Computers and Networks in Agriculture

Abstract

This article examines the growing use of computers and networks in farming and ranching operations. The emergence of precision farming technologies is reviewed, including the adaptation of database software, geographical information systems, and the Global Positioning System. Livestock management and tracking technologies using database software and radio frequency identification tags are also reviewed. The importance of the National Animal Identification System program of the United States Department of Agriculture for animal tracking and disease control is explained. Factors that influence the adoption of new technologies by farmers and ranch owners are examined, including the size of operations and the business model of the owners.

Overview

The business structure of farms and ranches, in addition to the production processes that take place there, are being significantly transformed by the use of computers and computer networks. Large and small, farms and ranches of all sizes have found many applications for computers and networks. Manufacturers of farming equipment have added computers to several types of equipment and have integrated a wide range of software programs into farming applications (Hill, 2008). In addition, software producers now offer several types of applications to ease the process of farm operations. The adoption of these technologies has improved productivity and has allowed the farmer to shift spending on labor to spending on capital items (Michailidis, 2006; Van Schilfgaarde, 1996). The nature of the agricultural business is definitely changing.

The Internet. Farmers and ranchers have also turned to the Internet, where numerous websites now exist to serve the agricultural community. In fact, 73 percent of US farms had Internet access as of 2017, up from 43 percent in 2001; farms using computers for farm business increased to 47 percent in 2017, compared to 37 percent in 2011 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). There are three main Internet applications used by farmers: online purchasing, livestock auctions, and supply chain management systems. Online purchasing of supplies and specialty items works well for farmers and ranchers alike, as do websites that provide auction services for livestock (Wahl, 2001). Farm cooperatives and large regional suppliers have also moved to the web and to the use of supply chain management systems (SCMS) to manage the flow of goods from the producer, then to the distributor, and on to the farmer (Bacarin, Madeira & Medeiros, 2008; Hamblen, 2003; McMahon & Wehrspann, 2008).

Agricultural Education. These changes have also driven the evolution of agricultural education. Colleges and universities across the country now incorporate computer applications into their agricultural curriculums. Agricultural students not only study basic business computing applications but also learn about yield management applications, herd management software, computer-based animal husbandry systems, and the use of global positioning system devices in crop planning and management. Courses on precision farming systems that cover the use of farming machinery supported by global positioning systems (GPS) and geographical information systems (GIS) are among the course offerings at many universities. As a result of the adaptation of computing technology to farming and ranching applications, agriculture careers are becoming more appealing to younger generations (Roberson, 2008).

Benefits of Computers & Networks in Agriculture

Increased Yield. A farming operation can produce a greater output of crops if the precision of the cultivating, planting, fertilizing, pest control, and harvesting is improved. This may sound obvious, but tackling the improvement process has been a complex challenge for farm equipment designers as well as computer application developers. It has also required the adaptation of several technologies such as computers, Internet networks, GPS, GIS, and programmable controls and sensors for a wide variety of farm equipment. Many farmers have also faced the necessity of learning an entirely new and complex set of skills (Lindores, 2007; Robinson, 2007).

In the planting process, it is important to place the proper number of seeds per row foot. Precision framing equipment aids in planting seed by controlling the amount of seed dispensed based on the previous year's yield from a specific part of the field (Roberson, 2007). When the harvest is done, a yield monitor is used to record the harvest for every foot of the field and data are put back into the GIS database for analysis and to guide future seeding and fertilizing activities (McMahon, 2003; Yancy 2005).

Efficiency in Fertilizer & Fuel Use. To determine the best application of pesticide and fertilizer products, agronomists have generally sampled soil at select locations in crop fields to develop an average fertilizer level for the field. New precision farming technologies enable farmers to go beyond an average application by developing a GPS-based grid pattern of the field and testing each grid before applying appropriate levels of fertilizer to improve crop yield at a more precise level. This reduces the consumption of fertilizer in some areas and increases it in other areas of the field (Joyce, 2003). Robotic technology is also finding its way into farm operations and many of the precision farming implements are already using some level of robotics (Wehrspann, 2007).

