[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REALIZING THE CONSERVATION BENEFITS OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-21
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-752 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Ranking
JIM COSTA, California Minority Member
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
FILEMON VELA, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands Arkansas
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
Vice Chair VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia DOUG LaMALFA, California
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York TED S. YOHO, Florida
TJ COX, California RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MIKE BOST, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
JOSH HARDER, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KIM SCHRIER, Washington JAMES COMER, Kentucky
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DON BACON, Nebraska
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Matthew S. Schertz, Minority Staff Director
______
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia, Chair
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio DOUG LaMALFA, California, Ranking
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona Minority Member
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
Felix Muniz, Jr., Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from
Texas, opening statement....................................... 28
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from California,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Spanberger, Hon. Abigail Davis, a Representative in Congress from
Virginia, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Witnesses
Madison, Dustin, Producer and Farm Manager, Engel Family Farms,
Louisa, VA..................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Karsten, Ph.D., Heather D., Associate Professor, Crop Production/
Ecology, Department of Plant Science, College of Agricultural
Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Supplementary material....................................... 43
Cameron, Don J., Vice President and General Manager, Terranova
Ranch, Inc.; Owner, Prado Farms, Helm, CA; on behalf of
California Farm Bureau Federation.............................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
REALIZING THE CONSERVATION BENEFITS OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:04 p.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Abigail
Davis Spanberger [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Spanberger, O'Halleran,
Pingree, Axne, Schrier, LaMalfa, Allen, Abraham, and Conaway
(ex officio).
Staff present: Prescott Martin III, Felix Muniz, Jr.,
Alison Titus, Josh Maxwell, Ricki Schroeder, Patricia Straughn,
Dana Sandman, and Jennifer Yezak.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
The Chair. This hearing on the Subcommittee on Conservation
and Forestry entitled, Realizing the Conservation Benefits of
Precision Agriculture, will come to order.
Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to the
Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee's hearing on realizing
the conservation benefits of precision agriculture. I would
like to thank Ranking Member LaMalfa for his engagement on this
issue, as well as each Subcommittee Member for taking part in
the hearing today. I would like to welcome one of my
constituents, Mr. Dustin Madison, from Louisa County, Virginia.
Dustin, I am glad that we have your expertise from farming your
own land and serving many other farmers in forming our
discussion today. Your knowledge from being a technical service
provider for NRCS, a certified Virginia resource management
planner, and a certified crop advisor will be especially
useful. It was a real pleasure to visit Louisa County as part
of my 2 day farm tour in August, and it is great to have you
here today.
I would also like to welcome our other witnesses, Mr. Don
Cameron and Dr. Heather Karsten. Thank you for traveling to
Washington, D.C. to share your insight.
As technology within the agriculture industry continues to
make leaps and bounds, we are seeing farmers grow more food
while more judiciously using inputs such as water and
fertilizer. Precision agriculture offers producers
opportunities to farm more efficiently and more sustainably.
Farmers know that growing conditions can vary significantly,
even within the same field, and these factors range from soil
type and chemistry to fertility and productivity, to the amount
of water in the ground. Precision agriculture makes it possible
to calculate how these differences translate into different
levels of inputs so that each part of the field is only getting
as much as it needs. This means that farmers are saving time,
fuel, and money, while increasing their output. It is more
efficient and it yields better crops.
Precision technology has applications for animal
agriculture as well. It is now possible to monitor feed
production, herd health, and energy use on farms to improve
efficiency, productivity, and the quality of animal care. And
central to our hearing today, precision agriculture enables
farmers to enhance production and lower their costs, while at
the same time delivering environmental benefits. Site-specific
crop management translates into less soil erosion and nutrient
run-off. It also improves soil health and water quality, while
also providing insight into producers' environmental footprint
and creating opportunities for them to adopt practices that
enhance both yields and conservation.
Today, I am eager to discuss how farmers are using
precision agriculture technologies, what successes they are
experiencing, and what barriers are impairing their ability to
implement precision ag. And how does this impact their
productivity, their competitiveness in the United States and
global markets, and their environmental footprint? It is also
my hope that today's hearing can serve as a launch pad for us
to discuss ways we here in the House of Representatives can
help more farmers adopt these tools.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Spanberger follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Abigail Davis Spanberger, a Representative
in Congress from Virginia
Good afternoon. I would like to welcome everyone to this
Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee hearing on ``Realizing the
Conservation Benefits of Precision Agriculture.''
I would also like to thank Ranking Member LaMalfa for his
engagement on this issue, as well as each Subcommittee Member for
taking part in the hearing today.
I want to welcome one of my constituents, Dustin Madison from
Louisa County, Virginia. Dustin, I'm glad that we will have your
expertise from farming your own land and serving many other farmers
informing our discussion today. Your knowledge from being a Technical
Service Provider for NRCS, a certified Virginia Resource Management
Planner, and a Certified Crop Advisor will be especially useful, I am
sure. It was a real pleasure to visit Louisa County as part of my 2 day
farm tour in August, and it's great to have you here today.
I would also like to welcome our other witnesses, Mr. Don Cameron
and Dr. Heather Karsten. Thank you for traveling to D.C. to share your
insight. As technology within the agriculture industry continues to
make leaps and bounds, we're seeing farmers grow more food while more
judiciously using inputs such as water and fertilizer. Precision
agriculture offers producers opportunities to farm more efficiently and
more sustainably.
Farmers know that growing conditions can vary significantly, even
within the same field. These factors range from soil type and
chemistry, to fertility and productivity, to the amount of water in the
ground.
Precision agriculture makes it possible to calculate how these
differences translate into different levels of inputs--so that each
part of the field is getting only as much as it needs.
This means that farmers are saving time, fuel, and money while
increasing their output. It's more efficient and it yields better
crops. Precision technology has applications for animal agriculture as
well. It is now possible to monitor feed production, herd health, and
energy use on farms to improve efficiency, productivity, and the
quality of animal care.
And central to our hearing today, precision agriculture enables
farmers to enhance production and lower their costs, while at the same
time delivering environmental benefits.
Site-specific crop management translates into less soil erosion and
nutrient runoff. It also improves soil health and water quality, while
also providing insight into producers' environmental footprint and
creating opportunities for them to adopt practices that enhance both
yields and conservation.
Today, I'm eager to discuss how farmers are using precision ag
technology--what successes are they experiencing and what barriers are
impairing their ability to implement precision ag? And how does this
impact their productivity, their competitiveness in U.S. and global
markets, and their environmental footprint? It's also my hope that
today's hearing can serve as a launch pad for us to discuss ways we
here in the House can help more farmers adopt these tools.
With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member, the
distinguished gentleman from California, Congressman Doug LaMalfa, for
5 minutes.
The Chair. And with that, I would like to recognize the
Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from California,
Congressman Doug LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair Spanberger, for holding
today's hearing, and the way we conduct this Committee. I
really appreciate it.
We are here, of course, as you mentioned, to examine the
benefits of precision agriculture on conservation, which is
indeed one of the many tools we have at our disposal to help
improve conservation practices on farms and ranches.
Indeed, rapid advances in technology over the last several
years--I would say several decades--has made precision
agriculture more important because of the benefits it will
provide. Going back to the Dust Bowl era is really when we
started learning the importance of this in this country, and
the ASCS was formed, Ag Stabilization and Conservation Service.
You hear those words, stabilization and conservation, very
important as the lessons we learned from the Dust Bowl era and
since.
Precision agriculture has increased productivity and in my
own experience growing rice with fewer inputs required on our
land, water savings, less fertilizer, less pesticides needed. I
spent a lot of hours myself on a tractor with a laser-guided
leveler making our fields flat and almost perfect to within \1/
8\", theoretically, on the soil there in order to use less
water and keep those weeds from getting away from us, therefore
being able to use less pesticides to control that pesky water
grass. It has really been important to see that laser
technology now morph into GPS, which is even more precise. It
actually will take into account the curvature of the Earth. You
want level water, you are going to get level water that way in
rice. But in so many other ways, these inputs have been helpful
in so many aspects of agriculture to bring that precision and
be able to make our inputs go farther, and using the things we
don't want to have to use much less.
When we talk about the overlap again, if you are able to
run your disc, your implement on a much narrower gap and not
waste time doing the same acres over and over again, it is
better for soil, and it is even easier on the operator to not
have to be so on target the whole time, every pass all day,
that it is better on the employees.
In a challenging period when farmers face these price
pressures for production, price pressures for increased costs
of inputs, precision agriculture really helps give you an edge
in order to stay profitable and competitive.
There are many benefits we will talk about this afternoon,
but we have a chance to hear from people first-hand about this
technology. In the 2018 Farm Bill, we also included several
provisions to extend broadband so we can bring more broadband
to Americans in the most rural areas of the nation. It is
important in being able to help utilize this technology and the
data that is gathered when we are out there tracking yields.
For example, on my rice combine you are able to map out what
the yields are doing in a field, and that helps you decide how
you want to treat that field the next year with how much
fertilizer or other issues you could be tracking as you go.
Broadband is important for a lot of different aspects of
agriculture. We have more and more of that so we can transfer
this data and use it and take the most advantage of it.
The farm bill had EQIP that was able to help with these
conservation practices and this precision that we need. And so,
I could go on and on about this, but I am a true believer
because we use it ourselves and I have seen so many of my
neighbors benefit from being able to further track your yields,
fertilizer inputs, and all those things that make this
technology more and more important as we go forward.
I saw some very impressive technology down in Mr. Panetta's
district here on a recent tour that will be very exciting to
see that come forward in the future as well.
So with that, I will turn it back to our Chair, and I
appreciate the time here today.
The Chair. Thank you.
In consultation with the Ranking Member and pursuant to
Rule XI(e), I want to make other Members of the Subcommittee
aware that Members of the full Committee may join us today, and
I thank the Ranking Member of the full Committee for joining us
here today.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so witnesses may begin their
testimony, and to ensure there is ample time for questions
today.
I would like to welcome our witnesses. Thank you very much
for being here today. It is my pleasure and my privilege to
welcome Mr. Dustin Madison from Louisa County, Virginia, a
constituent of Virginia's 7th Congressional District. Mr.
Madison, it is great to have you join us here today. Mr.
Madison grew up on his family's crop and cattle farm in Louisa,
and now operates 100 acres of his own farmland. He also manages
agronomy and conservation initiatives on Engle Family Farms,
which raises corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops on 20,000
acres across the Commonwealth. Mr. Madison is a graduate of
Virginia Tech.
Our next witness is Dr. Heather Karsten, Associate
Professor within the Department of Plant Science at
Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Karsten teaches and conducts
research and extension education in agronomy and agroecology.
Her interdisciplinary cropping research seeks to develop
systems to sustain long-term farm productivity and
profitability while reducing environmental impacts.
And for our final witness, I will yield to my colleague
from California for the introduction.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you. Thank you again for the
opportunity.
As we know, many ranchers and farmers in California have
adopted much of this technology, as a lot of it evolves in
California. And so, I am pleased to be able to have one of
those producers here today.
Mr. Don Cameron, since 1981, has been the Vice President
and General Manager of Terranova Ranch in Helm, California,
where they currently grow over 25 different crops. Twenty-five.
Sometimes it is plenty to do one where I am from, but in
addition to his work at Terranova Ranch, Mr. Cameron owns Prado
Farms in Fresno County, California. It is an honor to have you
here today representing California, along with some of your
delegation here.
We have a great panel of witnesses in front of us today,
and I am glad to have them travel here all the way to D.C. to
spend time with us and help educate all of us, our staffs, and
those that are going to see this testimony on TV. Thank you
once again, Chair Spanberger, and I yield back.
The Chair. We will now proceed to hearing from our
witnesses. Each of you will have 5 minutes to present
testimony. When the light turns yellow, that indicates there is
1 minute left to complete your testimony.
Mr. Madison, may you please begin when you are ready?
STATEMENT OF DUSTIN MADISON, PRODUCER AND FARM MANAGER, ENGEL
FAMILY FARMS, LOUISA, VA
Mr. Madison. Good afternoon, Chair Spanberger, Ranking
Member LaMalfa, and Members of the Subcommittee. I want to
thank you all for the opportunity to be here today and talk
about this topic that is pretty near and dear to me, as it is
part of my everyday life.
Precision and conservation and agriculture really go hand
in hand, and it is something that I touch pretty much from sun
up to sun down.
I think my time here is best spent telling you that
conservation and precision agriculture are really, really big
topics, and we could go a long time and not really scratch the
surface. I am going to shorten that as much as I can and start
with a little background on conservation.
Even in the 1990s, here in Virginia conservation and
agriculture were not even in the same conversation. They were
two different things. We farmed and then you recycled or
clipped the little plastic rings around a six-pack so that you
didn't hurt the birds and the fish. Two different worlds.
Eventually, we figured out that wasn't a great idea. I could
plow a field and it could rain the next day. All my dirt, all
my topsoil, all my nutrients would go down a hill into the
creek, ending up somewhere in the Chesapeake Bay.
Fast forward to today, we do a lot better. No-till cover
crops, things like that are big conservation words, but they
are a big part of our lives. That is a really big change. I
don't think I can overstate that enough.
Switch over to precision ag. In the 1990s, it really wasn't
a thing either. We didn't know we would have the capabilities
to do some of the things we can do. We can farm down to 1". Our
fertilizer doesn't overlap. We know exactly where we are all
the time. Our equipment is so good that we can watch movies on
an iPad while we are planting and harvesting. We just have to
hit pause to turn around. That is how far we have come.
Now, one of the best parts about the precision ag and the
conservation in ag is if you combine the two, we can really
make ourselves a lot more profitable, and we can verify that.
The precision ag allows us to look at our information after
years over, and say, ``Hey, we did a better job and we can see
it in the bank account.'' That is the most important thing
there is to farming, especially right now. If we can make
better decisions and we can not lose money at the end of a
year, that is huge. We never would have been able to quantify
that without some of the benefits of precision ag, and we
couldn't have recognized it without the benefits of
conservation.
That is as simple of a message that I can really give
anybody is that it is the same as in any business. Put your
money where it counts, make good decisions, use all the data
you have available to make those decisions, and hit the repeat
button.
I have spent a lot of time working with other growers,
talking about precision ag, but more talking about conservation
in ag. My role as a registered TSP through NRCS has given me
the chance to go out and talk to people and see what they are
doing now, what they could be doing, and maybe find out why
they are not doing anything differently. But again, there are a
lot of pieces to that puzzle, but at some point we have to
figure it out by being on the ground, talking to them, figuring
out what it is we can do. Is it more money? Is it more
incentive? Is it just somebody there to hold your hand when you
need some help? What is it going to take to do a better job?
I know farmers are willing to step up and do that, not only
to help the environment, because things look better when they
do, but to keep their businesses going, which is at the end of
the day, that is all our main goal.
I want to thank you all again for the chance to be here.
