Progress Begins When We Stop Fragmenting Life

Robotics, artificial intelligence, new genomic technologies, biostimulants: agriculture has never had so many tools. Yet, deadlocks are accumulating: compacted soils, dependence on inputs, economic fragility of farms. For Francis Bucaille, the problem is not a lack of technology, but a compartmentalized thinking that treats soil, plant, genetics, or crop protection separately.

A former farmer in Nièvre, now a field researcher and trainer, he advocates for agritech capable of sorting: between useful high-tech and a rush forward, between robust low-tech and illusory solutions stemming from magical thinking. With a common thread: everything starts with soil health.

"The real issue is: why are the roots no longer going down?"

You say that agriculture often thinks too much in silos. What does this produce concretely?

We compartmentalize thinking. There are those who talk about genetics, those who talk about soil, those who talk about robotics, and we have a lot of trouble connecting everything. However, an agroecosystem is a whole. When looking at a plant problem, we must first look at what is happening at the root level. An agroecosystem only performs to the level of its weakest link.

You often take the example of the vine, why?

I do soil profiles with winemakers. I find large dead roots at 1.80 m or 2 m deep in vines that are 50 or 80 years old, while current rooting is very superficial. And when I hear "we need to irrigate," I say: no, the real issue is: "why are the roots no longer going down?"

What is your reading?

We have massively used fungicides. They do not stay on the leaves; they reach the soil. They inhibit fungi, which produce oxalic acid, which combines with calcium. Without this acid, calcium solubilizes in the soil solution and accompanies it in its migration to the roots. By accumulating calcium around the roots, they become trapped in calcareous gangues: they die! The result: the ecosystem malfunctions. And the main response to this is technological band-aids: irrigation, chelated iron to avoid iron chlorosis...

"High-tech must not mask the causes"

You criticize a certain technological rush forward. Do you reject high-tech?

Absolutely not. Robotics, AI, are fantastic. Precision mechanical weeding, for example, provides a response to one of the most challenging issues faced by conventional agriculture. This advancement brings it closer to organic farming at high speed. Tomorrow, thanks to these innovations, different agricultures will become objective allies.

Where is the limit, in your opinion?

When high-tech is used to compensate for systems that no longer work, instead of repairing them. For example, for compacted soils that malfunction: we invent varieties suited to sick soils. We put in probes, irrigation, crutches. For me, this is not progress; it is a rush forward that masks damage and allows it to thrive.

You sometimes talk about “bright high-tech” and “horrible high-tech.”

High-tech covers both. A technology like “attract and kill,” used in Brazil: attracting a pest with a pheromone combined with an insecticide, concentrated in a few drops of resin whose density is calculated to allow beneficials to live, is a remarkable advancement. Conversely, planned obsolescence of equipment, dependence on closed systems, poses a real problem.

"Low-tech is not small, it is imitable"

Low-tech is often accused of not being “scalable,” do you agree?

No, not at all. Low-tech is scalable, deployable on a large scale when it is imitable. I know Bom Futuro, the largest intensive farm in the world: 300,000 hectares in Brazil. They produce their own microbial ferments, their inoculants. This is low-tech that is implemented on a very large scale.

So low-tech does not mean going backwards?

Absolutely not. Low-tech brings robustness. It makes the farmer less dependent. Lacto-fermented preparations, mixtures of trace elements, plant extracts, varietal mixtures, cover crops... can have biostimulant and fungicidal properties. And just because there is no need for an expensive factory or a patent, low-tech solutions are not less effective. However, it should be noted that a low-tech technology does not exempt one from being rigorous.

Why do these solutions remain marginal?

Because they are not patentable and protectable. In public project calls, the questions that consortium partners ask are: "Is it patentable?" or "Is there still research that can justify funding my teams?" Otherwise, no one is interested. The system favors profitable complexity, not accessible efficiency.

"Everything starts with soil health"

Your central conviction remains the soil.

When I arrive somewhere, I have my spade. In 90% of cases, visible problems on the leaves have their roots in the soil. A poorly nourished plant attracts diseases and pests. This is the logic of life. It is also the concept of One Health: the virtuous loop of "contagious health".

What is missing today in agritech?

Faster and deeper reading tools. I dream of being able to take an X-ray of a plot, to identify the potential of a soil and the lost potential to be able to restore it. As long as we do not measure correctly, we pile up solutions without understanding.

20th-century agriculture relied on machinery, chemistry, and genetics. 21st-century agriculture will have to rely on microbiology, robotics, and a revisited genetics. Revisited means that yield alone on degraded soils cannot remain the indicator. Nutritional density, resistance to pests, and robustness against abiotic stresses (drought, heat) must guide genetic choices. So not to go faster into the fog, but to find a coherent trajectory in service of life.