The current edition of SFTW Convo is my conversation with Kurtis Charling of Lindsay Corporation. Kurtis Charling is the Vice President, Global AgTech Sales & Product Management at Lindsay. I have come to know Kurtis through some work projects, and by being on the same panel at World Agritech and other conferences.
His curiosity always comes through every conversation. Kurtis is a holistic thinker, is obsessed with customer satisfaction, and deeply understands the role of technology to create value for growers, and other stakeholders within the food and agriculture value chains. He pushes his teams to be innovative, is not afraid to take risks, and is holder of many patents.
I had the opportunity to connect with Kurtis a few weeks ago and discuss all things AgTech, innovation, product management, customer value, ecosystem collaboration, and his sports career in high school and college. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did.
Build Less, Scale Faster: The Rise of White-Label Platforms
Ag leaders aren’t asking “Can we build it?”—they’re asking “Should we?” White-labeled platforms are helping agribusinesses move faster and deliver on strategy while staying focused. From carbon tracking to digital agronomy, e-commerce, and lab insights, leaders are choosing to scale through their brand, not by building new tech stacks.
Customers don’t care who built it—they care that it works. With white-labeled tech, you can go to market fast with your logo, your workflows, and our managed infrastructure behind the scenes.
Summary of the Conversation
In this conversation, Kurtis shares his journey from being a high school quarterback to leading irrigation product management at Lindsay. He reflects on the lessons learned from his sports experience, particularly the importance of resilience and hard work. The discussion transitions to his role in agricultural innovation, focusing on water management solutions and the alignment of vision with Lindsay.
Kurtis emphasizes the significance of understanding customer needs and the challenges of product management in a global context, particularly in navigating diverse markets like South America. In this conversation, Kurtis discusses the complexities of product design in relation to global power discrepancies, emphasizing the need for alignment between dealer incentives and customer needs.
He highlights the importance of data in motivating dealers and ensuring ongoing support for products. The integration of hardware and software teams is presented as a crucial factor for innovation, alongside a strategic focus on acquisitions that align with the core business. Collaboration across the supply chain is explored, particularly in relation to sustainability and the evolving landscape of agriculture.
Kurtis concludes with insights on the future of farming, emphasizing automation and the importance of customer adoption in technological advancements.
Rhishi Pethe: Kurtis, thanks for joining. The goal of these conversations is to understand how you make decisions, what factors you consider, rather than focusing on the decisions themselves.
While prepping for this conversation, I found out you were a quarterback in school and even tried to get onto the University of Nebraska team. Now, since I went to Kansas State, I’ll admit, I’m not exactly thrilled about that part!
What did that experience teach you about life and about business? Are there lessons you took from that time that still show up in your day-to-day work today?
Kurtis: You’re taking me way back, that was 15 years ago now. I was a quarterback in high school. When I got to college, I tried out for the Nebraska Cornhuskers as a walk-on. They were looking at me more as a tight end or defensive end, even though I had played quarterback. I was an okay quarterback in high school, but honestly, I probably would’ve been a better tight end at the college level.
I didn’t get recruited heavily out of high school, so I chose to go to Nebraska and try to walk on. Plus, they had a strong ag engineering program, which was a big draw for me. I went through three tryouts before they finally invited me back to the team. That whole process tested me, it made me dig deep and show up over and over again. But it proved to me that I had that "never give up" mindset. I kept putting in the work.
Making the team felt like living a dream. I grew up in Nebraska, and back then, you dreamed about playing for the Cornhuskers, they were winning national championships all the time. Just being on the team was huge for me. I never got to play in a game, but I made the roster. I spent a summer and a season with the team before they eventually cut me.
And that’s still a tough thing for me to talk about, because it was one of the most defining moments of my life. Getting there, earning that spot, was incredible. But when I got cut, it hit hard. That was a tough time. I spent a lot of time reflecting. I hadn’t done anything wrong, I just wasn’t good enough. That was the plain truth.
