The New Farmer in the New Agriculture

Toil is no longer king. To a large degree, agricultural success these days is reserved for those who have the time and capacity to figure out which technologies will benefit their farms the most and for those who can implement them in the best way possible.

In a climate-controlled cab, while listening to the Blue Jays game, a farmer can control a machine approximately the size of a small house with a simple joystick. He or she doesn’t need to steer because the machine does that by itself. The farmer has full control over the machine’s thousands of moving parts via a touchscreen monitor.

Most combines in circulation now are capable of threshing hundreds of thousands of dollars-worth of crop per day. They are also capable of processing and displaying a phenomenal amount of information. The farmer knows exactly how many bushels per acre his or her combine is processing.

Farming has become a vocation for the detailed, the tech savvy, the geek. From seeding to spraying to harvesting, and all the minute processes in between, farms are relying on machines capable of gathering and processing awe-inspiring amounts of information.

A sprayer that increases dosage in areas of a field that are more disease-prone will increase yield potential, increase profits, and allow that plot of land to generate more food. It’s called variable-rate technology. And it’s only one example of the way farms have evolved into digital playgrounds to grow more food on a finite supply of acres, feeding a hungry market, and offsetting rising land prices. 

Companies such as Case IH, John Deere, Caterpillar, and many others have invested millions (if not billions) in developing cutting edge technologies previously used in military applications for the agricultural market.

In many ways it’s a brave new world. And an intimidating one.

Robotics will find their way onto farms sooner than you and I think. Technology is advancing at a pace advantageous to those waiting for what’s new to become affordable.

In 2014, Grainews reported on ag-based technology that involved an advanced drone mapping a farmer’s field for specific weeds then sending that data to a fleet of unmanned tractors that would use it to locate and kill specific weeds on the field.

When such technologies become accessible to farmers like, say, me, the farmer will be nearly unrecognizable from a generation ago. And while I’m loath to call technological advancements progress without looking at them critically, I do believe that machinery allowing us to be more precise and effective in our use of chemicals is a good thing.

In August 2016, Case IH unveiled an unmanned, autonomous, high-horsepower tractor, a first for the industry. Previous attempts at robotic tractors were on smaller machines. The company has expressed its desire to market this technology to farmers.

Right now, on my farm, the tractors we use the most steer themselves. Our combine is a constant learning curve. And what we have is old. The return on investment for a farm this size must be high and nearly immediate for us to consider purchasing the kinds of technology the ag industry would consider new.

What is accessible and has my undivided attention is the use of drones for basic agronomy. While there are drones available for mapping and some even have the capacity to spray weeds themselves, my interest in them is much more pedestrian: field scouting.

To fly a video drone over areas I can’t access via truck, tractor or atv could be a valuable exercise.

Last spring, gophers ate a few acres of my then newly planted soybeans. This problem was new to me. I did what I could to mitigate the damage once an agronomist helped me determine what the problem was (it bewildered a lot of people), but the result was a loss of about two acres, which, at last year’s yields and prices, equaled a loss of more than $1,000.

In the southwest corner of the field, in an area I couldn’t get to nor see, gophers kept eating, a problem I only took stock of once combining.

Had I scouted that field and that area with an entry-level drone capable of taking video or stills, it would have paid for itself.

Toil is still very much a part of any successful farm, but in many ways it’s taking a back seat to buttons, switches, programs, and monitors. This means increased precision and less waste. And it means increased food production on a finite amount of land.

Next time you see a farmer, thank them, then assume they are handling technologies that put most things in your house to shame.

--------------------------

This appeared in the Financial Post in the Agriculture section on 9 January 2017 written by Torban Dyck. The link is here - http://business.financialpost.com/news/agriculture/todays-farmer-would-put-an-urban-tech-geek-to-shame?platform=hootsuite 

It is a summary of the technology now appearing in modern agriculture on the farm, and together with some pretty smart genetic progress occurring and not all GM either, it is the future of agriculture NOW.  When you combine these trends with increasing attention directed towards food waste and similar post harvest actions, a vision of agriculture actually feeding the world with less land of lower quality may not be so far fetched.  When you also add the stuff being done with inside hydroponics and automated and robotic vegetable production it sure adds to technology in agriculture and horticulture.

