August 2003

 

Is the US falling behind in yield monitor adoption?

 

Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer

 

            Yield monitoring is a bellwether technology. Globally, it is the single most widely used aspect of precision agriculture. Trends in yield monitor use can help us understand the future of precision farming generally. This article outlines current trends in yield monitor use worldwide and implications for global competitiveness of US agriculture.

            Worldwide the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the only government agency which tracks  yield monitor usage and other precision farming technology. In the last few years the USDA has included a question on yield monitor use in their annual Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) and from this Stan Daberkow and other USDA researchers have been able to estimate yield monitor numbers and project adoption patterns.

            Outside the US, tracking precision agriculture technology in general, and yield monitor use in particular, depends on informal sources of information. Manufacturers know how many combines with yield monitors that they have sold and in countries with one or two dominant companies this can provide a reliable indication. Researchers and extension staff sometimes know the farmers using yield monitors in their region.

            Unfortunately, the information from manufacturers, researchers and extensions is sporadic and of widely varying reliability. Manufacturers are reluctant to reveal sales for fear of giving away commercial secrets. In small countries (e.g. Belgium or Portugal) researchers and extension staff may know most of the farmers using precision farming tools, but more often they know a subset. They often know those who participate in on-farm trials, attend conferences or workshops, and/or those who contact them for technical help. Understanding yield monitor adoption worldwide means trying to make the most of this less than ideal data.

           

Yield Monitors as Standard Equipment

            In the last few years, yield monitor data has become even harder to interpret because manufacturers have started making yield monitors (but not usually GPS) standard equipment on some of their machines, usually the largest size machines. This practice makes marketing sense because the price of a yield monitor is unlikely to be a stumbling block for the purchasers of the large machines, and many of the buyers want a yield monitor, whether they intend to use it, because of the perception that it increases trade-in-value.

            When yield monitors are standard equipment the number of combines equipped rises quickly, but the number of those known to researchers and extension staff may lag behind. The farmer for whom a yield monitor is at best an interesting gadget may not participate in on-farm trials with researchers or seek their help with technical problems.

 

Yield Monitor Estimates 2000-2002

            Available data suggest that in the 2000-2002 period around 90% of the yield monitors in the world were in the US (Table 1). Yield monitors were in use in countries not in Table 1, but the number is likely to be relatively small. The major gap in this data is Canada, where yield monitor adoption has followed a pattern similar to that of the US. There are also yield monitors being used in several other Latin American counties, including Mexico, Paraguay and Bolivia, but no numbers are available.

            The estimates by Daberkow and colleagues indicate a continuing increase in yield monitor use in the US. Their numbers suggest that in 2003 there should be about 45,000 combines equipped with yield monitor, with about 46% of corn, 36% of soybeans and 15% of wheat harvested with a combine so equipped.

            As yield monitors have become standard equipment on new combines, the number of combines with yield monitors, but no GPS, has increased. Without GPS yield mapping and most of the management uses of yield monitor data are impossible, though with careful use of the yield monitor functions it may be possible to use the yield monitor as a substitute for a weigh wagon in measuring strip trials and other on farm-comparison results.

            USDA data indicates that only one third of US combines with a yield monitor also have a GPS. In Argentina about 70% of combines with yield monitors also have GPS. John Stafford, Silsoe Solutions, indicates that most of the combines in his 2000 estimates would have been equipped with both yield monitor and GPS.

 

Yield Monitor Density

            In the 2000 to 2002 period the US also led the world number in the intensity of yield monitor use. Because the US has a large crop area, a large number of yield monitors does not necessarily imply that monitors are widely available. European countries have fewer combines with monitors, but they also have much smaller crop areas.

            In the 2000-2002 data, the US has 136 yield monitors per million acres of grain or oilseeds, or about 7000 acres per combine equipped with a yield monitor (Table 1). This estimate uses the crop area from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) website (apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture).

            During the same period Denmark had about 100 yield monitors per million acres planted to grain or oilseeds or about 10,000 acres per combine equipped with a yield monitor. Available data indicates the UK and Sweden had 43 to 48 yield monitors per million acres, or 20,000 to 23,000 acres per combine.

            It should be noted that the number of acres that one combine harvests in a year, depends on several factors, including the capacity of the machine, crop, climate (some regions have a longer harvest period than others), farm layout (they can harvest more with large, rectangular fields) and equipment ownership. Combines used by custom operators or machine rings tend to harvest more area than those used by individual owner-operators.

            For example, in the US many combines used by individual farmers in the Corn Belt harvest from 1500 to 2000 acres annually, while custom operators in Argentina with similar size machines may harvest as much as 10,000 acres in a year. In all the countries for which there are data, the number of acres per combine equipped with a yield monitor exceeds the number of acres typically harvested by one machine by a substantial margin.

 

Recent German Estimates

            Estimates of the number of yield monitors in Germany have always a subject of discussion. Many have questioned the 150 yield monitor estimate made by John Stafford, Silsoe Solutions, UK, because the relatively large farms in the former East Germany are one of the most likely places for profitable use of yield monitors in Western Europe.

            Peter Wagner, Professor of Farm Management, at the University of Halle, Germany, says that based on manufacturers reports there are between 3500 and 5000 combines equipped with yield monitors in Germany in 2003. From 1200 to 2000 combines are equipped with both GPS and yield monitor. This would mean that there are somewhere between 175 and 250 yield monitors for each million acres of grain and oilseeds in Germany.