But when I looked back, I realized I hadn’t done enough to make them keep me. I got content just being on the team, just realizing the dream. I didn’t keep pushing. I didn’t keep earning it. That was a turning point for me. From that moment on, I told myself, I’m never going to be outworked again. If I hit a goal, I need to keep going. I need to ask, “What’s next?”
That mindset has carried over into my work today. I make sure I’m putting in the time, and if I’m asking my team to do the same, I lead by example. I’m right there with them, doing the work.
But still, I didn’t feel like I did enough to honestly say I worked harder than everyone else to stay on the team, if that makes sense.
It was tough, tough, to sit there and watch that dream slip away. Getting cut was a devastating moment. And when it happens, your first instinct is to look for something else to blame. You want to say, “It was this,” or “It was that.” But at the end of the day, I had to point the thumb, not the finger. I had to take responsibility and admit, this was on me.
I guess the big lesson for me was this: I won’t let myself get outworked again. That moment shaped me. It’s driven a lot of the success I’ve had, and honestly, it’s helped me handle the failures too.
Rhishi Pethe: Let’s shift gears a bit, from your personal story to your work now. You lead the product management group at Lindsay.
A couple of years ago, you took part in an innovation contest. You made it to the semi-finals with your idea. What was that process like? And why did you feel Lindsay was the right place to take that innovation and scale it?
Kurtis: I’ve been with Lindsay for almost 10 years now, so from my perspective, it’s definitely been the right decision.
Back then, I was actually starting two companies, one in agriculture and one outside of it. Agriculture has always been a passion of mine. I grew up on a farm and cattle feed yard here in Nebraska, so ag has always been close to my heart.
One of the ideas was to help farmers with analytics around when to irrigate, how much water to apply, and where to apply it. When you look at the USDA farm and ranch surveys, one of the biggest areas where farmers feel unsure is water management. They often don’t know if they’re doing a good job, when to irrigate, how much to apply, and the data backs that up.
That’s what sparked the idea to build a business around solving that problem. But my biggest hurdle early on was scaling. I needed a channel to get the product out there. I realized pretty quickly that I would need a bigger player to help me bring the solution to market and get it into the hands of farmers.
So I started meeting with several irrigation companies, Lindsay was one of them. When I sat down with a couple leaders at Lindsay, one of whom has since retired and became a mentor to me, and the other was Brian Magnuson, we had some conversations that clicked. Our visions aligned. They were focused on sustainability, and they wanted to build out a water management solution within FieldNet.
After we talked, they said, “Why don’t you come do this with us?” And for me, that was a no-brainer. They believed in the same things I did, making sure farmers are equipped to save water, save energy, and still remain profitable. That shared vision made Lindsay the right fit.
Rhishi Pethe: There was alignment between your vision and what you wanted to build. You recognized to scale it and get it into more hands, you needed the backing of an organization that could help make that happen.
You found the right people who were willing to take a bet on what you were doing, especially considering you were still in college or business school at the time.
Farmers want to save water, save energy, and be more sustainable. What’s the core value proposition when you talk about your products? What’s the differentiation story that you tell? And how does that land with your customers?
Kurtis: From a value proposition standpoint, the first thing we focus on is time and labor savings, especially since we’re working with IoT products. Our goal is to make our customers’ lives easier. This really resonates strongly with farmers.
When we show them how our products let them remotely monitor and control their center pivots, it’s easy to demonstrate the time they save. They don’t have to drive out to the pivot, turn it on manually, or constantly check to make sure it’s running. That part’s an easy sell.
We’re seeing more farmers, particularly those running larger operations, start to prioritize water and energy savings, especially from a sustainability perspective. So having digital products that provide analytics and help them manage resources more efficiently, that’s becoming an even bigger part of the value we deliver.
You had Mike Stern on recently, he’s one of the greats. I consider him a mentor too. He was actually an advisor for us at Lindsay for a while. And he always told me, if you want to succeed in ag, your product has to consistently deliver a per-acre ROI, year over year. He used to say $3 to $5 per acre, that’s the sweet spot for driving renewals and long-term satisfaction.