This really is an honor. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Madison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dustin Madison, Producer and Farm Manager, Engel
Family Farms, Louisa, VA
Good morning, Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and Members
of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
important topic of precision agriculture in conservation. My name is
Dustin Madison, and along with operating 100 acres of my own farmland
in Louisa County, Virginia, I manage agronomy and conservation
initiatives on Engel Family Farms. We raise corn, soybeans, wheat and
other crops on 20,000 acres across the Commonwealth, spread out over 17
counties.
Conservation + Agriculture
To understand the conservation benefits of precision agriculture, I
would like to first pull the precision piece out, and just look at the
history of conservation and agriculture. Conservation and agriculture
have a different relationship than they did 40, 30, or even 10 years
ago. My impression of ``conservation'' in the 1990s was that it was all
about rainbows and unicorns living in lush green fields, contrasting
the industrial world. We recycled aluminum and cut the plastic rings
when you bought a six-pack to protect the fish and birds, but
agriculture didn't really fit into the picture. Farm work was always
messy; too muddy or too dusty. It came with the territory.
Day after fall day, I would till fields until 9 or 10 at night,
then go home and eat the dinner my mom had left in the refrigerator. If
it rained the next day, all that nutrient-rich top soil washed down the
hill, into a creek, and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay. That's just
the way things were. We certainly didn't want to see our hard work and
money get washed out of the fields that we were betting our whole
year's income on. We did our work the same way it had always been done
and essentially rolled the dice. Conservation practices address a lot
of these issues now, but back then, we just didn't put it together.
Conservation was one thing and agriculture was another.
Fast forward into the early 21st Century, and we have the early
adopters of precision agriculture. Using computers onboard our
tractors, harvesters and other equipment, we found a reliable method of
collecting millions of data points every time we crossed a field. As
these layers of data accumulated, it became easier to pick out trends
and patterns in our fields that we could only get before from memory,
gut feelings and countless notes scribbled down and lost amongst the
``file cabinet'' that was the dashboard of our pickup trucks.
Now, what we call conservation practices are some of the most
profitable management decisions we can make, in a large part because of
precision ag. What's even better is that we can further utilize the
components of precision ag at year's end to measure and verify the
financial impacts of those decisions.
For example, we can easily look at trends of poor yields and trace
the causes back to poor soil types that leach fertilizers rather than
hold them in a root zone for a productive crop. Then, we can identify
the specific areas that aren't working and stop farming them. A field
may go from 25 acres down to 23 acres using this method, but overall
farm profitability can often rise in these situations.
The message here was very simple: Don't invest your input dollars
into a part of your business that won't produce a financial return.
Make a better decision, save that money, and use it somewhere that
creates value for your business. Conservation practices are those
better decisions, and precision ag is the tool that allows you to
quantify them.
Because of a pretty rudimentary function of precision ag, we in
agriculture made a historically complex problem into a straightforward
business decision, while also taking away many of the variables that
easily cloud judgment. I know of countless examples of situations like
this, all supporting the notion that conservation in ag, through
precision ag as a foundation, can create positive environmental change,
while at the same time increasing farm profitability (which is,
selfishly, of more benefit to producers everywhere).
There are better people than me for describing the inner workings
of computers, data processing and in-field equipment integration, which
are the backbone of precision agriculture. But as a farmer, whose
livelihood depends on producing commodities, I can talk all day about
the importance of finding ways to make better, profitable decisions so
we can remain in business. If there is a way to do what we do better
for the environment and, in turn, for our bank accounts, farmers will
respond. We don't have the option not to.
Barriers
For all the benefits to integrating precision ag onto every farm,
there are significant barriers to entry for many producers.
1. Technology is expensive. We have reached a time when some ag
technology has been around long enough that there are more
economical ways to achieve precision goals, but more
economical doesn't necessarily mean affordable for
everyone. The larger farmers can buy in easier simply
because of scale. Smaller farmers are more limited.
2. I could show you all kinds of cool technology that can provide
valuable data and perform actions that really add to the
bottom line. However, tech can fail at any moment for 1,000
reasons: No Internet connectivity, bugs in the software,
satellite interference, human frustration or even problems
off the farm: If a service provider's software is down, we
can do everything right and still have problems with our
data.
3. Farmers need to understand the benefits of conservation through
precision agriculture, and outreach and communication of
available resources are needed to have more widespread
adoption. This dialogue between farmers and local technical
experts needs to be ongoing so producers can adopt greater
levels of conservation and be aware of emerging
technologies and solutions. Most years, local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
are not able to meet the demand from farmers for these
practices because of either a lack of enough funding, not
having enough technical staff to certify the practice or
review the purchase of equipment, or not having enough
technical staff to help farmers better understand the
benefits of utilizing these practices or equipment.
Solutions
I do think the continued efforts by our Soil and Water Conservation
District and NRCS staff have helped us tremendously in getting to where
we are today in our ag conservation efforts in a relatively short
period of time. However, going any further will take continued work, as
well as recognition that old methods of communicating and incentivizing
our farmers may need updating.
1. The average age of an American farmer is 58 years old. Most of
those farmers learned about agriculture from the generation
before them and will probably teach the next generation
down. The people on the higher end of the age spectrum
didn't get into conservation work too heavily, and they
certainly didn't get into precision ag. So, while they are
passing down years of practical experience and intuition,
there is a large group of beginning farmers who will have
to do all the heavy lifting in adopting these parts of the
industry. Education and outreach focusing on farmers under
the average age will help close that gap.
2. We need to make sure financial incentives are there for farmers
who put conservation practices in place, especially those
who are putting precision ag to work. State and Federal
cost-share dollars mean more than most can imagine when
making the large up-front purchases required to make
precision ag work. As mentioned before, the overarching
value of precision ag is that it provides a data-driven,
informational foundation that so many conservation
practices can be built upon. Especially as future farmers
are expected to be better financial managers, they will be
more receptive to tools that can affect their
profitability.
3. We need to remember that partnerships are integral in making
something as big as conservation in agriculture happen when
there are so many independent stakeholders. I've
participated in grants from NGOs that were able to get
significant work done in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I've
received active Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) contracts through NRCS. But, most interestingly to
me, is that NRCS already has a program that combines
Federal incentives administered through NRCS with private
conservation planning and installation. Private individuals
can become Technical Service Providers (TSPs) for NRCS and
take some of the workload off of existing staff on an as-
needed basis. This is a highly under-utilized program that
receives little attention from the agency or farmers. Most
on both sides don't even know it exists. I know this
because I have been one of only two registered TSPs in
Virginia for nearly 5 years. I could have an impact on both
precision ag use and conservation planning, yet I have been
asked to write a total of three conservation plans
statewide. The spirit of this program is exactly what gets
things done on the ground: Federal help for farmers,
managed through local offices and assisted by qualified
private service providers when NRCS staff is overloaded
with work.
Farming has evolved a great deal from both a conservation and
precision agriculture perspective in just the last 30 years, and will
continue to do so, especially here in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed,
where we symbolize so much on a national scale. If we as producers
continue to be innovative and earn the support from the non-farming
community that we so badly need, there is no limit to what we can
accomplish in the years to come.
I appreciate the invitation to speak before the Subcommittee this
morning on this important topic and look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Madison. We appreciate
your comments.
Dr. Karsten, you may begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER D. KARSTEN, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR, CROP PRODUCTION/ECOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF PLANT
SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
Dr. Karsten. Thank you, Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member
LaMalfa, and distinguished Members of the Committee for this
opportunity to discuss the conservation benefits of precision
agriculture, which are significant.
Precision agriculture technologies enable farmers to
understand and manage the spatial variability on their farms
and better respond to changes during the season. These tools
can help farmers be more cost-effective and apply inputs and
management, reduce environmental impacts of agriculture, and
manage for resilience and ecosystem services.
For instance, with fine resolution knowledge about their
fields, farmers can avoid over-applying or applying inputs
where it would not be cost-effective, such as fertilizers,
pesticides, seeds, irrigation. This can avoid loss of inputs to
the environment, reduction of water resources, or in the case
of pesticides, the loss of biodiversity and the risk of
selecting for pest resistance to pesticides.
Precision agricultural technologies can also help farmers
identify zones or subfields that could be more profitable with
different management. That can also provide conservation
benefits. For instance, in zones that are not profitable or
low-profit, farmers might decide to plant different crops that
are better suited and more profitable, or adopt conservation
practices that can reduce erosion, build soil health, and be
more resilient to climate change. There are zones that may be
more vulnerable to extreme weather and may be better suited for
conservation or set-aside plantings. And when they are assisted
with decision support tools and decision support systems that
include ecosystem, agroecosystem, computer simulation models,
land managers can also evaluate the impact of possible
management changes. Decision support systems can help them
identify practices that best meet their goals, whether they
include profitability, resilience to stress, long-term
productivity, and environmental stewardship.
The greatest barriers of farmer adoption, from what we
understand, are the costs of capital investments needed to
adopt precision technologies, the technical expertise needed,
and the perceived risks of adoption. Land-grants are ideally
suited to address these adoption barriers. With our mission of
education, research, and extension, education land-grants can
help farmers of all sizes benefit from precision technologies.
We are, and we can do more, to teach students to understand and
benefit from the site-specific knowledge and precision ag tools
to enhance their farm profitability and environmental benefits.
Our graduates can contribute to developing these technologies
and assisting others with adoption.
Through research, we develop tools that can improve access
to fine resolution information and work with farmers to provide
more reliable recommendations. We can increase access with
tools that are low-cost, free online or open access or open
source, and we can improve our understanding and the
predictions of how agroecosystems respond to management changes
and extreme weather so that we can better identify which crops,
soils, pests, and water management practices are most
resilient, profitable, and environmentally friendly.
And finally, through extension, we can help farmers adopt
precision agricultural technology and evaluate the tools on
their farms. Through that boots-on-the-ground approach,
extension can assist growers and others in the agricultural
community, including folks in our assistance agencies,
consultants, and input providers, to help benefit farmers and
conservation goals and long-term sustainable productivity.
Thank you. I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Karsten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Heather D. Karsten, Ph.D., Associate Professor,
Crop Production/Ecology, Department of Plant Science, College of
Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: Dr. Karsten submitted an updated version of her
statement. due to the number of changes it has been incorporated as
Supplementary Material, and is located on p. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Spanberger and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank
you for this opportunity to discuss the conservation benefits of
precision agriculture, some examples of precision agriculture, barriers
to adoption and the role of the land-grant universities. Precision
agriculture technologies are and their potential applications for
conservation benefits are diverse and significant. Precision
agriculture technologies utilize spatial and temporal agroecosystem and
hydrologic data in geographic information systems (GIS) software that
can be linked to automate equipment navigation of agricultural
operations such as planting and spraying operations via robotic
technologies. In addition, real-time data from sensing technologies
such as in-field sensors, remote sensing or thermal imaging can be
integrated with the GIS data and historical management data in decision
support tools (DST) and decision support systems (DSS) (Drohan, et al.,
2019). Agroecological and hydrologic computer simulation models are of
utilized in decision support systems along with other factors such as
weather forecasts and/or economic data to provide farmers and land
managers with site-specific management options that can result in
reduced environmental impact and economic costs of agricultural
activities. For instance, integrating maps of soil characteristics such
as fertility, slope and drainage; crop yields, and pest infestations
along with weather forecasts can enable managers identify zones for
specific application rates of seeds, nutrients, pesticides and
irrigation water at the optimal time with variable rate technologies
(VRT). Similarly, livestock managers can utilize precision feeding to
develop nutritionally balanced cost-effective rations that meet the
metabolic needs of livestock at various life stages without excess
nutrients.
Adoption Barriers
A recent analysis of multiple U.S. survey data on the adoption
precision agriculture since 2000, suggested some rapid adoption as well
as barriers to adoption. Adoption of global navigation satellite
systems (GNSS) with auto guidance and technologies such as sprayer
control and planter row or section automatic shutoffs has been
relatively rapid for agronomic crops (see Figure 3 from Lowenberg-
DeBoer and Erickson, 2019), while adoption of variable rate technology
(VRT) has been relatively slow and ``rarely exceeds 20% of farms'' (see
Fig. 4 from Lowenberg-DeBoer and Erickson, 2019). The study's authors
summarized three hypotheses for the slow rate of adoption that were
frequently described in the surveys cited: i. the cost of VRT was too
high, ii. ``more reliable VRT decision rules'' were needed,
particularly for nitrogen, and iii. farmers weren't convinced VRT would
increase their profits (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Erickson, 2019).
Fig. 3.
Planted area by crop in the United States where Global
Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) auto guidance was used,
2000 to 2016.
Fig. 4.
Planted area by crop in the United States where variable rate
technology (VRT) was used for any purpose, 1998 to 2016.
Figures 3 and 4 from Lowenberg-DeBoer J. and B. Erickson.
2019. Setting the Record Straight on Precision Agriculture
Adoption. Agronomy Journal 2019 111: 1535-1551, doi:10.2134/
agronj2018.08.0535.
Additional adoption barriers that others describe include the need
for and technical expertise needed to install and operate precision
technologies, and the fact that new equipment is needed to be
compatible with the new technologies, as well as additional factors
that are summarized and shown below in Table 1 from Wolfe and Richard
(2017).
Table 1--Overview of barriers to the adoption of pro-environmental
technological innovations (general and agriculture specific) based on
literature review (from Long, et al. [31]. Sources are listed in [31]
and not repeated here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrier Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic High initial investments (Bogdanski, 2012;
Poor access to capital Brunke, et al.,
Hidden costs 2014; Cullen, et
Competing financial al., 2013; del Rio
priorities Gonzalez, 2005;
Long pay-back periods Faber and Hoppe,
(ROI) 2013; Hoffman and
Switching costs/existence Henn, 2008; Luken
of installed base and Van Rompaey,
High implementation costs 2008; Luthra, et
(actual and perceived) al., 2014; McCarthy,
Uncertain returns and et al., 2011;
results Montalvo, 2008)
Temporal asymmetry
between costs and
benefits
Over discounting the
future
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional/ Low institutional support (Bogdanski, 2012;
regulatory Use of overly scientific Eidt, et al., 2012;
language (Jargon) Luthra, et al.,
Farmer's knowledge not 2014; Montalvo,
considered in R&D 2008)
Lack of regulatory
framework
Prohibitively
prescriptive standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavioral/ Lack of management (Brunke, et al.,
psychological support/awareness 2014; Eidt, et al.,
Conflict with traditional 2012; Hoffman and
methods Henn, 2008; Johnson,
Overly complex 2010; Ratten and
technologies Ratten, 2007;
Results/effects of Sneddon, et al.,
technology difficult to 2011 ; Vishwanath,
observe 2009; Wheeler, 2008)
Farmer's beliefs and
opinions
Low trust of advisers or
consultants/lack of
acceptance
Irrational behavior
Negative presumed
assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizational Lack required (Brunke, et al.,
competencies/skills 2014; Faber and
Poor readiness Hoppe, 2013;
Poor information Johnson, 2010; Luken
Inability to assess and Van Rompaey,
technologies 2008; Luthra, et
Overly short-term/ al., 2014; Montalvo,
perverse rewards 2008)
Organizational inertia/
habitual routines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers/market Poor information (Bogdanski, 2012;
Lack market Bohnsack, et al.,
attractiveness/do not 2014; Brunke, et
align to preferences al., 2014; del Rio
Uncertainty Gonzalez, 2005;
Consumers/farmers level Johnson, 2010;
of motivation Luthra, et al.,
Market uncertainty 2014)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Social/peer pressures (Montalvo, 2008)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For farmers with limited capital facing small profit margins, the
capital investment required for new precision agriculture technologies
and the technical expertise required can be significant barriers. Land-
grant university researchers and educators such as my colleagues at
Penn State are currently working with farmers, the national
laboratories and government agencies (ex. NRCS), as well as private-
sector partners to develop low cost new technologies and open-source or
free software and decision support tools and systems that can be
operated on smartphones or personnel computers. Land grants are also
well-positioned to conduct objective, trusty-worthy assessments of
precision technologies, while training students, educators and the
workforce to develop, improve and assist in the use of precision
technologies.
