Marvin Batte Fred N. VanBuren Professor of Farm Management

23
Marvin Batte Fred N. VanBuren Professor of Farm Management Precision Farming Adoption in Ohio

description

Marvin Batte Fred N. VanBuren Professor of Farm Management. Precision Farming Adoption in Ohio. Results of the 2007 Precision Farming Survey. Statewide survey, $50,000 + gross sales Mailed Questionnaire 2,500 contacts 58.4% response rate. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Marvin Batte Fred N. VanBuren Professor of Farm Management

Page 1: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

Marvin BatteFred N. VanBuren Professor

of Farm Management

Precision Farming Adoption in Ohio

Page 2: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Results of the 2007 Precision Farming Survey

•Statewide survey, $50,000 + gross sales•Mailed Questionnaire•2,500 contacts•58.4% response rate

Page 3: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 3

Percent of Ohio farmers who had adopted various precision farming components, February 2007.

ComponentPercent adopting

Yield Monitor 31.7Precision Guidance (light-bar navigation or auto pilot system) 31.6Georeferenced (i.e., map-based or location specific) soil sampling 26.5Satellite GPS receiver 26.1Boundary Mapping 23.6Variable Rate (i.e., rate varied across field) Application of Lime 22.2Variable Rate Application of Phosphorus 19.6Variable Rate Application of Potassium 19.5Aerial or Satellite Field Photography 17.3Variable Rate Application of Nitrogen 10.7Variable Rate Seeding 8.1Variable Rate Application of Herbicides 7.1Georeferenced field scouting for insects, pests, or disease 6.6Georeferenced field scouting for weeds 6.3Variable Rate Application of other Nutrients 5.7Variable Rate Application of Pesticides 4.8Percent who have adopted one or more of above 54.2

Page 4: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 4

Percent of Ohio farmers who had adopted various precision farming components, 1999, 2003 and 2007.

Component2007 2003 1999

Yield Monitor 31.7 11.6 6.0Precision Guidance (light-bar or auto pilot system) 31.6 5.2Georeferenced grid soil sampling 26.5 15.3 8.1Satellite GPS receiver 26.1 7.6 2.2Boundary Mapping 23.6 9.8 4.3Variable Rate Application of Lime 22.2 14.0 6.7Variable Rate Application of Phosphorus 19.6 14.1 7.3Variable Rate Application of Potassium 19.5 13.4 7.3Aerial or Satellite Field Photography 17.3 5.2 2.7

Percent adopting

Page 5: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 5

Percent of Ohio farmers who had adopted various precision farming components, 1999, 2003 and 2007 -- continued.

Component2007 2003 1999

Variable Rate Application of Nitrogen 10.7 7.7 6.3Variable Rate Seeding 8.1 4.2 3.4Variable Rate Application of Herbicides 7.1 5.3 5.7Georeferenced field scouting for insects, pests, or disease 6.6 4.9 2.0Georeferenced field scouting for weeds 6.3 6.0 2.3Variable Rate Application of other Nutrients 5.7 4.1 3.9Variable Rate Application of Pesticides 4.8 2.8 2.9Percent who have adopted one or more of above 54.2 31.8 23.6

Percent adopting

Page 6: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 6

Yield Monitor Adoption by Farm Sales Class

9.65

21.58

43.26

67.55

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.00

$50,000 -99,999

100,000 -249,999

250,000 -499,999

Over $500,000

Gross Sales Class ($)

Adop

tion

Perc

ent

Page 7: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 7

Adoption of various precision farming components by farm sales class.