That advice has stuck with me. We’re always keeping that benchmark in mind, especially as we prepare to launch new products.
Rhishi Pethe: When you think about your customer profile, who’s the right kind of customer? What are the characteristics that make you say, “this is a good fit”? And on the flip side, where do you find that maybe your products aren’t the right fit?
Kurtis: The group of farmers we typically see the least adoption from are what we call the tech avoiders. These are the folks who like to get out, drive around, and check their pivots in person, it’s just part of their routine. They’ve done it that way for 40 years, and they’re not looking to bring in new technology, at least when it comes to pivots.
That said, that segment is definitely shrinking. As farming has evolved into what it is today, a massive, complex business, farmers now have to make so many decisions on a daily basis. And because of that, technology has become a more critical part of the operation.
Segmentation is key. We have to make sure we’re building the right products for the right customers. And part of that means recognizing there are certain segments we don’t focus on as much, simply because we know they’re unlikely to adopt.
Rhishi Pethe: But within the group that isn’t avoiding tech, could you go one level deeper? What are some of the specific customer characteristics that make someone a good fit for Lindsay’s products?
Kurtis: You’ve got farmers who are tech-savvy, maybe they went to college, got an engineering degree, and then came back home to run the family farm. Those are the folks we look for when we want to do early product testing. They understand the pain points that come with testing something new, and they can handle the complexity.
We’re seeing more of those types of farmers now, especially as the next generation steps in, more comfortable with technology. We love working with them during testing phases because they give great feedback and help us improve the product.
You’ve got the larger corporate farms, where technology plays a critical role in the operation. For them, it’s about business investment. If they can see clear ROI or efficiency gains from a tech solution, they’re absolutely going to adopt it.
Rhishi Pethe: Are the gains from your products immediately visible to your customers? One of my hypotheses when it comes to farm management software is that the benefits can be hard to measure.
And even if you can show yields increased by a certain percentage, it’s tough to attribute that directly to something the software did, especially with farm management tools.
Kurtis: Labor and time savings are the easy part. The real challenge lies in demonstrating water and energy savings, but AI is starting to make a significant difference in that area.
We’ve had products installed on pivots for over five years now. We’ve accumulated a strong data set. This allows us to look back and run comparisons. The big challenge, however, is that weather isn’t consistent year over year.
We’re beginning to cross-reference our data with other sources, public datasets and even private ones, like the weather data from Climate FieldView. AI is helping us pull all of that together and demonstrate the savings and ROI to our customers.
We still have work to do. We’re not quite there yet.
Rhishi Pethe: We’ve talked about customer segmentation, value creation, and a bit about value capture, all of which are important responsibilities for a product manager.
Could you talk about the art and science of product management at Lindsay? What have you done to shape that function or bring the company along in that journey?
Kurtis: I always like to say, product management is pretty similar across most companies, but even here at Lindsay, you wear a lot of different hats. You get involved in just about everything.
I like to compare the product manager role at Lindsay to being the CEO of the products in your portfolio. You’re responsible for the P&L, for setting the strategy, and for defining the vision. The challenge is product managers usually don’t have many direct reports, if any. A big part of the job is about influencing across departments and functions.
It creates a great opportunity for growth. It’s a chance to develop new skill sets and gain a broader view of the business. I always tell people, if you want to understand how the business works, or if you want to position yourself to grow within the company, product management is a great place to start, or at least something worth trying at some point.
You wear a number of different hats, work closely with different functional groups, and you take ownership of P&L for your products. It’s a role that stretches you in the best ways.
Rhishi Pethe: How do you gather inputs on what your teams should work on next? Where do those inputs come from? And once you have them, how do you prioritize?
What kind of rubric or framework do you use to make those calls? And once you've made that decision, how do you build confidence, both for yourself and your team, that you’re working on the right thing?