Decision support systems can empower farmers and producers to fine-
tune their management practices when coupled with economic incentive
policies that promote adoption (Drohan, et al., 2019). Support for on-
farm assessment and peer-to-peer learning also appear facilitate
adoption of precision conservation technologies. A final report from a
Penn State interdisciplinary research and extension projected provides
an example of what DSS can provide. ``There is no one production
practice that will make or break a herd's profitability . . . .
Combining financial metrics with decision-making on cropping and
feeding practices is still a challenge for both producers and
consultants. . . . The bottleneck is how cropping strategies and animal
performance influence the whole farm system and the impact to the
bottom line. Unless nutritionists and crop consultants work with
financials on a routine basis, it is unlikely they will embrace this
aspect when working with their clientele.'' (Ishler, et al., 2019).
Some examples of precision conservation technologies and DSS that
offer promise of adoption are briefly described. Decision support
systems (DSS) that produce farm profit maps can enable farmers and land
managers to identify opportunities to increase their profits while
reducing their environmental impact. Agroecosystem DSS can identify
field zones that are consistently low profit or unprofitable enabling
land-managers to consider alternative managements. Low profit or very
unprofitable zones also are often zones of significant soil and/or
nutrient losses associated with soil and landscape factors (Delgado and
Bausch, 2005; Muth, 2014) as illustrated in Figure 1 from Wolfe and
Richard, 2017 that may also make them particularly vulnerable to
extreme weather events such as drought or flooding. For instance, a
2017 NRCS funded study of over 200,000 acres from nearly 3800 fields on
136 farms in a dozen states found that (a) more than 90% of fields
included zones that were losing money due to some combination of risks,
and (b) over 50% of the unprofitable acres were also acres with
substantial environmental concerns (Wolfe and Richard, 2017).
Figure 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Subfield economic analysis demonstrates high variability in
profitability, with a significant fraction of currently farmed
acres highly unprofitable for annual crops. Left panel: profit
in $ ha^1; center panel: change in Soil Organic
Carbon in kg ha^1, and right panel, nitrate
(NO3-N) leaching in kg ha^1.
Figure 1 from Wolfe, M.L. and T.L. Richard. 2017. 21st
Century Engineering for On-Farm Food-Energy-Water Systems.
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.coche.2017.10.005.
Decision support tools that integrate landscape characteristics,
with crop management history and yields agroecosystem models and
economic analyses and sensor data can help farmers to identify
practices for low profit zones to reduce their production costs and/or
increase their cropping system resilience (Fig. 2. Wolfe and Richard,
2017).
Figure 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2 from Wolfe and Richard, 2017. Sustainable food-
energy-water systems are enabled by an expanded precision
agriculture toolset that includes economic analysis, payments
for ecosystem services, and biomass markets, all managed
through decision support systems that go beyond inputs and
single crop management to innovative cropping system and
landscape design.
Alternative management scenarios may include reducing fertilizer
inputs and adopting conservation farming practices (Delgado and Bausch,
2005, Muth, 2014, Capmourteres, et al., 2018). In zones where annual
cropping is unprofitable, the establishment of perennial plants for
bioenergy offers a viable economic alternative (Wolfe and Richard,
2017) such as shown below in Figure 6 from Brandes, et al., 2018.
Fig. 6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Average annualized changes in net present value (DNPV) when
economically under-performing cropland is converted from corn/
soybean to switchgrass. Values (in U.S.$ ha^1) are
calculated by dividing the sum of annualized DNPV by the total
corn/soybean cropland area per township. Gray areas represent
townships without any cropland economically viable in
switchgrass. The results assume USDA projected (medium) grain
prices, medium switchgrass price, medium switchgrass yield, and
that all land is owned by the farm operator.
Figure 6 from Brandes, E., A., Plastina, and E. Heaton. 2018.
Where can switchgrass production be more profitable than corn
and soybean? An integrated, sub-field assessment in Iowa, USA.
Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 10, 473-488, doi: 10.1111/
gcbb.12516.
Planting perennials (Capmourteres, et al., 2018) and removing zones
from production can also provide multiple conservation benefits for a
relatively low cost. In Iowa, compared to similar watersheds that were
100% row-cropped, planting only 10% of a corn-soybean field to prairie
strips reduced sediment loss by 95%, phosphorus and nitrogen losses by
90% and 85%, while also providing habitat for biodiversity, such as
grassland birds and pollinators (Liebman and Schulte, 2015).
Decision support systems (DSS) such as CropSyst (Stockle, et al.,
2014) that integrate agroecosystem and hydrological models or climate
projections have also been employed to evaluate various management
scenarios such as nutrient management or projected climate change
impacts and mitigation approaches. Land-grants researchers working with
USDA ARS, other national laboratories, and ``big-data'' have developed
multiple DST and DSS to provide growers with information to
strategically reduce soil phosphorus and comply with nutrient
regulations (Drohan, et al., 2019); and to reduce production costs,
pesticide applications, and crop damage from insect pests and disease
infestation through free online real-time pest monitoring websites.
Some examples of these free online precision technologies and
additional precision DST and DSS that were developed or are under
development at Penn State are described below.
In conclusion, the strength of land-grants and Penn State is in our
ability to bring together diverse faculty and extension educators to
work with farmers, USDA partners, national laboratories, and the
private-sector. With evidence of multiple opportunities for precision
agriculture and conservation technologies to provide environmental and
economic benefits, we are advancing the development, application, and
educational activities to support farmers and land managers in the
conservation of our agricultural and natural resources.
A brief description of some additional precision agriculture
technologies that were developed or are under development at Penn State
are described below.
PestWatch is a long-term monitoring program developed at
Penn State that has expanded from 200+ stations in the East
Coast, to 700+ stations nationwide (mostly MS river and east).
PestWatch provides guidance for individual producers on the
extent and location of various corn pests in the agricultural
regions of the eastern United States. The unique use of climate
and weather data within PestWatch has led to additional tools
for battling brown-marmorated stinkbugs, slugs, and the newly
critical insect pest, Spotted Lantern Fly. The core tool is
located at: http://www.pestwatch.psu.edu/.
Wheat Fusarium Headblight is the leading plant pathogen of
wheat in the United States and abroad. Penn State, along with
collaborators at Kansas State and across the Wheat Belt, has
developed the Wheat Fusarium Head Blight Prediction Center to
provide farmers with actionable information on this crop
pathogen. The Prediction Center, and it's associated map tool,
has been in continuous use and supported by the USDA Wheat and
Barley Scab initiative for more than 19 years. This tool
provides daily guidance for farmers across the entire U.S.
Wheat growing region. The tool is located at: http://
www.wheatscab.psu.edu/.
Reducing the risk of crop damage by using drones, to monitor
air temperatures on nights when there is frost and sending
commands to ground robots with heaters mounted on them so
growers can target only those areas most at risk are protected,
while minimizing energy use.
Precision, automated irrigation systems (drip irrigation)
for tree fruit and vegetable crops that operate on soil
moisture sensors and IoT (internet of things) system. The use
of precision and automated irrigation systems can maximum the
water use efficiency (apply water at right time and right
amount), reduce the impact to the environment caused by the
nutrient leaking, and save energy and costs.
Predictive Models
Every winter, 30-40% of managed honey bee colonies in the
U.S. die. This is an enormous economic cost to beekeepers, and
threatens our food security since 75% of our major food crops
benefit from the pollination services of honey bees and other
insects. Using data provided by Pennsylvania beekeepers, a team
at Penn State and the USDA-ARS has developed models which can
predict winter survival rates with 70% accuracy. These complex
models integrate data on climate, landscape quality, and
beekeeper management practices. We have developed an online
portal, called Beescape, which allows individuals to evaluate
the quality of their landscapes for supporting bee health. We
are current integrating our predictive models into Beescape so
that beekeepers can understand the risk to their honey bees in
their locations, and take steps to improve bee survival.
Beescape can easily be adapted to provide information on other
measures of honey bee and wild bee health, including honey
production and biodiversity. This program is funded by USDA
NIFA and the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research.
In soybeans, we have been working from an extensive dataset
(ten states, 3 years, just under 5,400 responses) to determine
under what conditions foliar fungicides would be warranted. We
have built a global models for (1) management factors, and (2)
management in combination with environmental and physiological
parameters, all with the goal to understand under which
environmental domains might a foliar fungicide show a positive
weight (i.e., influence positively the observed yield).
Remote Sensing and Decision Support Technologies
We are actively engaged in applied research to use a
combination of sUAS-based (drone-based) sensors, including
multispectral cameras and LiDAR sensors in both airborne and
terrestrial modes, to develop, test, and apply new techniques
to measure forest ecosystem attributes at scales ranging from
individual trees to forest stands. We combine emerging low-cost
reality capture sensors with a seamless user interface, through
custom software applications, to foster automation in the
forest industry. We aim to transform the current rudimentary
and labor-intensive mensuration methodology employed by
foresters through the what we've named the ``RealForests''
system. RealForests fuses low-cost remote sensing hardware and
intuitive software design to allow for rapid data collection of
key forest attributes for forest appraisal and to support
management decisions. Easy data collection integrated into
existing field procedures is critical to market entry. Existing
algorithms have allowed our team to locate individual tree
objects and estimate critical measurements. RealForests will
allow the user to add information, such as species
identification, that can be linked to objects in the 3D model
of the forest created by the system.
References
Brandes, E., A., Plastina, and E. Heaton.2018. Where can switchgrass
production be more profitable than corn and soybean? An integrated, sub-
field assessment in Iowa, USA. Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 10, 473-
488, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12516.
Capmourteres, V., J. Adams, A. Berg, E. Fraser, C. Swanton, and M.
Anand. 2018. Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: A case
study from southern Ontario. Agricultural Systems. 167: 176-185. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.011.
Delgado, J.A. and W.C. Bausch. 2005. Potential use of precision
conservation techniques to reduce nitrate leaching in irrigated crops.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 60(6): 379-387.
Drohan, P., M. Bechmann, A. Buda, F. Djodjic, D. Doody, J.M. Duncan,
A. Iho, P. Jordan, P.J. Kleinman, R. McDowell, P. Mellander, I.A.
Thomas, and P.J.A. Withers, et al. 2019. A global perspective on
phosphorus management decision support in agriculture: Lessons learned
and future directions. Journal of Environmental Quality. 48: 1218-1233.
doi:10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107.
Ishler, V., R. Goodling, T. Beck. 2019. The Impact of Corn Silage
Harvesting and Feeding Decisions on Income Over Feed Costs. Part of a
Final Research and Extension Education report that was funded by NESARE
USDA NIFA. April 11, 2019.
Liebman, M. and Schulte, L.A., 2015. Enhancing agroecosystem
performance and resilience through increased diversification of
landscapes and cropping systems. Elem. Sci. Anth., 3, p. 000041. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000041.
Lowenberg-DeBoer J. and B. Erickson. 2019. Setting the Record
Straight on Precision Agriculture Adoption. Agronomy Journal 2019 111:
1535-1551, doi:10.2134/agronj2018.08.0535.
Muth, D. 2014. Profitability versus environmental performance: Are
they competing? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 69(6). 203A-
206A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.69.203A.
Stockle, C.O., A.R. Kemanian, R.L. Nelson, J.C. Adam, R. Sommer, and
B. Carlson. 2014. CropSyst model evolution: From field to regional to
global scales and from research to decision support systems.
Environmental Modelling & Software. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsoft.2014.09.006.
Wolfe, M.L. and T.L. Richard. 2017. 21st Century Engineering for On-
Farm Food-Energy-Water Systems. Current Opinion in Chemical
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2017.10.005.
The Chair. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron, you may proceed when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DON J. CAMERON, VICE PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER, TERRANOVA RANCH, INC.; OWNER, PRADO FARMS,
HELM, CA; ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member
LaMalfa, and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
testify today on behalf of the California Farm Bureau
Federation. I am Don Cameron, Vice President and General
Manager for Terranova Ranch in Helm, California, which is in
the central San Joaquin Valley. I also serve as President for
the California State Board of Food and Agriculture.
The California Farm Bureau represents nearly 36,000 members
across 53 counties, contributing to the largest ag economy of
any state in the nation. Our farmers and ranchers provide food,
fiber, and feed for our local communities, the nation, and
across the globe.
At Terranova, as you heard, we produce about 25 different
crops on 7,000 acres. Some of them include processing tomatoes,
peppers, onions, carrots, almonds, pistachios, walnuts, and a
longer list that I won't get into. But our diversified farming
practices encourage our biological systems to be productive,
beneficial, and diverse. Our on-farm practices include building
infrastructure to implement on-farm groundwater recharge,
installation of pressurized irrigation systems, installation of
solar generation systems, and irrigation technologies for
energy efficiency, using practices that help maintain a diverse
wildlife habitat, and upgrading our farm equipment with cleaner
engines for better air quality.
I wish to raise several considerations for the Subcommittee
to be aware of as you consider Federal policy relative to
conservation, precision agriculture, and water certainty.
First, it is essential that farms have flexibility to try
new ways of farming that might improve practices. The
practices, while we have great success in some areas, we have
also had failures in others. The adoption of processes can be
extremely costly and time consuming. Practices that work well
for our operation do not necessarily work well for the
neighboring operation or for another farming region.
Second, farmers and ranchers are at the ready to adopt new
technologies and practices, but it is critical that they are
readily available, scientifically trialed, and affordable to
the operation and the crops being grown. Pressurized irrigation
systems are generally more costly to install and operate than
furrow irrigation techniques, and may not be economically
feasible for every crop or operation. Additionally, these
systems may rely on a new skillset and additional investments
in training that need to be made.
Third, we must also be cognizant of the unintended
consequences that can exist with resource decision-making.
