I'll be out of the office and away from my mesmerizing internet
connection until September 11, but look forward to the accumulated
e-mail on my return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Gilbert Gil W. Gillespie Jr. <gwg2@cornell.edu> 08/29/95 01:49pm
>>>
For the sake of being contrary, I would like to advance the argument that
precision farming is not likely to lead toward (note that I did not say
"to") systainable agriculture and food systems. First, one has to specify
what is "sustainable" and, for this to make much sense, I wish to argue
that this must mean sustainable indefinitely (as opposed to 25 or 50
years or even 500 years). For the ecological aspects It makes sense to me
to use
Herman Daly's 3 rules: (1) renewable resources cannot be used faster
than they regenerate; (2) nonrenewable resources cannot be used faster
than renewable resources can be substituted for these; and (3) pollutants
cannot be emitted at greater rates than they can be processed by the
environment
(Ecological Economics 2:1-6, 1990). Although precision farming may
contribute in a small way (compared to conventional farming) to reducing
the rate of use of renewable resources and reduce the pollutants being
emitted, precision farming is based heavily on nonrenewable resources.
Further, large scale production and large-scale processing seem to go
hand-in-hand and this implies global transport of food and other
commodities, transport which now depends heavily on nonrenewable
energy sources. Alternative agricultural systems appear to be much
better in being ecologically sustainable.
For the social aspects, precision farming is essentially no different than
the housing and related technologies that made large-scale poultry and
swine production possible, i.e., it may help to make the large-scale
systems workable (in a context of cheap energy and social harmony). As
such it can be expected to continue the trends toward the elimination of
families in farming and decline of rural communities. Right now,
precision farming technologies are very expensive and are not
economically feasible for the average family farm. Those who will
benefit from the technology will most likely be the suppliers of
equipment and products used with this equipment.
Ultimately, it might make corporate farming on a large scale possible. I
see no reason to believe that this would not lead to continued erosion of
the social foundations of agriculture as I see little or no room for small
and medium scale farm units in this technology.
I am not yet convinced that public funds should be used to promote this
technology as there should be a great deal of incentive for commercial
firms to develop and promote the technology. Perhaps like nuclear
power, government promotion may encourage development at a faster
pace than would be warranted and may lead to serious ecological and
social problems appearing after the technology is in place.
>Seeing some traffic lately about high tech tools reminded me that I
>wanted to query Sanetters about a specific high tech ag application,
>namely site-specific farming, also called precise application, also called
>variable rate application technology, and probably other things. This
>method employs GPS and satellite communications technology for
>application of nitrogen fertilizer, for instance, according to need across a
>field. Soil tests, laid out in a grid pattern provide the basis for the
>application rates and computer guided application equipment is
mounted
>on the vehicle. Yield sensors are used to evaluate yields as harvest is
>conducted. I may not have the details quite right, but this is the gist.
>
>Anyway, what I would like to know is your thoughts on the usefulness
>of this technology in sustainable farming, on the small farm and on the
>medium sized farm. Is it an appropriate expenditure of public funds to
>demonstrate these techniques? What should be the role of the public
>sector? Should education and demonstration be left to the private
sector?
> How costly would it be for farmers to acquire the necessary equipment
>to farm this way? Some have said that it would be more cost effective
>and applicable to more farmers to provide information on "low tech"
>methods such as ensuring realistic yield goals are used in calculating
>fertilizer rates, that the late spring nitrate test, and other such measures
>should be used, along with credits for legume rotations, manure
>applications, and so on. Some have said that the high tech variable rate
>application technology is just refining or tweaking a fundamentally
>flawed system (chemical intensive, high production monocultures) and
>we should be looking at questions such as are we using the right overall
>management measures in the first place. Others think it is the greatest
>thing since sliced bread, and the time is right to provide an educational
>effort on it. We are beginning to see requests for funding to
demonstrate
>this technology , so I would like to know what you, out there in the
>trenches so to speak, think. Here in the midwest, we are looking
>primarily at its use on corn. Although this note turned into something
>rather more wordy than I had intended, I hope it provides a stimulus for
>discussion.
>
>