Advances in site-specific technology mean farmers are conducting business in a far more complex way than they used to as more and more technical data are being used to conduct business. And expectation levels of farmers are increasingly higher because consultants are delivering more to farmers than ever before. Farmers’ needs for specialized information are being met by consultants who use site-specific technology to deliver the specialist information their clients want CROP DECISIONS spoke to three consultants about the trends in site-specific technology in the ag industry.

What should independent crop consultants expect in site-specific technology advances for 2001?

Harold Lambert, BCE, CPCC-I, CPAg, Lambert Agricultural Consulting, Innis, LA: It seems most of the advances should be in the way of gaining a better understanding of how to use the technology that we already have available. This may mainly consist of a more thorough exploitation of SSM-related software. Production agriculture is now beginning to have a good stock of data; we now need to know better how to analyze it. Remote imagery and sensing should be another advancement in the near future. Also, another area that needs improvement is data quality.

Rob Stouffer, BS, MBA, Precision Insights: An even greater emphasis on information management and how decision makers can use site-specific data to support better decision making. Some of us have been beating this drum for several years. Now it has become fashionable to talk about information management and decision support tools. All of this talk must translate into growers having better information and more confidence in their decision-support resources. This is a critical time for precision ag and those who advise growers.

Kirk Wesley, CPCC-I, CPAg, Key Agricultural Services, Macomb, IL: I believe that we are just beginning to understand how we can use data we have been collecting for the past few years. The introduction of site-specific technology in the Midwest was mainly promoted by businesses that tied it to product sales. If this technology has done one thing good it has shown us how little fertility levels actually influence crop yields. That’s not to say fertility and soil testing are not important – they are – but they are only tools in crop production, not total solutions.

I think that we are learning how to use this technology and that farm managers and consultants will be taking advantage of new data interpretation methods to help in decision making. Our company has been working with datasets such as soil type, yield records (both GPS and whole field averages), grid sampling and weather data to help formulate profitable decisions for farming operations.

Who is using site-specific technology?

Lambert: Progressive commercial crop producers and their consultants who understand the technology, who are willing to invest some extra time for a period of data gathering, who know that costs spread across a sufficient number of acres lower the economic risks, and that some benefits are initially intangible; for example, if site-specific technology simplifies and improves accuracy of certain field processes, then management time is reduced, and so by default that is a cost savings to management.

Stouffer: I see two common characteristics among those embracing this technology. First, these people are good managers who recognize that variability in their fields represents opportunities for improved management. They realize the exciting profit potential represented in defining management zones within a field and developing management strategies for different zones. These forward-thinking managers appreciate the value of information and the importance of multiple years of data along with good record keeping.

Secondly, they are working with a service provider. This service provider can be a crop consultant, advisor from their input dealership or an independent precision ag specialist. These growers recognize the need to work interdependently with professionals having expertise in precision ag, GIS and agronomy. This reliance on others, however, doesn’t diminish the value a grower brings to the table in the form of wisdom and experience, accumulated over a lifetime of farming. Anybody who overlooks a grower’s contribution in this decision-making model is destined to fail.

Wesley: Retailers and dealerships have introduced most of the technology by promoting or enhancing product sales. The retailers have tried to make this a profit center at most operations, which in my opinion is not where the actual money is or should be made by retailers. The technology actually pays its users through the tremendous increase in efficiency. The ability to be directed to a field, apply the products to exact locations in the field, record and save the “as applied” data and enable the truck to co er additional acres is where the real profit is.

If you think about it, a soil test is usually received back from a lab, the agronomist spends time converting the numbers into an action item, the agronomist spends time telling the truck driver how to carry out this recommendation and the driver (if new) needs to find or be directed to the field, orient himself and run the spreading operation. All of this is automated to: how many pounds to tender to the vehicle, drive to the field and running the spreading operation. The agronomist is able to contact new clients, and increase sales, while the truck is in the next field spreading the next prescription.

What kind of site-specific technology tools are independent crop consultants using?

Lambert: As an independent crop consultant working on the appropriate and logical implementation of technology that may help us address certain situations, I have begun using soil electrical conductivity mapping because soil texture variations across fields impinge on applied nitrogen rates for cotton and corn, and seeding rates for cotton. So we have begun to do some VRT practices. VRT nitrogen for cotton in 2000 looked very good, and will be a big help in helping us avoiding rank growth and the associated problems and expenses. Soil EC mapping is expected to be much more appropriate than grid sampling for developing an accurate representation of soil variability.

Stouffer: Information management and decision support tools are key. This will inevitably involve GIS analysis tools. Growers are capturing tons of spatial data from yield data, soil sample data, soil conductivity data, soil type data, elevation data, etc. The opportunity lies in taking the different types of data, organizing it, manipulating it and analyzing it to help growers make better management decisions. If we aren’t focusing on the tools to accomplish this goal, we are wasting time and money.

Wesley: Technology routinely being used today are Yield Monitors (with and without GPS), grid soil sampling providing information to variable rate equipped trucks, swathing light bars (GPS driven) and the software to turn the above collected information into usable data. Future data will be variable rate nitrogen, variable rate herbicides, automated tractors and implements (depth, variety and populations), wireless delivery of information too and from the cab providing real-time updates to managers and consultants, the Internet as a data delivery platform, satellite information and much more. This future data is all being tested today, but most is not being used routinely yet.

How has site-specific technology changed the role of independent crop consultants over the past 10 years?

