Katie Ellis, Tara Baugher, Karen Lewis, and Gwen Hoheisel

Penn State UniversityWashington State University

Using Surveys to Overcome Obstacles to Specialty Crop Industry Adoption of

Automated Technologies

• Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops (CASC)– Multidisciplinary project aimed at improving tree

fruit production efficiency • Engineering/robotics, horticulture, entomology,

plant pathology– Variety of new techniques & equipment– Collaborators:

• Universities & Government– PSU, CMU, Purdue, WSU, OSU, USDA

• Industry• Growers & Packers (involvement in advisory

panel)

CASC

Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops

• Labor Reduction

• Crop Assessment

• Environmental Monitoring

• Sociological Implications

• Outreach

• Commercialization

• Assess specific stakeholder concerns early– Non-threatening, confidential

• Help outreach efforts – put in context applicable to interests of each group

• Determine differences in regional attitudes & practices

• Help decrease technology adoption lag times and speed up rollout

• See how farm size/revenue affect potential adoption

Why Bother with Socioeconomic Data?

8 yr lag to early adoption/15 yrs to full adoption

Adoption of New Ag Technologies

From Alston, Norton, and Pardey Science Under Scarcity,1995.

• Participant’s farm enterprise information• Needs/potentials for automation and

sensor tech in specialty crops• Potential benefits of harvest assist

technology• Potential benefits of automated disease

detection & pest monitoring• Potential benefits of automation for

monitoring plant stress• Benefits of fully automated harvest• Specific orchard planting system

information

Full Survey Themes

Full Socioeconomic Survey & TurningPoint Instant Response Surveys

Mid-Atlantic Fruit & Vegetable Convention

• Paper surveys: 65 (PA), 8 (NY); 75% Owners– 72% participation in PA

• TurningPoint survey participants: 25 (PA), 36 (NY); Owners (NY: 72%, PA: 43%)

• Greatest need: harvesting, spraying, monitoring yield, quality, plant/soil/water/nutrient status

• Moderate needs in thinning, tree training, and pruning

• Low need for technological advancement in mowing

Eastern Surveys

East:Acreage and Annual Gross Revenue

Acreage

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

700+600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100

25

20

15

10

5

0

• Improve precision & efficiency:– Fruit thinning*– Harvesting*– Pruning– Spraying

• Improve environmental stewardship & sustainability:

– Spraying*– Thinning– Monitoring water & nutrient status

• Least need: tree training, mowing

Areas of Greatest Need

Highest need scores

Anticipated Benefits of Harvest Assist

• Increased workforce productivity

• Improved management of harvest operations

• Reduced costs• Other ideas:

– Increased labor pool by eliminating heavy lifting

– Better quality fruit (faster shipment to consumers)

– Improved employee health

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Equipment reliability

Need for mechanical expertise on farm

Damage to fruit

Cost

Decreased employee retention

Decreased safety

Reduced control over management of harvest

Equipment availability

Lack of equipment flexibility

Need for specialized training

Perceived obstacles to adoption of harvest assist

Equipment Price Justification

• Maximum equipment price justified by 30-40% increase in efficiency of harvest employees– Median: $35,000

• Maximum equipment price justified by 10-15% increase in fruit packout– Median: $25,000

• Significant correlation between participant’s annual orchard revenue and the maximum price justified for harvest efficiency (ρ = 0.509, df = 50, I = 0.0002)

Automated Insect/Disease Monitoring• 79% agreed that a fire blight vision &

detection system would help in removing blighted shoots and avoiding tree loss

• Most indicated that they would, at minimum, use the same number of insect traps if reliable imaging systems were available– Many would also increase the number of traps, up to 70 additional units per pest

Implications• Orchards with higher annual revenues

have a higher justifiable price point and are more likely to be early adopters

• Internal fruit feeder pressure in the East is generally low; however, nearly 100% of respondents that regularly trap are willing to try the same number of automated traps

• Advanced technologies in tree training & mowing are lowest in priority for those surveyed

Full Socioeconomic Survey

Washington State Hort. Assn.

NW Hort Expo

Western Survey• Paper surveys: 38 Respondents; 63%

Owners• Greatest need: thinning, spraying,

monitoring water/nutrient status• Moderate needs in harvesting, monitoring

crop status• Low need for technological advancement in tree training, pruning, and mowing

West:Acreage and Annual Gross Revenue

Anticipated Benefits of Harvest Assist• Increased workforce productivity• Improved management of harvest

operations• Reduced need for steady workforce

Compared to Eastern growers, Western growers anticipate fewer benefits in terms of cost but more in terms of labor

Equipment Price Justification• Maximum equipment price justified by 30-

40% increase in efficiency of harvest employees– Median: $35,000

• Maximum equipment price justified by 10-15% increase in fruit packout– Median: $55,000

Same in the East

Much higher than in the East ($25,000)

Automated Insect/Disease Monitoring• 83% agreed that a fire blight vision & detection

system would help in removing blighted shoots and avoiding tree loss

• As in the East, most indicated that they would, at minimum, use the same number of insect traps if reliable imaging systems were available

Percentage of participants anticipating possible obstacles with imaging/sensor technologies for monitoring insects

Perceived obstacles to adoption of fully automated harvest

Results similar to opinions from the Mid-Atlantic meeting

Perceived benefits of visioning technologies* for crop projections

*Technologies under development for eventual fully automated harvest

Much lower than in the East

Other Regional Implications• Western and Eastern growers indicated differences in

irrigation concerns and justifiable price points for harvest-assist technology– Suggests a benefit in using region-specific outreach topics

to emphasize local needs for some topics– Western growers with larger pack-and-ship operations

associate a greater benefit with packout improvement– Smaller Eastern retail-based businesses would relate

better to emphasis on reduced labor costs and fruit quality improvement

• Western growers were also particularly interested in sensor data for crop projections, which may be partly due to recent disparities between projected and actual crops

• Fine tune outreach efforts in each region– Videos and fact sheets

• Effectively address cost concerns (early!) through value proposition seminars & software

• Thorough field-testing of equipment in a variety of grower landscapes– Survey participant comments: Orchard

slope/aspect, groundhog holes, etc.• Emphasis on reliable, user-friendly

equipment• Early involvement of commercialization

partners not a major concern

How to Use This Information for CASC

• This work is supported by the US Department of Agriculture under the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, award number 2008-51180-04876.

• We acknowledge the contributions of N. Lehrer, D. Ames, and the Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops project team for input on the survey questions.

Acknowledgments

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research, extension, and resident education programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsements by Penn State Cooperative Extension is implied.

This publication is available in alternative media on request. The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without

regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits

discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State

University. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY.