5 Exciting Technologies Changing Farming Right Now

[Eolas Álainn]

This may or may be appropriate but better to ask forgiveness than permission I always say!

I just wrote an article on 5 exciting technologies that are changing farming today. It's about drones, real-time monitoring, using blockchain to safeguard your supply chains, using sensors to monitor the health of your livestock and also to make sure that your breeding stock is as good as it can get, and last but no means least I talk about greenhouses and how they can help us protect crops from changing environments.

I cap it off with how the future of farming is likely to look and how we can all adapt to the changing needs of society.

If this sounds of interest to you, make sure to check it out at https://oinksandbots.com/5-exciting-technologies-changing-farming-right-now/.

Let me know your thoughts, after all I write this stuff to help you

 

[Devil's advocate]

This may or may be appropriate but better to ask forgiveness than permission I always say!

I just wrote an article on 5 exciting technologies that are changing farming today. It's about drones, real-time monitoring, using blockchain to safeguard your supply chains, using sensors to monitor the health of your livestock and also to make sure that your breeding stock is as good as it can get, and last but no means least I talk about greenhouses and how they can help us protect crops from changing environments.

I cap it off with how the future of farming is likely to look and how we can all adapt to the changing needs of society.

If this sounds of interest to you, make sure to check it out at https://oinksandbots.com/5-exciting-technologies-changing-farming-right-now/.

Let me know your thoughts, after all I write this stuff to help you

Some giant step forwards for horticulture especially organics with new bio pesticides to control insects & disease. Also camera guided hoes even ones that work inter plant as well as inter row.

 

[Tarw Coch]

This may or may be appropriate but better to ask forgiveness than permission I always say!

I just wrote an article on 5 exciting technologies that are changing farming today. It's about drones, real-time monitoring, using blockchain to safeguard your supply chains, using sensors to monitor the health of your livestock and also to make sure that your breeding stock is as good as it can get, and last but no means least I talk about greenhouses and how they can help us protect crops from changing environments.

I cap it off with how the future of farming is likely to look and how we can all adapt to the changing needs of society.

If this sounds of interest to you, make sure to check it out at https://oinksandbots.com/5-exciting-technologies-changing-farming-right-now/.

Let me know your thoughts, after all I write this stuff to help you

Sounds like the stuff of nightmares to me, I’m sure I can manage perfectly well without all that crap.
As I allways say , there’s more than one way to skin a rabbit, no doubt some will be excited by it too.

 

[Storeman]

Ah. A spammer. That explains some of the other posts.

 

[som farmer]

never could see why some livestock farmers invested £1,000's, on tech, to save a few kilo's of fert/acre, on grass ground, it is utilised. Arable, there could well be uses, but they cost, and one has to weigh the figures out. I do think, going forward, grants will be available, a 40 %, which is basically a grant to the tech industry, backed up, by the 60% we have to find !!

 

[Eolas Álainn]

never could see why some livestock farmers invested £1,000's, on tech, to save a few kilo's of fert/acre, on grass ground, it is utilised. Arable, there could well be uses, but they cost, and one has to weigh the figures out. I do think, going forward, grants will be available, a 40 %, which is basically a grant to the tech industry, backed up, by the 60% we have to find !!

Totally get what you mean but I do think that drones are "relatively" cheap and if utilized correctly, a massive saving of both time and money. I also think the blockchain (which I only had a vague idea of before researching for this article) is a potential game changer for livestock farmers. If done right, you can basically isolate any bad produce in the supply chain. Whether that's a spike of bacteria in your eggs, infections in your herd or whathaveyou. It's still a developing idea but I think worth looking into!

I also agree grants are needed and also some help from experts. There are probably loads of technologies we don't use well or maybe can't afford. With a little help we could be made more efficient and make more money in the long run. What's not to like about that?

 

[Eolas Álainn]

Some giant step forwards for horticulture especially organics with new bio pesticides to control insects & disease. Also camera guided hoes even ones that work inter plant as well as inter row.

I don't have much skin in commercial horticulture at the moment but I do have a bit of a background in it. I would always advocate for biological pesticides because they are soooo much easier to control and less likely to mess up the crop. Of course you have to be careful and not introduce an animal that becomes a pest themselves. Look at North Australia at the Devil's Toad (I think that's what it's called) that was brought in to control insects in sugar cane farms. Now they're a mess.

