journalfront

Agriculture

Two-Thirds of Large Crop Farms Utilize Precision Ag Tech, Report Says

2024-12-11

According to the USDA, a significant 68% of large crop farms are leveraging precision agriculture technology. This technology generates vital information that assists operators in decision-making, such as yield monitors, yield maps, and soil maps. The annual “Farms and Ranches at a Glance” report reveals that high-volume farms are heavy users of this technology, contrary to earlier reports suggesting a low usage rate nationwide.

Motivations for Adopting Precision Agriculture

Large operators have adopted precision agriculture (PA) technology for multiple reasons. They aim to increase yields, reduce input costs, and alleviate operator fatigue. By contrast, only a few small farms have employed this technology. The Economic Research Service explains that adoption increases with farm size as larger farms can derive more benefits from using these tools compared to smaller farms.

Usage Rates by Farm Size

Last year, the USDA reported that 27% of crop and livestock farms used at least one form of PA. This includes yield monitors, drones, and robotic milking. The equipment has been available since the 1990s but is often expensive. PA enables row-crop farmers to track production from small plots rather than entire fields and adjust inputs accordingly. The “farms at a glance” report examined PA by farm size and found high usage among large operators. In contrast, other reports have focused on adoption by state or crop. The 2023 Technology Use report stated that 27% of farms used PA, with rates exceeding 50% in major grain states.More than 8 out of 10 U.S. farms have gross cash farm incomes of less than $350,000 a year and are classified as “small” farms. “Large” farms have incomes above $1 million a year, and mid-size farms fall in between. Gross cash farm income encompasses revenue from crop and livestock sales, government payments, other farm-related income, and production contract fees. Since the 1970s, the USDA has defined a farm as any place that produced and sold, or could have produced and sold, at least $1,000 in agricultural products in a year. Large farms account for half of the value of agricultural production.Among large farms, information-generating technology and auto-steer systems are the most common forms of PA, used on approximately seven out of ten farms. Variable-rate technology is used on 45%, and drones on 12%. The ERS report stated that robotic milking was adopted by 19% of large-scale milk-producing farms. More than half of mid-sized farms use auto-steer or yield monitors, yield maps, and soil maps. Thirteen percent of small farms use yield monitors and similar equipment.

Benefits and Motivations

The motivations for farmers to adopt PA technology are diverse and in line with the stated benefits. For example, among the farms that adopted yield monitors, yield maps, or soil maps, many did so to increase yields (55%), reduce purchased input costs (41%), and/or improve soils or reduce environmental impacts (40%). On the other hand, reduced labor time and operator fatigue have also spurred farmers to adopt PA technologies with significant labor-saving potential.Earlier this year, a congressional report highlighted obstacles to PA adoption besides cost, including poor internet service and device incompatibility. The report stated that technologies that are relatively easy to use are generally adopted more quickly and widely than those that are more complex or require a large investment of farmers’ time and resources. Stakeholders also indicated that data-intensive technologies that require farmers to collect, collate, analyze, and respond to data have a higher barrier to entry and are less widely adopted. Among corn and soybean farmers, the use of auto-steer for tractors and combines is twice as common as the use of soil maps or variable-rate application of fertilizer and seeds.

By Jeff Beach, North Dakota is on the verge of enabling the permanent storage of millions of tons of carbon dioxide underground. However, an attorney representing landowners claims the process has been unjust and has already begun laying the groundwork for an appeal. The Industrial Commission, composed of Governor Doug Burgum, Attorney General Drew Wrigley, and Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring, is set to vote at its Thursday meeting on plans for underground storage wells operated by Summit Carbon Solutions. These wells will receive carbon dioxide from ethanol plants in five Midwest states, including Iowa.

Challenges and Disputes in the Storage Process

Modeling and Compensation Concerns

Attorney Derrick Braaten from Bismarck represents landowners in the sequestration area, which includes part of Morton County. He alleges that the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, under the Industrial Commission, failed to provide landowners with a computer-generated model showing how the CO2 would disperse underground. Eventually, he obtained the model from the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks. Braaten believes his clients have the right to examine this dispersion model as it determines the number of landowners to be compensated and the amount they will receive. With the help of a petroleum engineering company, he replicated the EERC model but it took 20 days for the computer to generate the report. He doubts the accuracy of the EERC model and thinks it would take two to three months to create a more precise one. His appeal is based on the lack of due process as he and his clients were not provided Summit's model before a June hearing.Former North Dakota Director of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms described the June hearing as "one of the most contentious" he had ever experienced. Since retiring, Braaten is encouraged by the more forthcoming information from his replacement, Nathan Anderson. However, in a November filing with the Industrial Commission, he still requested more time to create a model for his clients. A Summit letter in response argued that further modeling was "an exercise in futility" as the modeling information only provides a "best prediction" of plume migration based on the input variables and no one will know the actual migration until after injection operations begin. Summit will notify the commission if monitoring activities indicate any deviations from the predicted plume migration.

Permitting Challenges and Legal Battles

Summit faces permitting challenges in South Dakota where it was previously denied a permit. In North Dakota, the project also faces legal challenges from the Northwest Landowners Association, represented by Braaten. The association has asked the state Supreme Court to rule on a lawsuit challenging the state's laws covering underground storage as unconstitutional. State law allows for forcing landowners to allow pore space storage if 60% of the affected landowners agree to the storage plan. Summit claims to have about 90% participation in the storage area. The provision of amalgamation does not give landowners the right to appeal in the court system like in the case of eminent domain. Summit is among the energy companies that have intervened in the case.Governor Burgum, during a November Industrial Commission meeting discussion of the lawsuit, emphasized that one landowner should not be able to veto a carbon storage project. Kurt Swenson, who lives south of Beulah and owns land in the sequestration area and is a member of the Northwest Landowners, believes the Industrial Commission's approval of amalgamation and the storage wells "would be consistent with their trampling of property rights." He also highlights that the landowners' main argument is that the state has no right to take pore space. He is frustrated by Summit's lack of willingness to negotiate, a complaint that also arose during pipeline permit hearings.