Measure$50,000 -

99,999100,000 - 249,999

250,000 - 499,999

Over $500,000

Yield Monitor 9.65 21.58 43.26 67.55Precision Guidance (light-bar or auto pilot system) 9.25 23.08 43.50 64.86Georeferenced grid soil sampling 12.55 25.00 30.51 45.64Satellite GPS receiver 8.77 15.90 33.52 60.54Boundary Mapping 10.96 20.50 23.16 48.34Variable Rate Application of Lime 11.79 20.58 25.00 37.58Variable Rate Application of Phosphorus 14.04 17.70 21.26 29.33Variable Rate Application of Potassium 13.97 17.28 21.02 30.00Aerial or Satellite Field Photography 14.04 16.32 19.32 21.62Variable Rate Application of Nitrogen 10.57 9.54 10.86 12.67Variable Rate Seeding 5.73 6.28 8.52 14.09Variable Rate Application of Herbicides 5.26 6.25 7.34 10.74Georeferenced field scouting for insects, pests, or disease 6.19 5.06 5.68 10.88Georeferenced field scouting for weeds 5.70 5.02 5.68 10.27Variable Rate Application of other Nutrients 2.64 7.17 7.43 6.08Variable Rate Application of Pesticides 3.51 3.75 5.68 7.38Percent who have adopted one or more of above 35.02 46.08 65.64 84.85

Adoption Percent

Page 8: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Number of Precision Farming Components Adopted by Precision Farming Adopters, 2007

N of components Percent

1 18.72 14.23 13.94 10.45 9.16 10.17 5.88 6.39 4.6

10 or more 7.1Mean 4.5Median 4.0

Page 9: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

PF componentMost

Important2nd Most Important

3rd Most Important Total

Precision Guidance (light-bar or auto pilot system) 129 56 25 210Yield Monitor 90 61 28 179Georeferenced grid soil sampling 84 34 31 149Variable Rate Application of Lime 29 49 35 113Satellite GPS receiver 16 32 41 89Aerial or Satellite Field Photography 10 19 22 51Boundary Mapping 13 18 17 48Variable Rate Application of Phosphorus 4 25 19 48Variable Rate Application of Potassium 0 12 28 40Variable Rate Application of Nitrogen 10 9 17 36Variable Rate Seeding 3 10 16 29Variable Rate Application of Herbicides 7 5 8 20Georeferenced field scouting for weeds 6 8 3 17Georeferenced field scouting for insects/pests/disease 3 4 5 12Variable Rate Application of other Nutrients 1 3 3 7

N of Responses

Most Important Precision Farming Components, 2007

Page 10: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Precision Guidance Adoption, 2007Percent

Method of controlLightbar 86.0

Autosteer 14.0Positioning system type

RTK 2.8DGPS 76.3

Don't know 20.9System Manufacturer

Trimble 39.4John Deere 13.8

Raven (Starlink) 11.0Spraying Systems Co.,

Centerline, Midtech ( TeeJet) 10.6Outback 10.2

Ag Leader 3.7Autofarm 2.9

Other 8.5Applications for which used

tillage 23.7planting 35.4

spraying / fertilization 91.8combining 19.1

Page 11: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

VRT fertilizer adoption

Percent of farmers who apply fertilizers by VRT 33.1

Who makes the decision about the rate of fertilizer materials to apply? Percent

Someone from the local cooperative 23.5

A custom fertilizer applicator 13.3

A consultant 13.3

I (or another owner/family member) do 48.7

An employee of the farm business. 1.3

For cash leased land:How are VRT costs shared? Operator Landlord

Soil sampling costs 95.8% 4.5%

VRT Application 94.6% 5.9%

For share leased land:How are VRT costs shared? Operator Landlord

Soil sampling costs 71.0% 32.2%

VRT Application 69.4% 33.7%

Page 12: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Now, let’s consider usefulness, (or loosely defined) profitability.

Page 13: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

On my farm, the benefits of this technology clearly exeed it costs.

PF Component Benefit Evaluation

For each of the 16 PF component technologies, we asked the following question for all had adopted.

