Agricultural producers have quickly adopted precision agriculture technologies in recent years. With the availability of global positioning system (GPS) signals and other technology, producers can track yields, steer and control equipment, monitor field conditions, and manage inputs at very precise levels across a field, offering the potential to substantially increase productivity and profitability

Castle, Mike

Lubben, Bradley D.

Luck, Joe

English

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Cornhusker Economics Agricultural Economics Department 2015 Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data Mike Castle University of Nebraska-Lincoln Bradley D. Lubben University of Nebraska-Lincoln Joe Luck University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker  Part of the Agricultural Economics Commons, and the Economics Commons Castle, Mike; Lubben, Bradley D.; and Luck, Joe, "Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data" (2015). Cornhusker Economics. 725. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker/725 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Economics Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornhusker Economics by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.  May 27, 2015 University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension Cornhusker Economics Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources Department of Agricultural Economics http://agecon.unl.edu/cornhuskereconomics Follow us on Twitter and Facebook @UNLAgEcon Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data Extension is a Division of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln cooperating with the Counties and the US Department of Agriculture.  University of Nebraska Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination policies  of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture.  Market Report Year Ago 4 Wks Ago 5/22/15 Livestock and Products, Weekly Average       Nebraska Slaughter Steers, 35-65% Choice, Live Weight. . . . . . . 147.00 * 160.00 Nebraska Feeder Steers, Med. & Large Frame, 550-600 lb. . . . . 245.80* 288.14 289.49 Nebraska Feeder Steers, Med. & Large Frame 750-800 lb. . .. .  186.84 228.03 227.24 Choice Boxed Beef, 600-750 lb. Carcass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.34 259.02 263.19 Western Corn Belt Base Hog Price Carcass, Negotiated. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109.64 62.57 78.16 Pork Carcass Cutout, 185 lb. Carcass 51-52% Lean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.15 65.94 84.86 Slaughter Lambs, wooled and shorn, 135-165 lb. National. . . . . . . 136.00 137.18 146.30 National Carcass Lamb Cutout FOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369.40 369.07 356.28 Crops, Daily Spot Prices       Wheat, No. 1, H.W. Imperial, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.98 4.59 4.93 Corn, No. 2, Yellow Nebraska City, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.62 3.66 3.45 Soybeans, No. 1, Yellow Nebraska City, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 14.65 *9.44 899 Grain Sorghum, No.2, Yellow Dorchester, cwt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.02 7.59 6.88 Oats, No. 2, Heavy Minneapolis, Mn, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.87 2.97 2.77 Feed       Alfalfa, Large Square Bales, Good to Premium, RFV 160-185 Northeast Nebraska, ton. . . . . . . . . . . 160.00 202.50 190.00 Alfalfa, Large Rounds, Good Platte Valley, ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.00 77.50 * Grass Hay, Large Rounds, Good  Nebraska, ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 105.00 115.00 120.00 Dried Distillers Grains, 10% Moisture Nebraska Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.00 176.50 170.50 Wet Distillers Grains, 65-70% Moisture Nebraska Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.50 59.50 52.00   ⃰No Market       Agricultural producers have quickly adopted precision agriculture technologies in recent years. With the availa-bility of global positioning system (GPS) signals and other technology, producers can track yields, steer and control equipment, monitor field conditions, and man-age inputs at very precise levels across a field, offering the potential to substantially increase productivity and profitability.  Coupled with the adoption of the technology is the rapid accumulation of big agricultural data, with more data points than can be comprehended in any standard analy-sis, leading to the demand not just for technology, but also for analysis and advisory services from numerous precision agriculture industry providers. With the reams of data on individual operations and fields comes ques-tions of how the data is used, for what purpose, and by whom. A recent study at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln looked at these issues of precision agriculture technolo-gy adoption and opinions. The study was conducted with partial support from the University’s Undergradu-ate Creative Activities and Research Experience (UCARE) program which provides small grants to un-dergraduate students engaged in research and other cre-ative efforts with supervising faculty. This study was based on a survey distributed to agricul-tural producers at several different Nebraska Extension sponsored events in early 2015, including the Extension Crop Production Clinics across the state, Extension Pre-cision Ag Data Management Workshops, the 2015 Fremont Corn Expo (sponsored by Extension), and the 2015 NEATA Ag Technology Conference. Thus, the survey population was not completely random, but was composed of Nebraska farmers associated with UNL Extension, which is assumed to be a good representation of the state's farmers. A total of 135 responses were received at the various meet-ings, with 126 usable responses based on a reported county of operation in Nebraska. Initial results and analysis from the survey provides a good perspective of the current state of precision technology use and opinions in Nebraska. Pro-ducers responding to the survey indicated an average of 1,247 acres of row crops in an average operation of 1,507 acres. Of those acres, 47% were owner-operated, 26% were cash rented, 22% were crop-share leased, and 5% were cus-tom farmed. Most of the responses (79%) were in the east-ern three crop districts in Nebraska (Northeast, East, and Southeast), but that is consistent with the largest density of crop production and producers in the state as well. Precision Agriculture Technology Adoption Producers were asked several questions relating to technolo-gy usage. Figure 1 summarizes the adoption rates of numer-ous precision agriculture and ag data management tools cur-rently available.  Figure 1. Precision Agriculture Technology Usage  Producers responding to the survey have widely adopted many commonly-available technologies, including soil sam-pling (98%) and computer high-speed internet access (94%). Whether these are specifically used to manage preci-sion agriculture practices merits further analysis. Soil sam-pling, for example, could include a number of methods alt-hough 75% of those reporting the use of soil sampling did indicate the usage of grid sampling procedures. Yield moni-tors and maps and GPS guidance systems were the next most common practices with more than 80% adoption rates. Yield monitors and maps may be a prerequisite for any ad-ditional precision agriculture practices and are a common first step to develop historical data for further analysis and management. Guidance systems are popular not just to facil-itate precision application but to improve field efficiency and reduce driver fatigue. Guidance systems facilitate the use of autosteer and automatic section controls, which are also widely adopted among survey respondents. Variable rate (VR) technology is also widely adopted at 68% among survey respondents although uses vary and include planting  (population or hybrid), fertilizer and lime (rate and product), or irrigation. Satellite imagery and plant sens-ing are less widely adopted although new developments in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) could increase the interest in using imagery for scouting, analysis, and management decisions. Which precision agriculture technologies producers use and how they use them will be the topic of further anal-ysis and potential research. As suggested, adopting yield monitors first may be a necessary step to build a history of production data to layer with other variables such as soil types, weather, hybrids and varieties, and other production practices. With these data layers in hand, adopting guidance systems and variable rate ap-plications may be very attractive and would be ex-pected to be highly correlated. On the other hand, auto-steer and section controls could improve operator per-formance and reduce excess input usage regardless of whether yield monitors and variable rate ap-plications are adopted. Further analysis can provide insight on what producers adopt and what technologies drive the adoption of other technologies. Big Agriculture Data Management Coupled with the adoption of precision agri-culture technology is the accumulation of large amounts of agricultural data on individ-ual operations and fields. The survey also asked producers several questions about agri-culture data management and policy issues.  Nearly 80% of survey respondents indicated that they managed their farm data although that does not necessarily suggest they do so exclusively. Numer-ous firms from input and machinery suppliers to inde-pendent consulting companies offer services to produc-ers. Of those survey respondents who indicated they did not manage their data, more than 40% said their local cooperative or a consultant managed their data, while more than 5% said their equipment dealer or their seed dealer managed their data.  