Precision farming technology also aides in maximizing the fuel efficiency of farm equipment by making sure that every operation is as efficient as possible (Roberson, 2007). This technology also helps to reduce of operator fatigue by reducing the time spent on planting and harvesting tasks and by performing some of the guidance functions for equipment (Murray, 2008; Robinson, 2004; Zenk, 2009).

Improved Equipment Tracking & Maintenance. The process of managing and controlling equipment over a large area has also been improved by new technologies. Location tracking for equipment can be done with a GPS sensor and wireless communication service that notifies managers or owners if equipment is moved as well as its precise location. In addition, remote sensors can monitor the overall condition of a piece of equipment, including key maintenance items such as proper fluid levels. If the monitored equipment needs maintenance or repair, operations personnel can be notified through the same wireless communications system that transmits GPS location information (Blake, 2007).

Applications

Technology for Livestock Management

Life Cycle Care. Several types of computer and networking technologies are now used to help manage livestock on farms and ranches. Database software and decision support systems help keep track of animals and make decisions about breeding and when to send an individual animal to market (Miller, 2006). Monitoring and control software helps to manage livestock facilities and can aid in feeding, watering, and temperature control. In addition, animal tagging systems that allow herd managers to tag, track, and monitor livestock have evolved into high-tech integrated systems (Padfield, 2007). This software can also help reduce veterinary bills by identifying which animals are in need of life cycle services; thus reducing onsite veterinary time and charges (Buss, 2004).

Dairy Herd Management. Dairy farmers now have a wide variety of high-tech systems to assist in milking as well as monitoring a dairy cow's output and health conditions. Dairy farmers are using computers and networks help improve animal health, breeding patterns, and overall milk production. Wireless networks assist in relaying information collected by these sensors to the computer monitors that retrieve data from dairy cows and record results into herd management software applications (Long & Buss, 2004; Mitchell, 2008).

Tagging & Tracking. Livestock tagging systems have taken various forms over time. Hot iron branding has been the traditional manner of tagging livestock but a brand only served as a tag. Bar-coding and assigning an individual number to each animal allowed the tagging system to be merged with database management software that allowed herd managers to track and record the animals’ health and growth patterns. More recently, radio frequency identification (RFID) technologies are being used around the world to tag and track animals (Songini, 2007; Talbot, 2004). In 2006, the off-the-shelf RFID tag for animals cost about two dollars each (Neutkens, 2005; Roberts, 2007). Since then, the price has declined to about fifty cents a tag, depending on the type of tag, its application, and the volume of the order.

RFID systems use a wireless chip that contains data that identifies the product to which it is attached or embedded and can communicate information via radio frequency waves. When RFID tags are attached to products, they can provide a means of tracking and monitoring movement through the life cycle. This includes providing country-of-origin labeling (COOL) of imported products. Some food distributors remain concerned that the tagging and tracking process may become expensive and time consuming (Gilbert, 2003; Petrak, 2008).

The National Animal Identification System. Livestock tagging has now taken on a new purpose. In 2004, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) to help in national and international disease control efforts. The NAIS program is relying heavily on RFID tags as the preferred method of tagging livestock (Weintraub & Ginsburg, 2004). The primary purpose of the NAIS is to help animal health regulators, livestock producers, distributor, and retailers stop the distribution of tainted products. In order to do this, they must be able to respond quickly to a disease or contamination incident and to identify the source of the problem and assure that all tainted products are removed from the supply chain and the marketplace ("NAIS: At a glance," 2007).