And this technology is hopefully also encouraging some of the smart minds around the youth of today to consider agricultural science as a career.  It is not such a bad choice - plenty of science and technology and a chance to be outdoors at least some of the time!

Agricultural Science is a Resurgent Career Path for a Graduate

It seems as if the landscape is changing for agricultural science graduates.  A few years back, the available courses were shrinking as fewer wanted to do this course.  Some ag science courses, notably at Uni of Western Sydney, the former Hawkesbury College, were quietly abandoned.

Times change and now enrolments are up and the near future at least is quite positive for agriculture and for agricultural science graduates.

Ag Science is hardly a dull area to work in, with lots of science as well as a decent dose of technology. Everything from use of UAVs in agriculture and weed management, to driverless tractors, precision farming in crops and vegetable production, modern genetics in both plant and animal development and new equipment showcase the technology around agriculture today.  Add to that use of computers in the science area alone makes for a vibrant, modern area of work.  And then there are the post production systems [maybe less so with a lot of noise about less crop and vegetable processing] as well as the business driven parts of agriculture including international trade, agricultural policy development and so on......Not to mention opportunities for work overseas.
 
The changing landscape of Australian agriculture is creating a raft of opportunities across the sector, according to NAB’s General Manager of Agribusiness, Khan Horne.

Following the conclusion of the Marcus Oldham Rural Leadership Program in Geelong last week, Mr Horne said a number of factors are colliding to create a boom for agricultural careers. “We’ve seen strong growth in corporate agriculture, increasing by around 40 percent in the five years to 2011,” and for the first time in years, agricultural student enrolments are up, and quite significantly. 

According to the Australian Council of Deans of Agriculture, enrolments have increased across the board by around 15 per cent.  “Agriculture in Australia has an exciting future. In the coming decades food production will need to increase by an estimated 70 percent to feed the growing global population, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.  “This challenge will need to be met by innovative and educated minds, and I’m encouraged by the shift we’re starting to see and the quality of the leadership being shown across the industry.”

Larger operations require a range of employees to support the business – from farm managers, agronomists and veterinarians to the full range of business functions including business managers, human resources, finance and communications.
 

modern agriculture at work

This in turn will result in an even greater need for agricultural graduates and those with experience in the sector, as well as for graduates who want to work in related areas.  “What’s interesting and quite unique about the agriculture sector is the level of passion it inspires in those involved,” Mr Horne said.  “There’s something innately appealing about working in an industry that feeds and clothes Australians and millions of people around the world. And for many the professionalism of running a farm enterprise is only improved by the lifestyle factors and benefits of living in a regional or rural location.  “For those who aspire to running a farm business and businesses along the value chain, there are significant barriers to entry. The capital required to take on a property can be prohibitive, especially if you’re going out on your own or starting out in the industry.  “The corporate sector offers the experience and lifestyle, without the high cost of entry or financial risk.”

Today approximately 29 percent of farm managers are women. Further training and tertiary qualifications amongst farmers have increased significantly since the mid-1980s. In 1986, one in ten farmers had some form of further education. At the most recent Census in 2011, this had jumped to one in three.

Mr Horne said that farmers across the board are recognising the need to increase their skills, and are relying more on consultants and other specialists in all areas of their business. “These factors place the industry in a strong position to drive future growth and make inroads with the severe shortage of skilled staff.  “It’s well established that there are not enough graduates to fill the available jobs in agriculture.

The latest findings show that there are now five jobs to each graduate.  “Given the skills shortage, the average starting wage for an agricultural graduate is more than that of a veterinarian. It’s certainly appealing to school students deciding on a career path and to those already working but who are interested in a career change.”

2013 marks the 20th year NAB Agribusiness has sponsored the Marcus Oldham Rural Leadership Program, which to date has produced more than 700 graduates.

And yes.......I am an agricultural science graduate too.......but definitely not a new one!!

Is there a feel good factor at work too.......an ability to be part of modern food production systems?


[ part of this is from a media release by the NAB]
 

More Money Coming For Agriculture

Slowly but surely money is commencing to flow back into agricultural research.

Even in Australia several large amounts have gone to both the universities of Sydney and Adelaide, yet government funds generally are still being restricted.

The EC is slowly moving funds into agriculture in its own countries.  See the following article -


The European Commission has earmarked a fund of €4.5bn to spend on agricultural research between 2014-2020 to boost innovation and crop science.