Industrial pumps, motors, on-demand pressurized drips, lines,
tailwater recovery, recirculation of water for the reuse can
result in increased energy demand, and a time shift on when
energy demand occurs. While precision agriculture can assist
producers while reducing their consumptive water use, the
unintended consequences can be less water returning to the
groundwater below the crop.
In light of these considerations offered above, we also
offer the following recommendations to the Subcommittee for
consideration.
First, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program is by
far the most utilized program in California, assisting
producers achieving greater conservation goals. We particularly
thank you for including funding for the air quality incentives,
which have been incredibly important to farmers in California
who face strict air quality standards. The RCPP has also
allowed infrastructure conveyance to be extended in many areas
with groundwater return projects, like ourselves. It is
essential that NRCS technical assistance funding is
commensurate to voluntary financial assistant levels, assisting
producers with their adoption.
Second, it is important to realize that there is no one
size that fits all for precision ag practices. Each field crop
and operation will have different conservation and economic
needs to factor in, and we must be cautious in making value
judgments and using our motivation and resources to identify
the proper mix of new or alternative practices or technologies
that work in each unique circumstance.
Third, a complete solution that requires both improved
management of both demand and supply side of the equation. We
must be doing a better job investing in water infrastructure
and capturing water resources when they are available. Water
infrastructure and investment should also be made more
attractive and affordable for non-Federal interests.
Access to broadband will help ensure availability of on-
demand regional, statewide, and national weather resources, and
is foundational for irrigations scheduling and other on farm
decision making. We recommend that Congress work with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Federal Communications
Commission to fund programs to solve these critical rural
broadband problems.
The Farm Bureau appreciates the time and attention that the
Subcommittee has given to this important topic today, and I am
happy to answer any questions. Thank you for letting me go over
a minute.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Don J. Cameron, Vice President and General
Manager, Terranova Ranch, Inc.; Owner, Prado Farms, Helm, CA; on
Behalf of California Farm Bureau Federation
Introduction
Chair Spanberger, Ranking Member LaMalfa, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
on the important topic of realizing the conservation benefits of
precision agriculture. I am Don Cameron, Vice President and General
Manager of Terranova Ranch located in Helm, California. I am also the
Owner of Prado Farms located in Fresno County, California.
In addition to farming, I currently serve as the President of the
California State Board of Food and Agriculture and as an appointed
member to the California Department of Food and Agriculture's
Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel. I also serve on the
Board of Directors for the McMullin Area Groundwater Sustainability
Agency and the Raisin City Water District.
I am testifying before this Subcommittee on behalf of California
Farm Bureau Federation. Farm Bureau is a nonprofit, voluntary
membership organization whose purpose is to protect and promote
agricultural interests throughout the state of California. Farm Bureau
is California's largest farm organization, representing nearly 36,000
members across 53 counties, contributing to the largest agricultural
economy of any state in the nation. Farm Bureau strives to protect and
improve the ability of farmers and ranchers engaged in production
agriculture to provide a reliable supply of food and fiber through
responsible stewardship of California's resources.
About Our Operation
The Terranova Ranch was established in Helm, California in the
early 1980s. At that time, the prominent crops grown were upland
cotton, alfalfa hay, wheat, and barley. The first vineyards were
planted in 1981 and in the late 1980s and 1990s the variety of crops
grown increased to include corn silage, sugar beets and pima cotton. In
1991, we began growing processing tomatoes with a little over 5,000
tons produced. At that time, our tomatoes were grown by planting seed
and practicing furrow irrigation where trenches, or furrows, are dug
between crop rows in a field. Today, we use transplants and subsurface
drip irrigation for the 140,000 tons of tomatoes we grow each year.
I will also add that in 1993, we began farming organically with 15
acres. Presently we have over 600 acres in organic production. In 2000,
we began further increasing our variety of crops grown to our present
number of over 25 different crops on 6,000 acres.
In 2018, Terranova Ranch, Inc. was recognized with the State of
California's highest environmental honor, the Governor's Environmental
and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA), for its efforts in pioneering
and expanding the practice of on-farm groundwater recharge--
intentionally flooding fields with captured floodwater to replenish
depleted aquifers. Established in 1993, GEELA is awarded to
individuals, organizations and businesses that have demonstrated
exceptional leadership and made notable, voluntary contributions to
conserving California's natural resources, protecting and enhancing our
environment, building public-private partnerships, and strengthening
the state's economy.
In 2016, Terranova conducted a study where we calculated the
calories produced by our operation. Our study concluded that Terranova
Ranch is able to feed 200,000 people a 2,000-calorie diet for a year
just with what our operation produces. I am very proud of the safe food
supply and nutrition our farm produces.
Practices Implemented on Our Operation
At Terranova Ranch, we have concentrated our attention on methods
that keep our soil, water, and air quality as sustainable and healthy
as possible. More specifically, we have focused on methods and
techniques on water recharge, irrigation efficiency, energy
conservation, energy production, and farm equipment with cleaner
emissions. Our end-goal is to maintain our operation's long-term
viability with adequate water, clean air and healthy soil.
As a diversified farming operation, our techniques make certain
that our soil never gets fatigued. This means that we plant a variety
of different crops on our ranch that are designed to work together. We
grow crops year round by replanting fields with crops that thrive in
the coming seasons. This also helps stop soil erosion while keeping the
ground fertile. Another advantage of diversified farming is that no
single crop makes up more than \1/3\ of our income. This helps insulate
our operation from poor production years, crop price reductions and
disasters.
The multitude of sustainable development principles, practices and
technologies we implement on the ranch preserves our soil and allows it
to be fertile, maintaining both plants and wildlife. These practices
also encourage our biological systems to be productive, beneficial and
diverse. Our practices include the following:
Water Recharge
For over 25 years we have been working toward recharging the
underground aquifer below the ranch, our main source of
irrigation water. In 2011, floodwater was applied to farm
fields and documented by researchers at Bachand & Associates
and UC Davis. In 2012, the Kings River Conservation District
(KRCD) was granted $5 million from the California Department of
Water Resources along with $2 million in matching funds from
Terranova Ranch to build infrastructure in order to capture and
distribute floodwater to Terranova and nearby farmland for on-
farm recharge. Sustainable Conservation and UC Davis have been
partners in this project. Work is progressing to implement this
project which, at full capacity, will be able to recharge up to
1,000 acre-feet of floodwater per day on 18,000 acres of
farmland. This project will be a perfect fit with the
sustainable groundwater management plan for our area and we
believe it showcases our commitment to long-term sustainability
goals for farming in the San Joaquin Valley.
Drip Irrigation
In 2009, Terranova Ranch began irrigating with subsurface
irrigation on most of its annual crops. By making this change,
Terranova was able to reduce water usage by 30% while
increasing yields by 25%.
Energy
Terranova Ranch started with a 1 megawatt solar facility on 10
acres of land. By 2016, the ranch brought an additional 1
megawatt facility online. With the completion of a these solar
projects, renewable energy provides \1/3\ of our electric needs
while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 3,700 tons
CO2 per year.
We have also upgraded our sprinkler irrigation systems from
impact sprinkler heads to new water and energy saving plastic
sprinkler heads. The new sprinklers use less water by having
better uniformity and are more efficient. We are able to
conserve water and lower our energy usage, conserving resources
and the environment.
We have also achieved greater sustainability through our pump
motors. The use of Variable Frequency Drives (VFD's) reduces
the amount of energy needed for the pumping of water. All pumps
equipped with VFD's require only the amount of energy needed
for the water volume desired. This is a much-needed improvement
from the old practice of running a pump at full power even when
unnecessary. In addition to these changes, we have also
converted from diesel to electric booster pumps at all wells
with VFD's.
Ecosystem Services
The California Department of Food and Agriculture's (CDFA)
Science Advisory Panel defines ecosystem services in
agriculture as ``the multiple benefits we gain from farming and
ranching including crop and livestock production. In addition
to valuable open space and wildlife habitat, the management
decisions and conservation practices of farmers and ranchers
also enhance environmental quality, provide recreational
opportunities, and offer social benefits.''
We support goals and methods of farming aimed at maintaining a
diverse habitat on the farm. Wildlife helps our farm by
providing necessary pest control and contributes to the
diversity of our environment. We have partnered with the
National Audubon Society to promote habitat for wildlife by
placing owl boxes throughout our fields. We also maintain 4
acres of wildlife refuge that is a home to egret and cormorant
rookeries, pond turtles, frogs, ducks, great blue herons,
hawks, short eared owls and other wildlife.
We have also planted about 1 acre of milkweed on the farm to
support monarch butterflies that migrate through our area. In
addition, we are beginning a project to establish hedgerows of
native pollinator habitat on approximately 2 miles of levee on
the farm.
Air Quality
We continue to strive to make many improvements to help keep our
air clean and reduce pollution. These improvements include the
conversion from natural gas motors to cleaner electric motors.
We are also enrolled in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District Incentives Program which has helped us replace
older Tier 1 and Tier 2 diesel engines on our tractors with
cleaner, more efficient Tier 4 engines. Today, almost all of
our equipment on the farm has been converted over to cleaner
Tier 4 diesel engines. We have also switched 13 All-Terrain
Vehicles from gasoline power to electric.
Considerations for the Subcommittee
I was asked by the Subcommittee to focus my comments on precision
agriculture as it relates to agricultural irrigation and water
certainty. I wish to raise several items I feel are important for the
Subcommittee to be aware of as you consider Federal policy relative to
conservation and precision agriculture.
Precision agriculture provides optimal benefits when
executed at scales that recognize the limitations and
capabilities of tools to effectively manage a full array of
connected variables including, but not limited to, topography,
biological demands, agronomics, and natural environment
conditions. Therefore, it is essential that farms have the
opportunity and flexibility to try new ways of farming that
might improve conservation.
For example, on our farm, we have had success simply trying out
new approaches in order to conserve water, improve air quality,
and reduce energy consumption. We research a new opportunity,
trial a new practice for a determined amount of time, test
things on small plots in a controlled manner in order to
measure the results. If proven successful, we are able to ramp
up production on a larger test plot and ultimately adopt the
practice across the farm. While we have had great success in
some areas, we have not had success in all areas. The adoption
process can also be extremely costly and time consuming.
Additionally, practices that work for our operation do not
necessarily work for a neighboring operation or another farming
region.
California's farmers and ranchers are at the ready to adopt
new technology and precision agricultural practices, but it is
critical that these technologies and practices are readily
available, scientifically trialed and affordable for the
operation and crops being grown. In the area of irrigation, the
most common irrigation methods used in California are gravity
(furrow or flood) irrigation, sprinkler irrigation and drip
irrigation. Farmers choose their method of irrigation based on
a series of factors including, but not limited to, soil type,
topography, and the crop.
California agriculture has experienced a great level of adoption
of pressurized irrigation systems such as surface drip
irrigation or sprinklers. These pressurized irrigation systems
generally apply water at a slow and accurate rate providing the
farmer an immense amount of control. However, these systems are
much more costly to install and operate than furrow irrigation
techniques and may not be economically feasible for every crop
or operation. Additionally, such technologies and systems may
rely on a skill sets not readily available and additional
investments in training or certifications must be made.
Regardless of irrigation method, all irrigation systems have the
potential to be operated inefficiently. For that reason, a
producer focusing on an irrigation management plan that is
efficiently operated, rather than irrigation method, is most
important.
Scientific irrigation scheduling is an important component
in California's modern farming operations. To prevent this,
farmers use a variety of tools to help them determine when to
irrigate including, but not limited to, the weather, soil
moisture, and the plant's stress level. In California, farmers
have the ability to utilize the California Irrigation
Management Information System (CIMIS), a network of more than
145 automated stations across the state that gather weather
data. Managed by the California Department of Water Resources,
this system assists farmers with gauging the amount of water
their crops need.
It is essential that there is an understanding of the
difference between ``water conservation'' and ``water use
efficiency''. These terms are often used interchangeably but to
agricultural water users they are very different things.
Water conservation is generally perceived as an
activity that reduces the amount of water used to do
something, such as wash a load of clothes or take a shower.
High efficiency washing machines and low-flow showerheads
conserve water that can then be used by another user or at
a later time.
Water use efficiency is when a water user does things
to achieve more using the same (or less) water. For
example, a farmer who changes their irrigation system so
that water is more efficiently used by the crop, producing
more saleable, higher quality crop on roughly the same
amount of water. The efficiency is what is gained in crop
production.
While there are many advantages to implementing precision
agriculture via efficient irrigation practices, we must also be
cognizant of trade-offs and unintended consequences that can
exist with resource decision-making. Water and energy are
tightly linked. Installation and use of industrial pumps and
motors, on-demand pressurized drip lines, tailwater recovery
and recirculation of water for reuse can result in increased
energy demand. Additionally, some producers could experience a
time-shift on when energy demands occur. For example, soil
moisture and plant stress monitoring can shift energy use to
daylight/peak-time demand away from off-peak.
It is common knowledge that California continues to experience
water uncertainty. Therefore, California's farmers and ranchers
must be careful stewards of the water utilized to produce food
and fiber. Though precision agricultural practices have
assisted agricultural producers with reducing their consumptive
water use, the unintended consequence has been less water
returning to the system. In some areas, this has resulted in
dramatic impacts to underlying groundwater supplies, which do
not receive adequate recharge resulting in overdraft and
subsidence.
This is highly relevant in the context of California's
Sustainability Groundwater Management Act, which is expected in
coming years to dramatically reduce the amount of groundwater
that can be relied upon for irrigation in time of drought or
reduced surface water deliveries. This will place a premium on
efficient use and management of available water through means
including new and existing technologies. At the same time, it
will require expanded recharge and capture of excess flows in
times of abundance. A complete solution, therefore, requires
both improved management of both demand and supply sides of the
equation.
Recommendations for the Subcommittee
In light of the considerations offered above, I offer the following
recommendations to the Subcommittee for consideration:
Continued Investment in Voluntary Cost-Share Programs for
Producers
We are very appreciative of the many improvements that were made
by this Committee in the conservation title of the last farm
bill. Of the conservation title programs, the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is by far the most utilized
program in California assisting producers in achieving greater
conservation goals. We particularly thank you for including
funding for air quality incentives, which has been incredibly
important to farmers in California who face strict air
standards. EQIP has assisted farmers in making great strides in
the areas of air quality and water conservation and we believe
there is more to come.
Continued Investment in Technical Assistance
Financial resources for Natural Resources Conservation Service
technical assistance staff at levels commensurate to the
voluntary financial assistance are essential for assisting
producer adoption.
Flexibility
It is important to recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all
approach for precision agriculture practices. In California
alone, there are over 400 commodities grown. Each field, crop
and operation will have different conservation and economic
needs to factor in and we need to realize that, in some
circumstances, the practices that have been promoted and
validated in one field might not make sense for the next. We
must be cautious in making value judgments and use our
motivation and resources to identify the proper mix of new or
alternative practices or technologies that work in each unique
circumstance.
Limited Control
Farmers have only so much control. California's farmers and
ranchers continue to farm amidst great uncertainty when it
comes to reliable water supplies. Despite recent improved water
conditions, periodic drought is a fact of life in California.