Lambert: Site-specific technology has given independent crop consultants another area of services which may be in demand in his area. Because of the relationship the consultant has with his client, the consultant is a “natural” for providing that service - free of conflict of interest. Not enough can be said about the importance of the consultant’s frequent presence in his clients’ fields for assessing the effects and responses to site-specific practices and for ground truthing.

Stouffer: Much of the hoopla surrounding site-specific technology has been focused on the hardware, software and gadgets that make us say “wow.” Some have worried that this technology will replace or diminish the importance of trusted local advisors. Concern about displacement or relevancy is unnecessary. Precision ag has created tremendous needs for people who can work with the data and support growers. Contrary to some advertisements, there are no black box solutions, and working with talented professionals is more important than ever.

Wesley: To date, I think the technology has been perceived as more of a burden then a valuable tool. In our business we have benefited from the quality control aspect. We are able to tell where an observation was made using its longitude and latitude, as well as the time stamp indicating the date and exact second of that day the observation was made. Also, the automation of delivering data has helped us with assuring that a nutrient management plan we developed for a field is actually laying on the ground after application in the same manner as we intended at our meeting with the client. The Internet has enabled fast “sharing” of data from anywhere in the world in just seconds.

What is the cost for using site-specific technology?

Lambert: This is difficult to answer, but an important question. My clients and I have tried to give as much attention to the value of site-specific technology as opposed to cost. Depending on one’s amortization schedule, combine or cotton picker yield mapping systems, by our estimated costs, are in the range of $0.80 to $1.20 per acre per year plus $7.00 to $8.00 per acre of soil EC mapping. EC mapping is done only once every 10 or more years and is $0.70 to $0.80 per acre per year. VRT hardware is $0.60 to $0.70 per acre per year and prescription writing and other services are $1.30 to $1.50 per acre per year. We now estimate cost savings in cotton production by way of less labor, reduced nitrogen, PGRs, and defoliant to be at least $20.00 to 24.00 per acre per year.

Stouffer: Time and patience. The pocket book costs have been well documented for several years. What is often overlooked, however, are the pressures on time and patience. I spoke earlier about the need to work with service providers. One of the reasons these professionals are so important is because of time management pressures. Most growers don’t have the time or interest in becoming precision ag, GIS and agronomy experts. Instead, they need to develop relationships with good people who already have these skills and experience. These professional services are not free but deliver substantial value. This relationship can also be the difference between success and failure.

Wesley: Costs range from $2.00 to $8.00 per acre for data collection and database design. Costs are higher if they include soil testing. Internet access is $15 to $1,500/month while variable rate application price depends on equipment used and is $4 to $18 per acre. To invest in variable rate equipment costs $3,500 to $250,000, yield monitors on harvesters are $2,500 to $8,000 and vehicle guidance is $5,000 to $50,000, with the higher prices being automated vehicles not needing drivers for 80 percent of operation.

What kind of return on investment (ROI) should users of site-specific technology expect?

Lambert: Site-specific technology is just another tool for the producer and his consultant to use, so the ROI should be similar to other equipment or services that the producer may utilize. But initially, one should not expect immediate positive ROI. Site-specific technology coming to fruition requires a longer ‘ramp-up’ time by its very nature – several years of data collection, verification of what works and what doesn’t. The producers’ ROI could be enhanced by availing himself of the technology through an independent consultant who is able to spread the costs across multiple clients.

Stouffer: Like the technology, the economics are site-specific. The ROI of a sugar beet farmer in Minnesota is going to be drastically different than a corn and soybean farmer in southwest Missouri. Growers need realistic expectations about site-specific technology and about themselves as managers. Growers who are excellent managers have seen their investment costs recouped in the first year, while less management-savvy growers might be in year four and still trying to make sense of all of this data. The potential is there, but it takes hard work, skill and some luck to make it all come together. Growers need to ask themselves: Will more and better information about my fields enable me to make more profitable decisions?

Wesley: Most ROI has been based on savings of product, which did not pan out to most operations bottom line. I feel as we become educated with the information that has been collected you should invest in equipment which can be paid for in three years or less. Computers and yield monitors should pay every year. If not, don’t invest.

Are there any partnership opportunities between independent crop consultants and retail dealers through the use of site-specific technology? What are they?

Lambert: Communication and coordination of what each can bring to the table for the producer/client/customer’s benefit is definitely an opportunity – each has an essential role, and overlapping simply drives up the cost of site-specific-technology, making it less likely to be introduced to the very clients who need it most. Each one needs to be conservative in his respective investment in site-specific technology so that the producer can access site-specific technology without the risks, without the sticker shock. Everyone agrees that the customer is the most important player in this picture, and everything needs to be done for the ultimate improvement of the value he derives from site-specific technology in the form of the creation and protection of his private data, the protection and sustainability of his farm resources, and the enhancement of his net profit.

Stouffer: Tons of opportunities exist for partnerships and relationships between market players who serve growers. Just as growers need to establish relationships with professionals who offer complementary skill sets, so do retail dealers and crop consultants. A crop consultant may be a gifted agronomist, but that skill alone doesn’t ensure successful adoption of site-specific technology. The model I prefer is an agronomy expert, a GIS/precision ag specialist and a grower gathered around the table. This blended skill set has the best chance to succeed. It is this need for interdependence between skill sets that creates market opportunities for partnerships and new relationships that might have been unheard of before site-specific technologies became central to the future of agriculture.

Wesley: Because we are actively involved as consultants with major agriculture companies at this time, I will pass on this question. CD