Adam Gittins cautions farmers to control their natural reaction to “sticker shock” when shopping for precision agriculture technology, and to realize the rapid ROI such tools can provide. 

Gittins has worked with precision agriculture for nearly 25 years in addition to managing his farm near Harlan, Iowa. He is president of HTS Ag (High Tech Solutions for Agriculture), Precision Farming Dealer’s 2024 Most Valuable Dealership.

“For 30 years, HTS Ag has specialized in introducing growers to technology to help them make more money,” he says. “We’re an Ag Leader Blue Delta partner, and an OPI Advanced Grain Management Hub partner — the top tier of leadership for both companies. We work closely with our partners and help them with product development through farmer feedback.”

Gittins is no stranger to the reluctance of strip-tillers to lay out large sums of cash for the tools he advocates and uses, but he makes the case for wide-spread adoption of farm technology on tractors, combines and sprayers, as well as in grain storage facilities and the farm office with his “fictional 1,000-acre farm” example. In it, he uses conservative estimates to show how a $122,000 investment in digital technology — from the machine shed to the front office — can yield a 95% ROI the first year. “After that, the savings are all yours,” he says.

Illustrating his contentions at the 2024 National Strip-Tillage Conference, Gittins assumed a 1,000-acre corn/soybean operation, with 100,000 bushels of on-farm storage in four 25,000-bushel bins. He priced corn at $4.25 and soybeans at $11, and figured electricity costs at $0.12 per kilowatt hour. His nitrogen (N) source was anhydrous ammonia.

Fertilizing/Liming

“We all do things differently but there are ways to save money with technology regardless of how we apply nutrients or whether our goal is cost-savings or yield increases,” Gittins says. “Liming a field with a uniform application will over-apply in areas where pH is within an allowable range, and likely will under-apply in other areas.” 

He says having accurate soil-analysis data maps and liming only deficient areas accordingly, in some cases can save $100 per acre.

“For anhydrous ammonia application we’re looking at 3-8% savings just by having automatic shutoffs responding to those soil analysis maps,” Gittins says. “I’m estimating $4 savings on a $100-per-acre program.”

Planting

Downforce — In 2014, Beck’s Practical Farm Research showed a 9.4-bushel increase in corn yield over manual planter settings. “That same year, Ag Leader did similar studies and showed a 5.5-bushel increase,” Gittins says.

Singulation — Independent studies in Ohio over 8,700 acres using Ag Leader SMS showed a difference from 96% to 99% in singulation extrapolated out to an 11.8-bushel corn yield increase, Gittins says. “For every 1% drop in singulation, there’s a 1.9% yield loss.”

Turn compensation — Gittins says using the same planter and the same hybrid with turn compensation turned on and off for comparison on his fields recorded a 12.65-bushel increase per acre with technology engaged.

“To summarize the corn planter, we’re going to claim 5.5 bushels an acre for downforce. We have data to support a 3% increase (11.8 bushels per acre) to singulation when we upgrade to electric drives or upgrade meters. For turn compensation, I’m only claiming 3.1 bushels of the 12.6-bushel increase I saw because not every acre I farm is on a curve. 

“In this case, the tech planter provides a 20.4-bushel yield increase, or $86.70 per acre on $4.25 corn — a big increase,” he says.

Gittins says precision monitoring soybean-planted seed counts also can put money in strip-tillers’ pockets.

In collaboration with the Iowa Soybean Association in 2023, experimenting with seed counts ranging from 120,000 to 80,000 showed Gittins an $87.30-per-acre advantage when seed costs and better yields due to improved pod counts were considered. 

“Summarizing the tech planter advantage for soybeans planted at 60,000 vs. 80,000 showed $5 lower seed costs for every 10,000-seed reduction in population, or a $20 advantage, and a 4.5-bushel yield increase ($49.50) for better spacing at the optimum economic levels. So, technology added an estimated $59.50 per acre,” he says.

Spraying

Technology-driven application with optimum droplet size regardless of field speed along with individual nozzle control, automatic shutoffs, and turn compensation mean additional savings to strip-tillers in chemical costs and effective weed control, Gittins says.

