EDMONTON – It has been more than 10 years since the first global positioning system was mounted on a tractor, set to revolutionize farming.
But since then, only a handful of farmers have adopted the technology.
The computerized farming wave that agriculture gurus predicted would save money and make farmers more efficient hasn’t materialized, said Dan Pennock, a University of Saskatchewan soil scientist.
“We thought hundreds of farmers would have adopted it. Instead it’s been tens of farmers. The adoption has been way lower than anyone would have predicted,” said Pennock during a conference about the technology.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
Linda Wegner, a Saskatoon freelance reporter hired by industry to check the adoption of GPS by North American farmers, said nobody has a clear idea of how many farmers use the technology.
Some farm dealers she interviewed said less than 10 percent of their customers used GPS guidance systems. Other dealer estimates ranged between 20 and 100 percent.
In the survey, some equipment dealers and distributors believed farmers needed at least 2,000 acres for the technology to return a profit, while others thought that number was too high.
Those vague numbers on what the technology will cost or save have discouraged many farmers, said Pennock. Neither farmers who use the technology nor industry people selling it can point to a real number and tell a farmer “this is how much money you will save.
“The late adopters are waiting for that number,” he said.
Another roadblock is low commodity prices. In the past few years, only a small number of farmers have had money to spend on a technology seen as a luxury.
“The last three years have not been very kind.”
Farmers watch over the fence and there have been few success stories.
“Despite the wide coverage in the farm press, there are few examples that are known to me of successful implementation … by producers,” he told farmers and industry officials at a management conference.
It is difficult to do site specific management, which is the transfer of technology to an actual field.
In the perfect field, the land is flat, the soil is uniform and the weeds grow in a grid pattern. In reality most fields are hilly with a range of fertility throughout the field and ragged patches of weeds.
In theory, land on hilltops is poor and
doesn’t respond to extra fertilizer. Soil at the bottom of the hills is supposed to be rich in nutrients and crops in the low areas respond to added fertilizer. Farmers could conclude a need to reduce fertilizer on the hilltops and increase it in the valley.
That theory only works part of the time, he said.
Until there is an easier way to guarantee results, farmers will be reluctant to spend money on the technology, he added.
