Precision Agriculture

, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp 71–101 | Cite as

From Agronomic Research to Farm Management Guidelines: A Primer on the Economics of Information and Precision Technology

Abstract

An ultimate purpose of much agronomic and agricultural economic research is to provide management guidelines (e.g., on application rates of fertilizer, seed, and herbicides) to farmers. Ideally, farm management guidelines or recommendations would be determined by applying sound economic theory to data from agronomic experiments. While information provided by agronomic data about the relationship between crop yields, managed inputs, soil characteristics, and weather variables has always been valuable, we argue in this paper that because such information and precision agriculture technology are economic complements, the advent of precision agriculture technology has made information provided by agronomic experiments now even more valuable than ever. The purpose of this paper is to point out and respond to two practical implications of the complementarity between precision technology and information from agronomic research. The first implication is that because precision technology has made information more valuable, it is also more costly now when agronomists make mistakes in using economic theory to derive incorrect farm management recommendations from the information. Therefore it is more important than ever that agronomists understand some basic economic theory about agricultural production and precision technology. Our response is to provide here an economic primer on precision agriculture and information. We also recommend increased collaboration between agronomists and agricultural economists in precision technology research. The second implication is that, because precision technology has made the information more valuable, there is more need than ever for long-term, multi-regional agronomic experiments. For before scholarly experts can provide separate management recommendations for many very small areas of farmers' fields, they will need to know much more than they currently do about the relationships between crop yields, input application rates, soil characteristics, and weather variables. Our response is to call for agronomists to begin designing and implementing such experiments, and to call for increased public funding of such experiments.

precision agriculture value of information economic complementarity economic optimality 