Risk of Disease. There are several diseases that can infect livestock. One of the most famous from the last few decades is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which is a degenerative disease that affects the central nervous system of cattle. BSE is also known as mad cow disease, was discovered in Britain in 1986 and remains a worldwide concern to the present day. Other diseases include bovine tuberculosis (TB), which is most often not noticeable in cattle until it is quite advanced. Pigs, or swine, can be infected with the pseudorabies virus (PRV). Poultry can be infected with exotic Newcastle disease (END), which is a very highly contagious and often fatal virus that can infect all species of birds. Further, equine viral arteritis (EVA) is a viral disease that affects horses and can often cause abortions ("Animal disease risk," 2009). There is also widespread concern about swine and avian influenza, which can spread to humans and has caused outbreaks in several countries in the 1990s and 2000s; early identification and intervention can effectively curtail the spread of the disease.

NAIS Procedure. Participation in NAIS is not required. It is, however, rather easy for a livestock producer to participate and most of the steps can be accomplished online at the USDA website. The first step is to register a location where a livestock operation is located and to obtain a premise identification number (PIN). Next, animals must be identified by a group identification number (GIN) if they are moved through the supply chain as a group or with an animal identification number (AIN) if they are moved into the supply chain individually. Finally, producers need to select an animal tracking database (ATD) for tracing significant animal movements ("NAIS: At a Glance," 2007).

There are several ATDs maintained by states as well as private industry. The movements of animals within a production facility, which could include from pasture to pasture, are not the types of movement that the USDA believes spread disease and are not logged in the ATD. When an animal leaves the facility, the movement is logged into the ATD, in addition to any subsequent movements. A list of approved ATDs is available from the USDA ("Animal Tracking," 2009).

The USDA is now recommending the use of the 840 animal identification number that uses a standardized fifteen-digit numbering system. The number 840 is the United States country code and appears at the beginning of all AINs and the other twelve digits comprise the nationally unique identification number assigned to the animal. The AIN identifies the birthplace or location of where an animal was first tagged. AINs are used in both state and federal animal-disease surveillance programs and in performance recording or breed registration. Although there have been other animal identification systems in place, the AIN is expected to become the standard national numbering system used for individual animal identification ("Animal identification," 2009).

Issues

Technological Innovation Drives Skill Changes. Technological innovation has always driven change in all industries, including agriculture. The use of computers and networks in farm operations and management has changed the necessary skill set of farmers and ranchers, much as it has in other industries (Michailidis, 2006). The rate of change, or the rate at which farmers and ranchers are embracing and purchasing the new technologies, varies (Songini, 2007). There are several factors that influence the rate of adaptation including age, budget, family structure, business plans, business models, and the desired level of return on investment.

All businesses go through a life cycle, and farms and ranches have their own set of circumstances that drive the changes during their life cycle. Most farms are still owner-operated, and over 97 percent of farms in the United States are classified as family farms. In 2015, 90 percent of US farms were small family operations with under $350,000 in gross income. These small farms only accounted for 24 percent of agricultural production, however, while large-scale family farms with at least $1 million in income made up 2.9 percent of US farms but contributed 42 percent of total production (Macdonald & Hoppe, 2017).

Large-Scale Operations Need Technology. Corporate farms with large-scale operations are the agricultural production businesses that are most likely to benefit from the implementation of computer and network based technologies. These organizations produce large volumes of agricultural goods, they most likely hire outside labor, and have an asset base upon which to draw or borrow funds. Bear in mind that technology is expensive and, in addition to initial acquisition costs, there are usually annual maintenance fees, telecommunications charges, and licensing fees for software (Michailidis, 2006).

Computer and networking technology improves the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and thus yields a considerable return on investment for a farming or ranching business. These technologies can also replace the need for skilled labor in some aspects of the operation. However, a new set of skills is required. The proper operation of computers, troubleshooting networks, and basic system maintenance requires knowledge, training, and experience. Thus, to maximize the return on investment for the new technology, money must be spent on training or higher wages to cultivate employees with the appropriate computer skills (McMahon & Wehrspann, 2008).

How Small Operations Can Benefit. Smaller farming operations can still benefit from computer and networking technology as well as from the acquisition of various levels of precision farming equipment. Managers and owners of smaller operations, however, typically have fewer dollars to invest and so are more concerned with controlling spending and maximizing their return on investment.

