By J. Arbuckle, Joe Hollis, and Katie Dentzman
USDA’s Economic Research Service defines precision agriculture (PA) as “a suite of technologies that may reduce input costs by providing the farm operator with detailed spatial information that can be used to optimize field management practices.” Marketing of PA technologies generally focuses on potential benefits such as increased productivity and profitability, optimization of input use, and overall improved sustainability of farming practices. But what do farmers, the typical PA end users, think about these technologies? A recent Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll survey examines use of key PA technologies and farmers’ perspectives regarding the potential benefits and concerns related to use of these technologies.1 This article summarizes the findings.
Are farmers using PA?
The first question set asked farmers if they were using any items on a list of common PA technologies. Use rates ranged from 66% for global positioning system (GPS) yield monitors and/or maps to 12% for on-farm sensors for soil, air, or plant tissue data collection (table 1). Theories of behavioral change posit that openness to adoption and then formation of an intention to adopt generally precede adoption of innovations. Our survey results show that many farmers who were not using the practices were either open to trying them or have plans to use them in the next three years.
| I used it in 2021 | Not used in 2021, but intend to use within 3 years | Not planning to use within 3 years, but open to idea of future use | Not used in 2021; no plans to use it | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPS yield monitors and/or maps | 66% | 8% | 10% | 17% |
| GPS soil maps | 60% | 11% | 13% | 16% |
| GPS guidance systems (steering assistance, auto steer, etc.) | 56% | 7% | 13% | 24% |
| Variable rate equipment (sprayers, fertilizer applicators, etc.) | 56% | 13% | 14% | 17% |
| Satellite imagery | 30% | 16% | 25% | 29% |
| Data from online decision tools to guide crop management | 27% | 21% | 25% | 28% |
| Drones or aircraft-based imagery | 21% | 18% | 29% | 32% |
| On-farm sensors to collect data (soil, air, plant tissue, etc.). | 12% | 19% | 32% | 37% |
Farmers’ perceptions of potential benefits
PA technologies are posited to result in numerous benefits to farmers and farm enterprises. One question set asked farmers to rate their agreement with a series of benefit-related statements on a five-point agreement scale. The statements were preceded by the introductory text, “Using precision agriculture technologies can…” The highest rated statement, with 87% agreement, was “increase efficiency of input application” (table 2). Most farmers also agreed that PA technologies can increase crop yield (78%), improve confidence in management decisions (75%), and increase farm operation profitability (74%). Another benefit that received high levels of endorsement was facilitation of subfield-level management: most farmers agreed that PA technologies can help with subfield management of nutrient loss (73% agreement) and soil health (70%).
| Use of precision agriculture technologies can… | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Uncertain | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| increase efficiency of input application | 1% | 1% | 11% | 62% | 26% |
| increase yield for individual crops | 1% | 3% | 19% | 62% | 16% |
| improve confidence in management decisions | 1% | 2% | 23% | 61% | 14% |
| increase profitability of the farm operation as a whole | 1% | 3% | 22% | 55% | 18% |
| identify subfield areas needing nutrient loss management | 1% | 2% | 25% | 58% | 15% |
| identify subfield areas needing soil health management | 1% | 3% | 27% | 58% | 12% |
| confirm the effectiveness of prior management decisions | 1% | 3% | 27% | 60% | 10% |
| increase profitability by optimizing crop types and rotation | 1% | 3% | 30% | 53% | 12% |
| identify subfield areas needing soil erosion management | 1% | 5% | 28% | 54% | 11% |
| identify opportunities to change field layouts (share and size of fields) to improve overall economic performance | 1% | 7% | 40% | 45% | 8% |
| identify areas that could be shifted from row crops to perennial crops or conservation plantings | 2% | 10% | 40% | 39% | 9% |
Do farmers believe claims about PA?
Many claims are made about the ways in which PA might change agriculture. Typically, these claims focus on potential benefits for farmers and the environment, but there are also critiques and counter-claims. We posed several statements expressing such claims and critiques and asked farmers to rate the degree to which they agreed with them. We preceded the statements with the introductory text, “In the next 10 years, advances in precision farming technology may lead to changes in Iowa’s agriculture. Please rate your agreement/disagreement with statements about potential impacts.” The phrase “Precision technologies in agriculture will likely lead to…” immediately preceded the statements.