The severe 2012-2015 drought followed by the wet years since
has illustrated what both extended drought and extreme rainfall
cycles look like with inadequate water infrastructure. If
longer and drier droughts coupled with powerful floods are the
future of California's possible larger climate trend, it means
we must do a better job of investing in water infrastructure
and capturing water resources when they are available. This in
itself is a way of maximizing efficient use of limited water
resources across different year types.
Federal Investment/Innovative Finance Tools
Water infrastructure investments should be made more attractive
and affordable for non-Federal interests. For that reason, Farm
Bureau has been supportive of expanding Federal financing
mechanisms. We believe the combination of Federal funding and
common sense financial tools, such as the creation of the
Reclamation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (RIFIA)
loan program, would greatly aid western water managers with the
construction, rehabilitation and improvement of surface and
groundwater storage projects, conveyance, as well as water
recycling and desalination projects. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service Regional Conservation Partnership Program
(RCPP) is also an excellent program.
Broadband
A critical component to implementation of precision agricultural
technologies is access to broadband. Despite our apparent
proximity to Silicon Valley, there are many areas, myself
included, of rural California that do not have sufficient
access. Many rural areas either lack the initial infrastructure
or have fallen behind in terms of speed and availability. It is
critical that investments are made and unfortunately, in our
experience, many providers are skewing their data, which
creates inaccurate maps of dead zones.
Technology can provide many benefits and increase efficiency in
agriculture--but only if its available to agricultural regions
and our rural communities. We recommend that Congress work with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Federal
Communications Commission to fund programs to solve these
critical rural broadband problems. Access to broadband will
help ensure availability of on-demand regional, statewide, and
national weather resources that are foundational for irrigation
scheduling & other on-farm decision-making.
Conclusion
California's farmers and ranchers are water stewards, using water
to grow the crops that feed and clothe us. California's 77,500 farms
and ranches produce 50 percent of the nation's fruits, nuts and
vegetables; twenty percent of the milk; and more than 400 different
agricultural commodities. California's farmers have long been early
adopters of new and innovative technologies that can help produce food
and fiber more efficiently and that tradition continues today.
Farm Bureau appreciates the time and attention that this
Subcommittee has given to this important topic today and I am happy to
answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The Chair. Thank you very much to the witnesses for their
initial testimony. Members will be recognized for questioning
in order of seniority for Members who were here at the start of
the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of
arrival.
I will first recognize myself for 5 minutes, and I would
like to begin by thanking Mr. Madison for making reference to
the conservation efforts that have been vital across the
Commonwealth of Virginia in restoring the Chesapeake Bay, and
the important role that farmers and producers have played in
that ongoing work that we are doing, just next door, in
Virginia.
Mr. Cameron, you mentioned broadband internet, and that
farmers can reap the benefit of a full range of options
afforded by precision agriculture, and that without
connectivity through rural broadband, there are hindrances.
Even in areas with broadband access, the internet connection
speed is not always fast enough or predictable enough to
support precision agriculture technology. Can you speak to the
importance of high-speed internet in maximizing conservation
efforts, and as we here in Congress considering policy
approaches that help expand broadband access and enable the
uptake of precision ag tools, is there anything in particular
that you think we should keep in mind?
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Broadband is a near and dear problem that I take very
seriously. On our farm, we are probably 100 miles away from the
Silicon Valley. We are lucky to get 4 megabits up and down on
our farm, which on most days, is somewhere around 2. It is like
a dial-up service it is so bad. We have poor telephone
connection with cellular within our operation. But with
broadband, we can interconnect our whole farm. We can monitor
wells. We can monitor flow rates. We can turn on and off wells,
irrigation systems, from our phone. But without the access, not
only do we suffer as a business and are at a disadvantage, but
also our rural communities that have children that are moving
on to college can't even fill out a college application online,
because of the poor broadband service.
I just feel that this is extremely important for precision
agriculture. We need to be connected and somehow, the rural
economy has been left out of the picture. When I hear of 1
gigabyte in some cities in California, I just can't believe
that we can't do better.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
Mr. Madison, in your work as a farmer, consultant, and a
member of multiple advisory committees, which Federal programs
that aim to facilitate the adoption of precision agriculture
tools do you see as particularly relevant in central Virginia,
and how could these programs be improved, in your opinion? And
I also welcome you to comment on the question I posed to Mr.
Cameron related to broadband, and how lack of accessibility,
lack of access in Louisa County impacts your day to day work?
Mr. Madison. Thanks.
I am going to start with the broadband. I am looking at it
a little bit differently and say that a lot of what we use
internet access for in precision ag on our farm is the work
that happens after the season and before the season. That is
where all the planning comes into play that makes the precision
ag piece work in the field. That is a lot of internet usage. I
can't take my laptop and sit in McDonald's all day to find WiFi
to do this kind of stuff. Our business depends on it, so it is
very important that we have a way to use the tools that we
invest money in, that we take the time to learn, and get the
most out of what we are doing.
To the conservation programs, precision programs, EQIP has
always been really good to us. It fills a lot of needs. It
covers a lot of ground if you have the whole EQIP playbook to
work with. Sometimes, at least in my experience in Virginia, we
don't always have that whole playbook to work with. I guess on
the downside of that is when it comes to some of the CAT plans
for nutrient management, the technical service provider stuff,
that is promoted from NRCS. Well, at the Federal level, it
doesn't really get promoted at the state level. I have been a
TSP for either 4 or 5 years. NRCS personnel has directed me to
write three plans. That is not a lot. There is a lot of opening
for it. The plans that I have written, everybody was really
into it. They were glad they were getting something, because if
they didn't have that, they would have gone back to old style
practices, throw a bunch of fertilizer out there, see what
happens.
We have really good programs. We just need a little bit
more follow through on them at the state level.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Ranking Member LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again.
Mr. Cameron, let's just get to the nuts and bolts of this.
How is conservation associated with or helped with, as we see
farm income struggling, and the condition of agriculture in
this country is pretty rough. How has conservation helped with
your bottom line, going forward?
Mr. Cameron. I know that when we adopted subsurface drip
irrigation on our farm with precise application of nutrients,
insecticides, and water, that we actually found our water use
decrease by 30 percent, and that our yield increased by 25
percent on processing tomatoes. We did a 1 year trial in 2009,
and then in 2010 we converted every acre we had of tomatoes and
started with some of the other crops to subsurface drip
irrigation. Yes, we had an immediate benefit from that. We were
ahead of the curve, so we were able to capture better income
for quite a few years before the rest of the industry caught up
with what we had done. That allowed us to purchase new
equipment with cleaner engines. It was almost like a snowball
effect. Once we got started down that track, it gave us
additional income that we could spend to improve other
operations of the farm.
We found that some of these precision techniques have been
really beneficial to us over the years.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Madison, do you care to add to that?
Mr. Madison. I would say the same thing in a lot of
regards, especially in there were some initial advantages to
going down some conservation routes. But over time, they get
amplified. No-till gets better as you stick with it. Cover
crops in a field get better as you stick with it. More targeted
fertilizer application typically saves you money more each year
you do it. There is a lot of opportunity for that to build on
itself. I would say it is a really big deal in what we do.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
I note that on the fertilizer application, if you can
tailor it to what the need is, you get uniformity of yield or
you get closer to that, which helps with ripening and timing on
harvest.
For both of you here, do you feel that the current
voluntary conservation programs are adaptable at this point to
your conservation needs these days? Are they as adaptable as
you need, or do we need to do more work?
Mr. Cameron. The programs that--a lot of the conservation
programs, those Conservation Reserve Programs really haven't
been that effective in California and the typical agriculture
production areas, because we tend to farm every square inch
that we have. We just feel that that is the way we need to be
to be profitable. We have taken a slightly different approach
to that lately, and are dedicating part of our farm to
different pollinator habitats. We have a monarch project where
we put in milkweed with Environmental Defense Fund. We have
made partnerships with sustainable conservation, UC Davis, some
of the universities to do some additional precision work on the
farm.
But, like I said, we think EQIP is great. We think the RCPP
Program is excellent for a larger area, bringing farmers
together for one goal. We think it is a very effective way to
bring new infrastructure on farm and onto the region.
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Madison, do you agree or how does that
look for you?
Mr. Madison. Yes, definitely. Voluntary conservation
efforts, even if they may be incentivized from EQIP or RCPP or
any other thing that we can find, they are all beneficial. You
don't have to twist people's arm too much to get them to go
down that route of some conservation practices. Once they see a
year or 2 down the road that they did realize an advantage.
Mr. LaMalfa. I agree. Okay.
I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Madam Chair, thank you for scheduling this
hearing on the important conservation benefits of using
precision agriculture.
The University of Arizona operates the Maricopa Agriculture
Center in my district in partnership with the USDA. The MAC is
dedicated to developing and delivering the best integrated
agriculture technologies for problems faced by Arizona
consumers and producers.
One example of their work includes using drones equipped
with special imaging sensors to monitor crop development. This
technology provides researchers with more precision information
on the crops condition.
I have scratched out a lot of my statement here because
what I have heard is--I am concerned with what I have heard
today. It is like rural Arizona has been--America has been
forgotten in the technology and knowledge-based economy. My
district is the size of Illinois. I go around my district and
50 percent of the time not only can't I connect to the
internet; I don't have cell coverage at all. And that is a
problem in the West especially. You go down in a valley
somewhere, even if you are close to town, you are missing it. I
heard Mr. Madison easily describe getting to a McDonald's, and
many of the towns in my area, McDonald's is the after-school
program to get on to the internet.
I don't understand a country that was able to get telephone
to every bit of this country is in this situation today, and if
we expect the people of rural America to do what we need them
to do and keep them there and allow them to have a quality of
life, then we have to do something much better than we are.
Now, urban America, with all this high speed and
everything, they get their water from rural America, their food
from rural America, their energy from rural America. The whole
concept of transportation, that is where their--in many cases,
their vacation home is at. That is where they go on tourism.
And we have to have people out there. They don't need to be
moving into cities. And yet, we have our young people, after
they get out of college hopefully, if they are able to get
there because of lack of educational opportunity, we have them
going to cities in order to find jobs and leaving farming and
the agriculture industry.
Our country can't afford to go down this path any further,
and I am glad we had this hearing today, but it has to--we have
to start to acknowledge as a body that we just aren't going in
the direction we need to be going.
I struggle. I go to the research center twice a year, and
find that all this stuff that they are doing is for naught.
People just aren't able to use it if you are further away from
a city or town. And there is--I see no real program here in
Congress that has adapted to the realization of this. They are
under-funded programs, whether they are the USDA or out of any
other Committee here. They are not coordinated. We have to have
numerous people out there being told when we know people want
it and need it that it is just too costly to get out there. And
with 5G coming along, people are going to be--demand even
higher speeds. Tremendous amounts of money are going to be put
into this. And so, if there is a gap between rural America and
urban America, that gap is only going to increase. And that is
something that I just don't want for the children of rural
America. I don't want it for the--our rural communities, our
agriculture communities.
And so, I am not going to ask any questions. I am going to
yield back and thank the panelists for being here today.
The Chair. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
expressing a frustration that I think is shared from any of us
who represent rural communities throughout the country.
I now recognize Ranking Member Conaway, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. Conaway. I thank the Chair.
Dr. Karsten, the land-grant schools are the best way that
we communicate research and other things to actual producers.
Can you talk to us about the kinds of resources the land-grant
schools provide for our producers in translating all this
technology and precision agriculture into actual operations on
their farms and ranches? What role are you all playing in that
regard?
Dr. Karsten. Yes. I think that the first opportunity or
what we do is to train students, to teach students, and we have
graduates who, as soon as they are finished with their degrees,
they are hired to work in this area of conservation and
precision agriculture. And so, that is an important role that
land-grants provide in preparing people for the workforce. And
there are lots of opportunities to do more of that. There are
some online education types of programs that broadband would be
needed for, but that can reach a broader audience.
In terms of research, we are producing free online decision
support tools and access to data that is gathered through, for
instance, remote sensing or satellite imagery. If a farmer
can't afford the sensors to create a yield map to put on their
combine, there are tools in the satellite vegetation index that
we can use to create these yield maps to help them do more
precision management and identify opportunities to increase
their profitability and optimize conservation.
Mr. Conaway. I guess that was the question. You have those
tools; you have those resources. How do you get that
communicated to the producers out there? Through extension? How
does that producer know, or do any producers know that that is
available for their region?
Dr. Karsten. Right. The partnership with extension and
researchers and with extension and other educators like the
NRCS and consultants, crop consultants, nutrition consultants,
is key. And there are more opportunities and quite honestly, I
think the need for more funding to extend those activities and
expand those activities to reach more growers and more
practitioners or consultants with these tools. Some of these
tools were still identifying how to optimize the interface, the
user-friendly access, and that kind of dialogue between the
users, the educators, researchers, is key. There are
opportunities for on farm research for extension to help
farmers evaluate these technologies, and then to facilitate
peer-to-peer learning. We know that farmers are more
comfortable adopting something if it has been successful for
their community and their neighbors, and often support just to
help bring farmers to different educational events can be very
impactful.
And just helping them--I mean, I have had--I have talked to
colleagues who say someone invested a lot of money in this
technology and then they couldn't use it because they couldn't
figure out how to download the right software and sync it to
their database computer and their monitors, their combines,
their planters. And that kind of technical assistance--which we
need to teach our students to do, but also help our educators,
our extension providers provide that is critical.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron, you used a phrase that I was not familiar
with, ``pressurized irrigation systems.'' Would you explain to
me what that is? And you also said, ``pressurized drip.'' Is
that the same thing?
Mr. Cameron. Typically it is the same thing, because when
you do drip irrigation, you do need to pressurize your system.
It could be low pressure. It may only be 10 or 12 pounds per
square inch, and we also use precision highly efficient
sprinklers for some of the crops that we grow, carrots and
onions, that require sprinkler application.
Yes, when we pressurize, it takes energy to run those
booster pumps to drive the system.
Mr. Conaway. The sprinklers, you need pressure more than
just the normal load from your source?
Mr. Cameron. Right, right, because we pump almost all of
our water from the groundwater.
Mr. Conaway. Okay.
Mr. Cameron. We bring it up and then we have to add another
pump to take it up for sprinklers up to 60 pounds per square
inch.
Mr. Conaway. I got you. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron. Sure.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I will be
remiss if not referring our folks to the 2018 Farm Bill that
did have extensive broadband activities in there. It requires
coordination between FCC and USDA on the ways that they are
trying to get at this, but I concur with my colleagues that
without it, we are going to keep rural America behind the curve
on that. But we have taken a look at it.
I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Maine, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you
for holding this hearing, and to all the witnesses for being
here today.
Just so Maine isn't left out, I want to make sure that I
concur with all my colleagues on the challenges of broadband.