The camera guided hoes would be really interesting, I haven't come across those. Do you have some more information on that? I would love to find out more!

 

[Eolas Álainn]

Sounds like the stuff of nightmares to me, I’m sure I can manage perfectly well without all that crap.
As I allways say , there’s more than one way to skin a rabbit, no doubt some will be excited by it too.

I am honestly curious as to why this is the stuff of nightmares to you. I can understand some of it being way too complicated (blockchain and the biosensors are still giving me a headache) but have you got some experience from dealing with technology in the past that you can share? I'm trying to learn as much as I can

 

[som farmer]

robotic technology, is a new, and important forward looking way of farming. No doubt of that, at all, there are, however, lots of buts, probably the biggest, after price, is how we actually use them, taking milking robots, as an example, people put them in, as 'time saving', they are not, what they do do, is let you spend extra time, with your cows, keeping them in a1 condition, it's that, that produces more milk. Attitude, and capability, has to be correct, to fully understand, and successfully use them, and, again with milk, many farmers, simply cannot use/cope with them.
On the arable side, there is huge potential, mapping yield, adjusting fert rates, pin point accuracy, etc. Weeding with robots, thus saving sprays, etc. Horticulture, use of robots, potential is mind boggling.
But, it all comes down to profit, being a cynical old bugger, all i can see, is a rise in production, of food, but little, or no, increase in our price. The guvs requirement, for cheap food, should never be underestimated, and, by giving out grants, they encourage farmers, to buy into technology, effectively, creating a good customer base, for the firms developing these products. The fact that they can reduce costs, is fine, but, the price, of that product, doesn't increase to us, so, all that is achieved, is, an increase in food production, thus keeping food prices lower, and a good 'sub' to the technology industry.
Until, the price of our product, to us, increases, many good tech product, will remain an expensive widget. But, what they do achieve, is to keep reducing production costs, thereby, helping to keep food prices, static, or reduced, which is the guvs policy. We, as farmers, have been conditioned, to want to produce more, and more, but, if we want to increase profit, we have to produce less, which is definitely not guvs desire, which brings us around to food subsidies, and why they were introduced, to keep food price, to the public, at a reasonable price, and to give the farmer, a bung, to cover costs.

 

[Eolas Álainn]

robotic technology, is a new, and important forward looking way of farming. No doubt of that, at all, there are, however, lots of buts, probably the biggest, after price, is how we actually use them, taking milking robots, as an example, people put them in, as 'time saving', they are not, what they do do, is let you spend extra time, with your cows, keeping them in a1 condition, it's that, that produces more milk. Attitude, and capability, has to be correct, to fully understand, and successfully use them, and, again with milk, many farmers, simply cannot use/cope with them.
On the arable side, there is huge potential, mapping yield, adjusting fert rates, pin point accuracy, etc. Weeding with robots, thus saving sprays, etc. Horticulture, use of robots, potential is mind boggling.
But, it all comes down to profit, being a cynical old bugger, all i can see, is a rise in production, of food, but little, or no, increase in our price. The guvs requirement, for cheap food, should never be underestimated, and, by giving out grants, they encourage farmers, to buy into technology, effectively, creating a good customer base, for the firms developing these products. The fact that they can reduce costs, is fine, but, the price, of that product, doesn't increase to us, so, all that is achieved, is, an increase in food production, thus keeping food prices lower, and a good 'sub' to the technology industry.
Until, the price of our product, to us, increases, many good tech product, will remain an expensive widget. But, what they do achieve, is to keep reducing production costs, thereby, helping to keep food prices, static, or reduced, which is the guvs policy. We, as farmers, have been conditioned, to want to produce more, and more, but, if we want to increase profit, we have to produce less, which is definitely not guvs desire, which brings us around to food subsidies, and why they were introduced, to keep food price, to the public, at a reasonable price, and to give the farmer, a bung, to cover costs.

Robotics is for sure one area to watch and I personally am interested to see what they come up with!

With regards costs, I feel you. But I also don't know if increasing the price of our products would actually solve that problem. If raw products (cereals, eggs, milk and meat) go up in price, it drives everything else up in the economy. So we'd be exactly where we were before but with different numbers. There's a reason why I can get a gallon of milk in Glasgow for £1.49, in Dublin for €3.99 and in New York for $5.99. The cost of living reflects that.

To me the most logical way forward is to cut down costs as much as possible and to increase both yield and quality of our products. With yield increasing, we can increase our profits with the same price while not driving everything else up with rapid inflation and with quality increases, we can incrementally increase prices or market certain parts of our products as luxury items and get a higher price for those.

What do you think of that?

 

[som farmer]

the much debated, and derided subsidies, for farmers, could perhaps better be described as a food sub, for the gen public, despite the 'debate' over them they worked. Until, the major buyers, decided to include them, in the computation of how much they would pay us, the farmers. This has resulted in our annual sub, being a vital income, on many farms, rather than a compensation figure. We all should realise, the earths population is rapidly increasing, so, unless covid, war, or similar occurs, more food is required. Increased production, comes at a price, currently, farm imput costs, are increasing, output price, remains fairly static, fluctuation, is by demand/supply.
The simple fact, population cannot survive, without farmers, has been overlooked, many people think the countryside, should be for their enjoyment, not for farmers at all !!! So great, has the connection between food, and farmers, been broken. Why, should we, as farmers, be expected to feed the population, when many prices, are below, or about, cost of production ! If, we invested, in new technology, to increase production, in today's cutthroat world of big business, and profits, would you guarantee, that increased supply, wouldn't result in decrease of price ? The only control over price, we farmers have, is supply, shortage means a rise, increase, on the other hand, currently means decrease. I would suggest, that to receive a fair price, for our products, is either, a substantial decrease in production, or a dramatic rise, in how we are presently appreciated.
Had a further read into your 'article', interesting, keep it up

 

[Eolas Álainn]

This I was not aware of, are you saying (for example) you would get say a pound per gallon of milk. X amount would be subsidised by the government and the major buyers would pay for the rest? So really the only ones making the savings are the major buyers?

 

[Y Fan Wen]

The camera guided hoes would be really interesting, I haven't come across those. Do you have some more information on that? I would love to find out more!

One of the stands in LAMMA 2020 had a video of one of their hoes working in cabbage plants. As a mountain farmer whose high tech is buying a petrol driven jackhammer to put posts in I found it fascinating. My friend who is an allotment holder was even more taken by it.
Can't remember the brand, sorry.

 

[som farmer]

This I was not aware of, are you saying (for example) you would get say a pound per gallon of milk. X amount would be subsidised by the government and the major buyers would pay for the rest? So really the only ones making the savings are the major buyers?

not quite, after the food shortages of ww2, guv decided to support farmers, to ensure the country, would be better placed, in the event of another 'incidence'. Originally, support was designed to guarantee prices, if open mkt price, dropped below x, a make-up was paid, bit hazy, not quite that old yet. Along came the common market, that system disappeared, replaced by CAP, that system produced huge surpluses, which in turn, led to quota's, intervention, and the derided set-a-side. Times have moved on, quotas have gone, intervention, a fraction of previous. The new word, is climate, and environment. However, payments now, are no longer asc with food production, and big businesses have, probably with tacit approval, of guvs, started to include sub, as part of production cost, whereas before, it was a payment to compensate for low prices, a subtle, but vast importance to price. With the 'new green world' system coming in, the last link, between food, and farmers, will go. What will happen, no idea, except, we wont need to 'farm', to draw the 'sub'. But, the worlds major food buyers, will have already taken that, into account, and worked out a solution, it's never, if food prices rise, their profit drops, it's the primary producer, us, who takes the hit.
Therefore, the answer, to your question, is, the whole sub system, has been to 'make up' the difference between production cost, and mkt price, big business, has decided to include that sub, in the price, it pays us, as a negative figure, they get cheap food, increased profit, we get hammered.

