Precision Agriculture

The U.S. government laid the original foundations for precision agriculture in 1983, when it announced the opening up of the Global Positioning System (GPS), a satellite-based navigation program developed by the U.S. military, for civilian use. Soon after, companies began developing what is known as “variable rate technology,” which allows farmers to apply fertilizers at different rates throughout a field. After measuring and mapping such characteristics as acidity level and phosphorous and potassium content, farmers match the quantity of fertilizer to the need. For the most part, even today, fields are tested manually, with individual farmers or employees collecting samples at predetermined points, packing the samples into bags, and sending them to a lab for analysis. Then, an agronomist creates a corresponding map of recommended fertilizers for each area designed to optimize production. After that, a GPS-linked fertilizer spreader applies the selected amount of nutrients in each location.

Over 60 percent of U.S. agricultural-input dealers offer some kind of variable-rate-technology services, but data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicate that in spite of years of subsidies and educational efforts, less than 20 percent of corn acreage is managed using the technology. At the moment, a key constraint is economic. Because manual soil testing is expensive, the farmers and agribusinesses that do use variable rate technology tend to employ sparse sampling strategies. Most farmers in the United States, for example, collect one sample for every two and a half acres; in Brazil, the figure is often just one sample for every 12 and a half acres. The problem, however, is that soil can often vary greatly within a single acre, and agricultural scientists agree that several tests per acre are often required to capture the differences. In other words, because of the high cost of gathering soil information, farmers are leaving productivity gains on the table in some areas of the field and over-applying fertilizer and other inputs in others.

(From an article by Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer in Foreign Affairs May/June 2015 issue.)

In paragraph 1, the cohesive links “Soon after” , “After” , “Then” and “After that” introduce a sequence of

Britain’s farmers will need help after Brexit

Britain’s decision to leave the EU poses challenges for many sectors of the economy. Few are likely to feel the heat in the next few years quite as much as the country’s farmers. For decades, the British farming community has been the recipient of generous subsidies under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Last year CAP payments to the UK totalled about £3bn, making up 55 per cent of farmers’ incomes. Once the UK leaves the bloc, these payments will come to an end, potentially endangering businesses across the country.

Theresa May’s new government is aware of the challenge this poses. Earlier this month, Philip Hammond, the chancellor, announced that the Treasury would replace any shortfall in EU funding to farmers that might arise between now and the end of the decade as Britain redefines its relationship with the EU. However, Mr Hammond is providing no more than a short term stopgap. Farmers remain highly uncertain about their prospects after 2020 and Mrs May and her ministers need to address how British farming support can be reconfigured in a post-CAP age.

Some free market thinkers believe Britain’s departure from the CAP is a golden opportunity to scale back — and even end — agricultural subsidies altogether. They believe the CAP has been hugely distortive because farmers are granted funds according to how much they produce. British farming businesses have therefore been unwilling to innovate, leaving agricultural productivity in the UK lagging well behind that of the US, for example.

Proponents of deep cuts in subsidy also believe they are a sine qua non if Britain is to forge new trade deals with non-EU states. The EU is so heavily committed to agricultural protectionism — imposing tariff barriers on outsiders while subsidising its own farmers — that its ability to sign trade agreements with developing nations has long been restricted. If the UK adopts a different approach, opening up its markets to food exports from, say, Commonwealth nations, it could gain significant new access for UK companies looking to sell services.

(From: The Financial Times August 21, 2016)