We are the most rural state in the nation. We are always in the
bottom ten percent of connection and speed, so we feel everyone
else's pain. And while I have been a part of working on things
like the farm bill and more appropriations, there are some
structural issues that continue to keep rural America from
being connected. And some of it just has to do with our system
of providers who just don't want to go that last mile--
sometimes it is the last 20 miles--to get out there. We have to
take a much more serious look at this. But thank you for what
you are talking about.
In my state, for the most part we have a lot more small to
medium size farmers, and some of what you are talking about
requires a big investment. Can you talk a little bit about
which of these applications you think apply or are useful, or
could be converted for use for small to medium sized farmers?
And also, I guess you have talked a little bit about it, but
just the continuing need for technical assistance. Farmers
can't all be data managers and operate all this equipment. I
think you are talking a little bit about that, and I know some
of you are even playing that role.
But anyway, just a little bit more about is there value for
other farmers?
Dr. Karsten. Was that----
Ms. Pingree. Anybody.
Dr. Karsten. I would offer that we know that we can help
farmers have access to yield maps to better site specific
manage subzones or subfields without necessarily having only
the yield monitor maps. And that is an example of how there are
opportunities for farmers of all different sizes to then fine
tune their management and make sure what they use in that
location is profitable and that it is going to be profitable in
the long-term.
If they can adopt more diverse rotations and conservation
practices like reduced tillage and continuous cover, they can
retain more nutrients on their farm. They can interrupt pest
life cycles, provide habitat for beneficials, and there are
multiple benefits that come with these conservation practices,
like soil health and resilience to stress.
I will defer to others.
Ms. Pingree. Well, let me throw in another question, unless
one of you is about to--were you about to answer that?
Mr. Cameron. I wanted to just mention one other thing on
broadband.
We were approached by a large company for bringing
broadband in. Since nobody ever comes to us and tells us they
are going to do that, so of course, we said, ``Sure, let's do
it.'' They came back to us and told us that it would be
$850,000 to bring 20 down dedicated to our operation.
So of course, we didn't do it.
Ms. Pingree. Yes. I mean, we hear a lot of stories about
that, $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 to get it to a rural community.
Mr. Cameron. Unbelievable.
Ms. Pingree. Yes, and $850,000 is sort of off the charts.
Mr. Cameron. Yes, I was just going to echo your--the
technical assistance providers are critical to get this
information out to the growers, to their level on farm
projects, anything they can do to help the growers adapt is
beneficial. I think it is an integral part of the NRCS program.
Dr. Karsten. I would add that, in Pennsylvania, we have a
lot people who don't use the internet, Amish and other
cultures. And so, we know that we need to produce hard copy
educational materials and do field events and conferences in
the communities, work with growers through extension educators.
And that is also really face to face, on the farm, really site-
specific kinds of work that extension can--does and can do more
of, and we have tools that you don't need a computer
necessarily. You can use pen and paper.
An example would be one of my colleagues who is helping
farmers better manage their nitrogen by crediting the fact that
they have built soil organic matter and that they have cover
crops in the system that are retaining and supplying nitrogen
to the crops, so that they don't have to buy an input to supply
that nitrogen. There are other tools like that. Yes, they are
online, but they also are in the forms that we can use in the
field. And that is the important opportunity with extension.
Ms. Pingree. That is great. I am about to run out of time,
but thank you so much for your testimony and the work that you
are doing out there. Thanks.
The Chair. I now recognize Mr. Allen from Georgia, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the
panel for being here today, and commenting on this amazing
technology that is driving the largest industry in my state,
agriculture, and the largest industry in my district.
Dr. Karsten, as you know, we have the University of Georgia
there in the state. It is a land-grant institution, and their
researchers are committed to helping farmers maximize crop
yields while minimizing their resource usage. And precision
agriculture plays a key role in that.
Can you provide a brief overview of what type of resources
land-grant universities like Penn State and the University of
Georgia can provide for our farmers when training them to adopt
these practices on the farms? In other words, how do we get it
from the research to the farmers, and how do we do that with
the bottom line that they are working with right now?
Dr. Karsten. Well, some of the extension activities that we
do with farmers on their farms to help them evaluate
technologies, but also to adopt these new decision support
tools or these technologies are critical. Often they need
assistance, both in terms of the technology, but also in
interpreting what the recommendations are from, say, a decision
support tool and technical assistance.
We see a lot of our graduates are the people who go out and
provide that technical assistance, and it is not only through
extension--although that is a very critical role--but because
they go to work in the workforce and other agencies. And that
partnership that land-grants provide to work with input
providers or the folks developing some of this technology can
keep the communication about well, how do we make this
available and accessible? And how do we make this a tool that
they could use online or that they could use on their phone?
There are lots of apps, for instance, that we are producing so
that a farmer on their phone can integrate what is the cost of
this feed or this input, and what are the potential ways they
could save money and increase their long-term productivity.
Mr. Allen. That is what technology is all about, which kind
of brings me to my next question.
Each of you have talked about the barriers to adopting this
precision agriculture in your testimony, and what steps can
this body, United States Congress, do to help reduce these
barriers? For example, obviously we have talked about how it
sounds like your biggest challenge is cell phone service and
broadband, and the costs associated with delivering that
service to deliver precision ag. Is that what I am hearing?
Would Mr. Cameron and Mr. Madison care to comment on that?
Mr. Cameron. Yes. We know that when we--we do aerial photos
every week of our crops during the season when they are
growing, and if it takes us 2 minutes to download a photo of
one field, our time is precious. I mean, we have a lot of
things going on at the same time, and it makes it difficult to
do the work that we need and to bring the technology onboard so
that we can affect change in the field with either nutrient
levels, water delivery. It is a big stumbling block for us. And
I don't mean to belabor it, but it is a serious issue in the
rural community because we get bombarded with tech companies
from Silicon Valley that want to cure problems we don't even
have, but we do--we just have seen a lot of projects come our
way and we tend to be the one that filters them out, whether
the ones that sound promising we try. Others, we show them the
door. But there is a lot of technology that is coming into
agriculture.
But, yes, we need a different caliber of employee coming on
farm that knows how to handle and implement technology that is
available.
Mr. Allen. That is why it is important to support our young
farmers.
Mr. Cameron. Exactly. I agree.
Mr. Allen. I yield back. I am out of time. Sorry, Mr.
Madison, you can comment on that next time you are asked a
question.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Allen.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Iowa, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, and
thank you for holding this very important hearing, and thank
you so much to our witnesses for being here today. I am very
grateful to have you here.
I won't belabor the point of broadband, even though that is
one of my questions, but I would encourage all of you to
continue to promote it. I am on the Whip's Rural Broadband
Taskforce. We know how important this is, and by gosh, we are
determined to make sure that this gets out to rural America on
so many levels, from precision agriculture to keeping people
healthy. Please, the more voices we have in this, absolutely
the better. We would love to hear it.
I want to just go back to another topic related to some of
the natural disasters that we are facing and the impact on
agriculture.
We all know that farmers have always been on the cutting
edge of technology in utilizing new advances to increase
efficiency and yields, while using less inputs. Over the last
few decades, we have seen a heck of a lot of movement in this.
We have seen farms integrate satellite technology to better
manage their acres and to make smarter decisions with better
information. And since 1960, the average yield per acre of seed
corn has more than tripled, largely due to improved technology
and adoption of precision ag, which has led to significant
benefits for conservation by reducing inputs, leading to less
waste and more efficient use of energy.
The benefits of precision agriculture are clear, and I am
glad we are here today to discuss that and what we can continue
to do further when it comes to resiliency.
If you haven't seen the news lately, farmers in my district
have had a real tough year. I am from Iowa's third district,
with issues of low commodity prices being exacerbated by a
trade war, and of course, a biofuels program that is being
undermined. And on top of this, we have had record amounts of
water, and then some of the worst flooding we have seen in my
district, it has literally been the most historic flooding. We
are in bad straits there.
The flooding has devastated communities around the Missouri
River, and resulted in over 100,000 farm acres being flooded
and billions of dollars of damage. And while of course flood
prevention is our number one priority and making these folks
whole and making sure that we cover things like uninsured grain
bins, we must also be prepared for recovery and work to improve
resiliency.
Dr. Karsten, I am wondering, farmers in my district and
across the Midwest have seen changing rainfall patterns in
recent years, and as farmers adjust to unpredictable weather
and changes in precipitation, how can precision agriculture
technology help our farms grow more resilient against these
issues?
Dr. Karsten. Yes. I think that the example of using the
landscape variability to identify regions that are most
vulnerable to extreme weather events, that have shallow soils,
low organic matter, et cetera, and have not yielded profitably
consistently over time is an excellent example of how those
regions can be managed specifically for best long-term
productivity and profitability. And so, that might mean that a
farmer can identify a zone that is in a flood plain or that is
very shallow and on a steep slope that would be better served
than the typical annual crop rotation that they have by
planting perennials that once they are planted, they are
established for many, many years. And they can retain water and
nutrients; but, with those deep root systems and maintain
productivity either for forages or biofuel, energy crops, or
bedding, and still produce a profitable product in a region
that they would have actually been losing money and would have
frequently experienced the impacts of these extreme weather
events.
That kind of site-specific opportunity is prime, and there
are lots of examples of research in Iowa that have identified
these zones that are losing money, very significant losses that
can be overcome with site-specific management and things like
perennials or conservation practices that build soil health and
increase water infiltration and resistance to or resilience to
stress.
I want to defer.
Mr. Cameron. When I look at resiliency in agriculture, we
look at healthy soils. We know that we can build increased
organic matter, sequester carbon, ways that we can hold water
longer, which you may not have wanted this year. But in
California, we went through a 5 year drought and believe me,
every drop of water we want to hold either above ground or
below ground for use at a later time.
But, with better soil health, I think you can control your
nutrients. They are not going to be leeching. There are just
great ways that you can increase production. We are looking at
in California at a program of incorporating a whole almond
orchard at the end of its life, chipping it, and putting all of
that biomass back into the ground so that carbon will be
sequestered and you will have additional organic matter long-
term. We are working in California the same as you do at the
Federal level to improve soil health.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you. We would trade water with you any day
if we could.
Mr. Cameron. We would love it.
The Chair. Thank you, Mrs. Axne.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington
State, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
letting me crash your Subcommittee twice in about a week here.
I want to thank you all for being here.
Mr. Madison, you raised a really interesting topic that I
hope you can expand on. It is the use of the TSPs, the
technical service providers to support NRCS staff in the field.
One of the things that I routinely hear from my farmers who are
trying to do the right thing with resilience farming and
healthy soil and drill seeding machines is that they need
additional technical assistance to help them enroll in
conservation programs and then do the work.
I was wondering if you could speak about your experience
and what technical service providers can offer farmers?
Mr. Madison. A TSP is basically a privatized NRCS employee.
We can write the conservation plans. We can inspect them. We
can kind of offer advice, do a lot of that face to face thing
with a grower that the NRCS staff does, but we are not full-
time employees. So, that is supposed to be the best of both
worlds.
Part of what makes that a successful kind of program, as
long as it is promoted to growers, is that a customer farmer to
NRCS can work through some of this stuff without having to go
to the government to get help. They are still going through
that process, but inherently, farmers, at some point, don't
want to go sit in a government office to work through
conservation issues. That is just the way it is. If they can go
to another grower or a private individual and work through some
of that, they tend to be a little more open. It is a little bit
easier process to get through. And it is a cumbersome process
no matter how you go about it. Anything you can do to make it
easier is going to really increase the chance that it is
successful at the end of the project.
Ms. Schrier. I understand that about the government
offices. What kind of training did you go through? Was it all
kind of in your own experience training? How did you learn and
then leverage to help your colleagues?
Mr. Madison. It is basically your past experience. I had to
provide references from growers who I have worked with in the
past, work experience. At the time, I had several years working
in retail selling fertilizer, selling seed. I had a certified
crop advisor certification, that helped, and a certified
nutrient management planner in Virginia. All those things kind
of go in there together, and somebody reviews it somewhere on
the other side of that computer screen and tells you if it is
enough. And in my case, it was enough.
Ms. Schrier. That is great. Thank you.
I was also struck by your testimony of working in the
fields all day long until 9:00 or 10:00 at night tilling, and
then if it rained the next day, you lost all of that rich
topsoil. And then so I was listening to you, Mr. Cameron, talk
about soil health and not tilling. I have a really interesting
picture posted in my office of two farms on different sides of
a street, one farmed with no-till and the other conventional,
and after a flood, the conventional farm is far underwater and
the other one has absorbed that moisture. It holds it in
periods of drought and rain.
But you are by the Chesapeake Bay and you wanted to avoid
runoff there. I am by the Columbia River and Puget Sound. I was
just wondering if you could comment on some of the things that
you have found have helped protecting your natural waters?
Mr. Madison. The basics were a really good start. When I
say the basics, I mean nutrient management, cover crops, and
no-till. In Virginia, they are starting to sound old. Everybody
already does that stuff. Nobody wants to talk about it anymore.
But I know in other parts of the country, that is not the case.
And the reason it sounds old in Virginia is because we all do
it because we have all kind of figured out that it works. And
there is nothing better than using other farmers as examples.
We are all pack animals. If we see somebody else do something,
we want to go do it, too, or at least try it.
Ms. Schrier. And in my last 16 seconds, do you have any
ideas about how to get that to the rest of the country? Because
I do think farmers listen to farmers more than they will listen
to me.
Mr. Madison. In Virginia, it was not a very fast process.
You had to just keep hammering away on that point. Now we have,
through precision ag, we can do case studies a lot better. We
can actually put numbers to things. In the past, it was kind of
do this, it will work. I promise. Now, we can break it out and
I can cover you with spreadsheets and layers of data that prove
to you that it worked over a few years. That is going to be
important as we go forward with farmers needing to make it on
their margins. They will follow the money.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you very much, and thank you for what
you have done.
The Chair. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington State
for talking so much about Virginia.
With the first round of questions completed and without
objection, we will begin a second round of questions. Members
who wish to be recognized will be recognized for 5 minutes in
order of seniority, and I will now recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cameron, we touched upon an interesting topic when you
mentioned very briefly the almond groves. Precision agriculture
technologies do vary significantly by commodity type, and
unlike row crops, not all specialty crops are planted annually.
And additionally, specialty crops tend to have unique planting,
harvesting, packaging processes and production operations.
What role have you seen or what role can precision
agriculture play when it comes to other crops beyond row crops?
Mr. Cameron. I will stick with one of our many, and that
would be our processing tomatoes.
We research varieties that we want to grow prior to
planting. We look at yield data, university work that has been
done, and then we deal with our processor who really tends to
dictate our schedule of harvest. But when we look at a crop
like that, we use precision irrigation for watering. We do
petiole soil tests. We monitor the plant as it grows. We apply
the fertilizer that is only what is needed and only the--we
have irrigation scheduling. We monitor the inputs very closely.