 

[ajd132]

One of the stands in LAMMA 2020 had a video of one of their hoes working in cabbage plants. As a mountain farmer whose high tech is buying a petrol driven jackhammer to put posts in I found it fascinating. My friend who is an allotment holder was even more taken by it.
Can't remember the brand, sorry.

garford possibly

 

[Eolas Álainn]

not quite, after the food shortages of ww2, guv decided to support farmers, to ensure the country, would be better placed, in the event of another 'incidence'. Originally, support was designed to guarantee prices, if open mkt price, dropped below x, a make-up was paid, bit hazy, not quite that old yet. Along came the common market, that system disappeared, replaced by CAP, that system produced huge surpluses, which in turn, led to quota's, intervention, and the derided set-a-side. Times have moved on, quotas have gone, intervention, a fraction of previous. The new word, is climate, and environment. However, payments now, are no longer asc with food production, and big businesses have, probably with tacit approval, of guvs, started to include sub, as part of production cost, whereas before, it was a payment to compensate for low prices, a subtle, but vast importance to price. With the 'new green world' system coming in, the last link, between food, and farmers, will go. What will happen, no idea, except, we wont need to 'farm', to draw the 'sub'. But, the worlds major food buyers, will have already taken that, into account, and worked out a solution, it's never, if food prices rise, their profit drops, it's the primary producer, us, who takes the hit.
Therefore, the answer, to your question, is, the whole sub system, has been to 'make up' the difference between production cost, and mkt price, big business, has decided to include that sub, in the price, it pays us, as a negative figure, they get cheap food, increased profit, we get hammered.

Ok this gives me a lot to think about and how best to start navigating the industry to a more fair and sustainable method of business. Thanks for your insight!

 

[som farmer]

good luck !

 

[thesilentone]

Sam, you're on a winner.

However, technology frightens people, so most farmers tend to stand back and let the neighbour invest, stand back and smugly hope he fails. Then eventually if he doesn't make the investment.

To many new technology suppliers don't provide sufficient feasibility information from the get go, to many " oh, it will save you 10-20-30% over x years " without providing detailed feasibility information that can be challenged and scrutinized to allow for an informed decision.

Technology can make a massive difference to profitability, however it's out of date when it arrives, as that world changes so quickly. So once the investment is made, what about updates to software and support, on costs and life expectancy.

Your are a bit thin in you're article on what the key benefits are, especially with animal tagging where there are many new things happening to monitor herd health, body temp, ruminant activity and what this tells us.

Digging deep and vertical with new technology is a great place to be at the moment. Massive investment in the future.

Seeing there is something wrong with an animal is way to late and expensive, technology can provide advance warning before symptoms develop, that has a value, what is it ?

 

[Eolas Álainn]

Sam, you're on a winner.

However, technology frightens people, so most farmers tend to stand back and let the neighbour invest, stand back and smugly hope he fails. Then eventually if he doesn't make the investment.

To many new technology suppliers don't provide sufficient feasibility information from the get go, to many " oh, it will save you 10-20-30% over x years " without providing detailed feasibility information that can be challenged and scrutinized to allow for an informed decision.

Technology can make a massive difference to profitability, however it's out of date when it arrives, as that world changes so quickly. So once the investment is made, what about updates to software and support, on costs and life expectancy.

Your are a bit thin in you're article on what the key benefits are, especially with animal tagging where there are many new things happening to monitor herd health, body temp, ruminant activity and what this tells us.

Digging deep and vertical with new technology is a great place to be at the moment. Massive investment in the future.

Seeing there is something wrong with an animal is way to late and expensive, technology can provide advance warning before symptoms develop, that has a value, what is it ?

Thanks, I appreciate it!

I think myself and my partner are in a different place cause we both come from STEM background (me biology and my partner engineering) so we're fairly comfortable experimenting with new things. So we're usually willing to give new things a go and be comfortable challenging manufacturers (much to some of their dismay).

This article was more of an introductory piece to be honest and a lot of it was new to me but considering the massive response I have gotten from it I will be certain to dig much deeper. If there are areas that you want me to research into, let me know! I've already made notes on what you were saying about the key benefits.

Another contributor up above Som Farmer gave me a really good insight into why some people are cagey about investing money. It seems to me that this is a dual problem of lack of information and initiative among all parties to really get this sector of the economy booming.

 

[N.Yorks.]

Understanding how farming systems can harness the benefits that natural organisms offer - we're getting there with soils..... but a long way off in terms of harnessing beneficial insects for pest management and also a way off understanding plant interactions.

In a nutshell - farming with nature rather than trying to push against it all the time. I believe the supply of 'ecosystem services' is the technical term!

Yes that may well mean less output but lets be honest food production has to be sustainable and if that sustainable level can only feed 20% less people then that's where we need to be. (20% was a figure plucked out of the air to make the point).