Page 14: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Strongly Disagree

(1)Disagree

(2)Neutral

(3)Agree

(4)

Strongly Agree

(5) Mean*

Variable Rate Application of Lime 2.30 4.60 14.94 43.10 35.06 4.04Precision Guidance (light-bar or auto pilot system) 3.78 6.30 11.34 46.22 32.35 3.97Variable Rate Application of Phosphorus 2.00 4.67 18.67 49.33 25.33 3.91Satellite GPS receiver 3.45 4.43 18.23 45.81 28.08 3.91Variable Rate Application of Potassium 2.03 4.05 20.27 49.32 24.32 3.90Yield Monitor 4.10 4.10 27.46 36.89 27.46 3.80Georeferenced grid soil sampling 3.30 4.25 24.06 50.47 17.92 3.75Variable Rate Application of Nitrogen 4.60 9.20 19.54 44.83 21.84 3.70Georeferenced field scouting for insects/pests/disease 4.62 7.69 26.15 44.62 16.92 3.62Variable Rate Application of Herbicides 4.84 8.06 20.97 53.23 12.90 3.61Georeferenced field scouting for weeds 6.56 6.56 27.87 39.34 19.67 3.59Boundary Mapping 4.35 5.98 32.61 46.20 10.87 3.53Variable Rate Application of other Nutrients 3.45 12.07 36.21 31.03 17.24 3.47Variable Rate Application of Pesticides 6.52 8.70 28.26 45.65 10.87 3.46Aerial or Satellite Field Photography 4.65 9.30 34.88 39.53 11.63 3.44Variable Rate Seeding 5.97 7.46 35.82 40.30 10.45 3.42

---- Percent ----

* Mean evaluation is calculated with values of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for Strongly Disagree through Stongly Agree, respectively.

On my farm, the benefits of this technology clearly exceed its costs.

Page 15: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

MeasureYield

Monitor GPSYM + GPS

Full Sample 31.70 26.10 19.30Gross farm sales

Less than $250,000 15.78 12.42 6.76Over $250,000 54.40 45.70 37.80

Adoption Percent

Adoption of Combine Yield Monitors and GPS

Page 16: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5

On my farm, the benefits of this technology clearly exeed it costs.

Yield Monitor Benefit Evaluation

3.44 -- Mean score - farmers with yield monitor only3.99 -- Mean score - farmers with yield monitor + GPS

Page 17: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Net Benefits of the Total PF System

For your farm situation, are the total benefits of the precision farming system greater than the total costs of this system? (Circle ONE answer only)

1. Yes, Benefits are significantly greater than Costs2. Yes, Benefits are slightly greater than Costs3. Benefits and Costs are about equal4. No, Costs are slightly greater than Benefits5. No, Costs are significantly greater than Benefits

Page 18: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 18

Net Benefits of the Total PF System, 2007

9.2 10.9

22.52

34.62

22.76

05

10152025303540

Costs aresignificantlygreater than

Benefits

Costs areslightly

greater thanBenefits

Benefits andCosts are

about equal

Benefits areslightly

greater thanCosts

Benefits aresignificantlygreater than

Costs

Perc

ent

Page 19: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

19

Net Benefits of the Precision Farming System by Gross Sales Class, 2007

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Costs are greaterthan Benefits

Benefits and Costsare equal

Benefits are greaterthan Costs

Perc

ent

$50,000 - 249,999 Over $250,000

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Page 20: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009 20

Net Benefits of Precision Farming System, 1999, 2003 and 2007

0

1020

30

40

5060

70

Costs are greater thanBenefits

Benefits and Costs areequal

Benefits are greaterthan Costs

Resp

onse

Per

cent

1999 2003 2007

Page 21: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Summary Observations• “Simple”, turn-key technologies are adopted more quickly.• Large farmers are adopting more quickly

– Spreading of fixed costs of investment, knowledge development• Small farmers are adopting VRT methods, but often

contract out the entire process.• Small farmers are just as likely to be pleased with the

benefit / costs of the PF system.• Over time, farmers have indicated higher Benefit/Cost. Is

this learning or technology improvement?

Page 22: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

What does this say about future research needs?

• VRT of fertilizers will likely expand at a modest rate.– High energy and fertilizer/agrichemical costs will

enhance the payoff of these technologies• Is Variable Seeding the next high potential

technology?

Page 23: Marvin Batte Fred N.  VanBuren  Professor  of Farm Management

M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009

Results available at:http://aede.osu.edu/programs/VanBuren/pdf/Precision_Farming_Survey_2007.pdf

Note: We are doing another round of the survey this winter. We would be happy to have volunteers to review the survey instrument in late January.