When we get to harvest, we harvest 24 hours, 7 days a week
from early July until October. And when a load of our tomatoes,
a 25 ton load of tomatoes heads to a cannery, we get a grade
from the California Department of Food and Agriculture that I
can access 5 minutes after the load gets to the cannery. It
puts it by variety, by field. It will calculate the income from
that load. It will show me any deductions that I may have. And
like I say, it will give me a yield per field as we move
through our different parts of the ranch. The technology is
there. For a crop like that, the results help me in determining
how to set our harvester as we progress on different varieties.
And I guess that takes you to harvest. It is pretty intense,
but it is very--really, the information we get instantaneously,
but like I said, we either have to have a phone connection or
the broadband.
The Chair. And if you wouldn't mind just answering a couple
questions related to that process?
You said within 5 minutes you are getting information back
from the cannery related to those tomatoes. When that is
happening early in the season, based on that feedback, are you
able to or do you frequently make adjustments to your crop
based on what you are hearing back from the cannery?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, we can make adjustments. We can either,
we have electronics on our harvester that will actually put
green tomatoes back on the ground. We may have an issue with
the harvester. It will show us immediately. From the time it is
picked to the time it hits the canner, the grade station, is
probably within 2 hours or less. We can make adjustments to our
harvester if we can get a hold of our guys. They can access
this at 2 o'clock in the morning in the field, provided they
have connection.
Yes, it is extremely valuable and we will adjust. Moving
forward, we will either slow down harvest or speed up harvest,
depending on the quality we see. It is really informative.
The Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron.
Mr. Madison, with your experiences, if you could just talk
for a moment about some of the precision ag technology that you
employ on your farm, whether your experiences are similar in
terms of your ability to adjust relatively quickly, or how it
impacts your day-to-day operation in Virginia?
Mr. Madison. Our biggest assets, as far as precision goes,
are yield monitors, they kind of grade us at the end of the
year, tell us what we did right, what we did wrong, or tell us
if we tried something new, whether or not that worked. All of
our GPS technology is somehow tied back to the precision work
that we set up at the beginning of the year, whether it is not
overlapping seed, not overlapping fertilizer, making sure we
are putting everything really exactly where it needs to go.
The big difference in commodity farming, after we get that
grade at the end of the year, we don't get to change anything
for 6 months. We don't get to change a lot on the go. There are
some things maybe in season that we can do when we are making
some fertilizer applications here and there, but overall, that
is a really minor part of what we have used.
The Chair. Thank you very much.
I now recognize Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Mr. Cameron, you get the travel award here. As I note each
week, it is about an 18 hour round trip here, and so to spend
that many hours traveling and taxi rides and hotel rooms and
all that stuff, you probably get a grand total of 20 to 25
minutes of testimony time. I would like to throw it to you and
see if there is anything you would like to touch on. I would
give you a possible topic with water conservation. How about at
the macro-level and how our lakes are managed and how much
water is running out the delta and how beneficial that would be
to capture more of that with more dynamic weather forecasting
and reality that they are looking at a possible drought
situation or a low rain situation in California, yet they are
letting water out of Shasta Dam right now.
So that, and opportunity for groundwater recharge, sigma
coming down the pike. What would you say about the bigger
picture of water conservation for California?
Mr. Cameron. Water is always the number one issue in
California. It is either the lack of or too much at the wrong
time. We have an old infrastructure in place that needs to be
updated. We need conveyance to move water to areas where it is
needed. I mean, it would be great if it fell uniformly
throughout the state, but it doesn't. It tends to fall as
snowfall in the northern part of the state, and we have a
difficult time moving it through the delta because of
endangered species law that precludes some of the movement.
You are right. We get a tremendous amount of water that
goes out of the delta into the ocean. We figured out a long
time ago that it was--we saw declining water tables in our
region and decided to do something about it, and that was to
take flood water and move it on farm and start recharging
groundwater.
But like I say, the projects like that are expensive. We
got help from a grant from the Department of Water Resources in
California. It was supposed to be a $5 million grant plus a $2
million match on our side. Because of all the reporting, the
environmental regulations that we had and hoops we had to jump
through and agreements we had to get in place, it took us 6
years from the time we got the grant until the time we started
construction, which was last year. We hope to have it finished
this year, but the price in the meantime went up to about $11
to $12 million. We know that these projects are costly, but the
growers in California understand without it the prediction is
we are going to be seeing anywhere from \1/2\ million to 1
million acres of farmland in central California being idled in
the next 20 years with sustainable groundwater management.
We need real solutions. We have a treasure. We have a
national treasure in the San Joaquin Valley, and to see it sit
idle because of a lack of water is wrong.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We have the opportunity to raise Shasta
Dam 18, 600,000 more acre feet on those years that it would
fill, and then the opportunity right now to be filling San Luis
Reservoir. Do you draw from San Luis?
Mr. Cameron. I do on one farm, but the majority is pumped
groundwater, which is really under the microscope right now.
Mr. LaMalfa. Does anybody disagree that the groundwater
recharge and the infrastructure needed for that, does anybody
disagree with those projects? Are there environmental groups
that are against that?
Mr. Cameron. From what we have seen, we have a great amount
of support. Although I did find one person at a meeting that
was outspoken that for whatever reason didn't think that was a
good idea. We understand that, with groundwater recharge on
farmland, you have to have a different set of best practices.
You are going to have to farm differently, because we don't
want to push nitrates into the groundwater, or any pesticides
that we may have applied. We are doing a base study with
Department of Pesticide Regulation currently at the state
level, monitoring our water as a baseline before we really get
into this heavily, and we are also doing ground radar with
Stanford and UC Davis and Corring. We are going to be a test
bed for groundwater recharge.
We started the, like I say, the project in 2011 and we are
the innovators to bring this in. It has now got a life of its
own in California.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. I know the Bureau is looking at
rejiggering things a little bit on saving water in the
reservoirs and using more dynamic weather forecasting on how we
can more aggressively keep our reservoirs full and make more of
this possible.
Mr. Cameron. We would like to see a lot better long-term
forecasting as well for agriculture. We have been neglected, as
we have in other areas. Services have been cut back.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, we are working on it both ends. I
appreciate your time and travel here, and to all of our
panelists, thank you.
I will yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentlewoman from Washington State, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I did have a couple
more questions.
Dr. Karsten, Washington State University is not in my
district, but it is close to my district. And so, there is a
phenomenal partnership between WSU and Agricultural Research
Service and our farmers. And so, Washington State University's
Center for Precision and Automated Agriculture Systems hosted
an ag technology day last summer to look at automation and
specialty crops. Experts from WSU, Washington State Department
of Labor, Microsoft Farm Beats, and ASI robots explored the
theme of automation and specialty crop production. I
specifically wanted to draw attention to the amazing work that
Microsoft Farm Beats is doing in Washington State. It is an end
to end AI and IOTC system for agriculture that gathers data
from sensors, cameras, drones, robots also to produce real
actionable insights for farmers, and it can extend internet
coverage, provided there is some somewhere near the farm, to
the farm and it is resilient towards weather and power outages.
I was wondering if you had similar partnerships? In
Washington State, the natural one is with Microsoft, and we saw
something similar in Israel where they had robots that were
taking cameras and figuring out what was going on with plants
there. What are some of the partnerships you have found?
Dr. Karsten. First, I would say that I actually don't work
in specialty crops. I am aware of some of the work that my
colleagues are doing to improve these and develop these
technologies such as using cameras and imaging and water
sensors and other sensors in orchards and specialty crops.
The work that I know is work that is being done by faculty
with growers and extension, and some of it is free online.
Well, some of it, I am sorry, the pest management data, for
instance, so they can monitor pests are online and free. I am
not aware of how they are working with companies in that area.
That is in another production system.
But my understanding is that that is a great opportunity,
that they often do take advantage of in partnerships, because
we can have more impact and we can benefit from understanding
how we can improve those technologies, make them more cost-
effective, and help our students learn how to use them and
extension educators also.
Ms. Schrier. It has been incredibly helpful for farmers,
because they can look at microclimates and figure out where on
their field really needs more water and where it doesn't,
similarly with micronutrients.
I also just had a curiosity question, Mr. Cameron, since I
have a tiny bit of time left. Water is so scarce in California.
It is also scarce in parts of Washington State, so this is
becoming a really common issue.
I want to learn from California. How much attention has
gone to choosing which crops to grow? Which ones require the
least water and create the most food, for example? Has any
attention gone to that topic?
Mr. Cameron. Onto which crops use more water or less water?
Ms. Schrier. I mean, I am sure I know the information, but
kind of prioritizing how much yield you could get for how
little water, and figure out which ones to grow.
Mr. Cameron. Well, we know almonds made the headlines
during our drought, and there have been several studies that
have showed that actually deficit irrigation can still produce
a very profitable crop and reduce the water footprint. We know
that is the number one crop in California now with 1.4 million
acres and continuing to increase. And you will see more of that
as sustainable groundwater management is implemented. The water
is going to go to the higher dollar crops. We know that. And
those that don't make the cut will be gone.
I think that, when you talk about reducing water,
California has gone to micro-irrigation for the majority of
their crops. Unless you have plentiful surface water, there is
a big distinction between the two, and that is what has driven
a lot of the technology in California, the high costs or the
unavailability of water, to where we have become extremely
efficient in the water usage on the crops we grow.
Maybe we can do more.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. It's super interesting. We even
found out that in Israel, they have found that brackish water
makes their watermelons taste better, and so they have been
able to use that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Cameron. There has been brackish water being filtered
and used in agriculture, yes, and blended.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. That is super interesting.
The Chair. Thank you all for your testimony and your candor
in answering our questions today.
What I am hearing is really remarkable, and I hope others
are hearing it, too. Farmers are at the forefront of adopting
revolutionary new technologies that will enable us to meet our
shared goal of food security, while at the same time carefully
and strategically managing environmental impacts.
I would like to take a moment to put the speed of this
remarkable technological march into perspective. If the average
age of the U.S. farmer is almost 60 years old, many of our
farmers grew up farming with their parents, managing their
crops using time tested tools of intuition and instinct, and
many of those men and women farming today with their kids have
the ability to generate a multidimensional digital model of
their operations with extensive data on everything from crop
health to input use to market intelligence, all while auto-
steer drives their tractor with the aid of GPS, and evidently,
farmers and growers can watch movies while doing so. Perhaps
most astounding is that all of this innovation has come in the
span of a few decades in a generation, and rivaling the
technological advances of any other industry.
I hope you all are as proud of this American ingenuity as I
am, and as Members of this Committee are, and I hope when we
walk out of this hearing, we will have greater clarity not just
about the conservation benefits of precision ag, but also about
what is indeed needed to realize these benefits at scale. We
have spoken a lot today about the need for broadband internet
and the impact that lack of internet infrastructure has on the
ability of farmers and producers to use these incredible
technologies. And while the picture that I have described is
true for many farmers, those without that access to broadband
face financial uncertainty, as they are not able to implement
the technologies that in many cases they have already paid for.
As Representatives for our constituents and Members of this
Committee, we have a responsibility to take up the challenge to
improve the outcomes, not just on the fields and across
ecosystems, but for our rural communities, the communities that
are working tirelessly to put the food on the table that we all
eat.
I thank you all for joining us today, and I give a special
thanks to agriculture and conservation expert Dustin Madison,
who joined us from Louisa County in Virginia. And with that, I
thank you all for your time. I thank you for joining us, and I
now close this hearing of the Conservation and Forestry
Subcommittee.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation and
Forestry is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Supplementary Material Submitted by Heather D. Karsten, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor, Crop Production/Ecology, Department of Plant
Science,
College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University
Chair Spanberger, [Ranking Member] LaMalfa, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
conservation benefits of precision agriculture, some examples of
precision agriculture, barriers to adoption and the role of the land-
grant universities. Precision agriculture technologies and their
potential applications for conservation benefits are diverse and
significant. Precision agriculture technologies utilize spatial and
temporal agroecosystem and hydrologic data in geographic information
systems (GIS) software that can be linked to automate equipment
navigation of agricultural operations such as planting and spraying
operations via robotic technologies. In addition, real-time data from
sensing technologies such as in-field sensors, remote sensing or
thermal imaging can be integrated with GIS data and historical
management data in decision support tools (DST) and decision support
systems (DSS) (Drohan, et al., 2019). Agroecological and hydrologic
computer simulation models are utilized in decision support systems
along with other factors such as weather forecasts and/or economic data
to provide farmers and land managers with site-specific management
options that can result in reduced environmental impact and economic
costs of agricultural activities. For instance, integrating maps of
soil characteristics such as fertility, slope and drainage; crop
yields, and pest infestations along with weather forecasts can enable
managers identify zones for specific application rates of seeds,
nutrients, pesticides and irrigation water at the optimal time with
variable rate technologies (VRT). Similarly, livestock managers can
utilize precision feeding to develop nutritionally balanced cost-
effective rations that meet the metabolic needs of livestock at various
life stages without excess nutrients.
Adoption Barriers
A recent analysis of multiple surveys on the adoption of precision
agriculture since the 1990s, suggested some rapid adoption as well as
barriers to adoption. Adoption of global navigation satellite systems
(GNSS) with auto guidance and technologies such as sprayer control and
planter row or section automatic shutoffs has been relatively rapid for
agronomic crops (see Figure 3 from Lowenberg-DeBoer and Erickson,
2019), while adoption of variable rate technology (VRT) has been
relatively slow and ``rarely exceeds 20% of farms'' (see Fig. 4 from
Lowenberg-DeBoer and Erickson, 2019). The study's authors summarized
three hypotheses for the slow rate of adoption that were frequently
described in the cited surveys: i. the cost of VRT was too high, ii.
``more reliable VRT decision rules'' were needed, particularly for
nitrogen; and iii. farmers weren't convinced VRT would increase their
profits (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Erickson, 2019).
Fig. 3.
Planted area by crop in the United States where Global
Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) auto guidance was used,
2000 to 2016.
Fig. 4.
Planted area by crop in the United States where variable rate
technology (VRT) was used for any purpose, 1998 to 2016.
Figures 3 and 4 from Lowenberg-DeBoer J. and B. Erickson.
2019. Setting the Record Straight on Precision Agriculture
Adoption. Agronomy Journal 2019 111: 1535-1551, doi:10.2134/
agronj2018.08.0535.
Additional adoption barriers that others describe include the need
for technical expertise to install and operate precision technologies,
the fact that new equipment is often needed to be compatible with the
new technologies, access to broadband, and other factors that are
summarized and shown below in Table 1 from Wolfe and Richard (2017).
