search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PHOTO: WALMART


GLOBAL VIEW ▶▶▶


The Walmart fi eld drone: useful tool, or corporate overseer?


BY MATT MCINTOSH W


almart, one of the largest re- tail companies in the world, recently requested patent


rights for drone technologies related to farm- ing – including those that can precisely apply pesticides and pollen on the fly. This interest in agricultural drone technology has been cit- ed as a practical means to enforce sustaina- bility initiatives. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this raises questions like: what might literal cor- porate oversight mean for farmers? Drones that more precisely and actively man- age problems in the fields of its suppliers, so the idea goes, could give the company a relia- bility advantage through advanced knowl- edge of problems, shipments, and so forth. This could also benefit farmers by providing a yet-to-be-seen level of precision control and, potentially, greater access to Walmart’s lucrative markets.


Yet to be answered questions But how will these drones actually be used? If farmers are in control, how strictly must they adhere to Walmart’s production (sustainability) standards? If the company controls them di- rectly, how effective can its agronomic deci- sions really be at an individual field level? Will farmers supplying Walmart stores be paid more, or would such tools just increase the ex- clusivity of market supply by shunning those that don’t make the cut? Granted, some of these questions might bit a bit too speculative – and perhaps ridiculous – at this point, but they’re an interesting way to frame the conversation surrounding farmers’ freedom to operate. As one popular west- ern-Canadian agricultural news sources put it, “If you didn’t like grain companies or food pro- cessors telling you how to farm, you are going to like Walmart even less.” It’s tempting to envision both a dystopian fu- ture brimming with farmer-policing airborne automata, and another featuring serene land-


Will drone technology in the hands of Walmart lead to greater access to it’s lucra- tive markets for some farmers, while others are left out?


scapes where drones work in conjunction with and for the betterment of farmers. The real im- pact of Walmart drones will probably manifest in a more nuanced way. It’s very possible these new corporate technologies could prove to be a boon for at least some food producers. Walmart is still out to generate revenue, howev- er. Whether these drones will help farmers gar- ner a portion of that, and how they could affect the business of farming, remains to be seen.


Sometimes ‘ready-to-use’ proves less ready than expected


BY LEO THOLHUIJSEN T 46


he National Experi- mental Ground for Precision Farming project (NPPL) is gaining momentum. The Dutch gov-


ernment initiative to boost precision farming with expert support for six practical arable farmers is starting to bear fruit. Or rather, it is becoming clearer why precision farming fails to break through. The motivation for the government’s support was the fact that commercial, ready to use pre- cision farming applications are already on the


shelf, but arable farmers fail to use them. The first important conclusion that the six NPPL participants have drawn, is that the applica- tions are a less ready-to-use than the market says they are. “Maybe ready to use for the com- panies that sell them”, NPPL participant Daniël Cerfontaine says. “However, not for the people that actually have to use them.”


Lack of compatibility Cerfontaine has been collecting yield data, mostly from grains, for several years. He does use it, but admits that much of it is useless. His problem with precision farming in a


▶ FUTURE FARMING | 25 May 2018


nutshell: the current management systems take up too much of his time, and are simply not compatible with other systems. None of the packages he considered meets his needs. Such a package should be able to use the fertiliser’s Trimble data, the Agco data from the Fendt tractor and the Challenger self- propelled sprayer, ánd the Claas combine harvester’s yield data. Also, on a field level Cerfontaine has to deal with complications like growing different blocks of crops on one big field. Some applica- tions like Akkerweb cannot handle the split- ting and later merging of such a field. Not


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52