A new European partnership for research and innovation has already been put in place, bringing together representatives from the scientific and farming communities and forming the basis of a true strategy for sustainable increase in agricultural production.

According to Georg Hausler, senior civil servant in Commissioner Dacian Ciolos's cabinet, the link between science and farming was broken, partly due to consumers' fear of genetic modification.

"Farmers are asking for innovation and are unable to get it. It's investment in seeds and innovation that's needed."

Farmers in eastern European countries in particular had tremendous opportunities to increase productivity, simply through improved knowledge transfer on best practice and farming methods, added Mr Hausler. "There is huge potential to increase production through better techniques and crop science."


Will we see a corresponding move of more $$$ into R and D for agriculture in Australia?

Agriculture in Australia needs to get Tough - or Does It?

http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/ag-needs-to-get-tough/2650082.aspx?storypage=0

This will get you to the original as published in the online edition of Qld Country Life, which was however copied from the AFR [ which is paywalled].

The headline was Ag needs to Get Tough""

11 Mar, 2013 09:03 AM

ALAN MITCHELL

BY 2020, Ken Henry says, Asia's middle class will have more than trebled in size to 1.7 billion people. By 2030 it will have almost doubled again, and it will account for 60 per cent of global middle class consumption. With that growth will come an increase in demand for the kind of food we produce and eat.

Martin Parkinson, Henry's successor as Treasury secretary, says the next positive shock wave from Asia will be felt by Australian agriculture.  "We're likely to see a significant increase in demand, particularly from China, for high-end agricultural products like fruit, dairy, high-grade meat and seafood," he says.  This will be a huge opportunity for farmers, investors and the economy.  But to fully capitalise on a boom you have to be able to meet the demand, and ABARES says we will need a change in agricultural production to do it.

First, it says, we have to reverse the slowdown in farm productivity, which for broadacre farming has been negative for the past decade. We also need to better target consumer needs in fast-growing markets, especially Asia.

Reviving productivity growth will be harder than it looks. Productivity has been negative temporarily because of droughts, but there has also been a more permanent slowdown.

Broadacre and dairy productivity was boosted by the major reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, including the dismantling of statutory marketing and price support schemes, labour market reforms and the phasing out of tariffs on imported agricultural products.  There were also big improvements in technology, including larger, more efficient sowing and harvesting machines, and greater automation and mechanisation of dairy production.  These advances, in turn, led to industry consolidation and an increase in average farm sizes.

But it seems the big gains from these changes have been largely realised, and an acceleration of productivity growth will require new drivers.  So where do we find them?

The opposition's Andrew Robb would suggest the northern food bowl. However, that is not on ABARES's to-do list, possibly because the idea has already been expertly examined and rejected.

The Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce reported in 2009 that "contrary to popular belief, water resources in the north are neither unlimited, nor wasted. Equally, the potential for northern Australia to become a 'food bowl' is not supported by evidence."  Robb, who is heading a federal Coalition taskforce to reassess the merits of the food bowl proposal, insists that there is "a patchwork of opportunities right across the north" that, with "sensible water catchment", could double Australia's agricultural production.

With rising global food prices, there are almost certainly development opportunities in the north that would justify their environmental and other social costs. But an election-year Coalition task force is not the mechanism to find them.

What the federal opposition should promise is a Productivity Commission inquiry to re-evaluate the issue.

In the absence of Robb's economic miracle, ABARES warns productivity growth will have to come from on-farm innovation and advances in plant and animal genetics, and technologies that enable better farm management and increase energy and water efficiency.

State moratoriums on the commercial release of genetically modified crops have limited private sector investment, and ABARES makes a plea for transparent and evidence-based decision-making by the states.

Genetically modified food crops are being adopted overseas, including in the United States, Canada, China, Argentina and Brazil, and have the potential to transform agricultural productivity in Australia. Unfortunately, there seems to be no task force of federal politicians ready to take on that battle.

ABARES also argues that reduced government spending on agricultural research and development since the 1970s has contributed to the slowdown in farm productivity growth. That decline in funding should be reversed.

But there is more than the politicians can, and should, do.

There is scope for further gains from farm rationalisation. The Productivity Commission states the 20 per cent of most-efficient broadacre farms accounted for nearly two-thirds of total production in 2005. The remaining 80 per cent of farms produced only 36 per cent of output.