Kurtis: A lot of our ideas come through either the voice of the grower or voice of the dealer. We have a large global dealer channel, so we make sure to include their feedback in our roadmaps as well.
That’s how we start. From there, we follow a full process that takes an idea and turns it into an initiative, then into a project, and ultimately into a product. That progression is a key part of what the product manager owns.
When it comes to evaluating and prioritizing what we work on, that’s another core responsibility of the product manager. We know not all ideas or projects carry the same weight, whether in terms of revenue potential, cost, or time to market, so we use a scoring mechanism to bring some structure to that.
We call it a Product Value Score. We score each opportunity across factors like revenue generation, engineering cost, and time to market. We assess how confident we are that the idea will land, how well it aligns with our strategy, and other relevant metrics. It’s probably similar to what most companies do, but we’ve customized the process to fit how we work at Lindsay.
Rhishi Pethe: Are customer needs and what they value different across regions? How do you handle those differences? How do they influence the way you build products, choose features, and take them to market in each region?
Kurtis: Honestly, that’s probably one of the toughest parts of the job right now. We run pretty lean at Lindsay, so we have to stay efficient.
Like I mentioned earlier, we’re growing globally.. We rely heavily on our boots on the ground to bring in feedback from the field, because as you know, we can’t be everywhere at once to gather the voice of the grower or voice of the dealer ourselves.
So we count on local teams, whether it’s sales or support, to help us collect that input. But I’ll say this: I wish we could be everywhere, because in my experience, the most valuable part of this job is getting in front of customers, hearing their challenges firsthand, and listening.
That’s where the best insights come from, and it’s what we use to shape our roadmaps and pull all that feedback together in one place.
Rhishi Pethe: If we go one level deeper, let’s say we compare North America with another region, what are some of the key differences? What kinds of problems are customers asking you to solve in each region? And how do those expectations differ based on where they are?
Kurtis: I’ll take South America as an example, more specifically, Brazil. The customers there are advanced and incredibly tech-savvy. But the challenges they face are different. Their power infrastructure, for instance, is much less developed than what we see here in the U.S.
And when you’re building IoT products, power is everything. So we have to account for those discrepancies, how do we design products that work reliably in places like Brazil without having to build multiple SKUs for different markets?
We see similar kinds of challenges across the globe. It pushes us to think globally while still designing with local realities in mind.
Rhishi Pethe: Are you building different products or features for different regions? How do you manage that?
Kurtis: We try to take the approach of designing for the worst-case scenario, going back to the Brazil example, if we build something that works well even with power issues there, then it’s obviously going to perform just fine in the U.S. That’s usually where we start.
But then there’s the infrastructure challenge too. Some of our dealers in Brazil are located three hours away from their nearest customers. So we ask ourselves, how can we build products that are not only reliable but easy for those dealers to source and service on their own if they need to?
The dealer can keep their customers up and running, because at the end of the day that’s their livelihood. And we have to make sure our products support that.
Rhishi Pethe: You mentioned dealers. They’re clearly a key part of your go-to-market and distribution strategy. How do you make sure the incentives are aligned, between Lindsay, the dealers, and the customers?
What concerns do dealers typically have? How do those align with what growers want, and with what you want as a company? And how do you take all of that into account during your product development process?
Kurtis: Our dealers serve as both our sales arm and our support arm, so incentivizing them to sell and support our products, especially the technology, is absolutely critical.
They sell pivots, which typically make up a much larger portion of their business. So we focus on showing them how the technology not only benefits their customers but also benefits them directly.
If they’re installing tech on a customer’s pivot, that usually leads to ongoing support and future sales with that same customer. It creates stickiness, for both the dealer and for Lindsay, which makes the relationship mutually beneficial.
We look at how we structure incentives. We try to make sure Lindsay doesn’t take more than we give. From a sales perspective, we aim to build a model where the dealer sees value in pushing and supporting the technology.