Producers use their data and a range of farm software packages to analyze numerous production and manage-ment decisions for their operations. Figure 2 provides insight on the uses of the data for those reporting usage of farm software.  Using the data and software for yield mapping is the most common practice, followed by developing plans or prescriptions for VR nutrient and fertilizer applica-tion as well as VR seeding. Producers appear confident in the usage and the oppor-tunity with precision agriculture and data management. A strong majority (70%) of survey respondents indicat-ed profits had increased due to the use of precision  agriculture equipment, with 42% of those respondents saying the profits had come from increased efficiency and decreased input costs and, 58% saying the profits had come from increased production. Nearly 95% of respond-ents indicated the investment in precision agriculture was worth it. While the investment was deemed valuable, there are still numerous questions about managing the data. Many sur-vey respondents were comfortable sharing their data with trusted partners, such as University researchers or educa-tors (45%), relatives (39%), and local cooperatives (39%). But more respondents trusted their data with “no one” (23%) than with equipment dealers (18%), equip-ment manufacturers (17%), or neighbors (13%). Knowing how the data may be used and who owns or has access to it appear to be important questions for produc-ers. In fact, 100% of respondents to the survey said they think the data belongs to the farmer (with one response each also including either the equipment dealer or the equipment manufacturer). Yet, precision agriculture equipment or services may generally come with a produc-er agreement that gives access or ownership of the data to other parties. Managing the opportunities in precision agriculture and big agriculture data will demand comfort with technology adoption, data management, and likely relationships with suppliers or other precision agriculture service providers. Producers clearly see opportunities — reduced input costs, increased accuracy and quality of operations, better data and information, increased productivity, and reduced operator fatigue and stress were all frequently mentioned as the number one benefit of using precision agriculture by survey respondents. Producers also see challenges and issues. Cost, keeping up with advancing technology, and return on investment were most frequently identified as the biggest issues regarding advancements in agricultural production technology. Interpreting the data, privacy, ownership, and accuracy of the data were most frequently identified as the biggest issues regarding farm-level data generated by precision agriculture technology. Figure 2. Uses of Farm Management Software Summary The producer survey provides new insight on precision ag-riculture technology adoption and big agriculture data us-age and issues in Nebraska. The preliminary data and anal-ysis shows wide-scale adoption of precision agriculture technology, starting with yield mapping and guidance con-trol systems. Further analysis can address the relationship between the adoption of these technologies and the adoption of additional technologies such as variable rate application systems and imagery and sensing systems for plant or field moni-toring and diagnostics. Along with the adoption of precision ag-riculture technologies is the rapid accu-mulation of big agriculture data. Produc-ers are using the data to make improved management decisions and plan variable rate applications, but are concerned about the ownership, control, and interpretation of the data from their operations as well as access to their data. There appear to be great opportunities to use precision agri-culture technology and big agriculture data management to increase production and productivity, to improve manage-ment or operator performance, and even to consider on-the-farm experimentation for assessing inputs and production practices. But, there are also concerns to address regarding big agriculture data. Depending on who owns it and who has access to it, how might it be used not just to optimize production and management decisions on the farm, but also marketing decisions at a regional or corporate level and policy or regulatory decisions at the federal, state, or local level? There is certainly more work to be done to better under-stand these survey results and the broader management de-cisions and policy issues ahead. As if to reinforce that con-clusion, the final question at the end of the survey asked for any additional comments and the most common response was the need for better education and training.   Mike Castle Undergraduate Research Assistant Ag Economics Department, UNL  Bradley D. Lubben Extension Assistant Professor, Policy Specialist, and Director, NCERMEC Ag Economics Department, UNL  Joe Luck Extension Precision Agriculture Engineer Biological Systems Engineering, UNL 

Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
Cornhusker Economics Agricultural Economics Department 
2015 
Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data 
Mike Castle 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Bradley D. Lubben 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Joe Luck 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker 
 Part of the Agricultural Economics Commons, and the Economics Commons 
Castle, Mike; Lubben, Bradley D.; and Luck, Joe, "Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data" 
(2015). Cornhusker Economics. 725. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker/725 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Economics Department at 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornhusker Economics by 
an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
 May 27, 2015 
University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension 
Cornhusker 
Economics Institute of Agriculture & Natural Resources 
Department of Agricultural Economics 
http://agecon.unl.edu/cornhuskereconomics 
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook @UNLAgEcon 
Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data 
Extension is a Division of the Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln 
cooperating with the Counties and the US Department of Agriculture. 
 
University of Nebraska Extension educational programs abide with the non-discrimination policies  
of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and the United States Department of Agriculture. 
 
Market Report Year 
Ago 
4 Wks 
Ago 5/22/15 
Livestock and Products, 
Weekly Average       
Nebraska Slaughter Steers, 
35-65% Choice, Live Weight. . . . . . . 147.00 * 160.00 
Nebraska Feeder Steers, 
Med. & Large Frame, 550-600 lb. . . . . 245.80* 288.14 289.49 
Nebraska Feeder Steers, 
Med. & Large Frame 750-800 lb. . .. .  186.84 228.03 227.24 
Choice Boxed Beef, 
600-750 lb. Carcass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.34 259.02 263.19 
Western Corn Belt Base Hog Price 
Carcass, Negotiated. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109.64 62.57 78.16 
Pork Carcass Cutout, 185 lb. Carcass 
51-52% Lean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.15 65.94 84.86 
Slaughter Lambs, wooled and shorn, 
135-165 lb. National. . . . . . . 136.00 137.18 146.30 
National Carcass Lamb Cutout 
FOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369.40 369.07 356.28 
Crops, 
Daily Spot Prices       
Wheat, No. 1, H.W. 
Imperial, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.98 4.59 4.93 
Corn, No. 2, Yellow 
Nebraska City, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.62 3.66 3.45 
Soybeans, No. 1, Yellow 
Nebraska City, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 14.65 *9.44 899 
Grain Sorghum, No.2, Yellow 
Dorchester, cwt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.02 7.59 6.88 
Oats, No. 2, Heavy 
Minneapolis, Mn, bu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.87 2.97 2.77 
Feed       
Alfalfa, Large Square Bales, 
Good to Premium, RFV 160-185 
Northeast Nebraska, ton. . . . . . . . . . . 160.00 202.50 190.00 
Alfalfa, Large Rounds, Good 
Platte Valley, ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.00 77.50 * 
Grass Hay, Large Rounds, Good 
 Nebraska, ton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 105.00 115.00 120.00 
Dried Distillers Grains, 10% Moisture 
Nebraska Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.00 176.50 170.50 
Wet Distillers Grains, 65-70% Moisture 
Nebraska Average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.50 59.50 52.00 
  ⃰No Market 
      
Agricultural producers have quickly adopted precision 
agriculture technologies in recent years. With the availa-
bility of global positioning system (GPS) signals and 
other technology, producers can track yields, steer and 
control equipment, monitor field conditions, and man-
age inputs at very precise levels across a field, offering 
the potential to substantially increase productivity and 
profitability.  
Coupled with the adoption of the technology is the rapid 
accumulation of big agricultural data, with more data 
points than can be comprehended in any standard analy-
sis, leading to the demand not just for technology, but 
also for analysis and advisory services from numerous 
precision agriculture industry providers. With the reams 
of data on individual operations and fields comes ques-
tions of how the data is used, for what purpose, and by 
whom. 
A recent study at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
looked at these issues of precision agriculture technolo-
gy adoption and opinions. The study was conducted 
with partial support from the University’s Undergradu-
ate Creative Activities and Research Experience 
(UCARE) program which provides small grants to un-
dergraduate students engaged in research and other cre-
ative efforts with supervising faculty. 
This study was based on a survey distributed to agricul-
tural producers at several different Nebraska Extension 
sponsored events in early 2015, including the Extension 
Crop Production Clinics across the state, Extension Pre-
cision Ag Data Management Workshops, the 2015 
Fremont Corn Expo (sponsored by Extension), and the 
2015 NEATA Ag Technology Conference. Thus, the 
survey population was not completely random, but was 
composed of Nebraska farmers associated with UNL 
Extension, which is assumed to be a good representation 
of the state's farmers. 
A total of 135 responses were received at the various meet-
ings, with 126 usable responses based on a reported county 
of operation in Nebraska. Initial results and analysis from 
the survey provides a good perspective of the current state 
of precision technology use and opinions in Nebraska. Pro-
ducers responding to the survey indicated an average of 
1,247 acres of row crops in an average operation of 1,507 
acres. Of those acres, 47% were owner-operated, 26% were 
cash rented, 22% were crop-share leased, and 5% were cus-
tom farmed. Most of the responses (79%) were in the east-
ern three crop districts in Nebraska (Northeast, East, and 
Southeast), but that is consistent with the largest density of 
crop production and producers in the state as well. 
Precision Agriculture Technology Adoption 
Producers were asked several questions relating to technolo-
gy usage. Figure 1 summarizes the adoption rates of numer-
ous precision agriculture and ag data management tools cur-
rently available.  
Figure 1. Precision Agriculture Technology Usage 
 
