Marvin BatteFred N. VanBuren Professor
of Farm Management
Precision Farming Adoption in Ohio
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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%
M. Batte - Precision Farming Adoption - January 2009
Now, let’s consider usefulness, (or loosely defined) profitability.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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?
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.