Why It’s Smart Money on Smart Farm Tools
December 19, 2023 
‘Tis the season for technology. And there is a growing number of smart farm tools to tantalize. But at what price? Buyer’s remorse is the last hangover any grower wants to start the New Year.
Fortunately, Cornell AgriTech’s weed expert, Lynn Sosnoskie, explains what issues need to be addressed before sealing the deal on that five-figure smart sprayer wrapped in the big red bow tie outside the barn.
PRICE TAG
First, there is the sticker price. “I got my vision sprayer for about $15,000,” Sosnoskie says. “The electric weeder was $50,000, which did not include shipping from Brazil.”
Then there are the aftershocks. “You have to think about parts and services, especially if service providers are not local,” Sosnoskie says. “Some of these robots might be European manufactured.”
The cost of associated equipment can surprise. “I have a grower that I’ve been talking to who has an electric weeder. He owns the electric weeder — he has to rent the tractor to run it,” Sosnoskie says.
While an expenditure such as fuel consumption is obvious, others are less conspicuous.
“Some of these tools are going to come with subscriptions for data access and management because [the growers] are collecting data as well,” Sosnoskie says.
ADAPTABILITY
Lack of uniformity keeps researchers like Sosnoskie busy. What flies in Wenatchee, WA, probably does not in Geneva, NY.
“So much effort is being put into western U.S. farms, and we do not look like western U.S. farms. There is so much that is different about us — our environment, our weed spectrum, the size of our farms, the field shapes,” she says.
Meanwhile, the market is comprised of many companies and products. “Not all of that technology is ready to really make the jump to widespread market adoption,” Sosnoskie says. “And we have to ask ourselves if we’re ready to adopt that technology, because there is a significant learning curve associated with it.”
INFRASTRUCTURE/REGULATIONS
As valuable as autonomous systems might be, they would be of little value to a rural grower who cannot get a cell phone connection. Further, Sosnoskie wonders if regulatory systems are set up to handle autonomous and vision-guided systems.
“Right now we don’t have labels that really specify using a precision-targeted sprayer for application of these herbicides,” she says. “In California, autonomous robotic systems are governed like self-driving cars. So you need an operator with them all the time. Does that facilitate having a fleet of robots?”
WORKFORCE
The changing nature of labor cannot be ignored, Sosnoskie says. “Are we training people to really use this equipment and to handle and service this equipment? You’re going to have to know how to weld, and build, and construct, and fix. You’re probably going to have to have electrical skills and programing skills … to handle the output of the information that they are going to provide,” she says.
Sosnoskie and her colleagues are bent on simplifying the purchasing of technology. What would help all parties, she says, is more research funding.
“We are working hard to try to get our hands on as much technology as possible to de-risk it; to understand its applications and limitations,” she says. “But frankly, we need more funding. We are going to have to work hard on the USDA because this equipment can be expensive, and this research is expensive.”
Subscribe Today For