Drought should naturally force the rationalisation of the farm sector into larger, geographically diversified enterprises. However, governments have allowed drought relief to preserve economically inefficient operators.

Another useful agent of change should be foreign investment. And given the need for the agricultural sector to target consumers in Asia, corporate investors from China should be particularly useful.  That is not how some farmers see it, of course. But when all the emotive nonsense about Chinese investment is stripped away, their real concern seems to be that Chinese investment will excessively bid up the price of farm land and reduce the opportunity for the next generation of Australian farmers to carry on the family farms.

There might be some truth in that, but it is in Australia's interests for small farms to be replaced by larger corporate producers.

If agriculture is the next big thing, Australia cannot afford to protect undersized, under-capitalised, overgrazed family farms from the economic pressures of the global food market.

If anything, the federal government should increase the pressure on unprofitable farmers to get off the land, and it should demand that the states do the same. For example, grazing leases on Crown land should be put on a proper, arm's-length commercial basis, and producers who cannot manage their leases at a profit should be pushed out, just as a retail centre owner expels unsuccessful retailers.

In the case of the Crown leases in Queensland's Upper Burdekin, the benefits of such a policy would extend beyond agriculture to tourism.

According to the Productivity Commission, most of the sediments, nitrogen and phosphorous that wash into Great Barrier Reef lagoon come from cattle grazing, and a big part of the problem is overstocking by graziers who are fundamentally unviable or who have succumbed to the moral hazard of drought relief. "

--------------------------------------

Reader comments were vehement that this was a load of codswallop.  But some issues do require a more detailed examination.

Yes, Australian agriculture needs capital, but most think that should not be a selling off of the farm to sovereign entitities without any real need to be accountable for the product and the offshoring of the profits, and job replacement with foreign staff.

Many are also wary of large corporate operators with remote control, and they have not always been that successful, while some larger locally owned properties are.  There is also a place for smaller operators with specialised production [ and who can grow or encourage others into an industry], and truly, that might be a very profitable area with a number of classic operations noted - quinoa production in Tasmania as well as chia in the Ord River area.  There will be others.  One concept does not fit all!

As regards crown leases - well, it could be a pandora's box if enterprise change is envisaged as it can open these to land claim.  And that coud be a protracted event, and overall unproductive in the meantime.

The decline in agricultural R and D is a key issue, and there are a few tiny signs there may be some glimmer of change with recent large investments in several key centres in NSW and SA.  But there is little happening in the north, and with live cattle exports screwed, this will take some time to reverse.  Almost no public entity is increasing investment in this sort of r and D in the north of Australaia.

Export of chilled and frozen beef to some markets will increase, but it is unlikely Australia will improve beef sales - live or processed - to Indonesia anytime soon [ think 5 years plus], and that alone is impacting monumentally on pastoral production properties and their value.  There is a role for GM but refer back to the R and D equation........little has been done, and to also raise the performance and quality of varieties, including adapted vegetable crops to warmer regions will take time.

Look at agricultural productivity growth in Brazil - and that has resulted from investing in R and D.  May be we need to plagarise some of this for use in north Australia.  Climatically there are quite a few regions with similarities.

 

Agricultural Science in Australia – Under Resuscitation?

A big day for Australian agricultural training, research, development, and education – today:  March 6, 2013. 

Maybe,  one of the more important for many years.

Yes, I am an agricultural scientist, suffering from the ignorance of the role we play in agriculture in Australia. Commonly ag scientists have been seen as an easy target for governments over the past 20 years – after all, no votes in the bush.  So, various governments have been radically reducing effort in agriculture with commonly the staff agricultural scientists some of the first to go.  NSW and Queensland have been vivid examples, but SA and Victoria are not far behind.

Yet today, around Australia we see some changes that are coming.  And there are increasingly more jobs available in agriculture.

Prof Mark Adams has been lauding the opening of new facilities, operated in conjunction with several Chinese agricultural science institutions, at Cobbity as part of facilities for Sydney University.  The University of Sydney's $20 million Centre for Carbon, Water and Food, funded by the federal government and the University, will answer this call to develop more scientists, helping to ensure Australia's future sustainability, as well as its potential to act as a regional leader in food production and land management.

