Green points out that certain technology use can also raise the issue of invasion of privacy: “Geospatial data identifies specifically where the pests are, which could make some growers feel too exposed. Maintaining geographic privacy is critical to helping farmers feel comfortable using the technology.” Another objection or barrier to overcome is cost. Dr. Ebba Peterson, an integrated pest management educator on the Oregon State University team, notes that some of the precision agriculture technologies, while very useful, can be expensive, particularly for smaller and mid-level pro- ducers. “I think that cost barriers give the impression that technology is inaccessible to a large part of our audience. One of the things that excites us about the dashboard is that it is completely free to anyone with an internet con- nection.”
DRONE-DRIVEN POWER The other two teams in this group, from the University of Maryland and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, want to make it easier and more attractive for growers to use drones. The Nebraska team is creating a free handbook that pro- vides farmers with best practices for using drones for aerial crop scouting, which provides a more holistic view of a field and can do so faster than surveying an area on foot or a four-wheeler. This not only can give farmers a more accurate image of where pests and other problems might be—which allows more targeted agrochemical use—but it spares growers the expense of hiring a pilot. (See page 67.) “Nebraskans, in particular, are about doing it themselves,” says team lead Dr. Dirk Charlson. “I’m hearing from produc- ers, ‘I don’t want to pay someone to do this, so if this lets me do it myself, I’m in—as long as someone is here to teach me.’” In the other drone project, the Maryland team is testing and gathering data on the use of unpiloted aerial vehicles for precision horticulture in ornamental nurseries. They intend to demonstrate how drone imaging can monitor nursery plant stress caused by nutrient and water deficien- cies. They also are researching the benefits of using drones for agrochemical applications. (See page 66.) Team leader Dr. Andrew Ristvey says the main advantage is that spraying chemicals via an unmanned aerial vehicle can reduce the volume of pesticide and apply the material more precisely. “Less contact time with pesticides im- proves worker safety,” he says. “Our trials also indicate it saves time, which reduces labor costs. We viewed a video of a comparative study that used a drone to apply fungi- cide versus a tractor spray rig. The amount of material distributed by the spray rig was much greater than what the drone applied. It was visually noticeable.” OVERCOMING OBJECTIONS It’s reductionist to say that farmers don’t trust technolo- gy—their perceptions are more nuanced than that. But it’s likely a fair statement that many farmers could use reas- surance and opportunities to experiment with these tools before they take the plunge. “There are different levels of acceptance of technology,” says Green, from the Oregon State pest dashboard team.
A PERFECT BLEND Technology in farming can’t replace human experience, judgment, and skill but it can enhance those things and make the work of managing agricultural enterprises easier. These four NTAE projects are in a perfect position to find a middle ground between the traditional methods and emerging tools, a space where more farmers might feel comfortable moving more boldly into farming’s future. ·
RURAL AMERICA MATTERS The New Technologies in Ag Extension grant program has funded several projects in recent years that address issues faced by agricultural and rural audiences.
Clearinghouse for Cleaner Water Digital Dashboards (farmer mental health)
Making Remote Work Google Earth Pro Pilot Water Saver
“A big part of Extension’s work is to demonstrate the usefulness, the utility, and how it can be easy. Technology doesn’t have to be scary. We’re looking at growers’ bottom lines and ways to make their lives easier.” The BudgetBot team, for example, recognizes that the per- ception of AI may not always be positive, but they believe that the ease of use and value the tool brings will encour- age farmers to adopt it. Once farmers realize that the tool understands everyday language, they may not feel as in- timidated by it, says Dr. Jeffrey Vitale, associate professor of agricultural economics at Oklahoma State University (OSU) and the project team leader. “Our natural language chatbot interface will greatly simplify their interactions,” he says. “Extension should continue to identify approach- es that enable quicker and easier access to the wealth of information produced by Land-grant universities.” David Warren, an information technology expert at the Extension Foundation and OSU and a member of the BudgetBot development team, understands that farmers may be dubious about AI but sees Extension as the per- fect entity to ease that doubt. “Producers may be more inclined to work with an AI solution delivered by their trusted local Extension service,” he says. And then there’s just humans’ general resistance to change. University of Maryland’s Ristvey acknowledg- es, for instance, that drones are still relatively new to the nursery industry. “This is something growers may not have used before,” he says, and so they may prefer to stick with more conventional methods.
Our library never closes.
Check out the Extension Foundation virtual bookshelf for the latest Extension research and program development across the country.
62
63
2023-2024 YEARBOOK | EXTENSION FOUNDATION/NTAE
EXTENSION FOUNDATION/NTAE | 2023-2024 YEARBOOK
Powered by FlippingBook