Table 1--Overview of barriers to the adoption of pro-environmental
technological innovations (general and agriculture specific) based on
literature review (from Long, et al. [31]. Sources are listed in [31]
and not repeated here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrier Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic High initial investments (Bogdanski, 2012;
Poor access to capital Brunke, et al.,
Hidden costs 2014; Cullen, et
Competing financial al., 2013; del Rio
priorities Gonzalez, 2005;
Long pay-back periods Faber and Hoppe,
(ROI) 2013; Hoffman and
Switching costs/existence Henn, 2008; Luken
of installed base and Van Rompaey,
High implementation costs 2008; Luthra, et
(actual and perceived) al., 2014; McCarthy,
Uncertain returns and et al., 2011;
results Montalvo, 2008)
Temporal asymmetry
between costs and
benefits
Over discounting the
future
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional/ Low institutional support (Bogdanski, 2012;
regulatory Use of overly scientific Eidt, et al., 2012;
language (Jargon) Luthra, et al.,
Farmer's knowledge not 2014; Montalvo,
considered in R&D 2008)
Lack of regulatory
framework
Prohibitively
prescriptive standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behavioral/ Lack of management (Brunke, et al.,
psychological support/awareness 2014; Eidt, et al.,
Conflict with traditional 2012; Hoffman and
methods Henn, 2008; Johnson,
Overly complex 2010; Ratten and
technologies Ratten, 2007;
Results/effects of Sneddon, et al.,
technology difficult to 2011 ; Vishwanath,
observe 2009; Wheeler, 2008)
Farmer's beliefs and
opinions
Low trust of advisers or
consultants/lack of
acceptance
Irrational behavior
Negative presumed
assumptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizational Lack required (Brunke, et al.,
competencies/skills 2014; Faber and
Poor readiness Hoppe, 2013;
Poor information Johnson, 2010; Luken
Inability to assess and Van Rompaey,
technologies 2008; Luthra, et
Overly short-term/ al., 2014; Montalvo,
perverse rewards 2008)
Organizational inertia/
habitual routines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers/market Poor information (Bogdanski, 2012;
Lack market Bohnsack, et al.,
attractiveness/do not 2014; Brunke, et
align to preferences al., 2014; del Rio
Uncertainty Gonzalez, 2005;
Consumers/farmers level Johnson, 2010;
of motivation Luthra, et al.,
Market uncertainty 2014)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Social/peer pressures (Montalvo, 2008)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For farmers with limited capital facing small profit margins, the
capital investment required for new precision agriculture technologies
and the technical expertise required can be significant barriers. Land-
grant university researchers and educators such as my colleagues at
Penn State are currently working with farmers, the national
laboratories (ex. ARS) and government agencies (ex. NRCS); as well as
private-sector partners to develop low-cost technologies, open-source
or free software, and decision support tools and systems that can be
operated on smartphones or personnel computers. Land grants are also
well-positioned to conduct objective, trusty-worthy assessments of
precision technologies, while training students, educators, and the
workforce to develop, improve and assist in the use of precision
technologies.
Decision support systems can empower farmers and producers to fine-
tune their management practices when coupled with economic incentive
policies that promote adoption (Drohan, et al., 2019). Support for on-
farm assessment and peer-to-peer learning also appear to facilitate
adoption of precision conservation technologies. A final report from a
Penn State interdisciplinary research and extension project provides an
example of what a DSS can provide. ``There is no one production
practice that will make or break a herd's profitability . . . .
Combining financial metrics with decision-making on cropping and
feeding practices is still a challenge for both producers and
consultants. . . . The bottleneck is how cropping strategies and animal
performance influence the whole farm system and the impact to the
bottom line. Unless nutritionists and crop consultants work with
financials on a routine basis, it is unlikely they will embrace this
aspect when working with their clientele.'' (Ishler, et al., 2019).
Some examples of precision conservation technologies and DSS that
offer promise of adoption are briefly described here. Decision support
systems (DSS) that produce farm profit maps can enable farmers and land
managers to identify opportunities to increase their profits while
reducing their environmental impact. Agroecosystem DSS can identify
field zones that are consistently low profit or unprofitable enabling
land-managers to consider alternative managements. Low profit or very
unprofitable zones are often zones of significant soil and/or nutrient
losses associated with soil and landscape factors (Delgado and Bausch,
2005; Muth, 2014) as illustrated in Figure 1 from Wolfe and Richard,
2017. Such landscape features may also make zones particularly
vulnerable to extreme weather events such as drought or flooding. For
instance, a 2017 NRCS funded study of over 200,000 acres from nearly
3800 fields on 136 farms in a dozen states found that (a) more than 90%
of fields included zones that were losing money due to some combination
of risks, and (b) over 50% of the unprofitable acres were also acres
with substantial environmental concerns (Thomas Richard, personal
communication 2019).
Figure 1
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Subfield economic analysis demonstrates high variability in
profitability, with a significant fraction of currently farmed
acres highly unprofitable for annual crops. Left panel: profit
in $ ha^1; center panel: change in Soil Organic
Carbon in kg ha^1, and right panel, nitrate
(NO3-N) leaching in kg ha^1.
Figure 1 from Wolfe, M.L. and T. L. Richard. 2017. 21st
Century Engineering for On-Farm Food-Energy-Water Systems.
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.coche.2017.10.005.
Decision support tools that integrate landscape characteristics,
with crop management history and yields; agroecosystem models, and
economic analyses and sensor data can help farmers identify practices
to reduce their production costs in low-profit zones and/or increase
their cropping system resilience (Fig. 2. Wolfe and Richard, 2017).
Figure 2
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2 from Wolfe and Richard, 2017. Sustainable food-
energy-water systems are enabled by an expanded precision
agriculture toolset that includes economic analysis, payments
for ecosystem services, and biomass markets, all managed
through decision support systems that go beyond inputs and
single crop management to innovative cropping system and
landscape design.
Alternative management scenarios may include reducing fertilizer
inputs and adopting conservation farming practices (Delgado and Bausch,
2005, Muth, 2014, Capmourteres, et al., 2018; Amin, et al., 2019). In
zones where annual cropping is unprofitable, the establishment of
perennial plants for bioenergy, forage or other markets offers a viable
economic alternative (Wolfe and Richard, 2017) such as shown below in
Figure 6 from Brandes, et al., (2018).
Fig. 6
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Average annualized changes in net present value (DNPV) when
economically under-performing cropland is converted from corn/
soybean to switchgrass. Values (in U.S.$ ha^1) are
calculated by dividing the sum of annualized DNPV by the total
corn/soybean cropland area per township. Gray areas represent
townships without any cropland economically viable in
switchgrass. The results assume USDA projected (medium) grain
prices, medium switchgrass price, medium switchgrass yield, and
that all land is owned by the farm operator.
Figure 6 from Brandes, E., A., Plastina, and E. Heaton. 2018.
Where can switchgrass production be more profitable than corn
and soybean? An integrated, sub-field assessment in Iowa, USA.
Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 10, 473-488, doi: 10.1111/
gcbb.12516.
Planting perennials (Capmourteres, et al., 2018) and removing zones
from production can also provide multiple conservation benefits for a
relatively low cost. In Iowa, compared to similar watersheds that were
100% row-cropped, planting only 10% of a corn-soybean field to prairie
strips reduced sediment loss by 95%, phosphorus and nitrogen losses by
90% and 85%, respectively; while also providing habitat for
biodiversity, such as grassland birds and pollinators (Liebman and
Schulte, 2015).
Decision support systems (DSS) such as CropSyst (Stockle, et al.,
2014) or SWAT that integrate agroecosystem features and hydrological
models, or climate projections have also been employed to evaluate
various management scenarios such as nutrient management or projected
climate change impacts and mitigation approaches (Stockle, et al.,
2014; Amin, et al., 2019). Land-grants researchers working with USDA
ARS, other national laboratories, and ``big-data'' have developed
multiple DST and DSS to provide growers with information to
strategically reduce soil phosphorus and comply with nutrient
regulations (Drohan, et al., 2019; Amin, et al., 2019); and to reduce
production costs, pesticide applications, and crop damage from insect
pests and disease infestation through free online real-time pest
monitoring websites. A few examples of these free online precision
technologies and additional precision DST and DSS that were developed
or are under development at Penn State are described below.
In conclusion, the strength of land-grants and Penn State is in our
ability to bring together diverse faculty and extension educators to
work with farmers, USDA partners, national laboratories, and the
private-sector. With evidence of multiple opportunities for precision
agriculture and conservation technologies to provide environmental and
economic benefits, we are advancing their development, application, and
our educational activities to support farmers and land managers in the
conservation of our agricultural and natural resources.
I thank the Committee for this opportunity to provide testimony and
to address your questions. A brief description of some additional
precision agriculture technologies that were developed or are under
development at Penn State are described below.
PestWatch is a long-term monitoring program developed at
Penn State that has expanded from 200+ stations in the East
Coast, to 700+ stations nationwide (mostly MS river and east).
PestWatch provides guidance for individual producers on the
extent and location of various corn pests in the agricultural
regions of the eastern United States. The unique use of climate
and weather data within PestWatch has led to additional tools
for battling brown-marmorated stinkbugs, slugs, and the newly
critical insect pest, Spotted Lantern Fly. The core tool is
located at: http://www.pestwatch.psu.edu/.
Wheat Fusarium Headblight is the leading plant pathogen of
wheat in the United States and abroad. Penn State, along with
collaborators at Kansas State and across the Wheat Belt, has
developed the Wheat Fusarium Head Blight Prediction Center to
provide farmers with actionable information on this crop
pathogen. The Prediction Center, and it's associated map tool,
has been in continuous use and supported by the USDA Wheat and
Barley Scab initiative for more than 19 years. This tool
provides daily guidance for farmers across the entire U.S.
Wheat growing region. The tool is located at: http://
www.wheatscab.psu.edu/.
Reducing the risk of crop damage by using drones, to monitor
air temperatures on nights when there is frost and sending
commands to ground robots with heaters mounted on them so
growers can target only those areas most at risk are protected,
while minimizing energy use.
Precision, automated irrigation systems (drip irrigation)
for tree fruit and vegetable crops that operate on soil
moisture sensors and IoT (internet of things) system. The use
of precision and automated irrigation systems can maximum the
water use efficiency (apply water at right time and right
amount), reduce the impact to the environment caused by the
nutrient leaking, and save energy and costs.
Predictive Models
Every winter, 30-40% of managed honey bee colonies in the
U.S. die. This is an enormous economic cost to beekeepers, and
threatens our food security since 75% of our major food crops
benefit from the pollination services of honey bees and other
insects. Using data provided by Pennsylvania beekeepers, a team
at Penn State and the USDA-ARS has developed models which can
predict winter survival rates with 70% accuracy. These complex
models integrate data on climate, landscape quality, and
beekeeper management practices. We have developed an online
portal, called Beescape, which allows individuals to evaluate
the quality of their landscapes for supporting bee health. We
are current integrating our predictive models into Beescape so
that beekeepers can understand the risk to their honey bees in
their locations, and take steps to improve bee survival.
Beescape can easily be adapted to provide information on other
measures of honey bee and wild bee health, including honey
production and biodiversity. This program is funded by USDA
NIFA and the Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research.
In soybeans, we have been working from an extensive dataset
(ten states, 3 years, just under 5,400 responses) to determine
under what conditions foliar fungicides would be warranted. We
have built a global models for (1) management factors, and (2)
management in combination with environmental and physiological
parameters, all with the goal to understand under which
environmental domains might a foliar fungicide show a positive
weight (i.e., influence positively the observed yield).
Remote Sensing and Decision Support Technologies
We are actively engaged in applied research to use a
combination of sUAS-based (drone-based) sensors, including
multispectral cameras and LiDAR sensors in both airborne and
terrestrial modes, to develop, test, and apply new techniques
to measure forest ecosystem attributes at scales ranging from
individual trees to forest stands. We combine emerging low-cost
reality capture sensors with a seamless user interface, through
custom software applications, to foster automation in the
forest industry. We aim to transform the current rudimentary
and labor-intensive mensuration methodology employed by
foresters through the what we've named the ``RealForests''
system. RealForests fuses low-cost remote sensing hardware and
intuitive software design to allow for rapid data collection of
key forest attributes for forest appraisal and to support
management decisions. Easy data collection integrated into
existing field procedures is critical to market entry. Existing
algorithms have allowed our team to locate individual tree
objects and estimate critical measurements. RealForests will
allow the user to add information, such as species
identification, that can be linked to objects in the 3D model
of the forest created by the system.
References
Amin, M.G.M., T. Veith, J. Shortle, H.D. Karsten, and P.J.A.
Kleinman. 2019. Addressing the spatial disconnect between national-
scale total maximum daily loads and localized land management
decisions. J. Environ. Qual. doi: 10.2134/jeq2019.03.0120.
Brandes, E., A., Plastina, and E. Heaton.2018. Where can switchgrass
production be more profitable than corn and soybean? An integrated, sub-
field assessment in Iowa, USA. Global Change Biology Bioenergy. 10, 473-
488, doi:10.1111/gcbb.12516.
Capmourteres, V., J. Adams, A. Berg, E. Fraser, C. Swanton, and M.
Anand. 2018. Precision conservation meets precision agriculture: A case
study from southern Ontario. Agricultural Systems. 167: 176-185. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.09.011.
Delgado, J.A. and W.C. Bausch. 2005. Potential use of precision
conservation techniques to reduce nitrate leaching in irrigated crops.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 60(6): 379-387.
Drohan, P., M. Bechmann, A. Buda, F. Djodjic, D. Doody, J.M. Duncan,
A. Iho, P. Jordan, P.J. Kleinman, R. McDowell, P. Mellander, I.A.
Thomas, and P.J.A. Withers, et al. 2019. A global perspective on
phosphorus management decision support in agriculture: Lessons learned
and future directions. Journal of Environmental Quality. 48: 1218-1233.
doi:10.2134/jeq2019.03.0107.
Ishler,V., R. Goodling, T. Beck. 2019. The Impact of Corn Silage
Harvesting and Feeding Decisions on Income Over Feed Costs. Part of a
Final Research and Extension Education report that was funded by NESARE
USDA NIFA. April 11, 2019.
Liebman, M. and Schulte, L.A., 2015. Enhancing agroecosystem
performance and resilience through increased diversification of
landscapes and cropping systems. Elem. Sci. Anth., 3, p. 000041. DOI:
http://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000041.
Lowenberg-DeBoer J. and B. Erickson. 2019. Setting the Record
Straight on Precision Agriculture Adoption. Agronomy Journal 2019 111:
1535-1551, doi:10.2134/agronj2018.08.0535.
Muth, D. 2014. Profitability versus environmental performance: Are
they competing? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 69(6). 203A-
206A. doi: 10.2489/jswc.69.203A.
Richard, Thomas. Personal communication. Oct. 20, 2019. Professor of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering. The Pennsylvania State
University. https://abe.psu.edu/directory/tlr20.
Stockle, C.O., A.R. Kemanian, R.L. Nelson, J.C. Adam, R. Sommer, and
B. Carlson. 2014. CropSyst model evolution: From field to regional to
global scales and from research to decision support systems.
Environmental Modelling & Software. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsoft.2014.09.006.
Wolfe, M.L. and T.L. Richard. 2017. 21st Century Engineering for On-
Farm Food-Energy-Water Systems. Current Opinion in Chemical
Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coche.2017.10.005.
[all]