Rhishi Pethe: Are these the same dealers selling your entire product line? I assume the pivot is a much higher ticket item compared to some of the other products you offer.
And if I’m a salesperson at the dealership, I might be more motivated to focus on selling pivots, because closing just one or two could earn me more commission than selling several smaller-ticket items.
How do you motivate and incentivize sales staff and people on the ground when you’re offering products with such different price points?
Kurtis: Over the years we have shown our dealers the value of using data. When they install and sell technology to a customer, they’re far more likely to get repeat pivot sales, repeat aftermarket parts sales, and all the support and service calls from that customer going forward.
And that’s where our dealers make most of their money, through ongoing support and year-over-year service. So showing them proof points and hard data is absolutely critical.
We make sure we’re properly incentivizing them to keep doing it. That combination, data and clear incentive, drives the behavior we want to see.
Rhishi Pethe: A pivot creates a spike in inflow, it’s a large, one-time purchase, whether you’re selling it outright, offering a subscription, or providing financing options.
You mentioned dealers probably earn more from the support and ongoing business rather than the initial pivot sale, since that revenue is more consistent.
So how do you take that into account when thinking about your own revenue model? How do you work toward smoothing out those spikes and ensuring more stable, recurring inflows over time?
Kurtis: Let’s start with the subscription piece. From our perspective, and from our dealers’ perspective, that ongoing subscription revenue.
ARR (annual recurring revenue) helps smooth out some of the lumpiness in the business. It’s not just for Lindsay; it gives our dealers more consistency too. With ARR, they’re able to keep people engaged on the support and technology side year over year.
It helps that technology has a much shorter lifecycle than the steel and structure components. That creates more opportunities on the aftermarket tech side.
We continue to focus on hardware and software upselling. We’re always looking for ways to bundle or layer value so both the dealers and customers see benefits as things evolve.
Rhishi Pethe: When I spoke to CNH, they mentioned that their hardware team and what they call their “technology team”, basically their software group, don’t work together. And that’s something they’re actively trying to fix.
How do you approach that at Lindsay? You mentioned the pivot is essentially a bunch of steel pipes connected to a water supply, and now you're adding a layer of intelligence on top of that.
How do your teams collaborate? Is it all one integrated team, or do you have separate groups for hardware and software? And how do you make sure they’re working together effectively?
Kurtis: When I started here about 10 years ago, the teams operated differently. Back then, they worked together when they had to, but it wasn’t a fully integrated process.
Fast forward to today, and things have changed completely. We now operate as one fully integrated team. We have a dedicated Senior VP of Technology and Innovation who oversees all of engineering. That includes controls engineering, which covers everything from the electrical components on the pivot down to the last tower.
Under that umbrella, we manage the control boxes, the motors, and the contactors inside the tower boxes. We have a hardware engineering team that focuses on all things IoT, from PCB design to integrating those PCBs directly into the control panels.
On the firmware and software side, we now treat those as one unified team. They handle all the code, whether it runs on the device or in the cloud. We’ve structured the organization to be as integrated as possible. That’s made a huge difference for us over the years.
Rhishi Pethe: You talked earlier about where ideas come from. You made a point that no matter how big a company is, you can’t build everything in-house. You need to rely on partnerships, on acquisitions, and that’s just part of the process.
If we look at your recent acquisitions, like Net Irrigate, FieldWise, and PESSL, you’ve clearly made some strategic moves. With PESSL, for example, you’ve adjusted your ownership stake over time.
When you're looking to make an acquisition, what are you actually looking for? We could walk through those three examples, what gaps did you need to fill, and why did acquiring those companies make more sense than building internally?
Kurtis: The primary criteria we focus on, is whether its core to our business or highly adjacent to our core. We pride ourselves on being the best irrigation and water management company in the industry, and we have no intention of being anything else.
So if the opportunity doesn’t relate to remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation systems, or if it isn’t tied to irrigation scheduling, water management, variable rate irrigation, or pump monitoring and control, then we usually don’t pursue it directly. In those cases, we lean more toward partnerships or working with startups that are better positioned to address those needs.
