From Science to Market
Takeaways from Plant Health 2026 and the AgriBusiness Global Trade Summit
Last week, I attended two very different but complementary events: the annual meeting of the American Phytopathological Society (APS), Plant Health 2026 in Providence, and the AgriBusiness Global Trade Summit in Las Vegas.
The first event gathered plant pathologists, researchers, students, growers, startups, and industry scientists to discuss the future of plant health. The second event brought together manufacturers, distributors, investors, suppliers, and commercial leaders from the global agricultural input industry.
At APS: The Starting Point for Innovation
APS has been an important part of my professional life since I joined in 2008, so this meeting meant more to me than just attending scientific sessions. I enjoyed reconnecting with colleagues and friends, meeting new people, and learning about new ideas and technologies.
This year, I organized and led a special session on startup innovations in plant health, bringing together entrepreneurs and technology leaders developing new ways to protect crops. I also participated in industry-student networking, speed mentoring with early-career professionals, industry-extension engagement, and the Annual Meeting Board meeting and Office of Private Sector Relationships.
In many of these conversations, I kept hearing the same question: How can we turn promising science into something that actually reaches growers?
One session that stood out looked at the path from academic innovation to agricultural entrepreneurship. The discussion covered Technology Readiness Levels, the challenges of commercialization, funding, external validation, entrepreneurship, and the importance of building partnerships early.
Growers also shared important reminders about the challenges they face. They talked about changing disease pressure, unpredictable weather, resistance, limited management options, inconsistent biological performance, and the constant need to balance effectiveness with costs.
Their perspectives highlighted an important point: A technology is not valuable just because it is scientifically new. It becomes valuable when it solves a real problem in the field in a reliable, practical, and cost-effective way.
This difference is especially important for new technologies such as biologicals (including RNA and peptides), AI-powered tools, and other new platforms.
Then to Las Vegas: Seeing Innovation from the Market Side
Right after APS, I went to Las Vegas for the AgriBusiness Global Trade Summit. I attended as the Founder of Nexus BioStrategy and also to support Shandong Kangqiao Biotech’s North American strategy and business development.
The focus quickly shifted from research, disease biology, and technology development to topics such as manufacturing, sourcing, distribution, investment, market access, and international partnerships.
The summit was a great chance to reconnect with industry leaders, meet distributors and potential partners, talk with investors, and learn how companies across the agricultural input value chain are approaching growth.
One discussion that was very interesting to me was about how China and India are changing roles in the global agricultural input supply chain. People often compare India and China as if it’s one or the other, but the panelists believe it’s more about both countries together. China still offers huge manufacturing scale, strong infrastructure, and a well-established agrochemical industry. At the same time, India is becoming increasingly important as companies look to diversify their sourcing, expand manufacturing, and build more resilient supply chains.
For global agricultural companies, the future probably won’t mean choosing just one country. Instead, it will be about building strong, diverse supply networks and balancing cost, quality, reliability, innovation, and geopolitical risk.
Another panel discussion was very interesting, focusing on the importance of data in commercializing products, especially biologicals. The session was titled: Data That Talks: What Ag Retailers Actually Need to Say ‘Yes.’
Leaders from major U.S. agricultural retail organizations highlighted some key needs: clear grower ROI, standing out in a crowded market, fitting with current farming practices, and strong positioning through trusted retail and agronomic channels. One thing was clear: retailers do not want more data. They want the right data and a strong business case.
Here are a few key takeaways:
Prove grower value, not just efficacy. A product should show steady results and a strong return on investment. A 3:1 grower ROI is a good target for broad-acre adoption.
Fit matters almost as much as performance. Does the product work with what growers already do? If it mixes well in the tank and can be applied with other products, it is much easier for growers to try it.
Know what you are competing against. Retailers see many biological products. Positive trial results are not enough. Companies need to show direct comparisons, explain what makes their solution different, and make it clear how it works.
Enhancement may be an easier path than replacement. Instead of asking growers to stop using proven synthetic products, biologicals may catch on faster if they work alongside or improve what growers already use.
Specialty-crop success does not automatically translate to row crops. Corn and soybean markets need data for those crops, scalable manufacturing, good pricing, channel margins, and much more investment.
Think about distribution early. Selling directly to growers can drive early sales, but widespread adoption in the U.S. usually depends on retailers. If you start direct and switch to distribution later, it can cause channel conflicts that are hard to fix.
My biggest takeaway: do not wait until after the technology is built to think about commercialization. Companies need to explain why the product should be part of the grower’s program. Start by answering these questions:
What problem does it solve?
How does it work?
Where does it fit?
What does it replace, complement, or enable?
Why should a grower, retailer, or distributor choose it over many other options?
These questions matter for both product development and marketing. Positioning should start well before the commercial launch.
Five Takeaways Across Both Meetings
At both APS and the ABG Trade Summit, I noticed five main themes.
Start with the problem, not the technology.
While scientific novelty matters, the commercial journey really starts with solving a real customer problem. The sooner innovators understand growers, the market, and the competition, the better they can steer their development choices.
Product development and commercialization should not be sequential.
Many teams still believe they should develop the technology first and worry about the market later. In practice, technology assessment, product positioning, regulatory planning, formulation, field testing, manufacturing, partnerships, and commercialization all need to influence each other throughout development.
Validation builds trust.
Whether I spoke with growers at APS or distributors at ABG, trust kept coming up as a key factor. Independent data, local trials, strong extension relationships, trusted technical experts, and open communication all help turn a promising technology into something people will actually use.
Partnerships are not simply a late-stage business development activity.
The right partnerships can shape development much earlier and give access to skills, validation, manufacturing, distribution, market insights, and customers. For new companies with limited resources, deciding what to build in-house and where to partner is often one of their most important decisions.
In the end, innovation has to succeed in the real market.
At APS, our focus was on exciting science, technology, and innovation. At the Trade Summit, the conversations were about price, margins, supply chains, distribution, customers, and competition.
Both conversations are essential. A product needs to work from a science perspective, but it also has to be manufacturable, registrable, stand out from others, make financial sense, be easy to use, and actually reach growers through the right channels.
Connecting the Ecosystem
These two meetings also reminded me why I started Nexus BioStrategy.
There is a lot of exciting innovation happening in agricultural biotechnology. Still, turning an idea or lab breakthrough into a solution in the field takes many important decisions along the way.
Which technologies deserve further investment?
What data are needed at the next development stage?
Where are the technical and commercial risks?
Who are the right partners?
How should the product be positioned?
Which markets should be prioritized?And perhaps most importantly, when should a company continue investing, change direction, partner, or stop?
At Nexus BioStrategy, we help organizations make informed decisions at every stage of product development, from technology assessment and innovation strategy to partnerships, commercialization, and finding market opportunities.
Our goal is more than connecting science and business. We want to help innovators, companies, investors, and research groups make better decisions where science, strategy, and real market needs converge.
What’s Next
After a busy week filled with conversations, presentations, mentoring, networking, and listening, I returned home with even more questions and ideas than when I started.
I’ll continue exploring these questions and conversations with scientists, entrepreneurs, investors, growers, retailers, distributors, and industry leaders through Nexus BioStrategy, Cultivated Insight, and AgBio Dialogues.
If there’s one idea I brought back from Providence and Las Vegas, it’s this:
Great science creates new possibilities. Strategy and execution turn those possibilities into products. But real impact is measured by the value created in the field.
That’s where the next chapter of agricultural innovation will take shape.
