search.noResults

search.searching

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: PETER ROEK


GLOBAL VIEW ▶▶▶ Don’t be too concerned to share T BY LEO THOLHUIJSEN


he biggest danger of collecting data on a farm is that it remains unused, collect- ing dust instead of being looked at,


assessed, analysed, connected to information that has already been gathered and being used practically for perfecting crop and farming sys- tems. Common complaints are that data misuse lurks or that companies make money of farm- ers’ data while farmers themselves do not prof- it. To start with the latter: rapidly put the idea out of your head that you suffer any kind of dis- advantage if others do something with your data. When someone collects many phone numbers and neatly puts those in alphabetical order, then those numbers are worth money. That does not automatically mean that once added to the file, my individual phone number has any value. Not even a little bit. An arable farmer owns his plot and the pota- toes he grows on it. Does that make him the owner of the plot’s weekly satellite image? I do not think so. Just as he does not own the infor- mation that crop advisers of a chips plant gather in the old-fashioned way, and which


An arable farmer owns his plot and the potatoes he grows on it. Does that make him the own- er of the plot’s weekly satellite image?


they use to determine their purchasing strate- gy. Does this mean that the data farmers col- lect are worthless? Well, no. These data are cer- tainly valuable for the farm’s operational management. The sum of a plot’s soil scans, fuel consumption or tensile strength maps, satellite and drone images, yield maps and or- ganic fertilisation maps etcetera are absolutely valuable, if analysed correctly.


Revolution in agriculture At the moment data collection, data storage,


processing and analysis go through an unprec- edented revolution. Indeed impressive, and sometimes even disruptive. But that is not a valid reason to keep your data as close as a chicken keeps her eggs. Preferably not. Smart farming and big data will turn out to be the key to a new step in efficiency and sustainabi- lity. Many new, intelligent applications are waiting in the coming years, especially in the agricultural sector. I would like to say: do not be too concerned. All help is welcome.


Local solutions from global cooperation


M 46 BY MATT MCINTOSH


oney and time always seem to be in short supply. In the case of Canada’s agriculture and food


sector – and as articulated by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), our national agricul- ture ministry – constraints from both sides are ongoing issues when it comes to research and technological development. In response, AAFC and other groups are hoping to offset financial and time-related setbacks with greater


international cooperation and knowledge transfer, as well as a more transdisciplinary approach to research domestically.


Living Laboratories As of last year, AAFC announced Canada will be taking a “Living Laboratories” approach to agricultural research and tech-development. This is intended to solve more localised prob- lems through cooperative participation be- tween farmers, researchers, and others. Farm- ers are supposed to be directly involved with the design, and on-farm evaluation, of new


▶ FUTURE FARMING | 27 August 2019


and existing agricultural practices and technol- ogies. The idea is to improve local effectiveness and early adoption. It’s good to see an increasing focus on produc- er-verified solutions to sustainability problems. Farmer-focused solutions generally have a better ring to them. There’s another positive – the Living Labs con- cept is being adopted internationally. Canada is one of 19 countries (plus the European Un- ion) participating in the annual Group of Twenty (G20) Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists, which is a separate add-on to the


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