PHOTOS: ANDREW SLADE.
IMPLEMENTING AG TECH ▶▶▶
“Digital technology does not offer much return on investment”
A BY RENÉ GROENEVELD
ndrew got interested in ag tech while researching the possibilities of expanding the family business. “We invested quite heavily in la-
bour saving equipment. When we made our business as efficient as possible, I looked be- yond that, trying to understand where the next rise in productivity was to come from. That lead me to agricultural digital technolo- gy.” He applied for a Nuffield Farming Scholar- ship. “I started a project looking at digital tech- nology and the ways to implement it. Last year I travelled to several countries to do my research: 16 weeks in the UK, Germany, Ire- land, the Netherlands, Ukraine, the USA, Kenya and South Africa. That gave me a good look into the different production systems and how they stack up.”
Greater competition Andrew found that his own country of Aus- tralia is very well positioned in terms of pro- ductivity. “We don’t rely on government subsi- dies or have very much support. But my journey, especially my visit to Ukraine, made me realise that some countries are catching up really fast in the field of technology. This will lead to greater competition globally.” Australian farmers will have to work hard on their agricultural systems to maintain a cost advantage. There has been just 1% of growth in produc- tivity since the year 2000. Global investments into agrifood technology have risen from US$ 2 billion in 2012 to $ 16.9 billion in 2018. “But the US spent 24 dollars per capita in 2018, Australia just 1.10 dollar.” A lot of Australian investment still comes from government sources. “The USA has moved be- yond that. There is more focus on private in- vestment: take an idea and commercialise it. They are happy to invest, as long as one out of ten ideas will have a real impact and is going to change the way things are done.”
44
Australian farmer Andrew Slade travelled the world looking at digital technology on farms. He says farmers in most countries are in the same position. “They are not able to realise the full potential of the technology. A lot of start-ups do not offer much of a return on investment.”
A lot of hype In Europe, as in Australia, there is more gov- ernment investment. “Europe had some good examples of demonstration sites to trial new technology alongside other providers. That is something we could do here as well.” Andrew noticed that farmers in most countries he visited were in the same position, as far as adaptation of technology on the farm goes. “A lot of farmers are not able to realise the full potential of the technologies. There is a lot of hype around new technologies and that is un- derstandable. Start-ups often expect that technology will change the way we do farm- ing. But in reality, a lot of the technologies do not offer much of a return on investment.” He emphasises that buying a technology to solve a specific problem, is often expensive. “Ask yourself as a farmer: is this an improvement, or should I stick to my current farming practices. Is this cost effective?”
Common farm management Slade found there is also a more fundamental problem: the lack of integration and the lack of data insight. “We should be using the data as a collective to generate a better insight. We need to combine different providers and dif- ferent sources of data.” The present lack of in- tegration means that farmers who want to implement more than one technology, have to spend too much time to maintain them. “It is just not feasible to do that”, says Andrew. “As individual farmers we cannot maintain multi- ple systems.” The West Australian farmer pro- poses the development of common manage- ment platforms, where providers and their solutions can be integrated. “That way farmers
▶ FUTURE FARMING | 27 August 2019
do not have to run and maintain multiple pieces of technology. We will have to get the pathways and ways of integration standard- ised, but that can be done.”
Premium leverage Andrew advocates grower owned data coop- eratives. “We need a mechanism to get data into an embedded source. We should be able to collect data in a way that we have some lev- el of control. Storing it in one spot will give de- velopers access to data to create solutions. At the moment all data is held by individual farmers or the larger suppliers. There is no real access point.” There is already interest from traditional soft- ware companies like Microsoft and Google in creating more integration. Ultimately, he says, a better managed ag-tech environment will lead to better decisions. “When we have better support tools and can make better decisions, we can maximise the productive potential on the farm.” With access to data, farmers can also create a premium leverage, Andrew says. “We can provide valuable information to consum- ers. At the moment supermarkets or other parties in the supply chain use this sort of data. We can look at a sustainability model where farmers are rewarded for certain pro- duction practices, say a more water efficient production. If you can back up your claims with data, consumers might be willing to pay more.”
Real fit A lot of ag tech suppliers do not understand the needs of farmers, in Andrews opinion. “En- gineers or software developers fundamentally
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