“I’ve had customers report sending back $10,000 worth of chemicals because of the technology-enabled application reduction,” he explains. 

Recent Iowa State University research shows weed escapes of 5% show a corresponding 5% yield loss. 

“With technology, we’re able to further reduce weed escapes with better resolution in sprayer technology,” Gittins says. 

“Wrapping up the sprayer, we’ve got $4,000 in chemical costs on our thousand-acre farm, looking at an average $80 per acre cost and two applications. We have 5% yield losses on just 25% of our corn acres if we have 5-inch weeds, so we’ve got about $9,300 out of technology on the sprayer,” he says.

Auto-Steering

Gittins shows auto-steer as a significant technology investment to reduce overlap in application, planting and harvesting, which reduces machine time and maintenance, over-use of inputs and improved harvest efficiency. 

“For fertilizing, I’m going to take 5% and that’s just for corn acres. Planting, I’m going to take 1% for both corn and soybeans. For spraying, I’ll estimate a 7% overlap, and for harvesting, I’m taking Iowa State’s custom rate for soybeans at $42 per acre, and I’m taking 4% of that because of difficulty in keeping the header full in dusty conditions. So, my tech advantage for auto-steer is pegged at $9,790.”

Drones

With anecdotes of positive results in contesting insurance claims with on-farm drone-produced images, to precision application of chemicals on irregularly-shaped topography and early detection of crop conditions that warrant attention, Gittins, a certified drone pilot, credits the technology for his example farm for a $2,000 per year advantage after the cost of owning and operating a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle).

ROI analysis.jpgFIGURE 1. In the table above, Gittins breaks down how a farmer can see a first-year 95% ROI on full farm adoption of precision technology. 


Real-Time Moisture Management

“If you have 2,000 bushels of soybeans that are 1% too wet at harvest, you’re going to take a $650 dock,” Gittins says. “For 2,000 bushels of corn that’s 2% too wet, that’s another $425 dock. That’s $1,085 of dockage you can avoid with real-time moisture monitors.

“In grain storage, the same advantages exist for sensors throughout your bins to monitor moisture and bin ventilation fan management,” he adds.

Gittins notes a 40% reduction in bin fan run time (made possible by monitoring grain moisture levels and ventilating accordingly) taken on 3 of the 4 bins of corn in his estimates accounts for 1/3 of a bin, but notes there are also “real” dollars to be had with bin technology. 

“My soybeans came out of the field last year at 8%,” Gittins says. “By mid-summer when I checked, they averaged 12.1% moisture, just by letting the fans run when the humidity is high, we’re able to add moisture back to those beans.

“On our 1,000-acre example farm, on 25,000 bushels of soybeans in 1 of our 4 bins, we’re going to see $12,639 worth of value just by rehydrating those beans.”

The digital-automation to grain storage in the example totals $18,346.

Data Management

Gittins says growers can retrieve data from their planter, sprayer and combine and generate their own maps for a total savings of about $750 for the 1000-acre example, and the results play directly into all of next year’s fertilizing, planting, spraying and harvesting.

“I’ll take $350 as a rough benefit in the data management column,” Gittins says.

ROI Analysis

What’s it Cost? — Gittins estimates if all the technology he outlines were purchased in one year, it would total $122,000 for the 1,000-acre example, including $60,381 for the planter technology — a figure that shocks many. (See Figure 1) 

“That planter is more than going to pay for itself, however,” Gittins says. “You get one chance to plant, and planting has to be right or you lose money. If there’s one takeaway from this project, it’s put money into your planter because it represents one of the quickest paybacks in all of the technology investments.” 

He also apportions other technology expenses, such as auto-steer, to various field operations.

Show Me the Money! — What do you get for your money in the first year of this conservatively-curated example? Gittins totals his benefit side at $116,000 — 95% of the original investment. 

“What happens in year two?,” he asks. “The economics remain very similar and you’ve more than paid for your adoption of technology in less than two years, plus you’ll reap huge dividends in years to come.”