But if the opportunity falls within one of our core focus areas, and we see a chance to acquire technology that could differentiate our portfolio or expand our market access, then we’ll seriously consider it from an acquisition standpoint.
Rhishi Pethe: I’d love to get a bit more specific, the focus here is on understanding how you made the decision, not just what the decision was.
So for each of those, what was your thought process? How did you evaluate the opportunity, and what led you to conclude that acquisition was the right move?
Kurtis: Net Irrigate and FieldWise were both direct competitors to FieldNet. They operated in the remote monitoring and control space, and for us, they offered technology that filled some gaps in our own portfolio. They had access to customer segments or markets where we didn’t yet have a strong presence. That’s what drove those acquisitions, they gave us both product capabilities and expanded reach.
PESSL was a minority investment. They’re particularly strong in water management, especially outside the U.S. They’re well-established here too, but globally, with their headquarters in Europe, they’ve built a strong presence. Their platform includes weather stations and soil moisture probes, and it’s robust. That global strength in water management was the main reason behind our investment in PESSL.
Rhishi Pethe: It sounds like those acquisitions were partly about customer acquisition, entering a segment you weren’t in yet, and about bringing in new capabilities and skill sets.
In the first two cases, it was more about targeting different customer segments, and in the other, it was about expanding into a new market that already had an existing install base and tech platform.
Shifting gears a bit, last year, we were both on that World AgriTech panel with PepsiCo, Bayer, and Microsoft. That was a great example of industry collaboration across the supply chain. PepsiCo is much further downstream, Bayer’s kind of in the same space as you, and Microsoft brings in the tech angle.
What’s the thinking behind those collaborations? How do they support Lindsay’s strategy, whether that’s expanding your customer base, gaining insights, building influence, or something else entirely?
Kurtis: This ties back to how we think about acquisitions versus partnerships. When we assess those decisions, we always come back to our core.
Take Bayer and Climate FieldView, for example. They operate in the precision agronomy space, which we don’t consider core to Lindsay. But they have a major presence there, and that’s why we look to partner and integrate with companies like that. We’re not going to go build a precision ag platform, that’s not what we’re here to do. But they are doing that, and having a partner like Bayer adds value through data sharing and ecosystem alignment.
PepsiCo is more downstream, one of the major food suppliers that many of our customers work with. Those growers need to share data with PepsiCo, whether it’s for sustainability reporting, proof of placement, or other compliance needs.
So we focus on making that data exchange as seamless as possible. The rationale behind that kind of collaboration is simple: does it add incremental value to the farmers we serve? And with PepsiCo, the answer is definitely yes.
Rhishi Pethe; With Bayer, the goal was about gaining access to additional data, products, and capabilities. And with PepsiCo, it was more downstream, helping your growers share the data they need to with PepsiCo as part of their growing contracts, especially for sustainability reporting. And in doing that, you’re adding incremental value to the grower.
So how did you decide to pursue that partnership? Were you thinking this would help deepen your relationship with the grower? Maybe increase their lifetime value? What was the business rationale behind it?
Kurtis: We feel strongly FieldNet is the number one product in the irrigation market. And when it comes to precision ag, we see Bayer and FieldView as the leaders on that side. There's real customer value in that connection, because a lot of our customers already use the FieldView platform. So if we can enable data sharing between the two, that’s a clear win for them.
There’s a marketing aspect to the partnership. Bayer’s team has a strong reach, and we do as well. So there’s mutual benefit there from a brand and visibility standpoint.
If it doesn’t create value for the customer, we’re probably not going to move forward. But if it does, then we ask: does it create value for both companies? Because that’s what a real partnership is about, delivering value on both sides.
Rhishi Pethe: What about something like FieldView? It gives you access to a lot of precision data. Do you think about partnerships with OEMs, for example, to enhance or fortify your offerings with that kind of data? How do you approach that kind of collaboration?