Internet access and the use of online services is the least expensive of the technologies discussed in this article and can provide a relatively quick return on investment. Since more than two-thirds of the farms and ranches in the United States are reporting that they have Internet access, it is apparent, based on the distribution of small versus large family farms, that a high number of small farms are using the Internet for some purpose (Robinson, 2007).

Small scale or limited use of computers and networking requires a less sophisticated skill set than the computer-controlled monitoring technology that large farming operations may use. Thus, it is easier to initiate and less threatening to those without higher-level skills and years of experience. This type of limited use also sets the stage for expanded technology use in the future. The expanded use may be dependent upon the family structure and the business plan for the small farming operation.

If the family intends to keep the farm, it is likely that computer skills will be introduced and developed by children and grandchildren. Since computers and computer training now exist in virtually every high school and university, exposure to the technology and the development of some level of skill seems inevitable. In addition, the expansion of university agricultural curriculums to include course offerings on high-tech agricultural equipment and processes allows greater opportunity for younger farm generations to learn the technology. As the knowledge and skill of the farm owner expands, the likelihood of utilizing new technology on the farm increases.

Conclusion

Computer and networking technology is working its way into the agricultural sector and can provide greater efficiency and effectiveness in farm and ranch operations. The cost of the new technologies, including precision farming equipment and livestock management applications, is still prohibitive for some small farms and ranches. There are, however, still many computer applications that are affordable enough for smaller agricultural businesses to afford and from which to derive benefits.

In addition to cost barriers, many small farmers and ranchers still do not have Internet access or the skills to effectively utilize many of the available technologies. It is likely that the computer skill base of farming families and farm workers in general will increase as younger generations are exposed to the technology through their secondary and university education.

Many computer technologies can deliver benefits beyond improving farm or ranch operations. The National Animal Identification System, launched by the United States Department of Agriculture, provides a numbering system for tracking livestock for animal health and disease control purposes. This system can aid health officials in removing contaminated products from the supply chain and the consumer marketplace. At this point, the system is still voluntary but globalization of the agricultural market may encourage implementation of NAIS within livestock operations around the world.

Terms & Concepts

Geographical Information Systems: Database systems that support the merging of various types of topographical, demographic, and natural resource data for analysis and research.

Global Positioning System: The Global Positioning System was established in the early 1990s to help the United States military track and manage locations of equipment, personnel, and potential targets. The system uses twenty-four satellites, wireless communications, and GPS receivers to determine location and provide data to users.

National Animal Identification System: The United States Department of Agriculture's system of numbering and tracking livestock for animal health monitoring and disease control.

Precision Farming Systems: Integrated computer, software, and farming technology that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of farming operations by adding precision, record keeping, and analysis of steps in the farming process.

Supply Chain Management Systems: Applications software that is integrated into a communications network and enables organizations to communicate about and support their purchasing, sales, and shipping needs.

Bibliography

Animal disease risk. (2009). Retrieved May 4, 2009, from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Animal Identification System (NAIS). http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/why/animal%5f disease.shtml

Animal identification. (2009). Retrieved May 4, 2009, from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Animal Identification System (NAIS). http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal%5fid/why%5f 840.shtml

Animal tracking. (2009). Retrieved May 4, 2009, from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Animal Identification System (NAIS). http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/animal%5ftrack/index.shtml

Bacarin, E., Madeira, E., & Medeiros, C. (2008). Contract e-negotiation in agricultural supply chains. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12, 71-97. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=32692414&site=ehost-live

Banker, R., Mitra, S., Sambamurthy, V. (2011). The effects of digital trading platforms on commodity prices in agricultural supply chains. MIS Quarterly, 35, 599–A3. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=63602107

Blake, C. (2007). GPS technology keeps maintenance data, offers geo-fencing security on equipment. Western Farm Press, 29, 2-2. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27945077&site=ehost-live

Buss, J. (2004). Software cuts vet bills. Farmers Weekly, 140, 46-46. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13489971&site=ehost-live