            The 2003 German estimate should be compared to the 2003 US estimate of about 45,000 yield monitors. This translates to about 200 combines with yield monitors for each million acres of grain and oilseed in the US, or about one combine with a yield monitor for each 5,000 acres.

            Latin American countries seem to be lagging in terms of intensity of yield monitor use. The Latin American leader in yield monitor use, Argentina, has about 10 combines equipped with monitors per million acres or one monitor for 103,000 acres. Even allowing for the fact that a higher percentage of Argentine combines have yield monitors and GPS and that they tend to cover more acreage than combines in the US, the availability of combines equipped with yield monitors in Argentina is relatively low compared to the US or some Western European countries.

            In 2003 Argentina has about 600 combines equipped with a yield monitor, and about 420 with both yield monitor and GPS. This translates to about seven combines with yield monitor and GPS for every million grain and oilseed acres, or about one combine so equipped per 137,000 acres. This should be compared to about 68 combines with yield monitor and GPS per million acres in the US or about 14,700 acres per combine.

 

Implications for Technology Adoption

            Will yield monitoring be another agricultural technology that starts in the US, but finds greater acceptance overseas? Yield monitors with GPS seem to be more available, relative to the crop acreage, in Denmark and Germany, than they are in the US.

            A recent example of a technology that started in the US, but was more widely used overseas is no-till. This was technology mainly developed by American researchers in Land Grant Universities and various companies. In the US no-till has been stalled at around 25% of Corn Belt acreage for several years, but in the 2001-2002 crop season over 50% of grain and oilseeds in Argentina were planted with no-till technology and usage continues to grow. No-till has seen similar growth in Brazil.

             Some observers have pointed out that there are technical reasons why no-till works better in Brazil and Argentina. The crop area in those countries is more tropical (closer to the equator) and cold soils under residue cover is not the problem that it is in the Northern Corn Belt. Also the main crop is soybeans, which is will compensate more than corn for the uneven emergence often seen in no-till crops.

            While there are no apparent technical reasons why yield monitoring would work better outside the US, there may be some social and economic reasons why it may be used more intensively in Northern Europe. Some hypotheses:

 

1)      Northern European farmers have a history of intense crop management. Do yield monitors provide them with another tool for the type of management to which they already are accustomed? Because of greater land availability, U.S. agriculture has tended to be more extensive in Northern Europe.

2)      In most places, yield monitor data can be profitably used only where services are available to help producers understand the information. Have crop advisory services grown more rapidly in Denmark and Germany, than in the US? Have US farmers depended too much on underfunded extension services for precision agriculture?

3)      Using yield monitor data requires management time for analysis and decision- making. Are northern European farmers more willing to devote time to understanding the implications of yield maps than their US counterparts? Many US farmers chose that profession because it offers an active, outdoor lifestyle. They did not choose farming because they wanted to spend time in front of a computer.

 

For More Information:

 

      Bullock, David, J. Lowenberg-DeBoer and Scott Swinton, “Adding Value to Spatially Managed Inputs by Understanding Site-Specific Yield Response”, Agricultural Economics 27(2002) p. 233-

      245.

 

Daberkow, S., J. Fernandez-Cornejo and M. Padgitt, “Precision Agriculture Technology Diffusion: Current Status and Future Prospects,” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Minneapolis, MN, July, 2002.

 

Fountas, S., D.R. Ess, C.G. Sorensen, S.E. Hawkins, H.H. Pedersen, B.S. Blackmore, and J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, “Information Sources in Precision Agriculture in Denmark and the USA,” Precision Agriculture: Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, J. Stafford & A. Werner, editors, Wageningen Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2003 p. 211-216.

 

Table 1. Number of Yield Monitors by Country, 2000-2002

                                                           

                                    Estimated                                             Yield Monitors

Country                        Number            Year     Source             per 1,000,000 acres*              

Americas:

  United States              30,000             2000    Daberkow et al.            136

  Argentina                         560             2002    Bragachini                      10

  Brazil                               100             2002    Molin                               1

  Chile                                 12             2000    Bragachini                        8

  Uruguay                              4             2000    Bragachini                        3

 

Europe

   U.K.                              400             2000    Stafford                           43

   Denmark                        400             2000    Stafford                        100

   Germany                        150             2000    Stafford                             7

   Sweden                          150             2000    Stafford                           48

   France                              50             2000    Stafford                             2

   Netherlands                        6             2000    Stafford                           11

   Belgium                              6             2000    Stafford                             6

   Spain                      5             2002    4ECPA                           <1

   Portugal                              4             2002    Conceicao                         3

 

Other

   Australia                         800             2000    Bullock et al.                   17

   South Africa                     15             2000    Nell                                   1

* Acres of the primary grain and oilseed crops, including corn, rice, sorghum, millet, wheat, rye, oats, barley, buckwheat, soybeans, sunflower and canola. 

Sources: Mario Bragachini, Precision Agriculture Project, INTA, Manfredi, Argentina; Bullock et al, 2002; Luis Aleino Conceicao, Escola Superior Agria, De Elvas, Portugal; Daberkow et al, 2002; Jose Molin, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil; Wilhem Nell, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa; John Stafford, Silsoe Solutions, presentation to the 5th  International Conference on Precision Agriculture, 2000; and discussions with participants in the 4th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (4ECPA).