Kurtis: Exactly, and all of those areas fall outside what we consider our core. So yes, we’re absolutely looking at partnerships there, especially when our customers are asking for them.
On the OEM side, one of the major advancements right now is Microsoft ADMA, Azure Data Manager for Agriculture. We’re excited about it. Ideally, it will bring everything into one place, which addresses one of the biggest challenges we’ve seen with integrations: the sheer amount of effort our internal teams have to put in to make those partnerships work.
A platform like ADMA could simplify that process significantly. We’re always open to integrating with more OEMs, especially when we see a clear value add for both our customers and the company.
Rhishi Pethe: You mentioned efficient water and energy management are the starting points for many of your products. With energy, there’s a clear financial implication. The more water a grower uses, the more energy they need to pump it, that part’s pretty straightforward.
Have you started to notice any change in how your customers think about sustainability, especially given some of the recent political shifts in the country? Or is it still too early to tell?
Kurtis: I still believe sustainability is a top priority for most farmers. Farmers want to leave things better than they found them. That’s just who they are.
They understand that for their operation to continue, usually with the goal of passing it down to a son, daughter, grandson, or granddaughter, they have to take care of what they have. That means they need the resources in place to keep the farm going, and they take that responsibility seriously.
Farmers need the resources to keep their operations going. Water is probably the single most important factor for yield production, especially for grain farmers.
Farmers are aware of that. They genuinely want to be good stewards of the land. So, to answer your question, absolutely. Sustainability will always be a primary focus for them.
The real challenge is helping them manage water more effectively. That’s where we come in.
Rhishi Pethe: You talked about water and sustainability, and that’s a huge challenge, especially with what’s happening in Western Kansas. I just finished reading a book about how farming is changing, and will likely keep changing. How is it influencing your decision-making and the direction you’re heading in the future?
Kurtis: I’ll start by talking about the water issues in Western Kansas and share my perspective. On the water side, our focus has always been on helping farmers become more efficient with less water. That’s our vision, and if you look at our mission statement, it’s all about conserving natural resources and improving life around the farm.
We won’t build a product that doesn’t prioritize those two things. If we can’t make life easier, save farmers more time, help them spend more time with their families, or save them water and energy, we won’t build it. That’s how we approach product development at Lindsay.
There are still a lot of older irrigation practices in place. Surprisingly, there’s still a lot of flood surface irrigation happening, which is maybe 50% efficient. If you replace that with a center pivot, you’re looking at 90-95% efficiency. So when you hit that level of efficiency, the only real way to make further water savings is through better decision-making, through analytics that help farmers make smarter decisions.
That’s where we’ve focused a lot, especially over the past three to four years. We’ve rolled out several new products that focus on remote sensing and using that data to drive irrigation recommendations and management. From Lindsay’s perspective, we’ve invested a lot of time and resources into developing these products.
I believe we’re going to see significant payoff in the future. It’s going to help farmers become more water-conscious and save more water over the long term, just by making better decisions in the process.
Rhishi Pethe: Where do you think we need more innovation in your industry? And if you had to look ahead, how do you think things will be different 10 years from now?
Looking ahead to the next 10 years, I think we’ll see much more focus on automation. More specifically, at Lindsay, we’re asking: Can we help automate many of those decisions? Right now, there’s always a person in the middle, someone who looks at the data, analyzes it, or gets recommendations, then makes a decision. The question is, can we remove that middle step and start automating irrigation based on decisions that predictive analytics or AI are making for the farmer?
I believe that’s where things will look a lot different 10 years from now, to be honest with you.
Rhishi Pethe: It sounds like you see automation as the direction things are heading, which makes a lot of sense. I’m assuming a lot of the AI technologies emerging now will help push that forward.
Customer adoption is always part of the journey, but when you have groundbreaking technology like FieldNET or other AI technologies, the impact and innovation are undeniable. While adoption can take time, the value it brings makes the process worthwhile. Thank you, Kurtis, for your time.