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=4&newsstoryid=11116

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=4&newsstoryid=11115

In South Australia, probably the largest injection of $$ into agricultural training, staff and new facilities due to $50 million – yes $50 million -  in a total bequest from several donors to boost development at the Waite Institute and related campuses at Roseworthy.   This has been announced on the centenary of the Waite Institute.

https://waiteresearchinstitute.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/historic-expansion-of-animal-crop-research-on-waite-centenary/

Yet, still there is not much happening in north Australia.  Staff have been radically chopped from various facilities and government organisations in Queensland and the NT connected with agriculture and related activities.  Research and Development are suffering most.  Berrimah Farm in the NT, the premier research facility near Darwin is under threat to become a housing estate, as is the AZRI south of Alice Springs, and quite a few facilities in Queensland have been closed as well, including some of particular note with significant facilities and equipment and well reputed staff.  CSIRO agricultural activities continue to retreat to the SE corner of Australia, and staff are leaving.

It is a bit hard to develop much in the north without people to do it, who understand the particular issues based on living and working there.

Yes, Ord Stage 2 in WA is underway, with a Chinese sovereign related company doing the development.  While Australia does need the money to go into agricultural development, do we need to sell off our land to achieve it?  And will there be Australian agricultural scientists working there or Chinese?

Will there be a re-emergence of Agricultural Science in Australia over the next 10 years?............Hopefully.

 

 

Landsat is Forty Years Old

If you use Google Earth, or any of the other images generated from satellites there is a strong chance that some of these come from the Landsat group of imaging satellites.

A standard procedure for many in the agricultural and environmental fields is use of these images for a wide range of purposes.  There are other systems eg SPOT which is French, but Landsat was the first and still is a major source of images.

The first Landsat satellite went into orbit 40 years ago on July 23, and during the past four decades, a series of seven different "birds" have trained a watchful eye on Earth from just about the most wicked vantage point around.

The program's youngest eye in the sky, Landsat 7, has been flying since 1999 and will be joined next year by the next-generation Landsat Data Continuity Mission satellite, or LDCM. The LDCM features up-to-date thermal infrared sensors and land-imaging equipment that will make it a full-blown orbiting observatory.

The Earth observation program was created at the urging of US Interior Secretary Stewart Udall during the Johnson administration -- Udall had seen a photo from space of pollution spewing from power plants in his home state of Arizona and saw the potential for learning about our own planet that seeing it from a distance held.

There are some classic images on the site here -http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57477494-1/landsat-at-40-images-from-the-longest-running-eye-in-the-sky/?tag=nl.e703

We tend to take satellite imagery for granted now, but it is only forty years since any existed.  And the image quality has improved very dramatically over this period.  Some amazing photos are around.

Resilient Agriculture that is Productive and Sustainable

Agriculture in Africa has long been considered as a real basket case. Production unable to meet societal needs, low productivity of crops, ravaged by pests and diseases, constant drought, flood or pestilence.

That can be changed, and is changing for the better in a number of African countries. Ghana has halved hunger in 2011, well before the goal of 2015, through a postive environment within government as well as adoption of innovation and newer technologies.

In Zambia, conservation technology and use of no-till for cropping has reduced crop water use and yields for maize are now five times the sub-saharan average.

Genetic engineering to improve bananas by developing plant disease resistance in Uganda also seems to offer a path towards major yield improvements and longer life of banana plantations, mostly owned by small land holders.

Also importantly, creation of new and effective grain storage and grain trading systems are leading to better grain trading across Africa and reducing food price volatility.

Improvements in the tropics of the world are critical to improving food security, and better food security also reduces tensions and conflicts.

A lot is founded on agricultural science, some on enabling conditions.........but it is happening.

Resilience in agriculture is critical..........and the gains in productivity need to be sustainable. Some of the system enhancements are making a real improvement, and improvement that will slowly translate into better fed, healthier people. Particularly when you also factor in some of the other improvements across other fields eg into malaria management, control and maybe eradication that can greatly improve the health and working productivity of people.

But the agricultural development is real, and a monster driver of better conditions.

The article below covers this in more detail, but the majority of people in the western countries still think agriculture is a dead end in many parts of the developing world. Not so!

Read more - http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/opinions/how-to-create-resilient-agriculture-1.html