using surveys to overcome obstacles to specialty crop industry adoption of automated technologies
DESCRIPTION
Presentation at ASABE 2010 Annual MeetingTRANSCRIPT
Katie Ellis, Tara Baugher, Karen Lewis, and Gwen Hoheisel
Penn State UniversityWashington State University
Using Surveys to Overcome Obstacles to Specialty Crop Industry Adoption of
Automated Technologies
• Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops (CASC)– Multidisciplinary project aimed at improving tree
fruit production efficiency • Engineering/robotics, horticulture, entomology,
plant pathology– Variety of new techniques & equipment– Collaborators:
• Universities & Government– PSU, CMU, Purdue, WSU, OSU, USDA
• Industry• Growers & Packers (involvement in advisory
panel)
CASC
Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops
• Labor Reduction
• Crop Assessment
• Environmental Monitoring
• Sociological Implications
• Outreach
• Commercialization
• Assess specific stakeholder concerns early– Non-threatening, confidential
• Help outreach efforts – put in context applicable to interests of each group
• Determine differences in regional attitudes & practices
• Help decrease technology adoption lag times and speed up rollout
• See how farm size/revenue affect potential adoption
Why Bother with Socioeconomic Data?
8 yr lag to early adoption/15 yrs to full adoption
Adoption of New Ag Technologies
From Alston, Norton, and Pardey Science Under Scarcity,1995.
• Participant’s farm enterprise information• Needs/potentials for automation and
sensor tech in specialty crops• Potential benefits of harvest assist
technology• Potential benefits of automated disease
detection & pest monitoring• Potential benefits of automation for
monitoring plant stress• Benefits of fully automated harvest• Specific orchard planting system
information
Full Survey Themes
Full Socioeconomic Survey & TurningPoint Instant Response Surveys
Mid-Atlantic Fruit & Vegetable Convention
• Paper surveys: 65 (PA), 8 (NY); 75% Owners– 72% participation in PA
• TurningPoint survey participants: 25 (PA), 36 (NY); Owners (NY: 72%, PA: 43%)
• Greatest need: harvesting, spraying, monitoring yield, quality, plant/soil/water/nutrient status
• Moderate needs in thinning, tree training, and pruning
• Low need for technological advancement in mowing
Eastern Surveys
East:Acreage and Annual Gross Revenue
Acreage
Num
ber o
f Res
pond
ents
700+600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100
25
20
15
10
5
0
• Improve precision & efficiency:– Fruit thinning*– Harvesting*– Pruning– Spraying
• Improve environmental stewardship & sustainability:
– Spraying*– Thinning– Monitoring water & nutrient status
• Least need: tree training, mowing
Areas of Greatest Need
Highest need scores
Anticipated Benefits of Harvest Assist
• Increased workforce productivity
• Improved management of harvest operations
• Reduced costs• Other ideas:
– Increased labor pool by eliminating heavy lifting
– Better quality fruit (faster shipment to consumers)
– Improved employee health
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Equipment reliability
Need for mechanical expertise on farm
Damage to fruit
Cost
Decreased employee retention
Decreased safety
Reduced control over management of harvest
Equipment availability
Lack of equipment flexibility
Need for specialized training
Perceived obstacles to adoption of harvest assist
Equipment Price Justification
• Maximum equipment price justified by 30-40% increase in efficiency of harvest employees– Median: $35,000
• Maximum equipment price justified by 10-15% increase in fruit packout– Median: $25,000
• Significant correlation between participant’s annual orchard revenue and the maximum price justified for harvest efficiency (ρ = 0.509, df = 50, I = 0.0002)
Automated Insect/Disease Monitoring• 79% agreed that a fire blight vision &
detection system would help in removing blighted shoots and avoiding tree loss
• Most indicated that they would, at minimum, use the same number of insect traps if reliable imaging systems were available– Many would also increase the number of traps, up to 70 additional units per pest
Implications• Orchards with higher annual revenues
have a higher justifiable price point and are more likely to be early adopters
• Internal fruit feeder pressure in the East is generally low; however, nearly 100% of respondents that regularly trap are willing to try the same number of automated traps
• Advanced technologies in tree training & mowing are lowest in priority for those surveyed
Full Socioeconomic Survey
Washington State Hort. Assn.
NW Hort Expo
Western Survey• Paper surveys: 38 Respondents; 63%
Owners• Greatest need: thinning, spraying,
monitoring water/nutrient status• Moderate needs in harvesting, monitoring
crop status• Low need for technological advancement in tree training, pruning, and mowing
West:Acreage and Annual Gross Revenue
Anticipated Benefits of Harvest Assist• Increased workforce productivity• Improved management of harvest
operations• Reduced need for steady workforce
Compared to Eastern growers, Western growers anticipate fewer benefits in terms of cost but more in terms of labor
Equipment Price Justification• Maximum equipment price justified by 30-
40% increase in efficiency of harvest employees– Median: $35,000
• Maximum equipment price justified by 10-15% increase in fruit packout– Median: $55,000
Same in the East
Much higher than in the East ($25,000)
Automated Insect/Disease Monitoring• 83% agreed that a fire blight vision & detection
system would help in removing blighted shoots and avoiding tree loss
• As in the East, most indicated that they would, at minimum, use the same number of insect traps if reliable imaging systems were available
Percentage of participants anticipating possible obstacles with imaging/sensor technologies for monitoring insects
Perceived obstacles to adoption of fully automated harvest
Results similar to opinions from the Mid-Atlantic meeting
Perceived benefits of visioning technologies* for crop projections
*Technologies under development for eventual fully automated harvest
Much lower than in the East
Other Regional Implications• Western and Eastern growers indicated differences in
irrigation concerns and justifiable price points for harvest-assist technology– Suggests a benefit in using region-specific outreach topics
to emphasize local needs for some topics– Western growers with larger pack-and-ship operations
associate a greater benefit with packout improvement– Smaller Eastern retail-based businesses would relate
better to emphasis on reduced labor costs and fruit quality improvement
• Western growers were also particularly interested in sensor data for crop projections, which may be partly due to recent disparities between projected and actual crops
• Fine tune outreach efforts in each region– Videos and fact sheets
• Effectively address cost concerns (early!) through value proposition seminars & software
• Thorough field-testing of equipment in a variety of grower landscapes– Survey participant comments: Orchard
slope/aspect, groundhog holes, etc.• Emphasis on reliable, user-friendly
equipment• Early involvement of commercialization
partners not a major concern
How to Use This Information for CASC
• This work is supported by the US Department of Agriculture under the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, award number 2008-51180-04876.
• We acknowledge the contributions of N. Lehrer, D. Ames, and the Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops project team for input on the survey questions.
Acknowledgments
Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research, extension, and resident education programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsements by Penn State Cooperative Extension is implied.
This publication is available in alternative media on request. The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without
regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits
discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State
University. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY.