IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i3p524-d1076869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a Low-Cost Comprehensive Process for On-Farm Precision Experimentation and Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Paul B. Hegedus

    (Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Bruce Maxwell

    (Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • John Sheppard

    (Gianforte School of Computing, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Sasha Loewen

    (Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Hannah Duff

    (Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Giorgio Morales-Luna

    (Gianforte School of Computing, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

  • Amy Peerlinck

    (Gianforte School of Computing, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA)

Abstract

Few mechanisms turn field-specific ecological data into management recommendations for crop production with appropriate uncertainty. Precision agriculture is mainly deployed for machine efficiencies and soil-based zonal management, and the traditional paradigm of small plot research fails to unite agronomic research and effective management under farmers’ unique field constraints. This work assesses the use of on-farm experiments applied with precision agriculture technologies and open-source data to gain local knowledge of the spatiotemporal variability in agroeconomic performance on the subfield scale to accelerate learning and overcome the bias inherent in traditional research approaches. The on-farm precision experimentation methodology is an approach to improve farmers’ abilities to make site-specific agronomic input decisions by simulating a distribution of economic outcomes for the producer using field-specific crop response models that account for spatiotemporal uncertainty in crop responses. The methodology is the basis of a decision support system that includes a six-step cyclical process that engages precision agriculture technology to apply experiments, gather field-specific data, incorporate modern data management and analytical approaches, and generate management recommendations as probabilities of outcomes. The quantification of variability in crop response to inputs and drawing on historic knowledge about the field and economic constraints up to the time a decision is required allows for probabilistic inference that a future management scenario will outcompete another in terms of production, economics, and sustainability. The proposed methodology represents advancement over other approaches by comparing management strategies and providing the probability that each will increase producer profits over their previous input management on the field scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul B. Hegedus & Bruce Maxwell & John Sheppard & Sasha Loewen & Hannah Duff & Giorgio Morales-Luna & Amy Peerlinck, 2023. "Towards a Low-Cost Comprehensive Process for On-Farm Precision Experimentation and Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:524-:d:1076869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/3/524/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/3/524/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Capmourteres, Virginia & Adams, Justin & Berg, Aaron & Fraser, Evan & Swanton, Clarence & Anand, Madhur, 2018. "Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: A case study from southern Ontario," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 176-185.
    2. Sykuta, Michael E., 2016. "Big Data in Agriculture: Property Rights, Privacy and Competition in Ag Data Services," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(A), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Schimmelpfennig, David & Lowenberg-DeBoer, James, 2020. "Farm types and precision agriculture adoption: crops, regions, soil variability, and farm size," Agri-Tech Economics Papers 304070, Harper Adams University, Land, Farm & Agribusiness Management Department.
    4. Pham, Xuan & Stack, Martin, 2018. "How data analytics is transforming agriculture," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 125-133.
    5. Antle, John M. & Capalbo, Susan Marie, 2002. "Agriculture As A Managed Ecosystem: Policy Implications," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-15, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    2. Li, Lei & Lin, Jiabao & Ouyang, Ye & Luo, Xin (Robert), 2022. "Evaluating the impact of big data analytics usage on the decision-making quality of organizations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Basharat Ali & Peter Dahlhaus, 2022. "Roles of Selective Agriculture Practices in Sustainable Agricultural Performance: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Divya Suresh & Abhishek Choudhury & Yinjia Zhang & Zhiying Zhao & Rajib Shaw, 2024. "The Role of Data-Driven Agritech Startups—The Case of India and Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Mosch, Philipp & Schweikl, Stefan & Obermaier, Robert, 2021. "Trapped in the supply chain? Digital servitization strategies and power relations in the case of an industrial technology supplier," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    6. Václav Novák & Petr Šařec & Kateřina Křížová & Petr Novák & Oldřich Látal, 2021. "Potential Impact of Biostimulator NeOsol and Three Different Manure Types on Physical Soil Properties and Crop Status in Heavy Soils Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Robert Finger, 2023. "Digital innovations for sustainable and resilient agricultural systems," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(4), pages 1277-1309.
    8. Pedersen, Michael Friis & Gyldengren, Jacob Glerup & Pedersen, Søren Marcus & Diamantopoulos, Efstathios & Gislum, René & Styczen, Merete Elisabeth, 2021. "A simulation of variable rate nitrogen application in winter wheat with soil and sensor information - An economic feasibility study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    9. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Biogas from Agri-Food and Agricultural Waste Can Appreciate Agro-Ecosystem Services: The Case Study of Emilia Romagna Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-15, October.
    10. Allan D. Hollander & Casey W. Hoy & Kevin S. Armstrong & Michael R. Dimock & Patrick R. Huber & Douglas Jackson-Smith & James F. Quinn & Courtney M. Riggle & Thomas P. Tomich, 2023. "Workflows for Knowledge Co-Production—Meat and Dairy Processing in Ohio and Northern California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Theocharis Moysiadis & Konstantina Spanaki & Ayalew Kassahun & Sabine Kläser & Nicolas Becker & George Alexiou & Nikolaos Zotos & Iliada Karali, 2022. "AgriFood Supply Chain Traceability: Data Sharing in a farm-to-fork case," Post-Print hal-03766179, HAL.
    12. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Sieverding, Heidi & Kumar, Sandeep & Miao, Yuxin & Rao, Xudong & Obembe, Oladipo & Mirzakhani Nafchi, Ali & Redfearn, Daren & Cheye, Stephen, 2023. "Understanding farmer views of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    13. Kenney, Martin & Serhan, Hiam & Trystram, Gilles, 2020. "Digitalization and Platforms in Agriculture: Organizations, Power Asymmetry, and Collective Action Solutions," ETLA Working Papers 78, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    14. Hanson, Erik D. & Cossette, Max K. & Roberts, David C., 2022. "The adoption and usage of precision agriculture technologies in North Dakota," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    15. Cloé Garnache, 2015. "Fish, Farmers, and Floods: Coordinating Institutions to Optimize the Provision of Ecosystem Services," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(3), pages 367-399.
    16. Brave, Scott A. & Butters, R. Andrew & Fogarty, Michael, 2022. "The perils of working with big data, and a SMALL checklist you can use to recognize them," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 481-492.
    17. Hou, Dawei & Meng, Fanhao & Ji, Chao & Xie, Li & Zhu, Wenjuan & Wang, Shizhong & Sun, Hua, 2022. "Linking food production and environmental outcomes: An application of a modified relative risk model to prioritize land-management practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    18. Alshawawreh, Ali Ra’Ed & Liébana-Cabanillas, Francisco & Blanco-Encomienda, Francisco Javier, 2024. "Impact of big data analytics on telecom companies' competitive advantage," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    19. Klingenberg, Cristina Orsolin & Valle Antunes Júnior, José Antônio & Müller-Seitz, Gordon, 2022. "Impacts of digitalization on value creation and capture: Evidence from the agricultural value chain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    20. Luis Ruiz-Garcia & Patricia Sanchez-Guerrero, 2022. "A Decision Support Tool for Buying Farm Tractors, Based on Predictive Analytics," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:3:p:524-:d:1076869. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.