Economic Benefits and Project Details

Summit estimates the Midwest Carbon Express pipeline project cost at $8.9 billion to connect 57 ethanol plants to the storage wells. If completed, it could sequester 18.5 million metric tons of CO2 annually and take advantage of federal tax credits of $85 per ton of CO2 stored. The ethanol plants, such as Tharaldson Ethanol at Casselton (the only North Dakota plant signed on to the project), would benefit from accessing markets with a low-carbon fuel standard like California.Governor Burgum has been a strong advocate for the Summit project. He shared a stage with Bruce Rastetter (one of the founders of Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions) and Harold Hamm (founder of oil company Continental Resources) when Summit announced Continental Resources' investment in the project. While the Summit project is for permanent underground storage, CO2 can also be injected into oil wells to extend well productivity. Burgum is President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be Interior secretary and chair a new National Energy Council overseeing energy project permitting. In most states, it is the Environmental Protection Agency that permits CO2 storage wells, but North Dakota was the first state to be granted primacy in Class VI injection well permitting.

Generative AI has emerged as a powerful tool with both remarkable capabilities and potential for misuse. In recent times, it has been found to be involved in various activities, including those related to state influence operations. This article delves into the details of how generative AI is being used and the implications it holds.

Uncovering the Dark Side of Generative AI in State Affairs

Well-Documented Misuses of Generative AI

Generative AI has a long history of well-documented misuses. It has been used to create academic papers that are not genuine and to copy the works of artists. This shows the unethical side of this technology. For example, there have been cases where generative AI has been used to produce fake research papers that seem legitimate at first glance but are actually plagiarized. Such misuses not only undermine the integrity of academia but also harm the creative industries.Another example is in the field of art. Generative AI has been used to create paintings and sculptures that imitate the style of famous artists. This not only takes away the originality of the artists but also dilutes the value of their work. In some cases, these AI-generated artworks have been sold at high prices, which is a clear indication of the potential for misuse.

Russian-Tied Campaign and AI-Generated Voiceovers

One recent campaign that has drawn attention is a Russian-tied operation dubbed "Operation Undercut." This campaign was designed to undermine Europe's support for Ukraine and prominently used AI-generated voiceovers on fake or misleading "news" videos. The videos targeted European audiences and attacked Ukrainian politicians as corrupt or questioned the usefulness of military aid to Ukraine.For instance, one video claimed that "even jammers can't save American Abrams tanks," which was a blatant attempt to undermine the support for Ukraine. The report states that the video creators "very likely" used voice-generated AI, including ElevenLabs tech, to make their content appear more legitimate. To verify this, Recorded Future's researchers submitted the clips to ElevenLabs' own AI Speech Classifier and got a match.Although ElevenLabs did not respond to requests for comment, the use of AI in this campaign highlights the potential for misuse. It also shows how easily such misinformation can be spread through the use of advanced technology.

Inadvertent Showcase of AI Voice Generation

The influence campaign's own orchestrators inadvertently showcased the usefulness of AI voice generation. Some videos released by them had real human voiceovers with a discernible Russian accent, while the AI-generated voiceovers spoke in multiple European languages like English, French, German, and Polish, with no foreign-sounding accents.This shows how AI can be used to create content that appears more natural and legitimate. It also highlights the need for careful monitoring and regulation of AI technology to prevent its misuse.

AI's Role in Multilingual Misinformation

According to Recorded Future, AI allowed for the misleading clips to be quickly released in multiple languages spoken in Europe like English, German, French, Polish, and Turkish. This shows the speed and efficiency with which AI can be used to spread misinformation on a global scale.All these languages are supported by ElevenLabs, which further emphasizes the potential for misuse. The ability to quickly generate and release content in multiple languages makes it easier for misinformation to spread and have a wider impact.

Attribution and Impact

Recorded Future attributed the activity to the Social Design Agency, a Russia-based organization that was sanctioned by the U.S. government. This shows the extent to which state actors are using generative AI to further their agendas.However, the overall impact of the campaign on public opinion in Europe was minimal, according to Recorded Future. This shows that while generative AI can be used to spread misinformation, it may not always have the desired effect.

Previous Incidents and Company Responses

This isn't the first time ElevenLabs' products have been singled out for alleged misuse. The company's tech was behind a robocall impersonating President Joe Biden that urged voters not to go out and vote during a primary election. In response, ElevenLabs said it released new safety features like automatically blocking voices of politicians.ElevenLabs bans "unauthorized, harmful, or deceptive impersonation" and uses various tools to enforce this, such as automated and human moderation. This shows the company's efforts to address the issue of misuse and ensure the responsible use of its technology.

Growth and Investors of ElevenLabs

ElevenLabs has experienced explosive growth since its founding in 2022. It recently grew ARR to $80 million from $25 million less than a year earlier and may soon be valued at $3 billion. Its investors include Andreessen Horowitz and former Github CEO Nat Friedman.This growth shows the potential of generative AI and the interest of investors in this technology. However, it also highlights the need for proper regulation and oversight to ensure that this technology is used for good and not for harm.