The statement about potential impacts that elicited the most agreement was “increased profits for machinery and technology companies,” with 78% agreement, followed by […will likely lead to] fewer and larger farms (71%) (table 3). Other statements about potential impacts that substantial majorities of farmers agreed with were more effective pest control (66%), reduced labor needs (59%), reduced nutrient runoff (59%), and improved soil health (58%). About half (51%) agreed that PA technologies would lead to increased profits for input suppliers, and 50% agreed that they would lead to increased profits for farmers. Less than one-third of farmers agreed that PA technologies would lead to decreased reliance on fertilizers (31%), less need for agrichemicals (30%), reduced greenhouse gas emissions (24%) or decreased farmer dependence on purchased inputs (23%). For these latter items, a plurality of respondents selected the uncertain category.
| Precision technologies in agriculture will likely lead to… | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Uncertain | Agree | Strongly agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| increased profits for machinery and technology companies | 0% | 2% | 20% | 60% | 18% |
| fewer and larger farms | 1% | 5% | 24% | 51% | 20% |
| more effective pest control methods (e.g., weeds, insects) | 1% | 3% | 30% | 61% | 5% |
| reduced need for farm labor | 1% | 9% | 31% | 53% | 6% |
| less nutrient runoff into waterways | 1% | 6% | 33% | 52% | 7% |
| improved soil health | 1% | 5% | 36% | 53% | 6% |
| increased profits for input suppliers | 0% | 5% | 44% | 41% | 9% |
| increased profits for farmers | 1% | 5% | 44% | 45% | 5% |
| increases in farmers' decision-making independence | 1% | 13% | 44% | 39% | 3% |
| decreased need for fertilizers | 2% | 27% | 40% | 28% | 2% |
| decreased need for agri-chemicals (e.g., herbicides, insecticides) | 3% | 22% | 45% | 28% | 3% |
| reduced greenhouse gas emissions | 5% | 16% | 56% | 22% | 2% |
| decreased farmer dependence on purchased inputs | 2% | 27% | 49% | 21% | 2% |
Potential concerns
The last question set examined potential concerns or challenges associated with PA technologies, and we again asked respondents to express their agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale. The highest rated item focused on cost, with 74% of farmers agreeing that the cost of new PA hardware is too high (table 4). At the same time, however, just 23% agreed that the cost of PA technologies exceeds the benefits, although this item also garnered the highest level of uncertainty, at 48%. Other notable results include 73% agreement that keeping up with PA technologies is like a never-ending treadmill and concern that data could be used for regulatory purposes (52% agreement).
| Strongly disagree | Disagree | Uncertain | Agree | Strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economics | |||||
| The cost of new precision-farming hardware is too high | 1% | 6% | 20% | 53% | 20% |
| Precision farming technologies are more beneficial for big farms | 2% | 20% | 24% | 38% | 16% |
| The cost of maintaining precision farming hardware is too high | 1% | 12% | 40% | 39% | 9% |
| The cost of precision farming technologies exceeds benefits | 3% | 25% | 48% | 18% | 5% |
| Data | |||||
| Data from precision technologies could be used for regulatory purposes | 3% | 5% | 40% | 43% | 9% |
| I am concerned that corporations could use farmers’ planting and harvest data to manipulate markets | 2% | 10% | 37% | 37% | 15% |
| I’m not sure I am using the data I collect as effectively as possible | 1% | 9% | 41% | 43% | 6% |
| Corporations will use data primarily for their benefit, not farmers | 2% | 18% | 40% | 29% | 12% |
| Knowledge and capacity | |||||
| Keeping up with precision technologies is like a never-ending treadmill | 1% | 8% | 19% | 58% | 15% |
| Precision farming technologies are difficult to learn | 3% | 29% | 32% | 33% | 3% |
| Precision-farming technologies take too much time to learn | 3% | 37% | 42% | 17% | 2% |
Conclusion
Overall, survey results indicate that most survey participants view PA technologies as beneficial and promising for increasing input-use efficiency, yields, profitability, and overall sustainability. More than 70% of farmers reported using at least one of the eight technologies listed, and most farmers who were not currently using a given practice reported that they either intend to adopt it within the next three years or were open to future use. However, while respondents are generally positive towards PA, results also indicate concerns about potential negative aspects and impacts. While most farmers believed PA technologies could have positive impacts on their farms, management processes, and environmental issues, there was some worry that PA technologies are difficult to learn, keeping up with them can feel like a never-ending treadmill, and that many of the benefits will accrue to PA technology firms and larger-scale farms.
Footnotes:
1. This article is a condensed version of the 2023 report, Iowa Farmers’ Perspectives on Precision Agriculture, available at https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/16630.
Suggested citation
Arbuckle, J., J. Hollis, and K. Dentzman. 2024. “Iowa Farmers’ Perspectives on Precision Agriculture Technologies.” Agricultural Policy Review, Winter 2024. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Available at: https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/winter-2024/iowa-farmers-perspectives-precision-agriculture.