Producers responding to the survey have widely adopted 
many commonly-available technologies, including soil sam-
pling (98%) and computer high-speed internet access 
(94%). Whether these are specifically used to manage preci-
sion agriculture practices merits further analysis. Soil sam-
pling, for example, could include a number of methods alt-
hough 75% of those reporting the use of soil sampling did 
indicate the usage of grid sampling procedures. Yield moni-
tors and maps and GPS guidance systems were the next 
most common practices with more than 80% adoption rates. 
Yield monitors and maps may be a prerequisite for any ad-
ditional precision agriculture practices and are a common 
first step to develop historical data for further analysis and 
management. Guidance systems are popular not just to facil-
itate precision application but to improve field efficiency 
and reduce driver fatigue. Guidance systems facilitate the 
use of autosteer and automatic section controls, which are 
also widely adopted among survey respondents. Variable 
rate (VR) technology is also widely adopted at 68% among 
survey respondents although uses vary and include planting  
(population or hybrid), fertilizer and lime (rate and 
product), or irrigation. Satellite imagery and plant sens-
ing are less widely adopted although new developments 
in the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) could 
increase the interest in using imagery for scouting, 
analysis, and management decisions. 
Which precision agriculture technologies producers use 
and how they use them will be the topic of further anal-
ysis and potential research. As suggested, adopting 
yield monitors first may be a necessary step to build a 
history of production data to layer with other variables 
such as soil types, weather, hybrids and varieties, and 
other production practices. With these data layers in 
hand, adopting guidance systems and variable rate ap-
plications may be very attractive and would be ex-
pected to be highly correlated. On the other hand, auto-
steer and section controls could improve operator per-
formance and reduce excess input usage regardless of 
whether yield monitors and variable rate ap-
plications are adopted. Further analysis can 
provide insight on what producers adopt and 
what technologies drive the adoption of other 
technologies. 
Big Agriculture Data Management 
Coupled with the adoption of precision agri-
culture technology is the accumulation of 
large amounts of agricultural data on individ-
ual operations and fields. The survey also 
asked producers several questions about agri-
culture data management and policy issues. 
 Nearly 80% of survey respondents indicated 
that they managed their farm data although that does 
not necessarily suggest they do so exclusively. Numer-
ous firms from input and machinery suppliers to inde-
pendent consulting companies offer services to produc-
ers. Of those survey respondents who indicated they did 
not manage their data, more than 40% said their local 
cooperative or a consultant managed their data, while 
more than 5% said their equipment dealer or their seed 
dealer managed their data.  
Producers use their data and a range of farm software 
packages to analyze numerous production and manage-
ment decisions for their operations. Figure 2 provides 
insight on the uses of the data for those reporting usage 
of farm software.  
Using the data and software for yield mapping is the 
most common practice, followed by developing plans 
or prescriptions for VR nutrient and fertilizer applica-
tion as well as VR seeding. 
Producers appear confident in the usage and the oppor-
tunity with precision agriculture and data management. 
A strong majority (70%) of survey respondents indicat-
ed profits had increased due to the use of precision  
agriculture equipment, with 42% of those respondents 
saying the profits had come from increased efficiency and 
decreased input costs and, 58% saying the profits had 
come from increased production. Nearly 95% of respond-
ents indicated the investment in precision agriculture was 
worth it. 
While the investment was deemed valuable, there are still 
numerous questions about managing the data. Many sur-
