t understanding the benefits of solar but rather it was affording the upfront costs. That realization led the company to make grant writing a cornerstone of its business model from the very beginning.

Jordan Energy wrote its first successful grant in 2009, and the company has consistently helped growers secure state and federal funding that dramatically lowers project costs ever since. The grant support can mean the difference between a project being financially out of reach or becoming a highly profitable and long-term investment.

It’s no secret that grant writing is one of the most complex and time-intensive aspects of ag funding programs. Applications require intense documentation, strict compliance with program criteria and a deep understanding of government processes. But Jordan Energy has turned that complexity into one of its greatest strengths. With a 97 percent success rate, the company has only failed to secure grant funding on two occasions.

“We have the best grant-writing team in the country,” Bill said. “The success rate stems from our strategic approach: writing grants specifically to match program scoring systems and ensuring that applications directly address evaluator priorities rather than wasting time on unnecessary details.”

By understanding the technical language, financial requirements and administrative expectations of grant programs, such as U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding opportunities, Jordan Energy significantly increases approval odds for growers.

Just as importantly, the company manages nearly all of the paperwork itself.

“The biggest complaint we hear from farmers is that grants take too much paperwork and too much time,” Bill explained. “We absorb that burden so growers aren’t sacrificing valuable time out in the field.”

Jordan Energy’s grant-writing model is designed to reduce the financial risk for growers. The company typically requires only a refundable deposit to begin the grant process, which means growers can pursue significant funding opportunities with limited upfront commitment. If grant funding is not secured, the deposit is returned.

This approach has been particularly valuable for multi-phase projects, Bill explained, where growers often return for additional solar or battery expansions after seeing strong financial results from initial installations.

Talbott Farms: A Model for the Future

Jordan Energy’s partnership with fifth-generation Talbott Farms, a member of Western Growers in Palisade, Colo., offers a compelling example of how grant expertise and innovative solar design can work together to preserve family farming.

Supported by a USDA Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP) grant secured through Jordan Energy, Talbott Farms developed a 423-kilowatt agrivoltaic tracking system elevated 15 feet above an acre of peach orchards, allowing the family to continue producing premium fruit while simultaneously generating renewable energy.

Rather than removing productive land from agriculture, this project created a dual-use system designed to protect crops from frost, hail, sunburn and water loss while creating additional revenue streams.

“I feel like the biggest misconception I hear when we talk to farmers is solar using prime farmland,” Bernie said. “We don’t use prime farmland. That’s a big priority for our business, so I like to clear that up right away.”

Bernie further explained that the company’s projects often avoid the use of prime farmland, and instead use rooftops, underused acreage, pivot corners or agrivoltaic systems that combine agricultural production with energy generation. Battery storage is also becoming an increasingly important factor, especially as utility pricing structures evolve.

Talbott Farms’ system is expected to become cashflow positive by year two, dramatically accelerating return on investment thanks to grant funding. In partnership with Colorado State University, the project is also producing critical research on crop quality, water efficiency and overall economic performance.

With substantial grant assistance, Jordan Energy often helps reduce payback periods to as little as one to three years, Bill explained. Jordan Energy also provides growers with detailed 25- year cash flow projections, which allows customers to understand not just upfront savings but the generational value of being energy independent.

“Farmers have worked with the sun longer than anyone else in our society, and at the end of the day, we want more of the energy dollars in the pockets of the farmers who have been working with the sun and growing food their whole lives,” Bill said.

Like many Western Growers members, Jordan Energy itself is a family business, creating a shared understanding with customers whose livelihoods often depend on preserving family legacies.

Bill often reflects on his own family’s farming ties, particularly the example set by his uncles, who farmed lettuce and cantaloupe in the Imperial Valley. Watching multi-generational farming operations shaped his vision not only for business success but for preserving the integrity of family agriculture.

“My Uncle Joe and my Uncle Tony (Colace) were my heroes,” Bill said. “When I’m 70, I want to be in that passenger seat, just like my uncle was with his son, heading out to the fields. What a gift it is to work with family, with Bernie and my son Stephen.”

For growers facing rising costs and uncertain futures, Jordan Energy offers more than lower electric bills. It offers a pathway to energy independence powered by the sun.

One of the newest tools in crop production is not on the ground, but just above it.

Before sunrise, spray drones can be found flying low over vegetable fields in the Salinas Valley. This is the ideal time of day, with little to no wind, staying clear of crews and other field workers not yet in the field. Elliot Dorenbaum, National UAS Operations Manager for Wilbur-Ellis, and his team met me out in Gonzales in the early morning to watch their spray drone fly out over a celery field and talk about the future of spray technology for California ag.

As we gawked at the spry, tiny-helicopter-like contraption shoot up and out into the field, Elliot filled me in on drone technology and opportunities to improve safety, strengthen application quality and provide growers an effective tool for crop production. He explained, “drones really help us on three fronts … safety, economics and product use efficiency.”

Safety First

Drones operate in conditions and timeframes that can reduce exposure for pilots, applicators and field crews, while staying low and close to the crop canopy, one of the clearest safety benefits of unmanned aircraft systems. “There is no one in the cockpit,” Dorenbaum said. “You can fly at night, and you can keep things low and close to the canopy, which mitigates exposure outside the production area.”

Costs of Production

The economics are also changing the conversation. “A new spray drone costs about 10 percent of what a spray helicopter or a tractor does, so your overhead is lower and your labor is consolidated with a lot of the automation associated with the drone,” he said.

Speed is another advantage. “It will take maybe an hour to do 10 acres with a tractor, and it will probably take us about 20 minutes to do it with the drone,” Dorenbaum said.

With consistent flight paths and the capability to spray up to the edge of a field, drones can also support more targeted applications. “The drones do a really good job [applying products]. They have very specific millimeter-level GPS tracking that reduces overlap, and the atomizers allow for a really good quality application across the entirety of the field.”

Efficacy for Efficiency

Application quality is especially important as more growers incorporate biological products and other tools that depend on consistent coverage. “These drones have rotary atomizers, which chop up the spray solutions into very fine mist,” he said. “In biological product applications, you need to really focus on getting a really good application quality.”

Using the drones, in addition to satisfying the spray requirements, the drones bring in a lot of data,” Dorenbaum said. That information can help teams analyze field behavior, reduce inputs, improve timing and build “a deeper understanding of what is actually going on.”

As growers continue balancing productivity, safety and stewardship, tools like drones are needed to move the industry forward. “The integration of new technologies in ag can seem scary, but the drones are receiving a really warm welcome and a ton of adoption and very quickly, because a lack of supply of aerial spray options,” Dorenbaum said.

“These things really are a no-brainer in terms of the quality that they produce, the low overhead and how they benefit growers in terms of giving them flexibility on application timing, which is key to mitigating over-application of chemicals, which everyone wants across the board.”