Big data appears to be the newest big thing in agriculture.
Advancing technology — from on-board monitors to wireless transmitters, field mapping, satellite and UAV monitoring, mega data storage in the cloud and sophisticated data analysis software — is making it possible for companies to offer sophisticated advisory services to farmers who want to get more from their crops and inputs.
Everyone seems to be trying to hitch their wagon to this trend with its promising profits, from local fertilizer retailers to the big multinationals, including John Deere, DuPont Pioneer and Monsanto’s Climate Corp.
Read Also
Crop insurance’s ability to help producers has its limitations
Farmers enrolled in crop insurance can do just as well financially when they have a horrible crop or no crop at all, compared to when they have a below average crop
It is great technology that is rapidly spreading because of the huge opportunities for farmers to fine tune their precision agronomic operations and get the best return on the money they invest in seed, fertilizer, chemical and fuel.
However, there are also many legal, privacy and market power issues regarding the use of data that are not getting the analysis and discussion they deserve.
The issues are important, and Canadian producers would likely appreciate unbiased information and advice.
Farmer groups are already busy with a list of files, but they should consider striking committees to look at issues surrounding farm data, its collection and use.
Farmers are often advised to read the fine print before signing any contract, but few have the sophisticated legal or technical knowledge to understand the fine print and its implications.
We are unaware of farmer surveys on this topic in Canada, but the American Farm Bureau has surveyed its members. It reveals an unease in the countryside, not just about how their own data might be used but how big companies might plan to use the technology in general.
Imagine a farmer who contracts with a company and provides data on the crops he has seeded and the inputs he used so that the company can draft a precision management plan.
Can the company then take that data and aggregate it with similar information from all its other clients?
Big companies could accumulate vast amounts of real-time crop data, and with the help of weather data and algorithm software, develop an understanding of the state of crops in a region or country far superior to anyone relying on standard crop reports.
Such intimate knowledge of crop development could tilt the market in favour of those with this information treasure trove.
Few farmers would likely want to unwittingly lend support to some company or third party that would seek to gain an unfair advantage in the market. Such imagined scenarios need not become reality.
A consortium of American farmer groups and agriculture data technology firms have published a set of privacy and security principles to reassure farmers that the data they share will not be misused.
Included are assertions that farmers own information generated by their operations and that farmers should be told how their data will be used and with whom it is shared. Also, farmers should be able to opt out of services and have their data returned to them if they choose.
Farm groups here would serve their members well if they involved themselves in drafting similar principles for the Canadian context.
Groups could also develop in-house expertise about the data agreements as they have in the past about greenhouse gas carbon credit trading and grain trading contracts. Education sessions at major farm shows would help get the information into farmers’ hands.
That way, this technology can be celebrated as a big success, and worries about Big Brother can be put to rest.