Gilbert, G. (2003). Is RFID the answer? Progressive Grocer, 82, 90. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9769468&site=ehost-live

Hamblen, M. (2003). Agriculture cultivating e-business. Computerworld, 37, 42. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11088085&site=ehost-live

Hill, P. (2008, February 22). Getting started in the hi-tech world of GPS. Farmers Weekly, 47. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31438518&site=ehost-live

Joyce, L. (2003). Using GPS for soil sampling. R&D Magazine, 45, 29-29. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=11161293&site=ehost-live

Lindores, R. (2007). 6 trends in precision farming. Farm Industry News, 40, 76-77. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=28006849&site=ehost-live

Long, J., & Buss, J. (2004). Maternal index software promises margin boost. Farmers Weekly, 140, 33-33. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13489943&site=ehost-live

Macdonald, J. M., & Hoppe, R. (2017, March 6). Large family farms continue to dominate U.S. agricultural production. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Retrieved January 29, 2018, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/march/large-family-farms-continue-to-dominate-us-agricultural-production/

McMahon, K. (2003). Precision goes mainstream. Farm Industry News, 36, 27. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9407955&site=ehost-live

McMahon, K., & Wehrspann, J. (2008). A-Z of the technology changing agriculture. Farm Industry News, 41, 4-4. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31242404&site=ehost-live

Michailidis, A. (2006). Determining relationships among the adoption parameters of computers and internet in agriculture: An application of probit model. Journal of Social Sciences (15493652), 2, 89-92. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23819692&site=ehost-live

Miller, K. (2006). Buying ID software. BEEF, 43, 36-40. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23417238&site=ehost-live

Mitchell, R. (2008). Moo IT. Computerworld, 42, 22-27. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34725230&site=ehost-live

Murray, C. (2008). Farming's 'killer app.' Design News, 63, 44-48. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28841482&site=ehost-live

NAIS: At a glance. (2007). Retrieved May 4, 2009, from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Animal Identification System (NAIS). http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents /factsheets‗brochures/NAIS‗AtAGlance-color.pdf

Neutkens, D. (2005). RFID in, variation out. National Hog Farmer, 50, 14-15. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18089642&site=ehost-live

Najafabadi, M. O. (2012). Identifying barriers of mobile marketing in the agricultural section: a case study in Iran. International Journal of Mobile Marketing, 7, 78–85. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=79962981

Padfield, E. (2007). Interherd keeps tabs on performance. Farmers Weekly, 147, 38-39. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26368651&site=ehost-live

Petrak, L. (2008). What's the frequency? National Provisioner, 222, 98-104. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31221451&site=ehost-live

Reveles, I. L. A. (2012). The limits and contradictions of agricultural technology in Latin American: lessons from Mexico and Argentina. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 11, 386–400. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=78112138

Roberts, M. (2007). Where's the beef? Mobile Radio Technology, 25, 28-30. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=25938501&site=ehost-live

Roberson, R. (2007). GPS guidance systems expand capabilities for broad spectrum of farming operations. Southeast Farm Press, 34, 17-20. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27989394&site=ehost-live

Roberson, R. (2008). High-tech systems can enhance farming's attraction for a savvy younger generation. Western Farm Press, 30, 12-13. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34622906&site=ehost-live

Robinson, E. (2004). GPS system reduces operator fatigue, helps improve overall cotton crop. Southeast Farm Press, 31, 30-31. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14644786&site=ehost-live

Robinson, E. (2007). Over half of U.S. farms have Internet access. Western Farm Press, 29, 21-21. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=26530980&site=ehost-live

Robinson, E. (2007). GPS, GIS, VR, and remote sensing technologies continuing to evolve. Western Farm Press, 29, 12-12. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=27945080&site=ehost-live

Rusnak, P. (2017). Precision ag's impact breaking down barriers. Florida Grower, 28-29. Retrieved January 29, 2018, from EBSCO online database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=121536057&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Songini, M. (2007). Canadian beef processor touts RFID. Computerworld, 41, 36-36. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23738093&site=ehost-live

