CASC Team Showcase: Sociological Implications

Comprehensive Automationfor Specialty Crops

ShowcaseNovember 19th, 2009

Sociological Implications of the CASC Project

Katie Ellis, Tara Baugher, and Karen Lewis

Comprehensive Automation for Specialty Crops 3

• 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 do socioeconomic analyses?

8 yr lag to early adoption/15 yrs to full adoption From Alston, Norton, and Pardey Science

Under Scarcity,1995.

Mid-Atlantic Fruit & Vegetable Convention

Full Socioeconomic Survey & TurningPoint Instant Response Surveys


• 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


• Benefits of harvest assist technologies:– Increased worker productivity (NY)– Reduced cost (PA)

• Main obstacle: cost• Would increase adoption rate of automated disease & insect

monitoring innovations:– Validation of efficiency for finding & treating spot problems early– Economic analysis demonstrating affordability

TurningPoint: Anticipated Benefits


• 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


Acreage

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

700+600-700500-600400-500300-400200-300100-2000-100

25

20

15

10

5

0

Total acreage managed by each participant


0 1 2 3 4 5

EconomyFuel costs

Labor regulationsLabor costs

TaxesWater availability

Water costsQuaratine regulations

Workers' compensationInsurance costs

Environmental regulationsMarket conditions

No impact Significant impact

Impact of outside factors on orchard business


• To improve precision & efficiency:– Fruit thinning*– Harvesting*– Pruning– Spraying

• To improve environmental stewardship & sustainability:– Spraying*– Thinning– Monitoring water & nutrient status

• Least need: tree training, mowing

Areas of Greatest Need

Highest need scores


• 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

Anticipated Benefits of Harvest Assist


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


• 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)

Equipment Price Justification


• 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

Automated Insect/Disease Monitoring


• 80% aware of orchard pockets requiring more or less water and nutrient inputs than average blocks

• 70% felt that imaging systems for water stress and nutrient deficiency would help improve their orchard management

Monitoring Plant Stress


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Equipment reliability

Need for specialized training

Reduced fruit quality

Cost

Perceived obstacles to adoption of fully automated harvest


0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

More efficient fruit thinning

Improved preparation for harvest and fruit storage

Accurate pre-harvest projections of crop volume and fruit size

Improved management of orchard inputs

Perceived obstacles to adoption of fully automated harvest


• 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

Implications

Presidents Day Fruit Grower Educational Meeting

Adams County, PAAbridged Survey Version


• 57% owners, 39% managers/employees• 39% participation rate• Compared to full survey takers, participants did not see as

much potential for increased employee retention• Equipment reliability was generally seen as a more influential

factor than in the full survey– Obstacle would be overcome with easily repairable machinery– Equipment complexity not a concern

• Overall, equipment cost is a major concern

Abridged Survey Results


• Suggestions for overcoming potential obstacles to adoption of harvest assist:– We need to know today how to plant our blocks so mechanization is

possible in ~10 yrs– Multiple crop adaptability– Make it gentle on fruit and at a reasonable cost– When rolling out technology, address these first: cost and equipment

expertise needed

Selected Comments


• Overcoming obstacles to adoption of fully automated harvest:– Affordability for the small grower– Proof of capabilities in field demonstrations– Design equipment that can operate on slopes– Can multiple growers share the technology?– Not of interest to me

Selected Comments


• How should orchard planting systems be modified for compatibility with technologies?– Narrow, consistent canopies from the ground to the top of the tree– [Due to many orchard variables], this is going to be a tough issue. I see

the use of automated traps as something everyone could implement right away, without orchard modifications

– The two need to be developed together– Dwarfing rootstock for all crops

Selected Comments


• Survey of Northwestern growers by Karen Lewis this winter

Upcoming

Thank you.

CASC Team Showcase: Sociological Implications

Education

Transcript of CASC Team Showcase: Sociological Implications