vey respondents were comfortable sharing their data with 
trusted partners, such as University researchers or educa-
tors (45%), relatives (39%), and local cooperatives 
(39%). But more respondents trusted their data with “no 
one” (23%) than with equipment dealers (18%), equip-
ment manufacturers (17%), or neighbors (13%). 
Knowing how the data may be used and who owns or has 
access to it appear to be important questions for produc-
ers. In fact, 100% of respondents to the survey said they 
think the data belongs to the farmer (with one response 
each also including either the equipment dealer or the 
equipment manufacturer). Yet, precision agriculture 
equipment or services may generally come with a produc-
er agreement that gives access or ownership of the data to 
other parties. Managing the opportunities in precision 
agriculture and big agriculture data will demand comfort 
with technology adoption, data management, and likely 
relationships with suppliers or other precision agriculture 
service providers. 
Producers clearly see opportunities — reduced input 
costs, increased accuracy and quality of operations, better 
data and information, increased productivity, and reduced 
operator fatigue and stress were all frequently mentioned 
as the number one benefit of using precision agriculture 
by survey respondents. Producers also see challenges and 
issues. Cost, keeping up with advancing technology, and 
return on investment were most frequently identified as 
the biggest issues regarding advancements in agricultural 
production technology. Interpreting the data, privacy, 
ownership, and accuracy of the data were most frequently 
identified as the biggest issues regarding farm-level data 
generated by precision agriculture technology. 
Figure 2. Uses of Farm Management Software 
Summary 
The producer survey provides new insight on precision ag-
riculture technology adoption and big agriculture data us-
age and issues in Nebraska. The preliminary data and anal-
ysis shows wide-scale adoption of precision agriculture 
technology, starting with yield mapping and guidance con-
trol systems. Further analysis can address 
the relationship between the adoption of 
these technologies and the adoption of 
additional technologies such as variable 
rate application systems and imagery and 
sensing systems for plant or field moni-
toring and diagnostics. 
Along with the adoption of precision ag-
riculture technologies is the rapid accu-
mulation of big agriculture data. Produc-
ers are using the data to make improved 
management decisions and plan variable 
rate applications, but are concerned about 
the ownership, control, and interpretation of the data from 
their operations as well as access to their data. 
There appear to be great opportunities to use precision agri-
culture technology and big agriculture data management to 
increase production and productivity, to improve manage-
ment or operator performance, and even to consider on-the-
farm experimentation for assessing inputs and production 
practices. But, there are also concerns to address regarding 
big agriculture data. Depending on who owns it and who 
has access to it, how might it be used not just to optimize 
production and management decisions on the farm, but also 
marketing decisions at a regional or corporate level and 
policy or regulatory decisions at the federal, state, or local 
level? 
There is certainly more work to be done to better under-
stand these survey results and the broader management de-
cisions and policy issues ahead. As if to reinforce that con-
clusion, the final question at the end of the survey asked for 
any additional comments and the most common response 
was the need for better education and training. 
 
 
Mike Castle 
Undergraduate Research Assistant 
Ag Economics Department, UNL 
 
Bradley D. Lubben 
Extension Assistant Professor, Policy Specialist, and 
Director, NCERMEC 
Ag Economics Department, UNL 
 
Joe Luck 
Extension Precision Agriculture Engineer 
Biological Systems Engineering, UNL 


https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1725&context=agecon_cornhusker

Precision Agriculture Usage and Big Agriculture Data

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

UNL | Libraries