References

  1. J. R. Anderson, ''Sparse data, climatic variability, and yield uncertainty in response analysis,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 55, 77 1973.Google Scholar
  2. J. M. Antle, ''Incorporating risk in production analysis,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 65, 1099 1983.Google Scholar
  3. J. A. Atwood and G. A. Helmers, ''Examining quantity and quality effects of restricting nitrogen applications to feedgrains,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 369 1998.Google Scholar
  4. B. A. Babcock, ''The effects of uncertainty on optimal nitrogen applications,'' Rev. Agr. Econ. 14, 271 1992.Google Scholar
  5. B. A. Babcock, A. L. Carriquiry, and H. S. Stern, ''Evaluation of soil test information in agricultural decision making,'' Applied Statistics 45, 447 1996.Google Scholar
  6. B. A. Babcock and G. R. Pautsch, ''Moving from uniform to variable fertilizer rates on Iowa corn: effects on rates and returns,'' Working Paper 97-WP 182 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. B. A. Babcock and J. F. Shogren, ''The cost of agricultural production risk,'' Agric. Econ. 12, 141 1995.Google Scholar
  8. P. Berck and G. Helfand, ''Reconciling the von Liebig and differentiable crop production functions,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 72, 985 1990.Google Scholar
  9. D. S. Bullock and D. G. Bullock, ''Calculation of optimal N fertilizer rates,'' Agron. J. 86, 921 1994.Google Scholar
  10. D. G. Bullock, D. S. Bullock, E. D. Nafziger, T. A. Peterson, P. Carter, T. Doerge, and S. Paszkiewicz, ''Does variable rate seeding of corn pay?,'' Agron. J. 90, 830 1998.Google Scholar
  11. P. M. Carr, G. R. Carlson, J. S. Jacobsen, G. A. Nielsen, and E. O. Skogley, ''Farming soils, not fields: A strategy for increasing fertilizer productivity,'' J. Prod. Agric. 4, 57 1991.Google Scholar
  12. M. E. Cerrato and A. M. Blackmer, ''Comparison of models for describing corn yield response to nitrogen fertilizer,'' Agron. J. 82, 138, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. R. H. Day, ''Probability distributions of field crop yields,'' J. Farm. Econ. 47, 713 1965.Google Scholar
  14. T. E. Fiez, B. C. Miller, and W. L Pan. ''Assessment of spatially variable nitrogen fertilizer management in winter wheat,'' J. Prod. Agric. 7, 17 1994.Google Scholar
  15. M. D. Frank, B. R. Beattie, and M. E. Embleton, ''A comparison of alternative crop response models,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 72, 597 1990.Google Scholar
  16. E. O. Heady, ''Production functions from a random sample of farms,'' J. Farm Econ. 28, 989 1946.Google Scholar
  17. D. A. Hennessy, B. A. Babcock, and T. E. Fiez, ''Effects of site-specific management on the application of agricultural inputs,'' Working Paper 96-WP 156 Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. J. W. Hummel and S. J. Birrell, ''Sensors and the future of site-specific nutrient management,'' Agronomy Abstracts ASA, Madison, WI, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. R. E. Just, ''Risk aversion under profit maximization,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 57, 347 1975.Google Scholar
  20. A. M. Mood, F. A. Graybill, and D. C. Boes, Introduction to the Theory of Statistics McGraw-Hill, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  21. D. J. Mulla, A. U. Bhati, M. W. Hammond, and J. A. Benson, ''A comparison of winter wheat yield and quality under uniform versus spatially variable fertilizer management,'' Agric., Ecosyst., and Envir. 38, 301 1992.Google Scholar
  22. D. Qi, J. J. Fletcher, and J. G. Lee, ''Incorporating stochastic variables in crop response models: Implications for fertilization decisions,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 75, 377 1993.Google Scholar
  23. B. Ramaswami, ''Production risk and optimal input decisions,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 74, 860 1992.Google Scholar
  24. M. W. Rosegrant and J. A. Roumasset, ''The effect of fertiliser on risk: a heteroscedastic production function with measurable stochastic inputs,'' Austr. J. Agric. Econ. 29, 107 1985.Google Scholar
  25. SAS Institute, SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. G. Schnitkey, J. Hopkins, and L. Tweeten, ''An economic evaluation of precision fertilizer applications on corn-soybean fields,'' in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Precision Agriculture, edited by P. C. Robert, R. H. Rust, and W. E. Larson ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, 1996,p.977.Google Scholar
  27. C. Snyder, T. Schroeder, J. Havlin, and G. Kluitenberg, ''An economic analysis of variable rate nitrogen management,'' in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Precision Agriculture, edited by P. C. Robert, R. H. Rust, and W. E. Larson ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, 1996,p.989.Google Scholar
  28. W. J. Spillman, ''Application of the law of diminishing returns to some fertilizer and feed data,'' J. Farm Econ. 5, 36 1923.Google Scholar
  29. D. A. SriRamaratnam, M. E. Bessler, J. E. Rister, J. E. Matocha, and J. Novak, ''Fertilization under uncertainty: An analysis based on producer yield expectations,'' Amer. J. Agric. Econ. 69, 349 1987.Google Scholar
  30. R. G. D. Steel and J. H. Torrie, Principles and Procedure of StatisticsA Biometrical Approach McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
  31. S. M. Swinton and J. Lowenberg-DeBoer, ''Evaluating the profitability of site-specific farming,'' J. Production Agric. 11, 439 1998.Google Scholar
  32. K. B. Watkins, Y. Lu, and W. Huang, ''Economic and environmental feasibility of variable rate nitrogen fertilizer application with carry-over effects,'' J. Agr. Resource Econ. 23, 401 1998.Google Scholar
  33. W. D. Wibawa, D. L. Dludlu, L. J. Swenson, D. G. Hopkins, and W. C. Dahnke, ''Variable fertilizer application based on yield goal and soil map unit,'' J. Prod. Agric. 6, 255 1993.Google Scholar
  34. Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica Version 3.0 Champaign, IL, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. D. A. Zimmerman and John L. Wilson, ''Description of and User's Manual for TUBA: A Computer Code for Generating Two-dimensional Random Fields via the Turning Bands Method'' GRAM, Inc., Albuquerque, NM, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of IllinoisUrbana
  2. 2.Department of Crop SciencesUniversity of IllinoisUrbana

Personalised recommendations