Revolutionizing Agriculture: Speeding-up Adoption of New Technologies

Agriculture faces an important quandary; technological advances race ahead at unprecedented speeds, but growers struggle to implement these (potentially game-changing) advancements at a commensurate speed.

Farmers are challenged to learn which technologies are available, then decide which ones meet the technical, financial, and cultural fits required for adoption. This process has never been easy in agriculture. Every new method, material or equipment now adopted in the industry passed through a tortuous and carefully designed filter. And these efforts are well justified. Unlike consumer sectors like electronics, appliances or automotive, agriculture does not lend itself to rapid adoption. Farm decisions are not driven by the latest and the greatest innovation but taken cautiously with the universal understanding that even a minor misstep could potentially cause financial damage.

It was very educational for me to see 10 field laborers, 2 supervisors, 1 tractor driver and a seed company rep wait idly for 4 hours, until a manufacturer’s rep could arrive and re-program the glitched console. It’s not difficult to see how the potential for financial damage caused by an unreliable telephone, dishwasher or automobile simply pales in comparison to the potential damage caused by a non-working farm implement or product.

Every grower knows that in extreme cases, financially recovering from such an event in the same season may prove difficult, or even impossible. So, how can farms adopt new and unproven materials while minimizing risks?

Years ago, I worked for a company that introduced a high-end nitrogen fertilizer derived from hydrolyzed soy. Their soy hydrolysate N fertilizer was properly registered, certified organic, fully soluble, had a very low salt index, and had no disagreeable odors. While it elicited a great plant response, it came with a hefty price tag— 6 times more expensive per unit of nitrogen when compared to other organic certified fertilizers.

One afternoon I got a call from the grower of a large farm, with an N-deficiency concern. Despite meticulously applying the correct amount of fertilizer through drip irrigation, their organic certified wheat exhibited a yield-limiting nitrogen deficiency. The farmer had diligently followed the recommended dosage, application timing, used an approved fertilizer that supplied the claimed amount of nitrogen, and was cost-effective. Technically and financially, the farmer was doing everything right, yet the N-deficiency persisted.

We concluded that the nitrogen availability was limited by the speed of mineralization (a vital step that transforms certain forms of organic nitrogen into "plant-usable forms”). While the winter wheat crop experienced relatively mild temperatures when compared to other growing regions, these temperatures were low enough to slow-down the fertilizer’s decomposition by local microorganisms. Soil biological processes could not mineralize nitrogen at a fast enough rate to meet crop demands.

To tackle this problem, we proposed a trial using our company's new nitrogen fertilizer in a limited area and evaluate the effects after a couple of weeks. At that time, organic certified soy hydrolysate N-fertilizers were newcomers to the industry, therefore we lacked established guidelines to calculate the correct dosage. We opted, and made it clear to the farmer, that the recommendation was based on a dollar-for-dollar trade, rather than a technically correct unit of N for unit exchange. While the farmer's budget would remain unaffected, the unit-N calculation would be significantly different. Several weeks after application the grower reported that the nitrogen deficiency was under control and promptly placed an order for the entire acreage. Although we could demonstrate effectiveness, we were puzzled by the calculations of units of N. How could 0.54 units of N per week from one organic fertilizer correct a deficiency that 2.6 units of N per week could not? And absent of a clear answer, how can a farm adopt these new materials while minimizing risk?

‍

Traditionally, agriculture has introduced new materials based on experimental data produced by land-grant universities and independent research organizations. The strategy is to quantify effects thorough research before bringing the material to market. While the reliability of this process is beyond question, farmers must typically wait before adopting. This is where collaboration between farms and suppliers becomes indispensable. The time and risk associated with adoption can be minimized by carefully evaluating new technologies through joint on-farm demonstrations. For these demonstrations to be conducive to adoption, growers and suppliers must work together to confirm the material's fit and benefits. Suppliers must understand the benefits and be able to demonstrate the efficacy and fit before attempting sales. Growers should embrace and support these on-farm demonstrations and be prepared to implement (that means purchase) the material within a reasonable timeframe. While this collaboration represents a certain degree of risk for all, without them new technologies may become obsolete before formal research confirms the claims.

If today you visited my former client’s warehouse, you would see many pallet-loads of soy protein hydrolysate N fertilizer. This new (at the time) technology was adopted because a grower and his supplier embraced the work and risks associated with a trustworthy field-demonstration, even though no formal research had yet produced a widely accepted N-calculation formula to base the recs.