Talbot, D. (2004). Where's the Beef from? Technology Review, 107, 48-56. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13221692&site=ehost-live

United States Department of Agriculture. (2017, August). Farm computer usage and ownership. Retrieved January 29, 2018, from http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmComp/FarmComp-08-18-2017‗correction.pdf

Van Schilfgaarde, J. (1996). Does agriculture compute? Agricultural Research, 44, 2. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9604292564&site=ehost-live

Wahl, A. (2001). Pigs in cyberspace. Canadian Business, 74, 22. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=4354805&site=ehost-live

Wehrspann, J. (2007). Next up ROBOTS. Farm Industry News, 40, 40-44. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24667814&site=ehost-live

Weintraub, A., & Ginsburg, J. (2004, March 1). A high-tech race to corral mad cow. BusinessWeek, (3872), 107-108. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12319018&site=ehost-live

Yancy Jr., C. (2005). GPS technology to save farming dollars. Western Farm Press, 27, 23-23. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=16574724&site=ehost-live

Zenk, P. (2009). Smarter harvesters: Faster, more high-tech machines are on equipment company drawing boards. Hay & Forage Grower, 24, 20-21. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=37834105&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Blake, C. (2008). Auto-guidance systems may enhance efficiency of conventional cultivation. Western Farm Press, 30, 10-11. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34622905&site=ehost-live

Digital Angel teams with USDA for animal identification deal. (2007). Medical Device Daily, 11, 5. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26915621&site=ehost-live

Durham, S. (2007). Software helps farmers make profitable decisions. Agricultural Research, 55, 11-11. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31422122&site=ehost-live

Heney, P. (2007). Robots working down on the farm. Hydraulics & Pneumatics, 60, 28-32. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26130485&site=ehost-live

Laws, F. (2012). Smartphones and mobile apps improve agriculture efficiency. Western Farm Press, 34, 21. Retrieved November 20, 2013 from EBSCO online database Business Source Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=83433287

Long, J. (2006). Changing the face of British breed societies. Farmers Weekly, 145, 46-47. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23267360&site=ehost-live

Mims, C. (2015, August 10). To feed billions, farms are about data as much as dirt. Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. pp. B1-B4. Retrieved January 29, 2018, from EBSCO online database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=108788338&site=ehost-live&scope=site

New tools aid arid-land water management. (2009). Western Farm Press, 33, 20. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=36130142&site=ehost-live

Pajares, G., Tellaeche, A., BurgosArtizzu, X., & Ribeiro, A. (2007). Design of a computer vision system for a differential spraying operation in precision agriculture using Hebbian learning. IET Computer Vision, 1, 93-99. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27958863&site=ehost-live

Report card on precision farming. (1998). Futurist, 32, 8-10. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=400874&site=ehost-live

RFID survey. (2003). BEEF, 40, 10-11. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12148100&site=ehost-live

Rilwani, M., & Ikhuoria, I. (2006). Precision farming with geoinformatics: A new paradigm for agricultural production in a developing country. Transactions in GIS, 10, 177-197. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=19892810&site=ehost-live

Roberson, R. (2006). Carolina peach operation is high tech. Southeast Farm Press, 33, 14-14. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21877324&site=ehost-live

Singh, M., Singh, P., & Singh, S. (2008). Decision support system for farm management. Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 29, 346-349. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32987983&site=ehost-live

Skinner, M. (2005, July 2). Supply chain issues need more care. Crops, 6-7. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=17754237&site=ehost-live

Tatem, A., Lewis, H., Atkinson, P., & Nixon, M. (2003). Increasing the spatial resolution of agricultural land cover maps using a Hopfield neural network. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17, 647. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10895072&site=ehost-live

Troyk, P. (1999). Injectable electronic identification, monitoring, and stimulation systems. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 1, 177. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5366531&site=ehost-live

Vansickle, J. (2007). Software savvy. National Hog Farmer, 52, 16-19. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=26929003&site=ehost-live