By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Edwin J. Viera for New York News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Over a three-decade span, 71 percent of industrial greenhouse gas emissions - that is, emissions from factories and manufacturing - were fueled by just 100 fossil fuel producers. Researchers documented the pollution from these so-called "Carbon Majors," companies including Chevron, BP and Shell, in a database that came to inspire two dozen lawsuits. Now, climate activists are applying those same tactics to hold the meat and dairy industries accountable under the law. A new study by Yale Law School researchers traces this new trend, and finds that when lawmakers fail to hold corporations accountable, lawsuits can become a tool to create change.

Research shows meat and dairy are responsible for anywhere from 11 to 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet lawmakers are failing to pass meaningful policies to curb emissions from what's on our plate. These include methane, from cattle burps and manure waste from dairy and pork farms primarily, as well as the massive amounts of land required to feed animals, both pasture and for feed crops.

In the U.S. for instance, the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 has a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 2030, but its "climate-smart agriculture" funding has mostly gone to fund no-till and cover crops on industrial farms - farming practices that evidence suggests are not effective for curbing emissions. And just as with fossil fuel pollution, when policymakers fail to pass policies to curb emissions, climate advocates turn to the courts.

To date, just two lawsuits are attempting to hold the animal agriculture industry accountable for climate emissions, the authors of the study caution, but these two do suggest an increase in momentum for holding meat and dairy companies accountable. These early lawsuits point to a growing trend - people are seeking to hold all extractive industries accountable, both fossil fuels and livestock companies.

Suing the Carbon Majors for Fossil Fuel Pollution

In the past several decades, litigation has become an increasingly successful strategy for climate action. One study found that out of 2,341 climate decisions, half resulted in some favorable impact for climate action. In one 2020 case for instance, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action sued Australia's Environment Protection Authority to do more to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in light of a particularly severe series of bushfires the year before, fires arguably made more intense by climate change. The court ordered the EPA to put in place environmental policies, guidelines and objectives for environmental protection from climate change.

The city of Honolulu has been allowed to proceed in its case against fossil fuel distributor Sunoco for misleading the public about the dangers of climate change, a tort case primarily based on allegations that the company failed to disclose information to the public and engaged in deceptive marketing tactics. The case first for climate nuisance claims, and continues the success that litigation has on the "Carbon Majors."

From Carbon Majors to Methane Majors

"Climate litigation is really expanding around the world," Daina Bray, a lecturer at Yale Law School's Law, Ethics and Animals Program and a co-author of the report, tells Sentient. That expansion is reflected in a couple of ways, Bray says, "the creativity of theories" and the jurisdictions where these suits are being filed.

One of these creative theories is holding more industries accountable, including the meat and dairy producers adding to the planet's methane emissions, which inspired Bray, and her colleague Thomas Poston, to dub them as the "Methane Majors."

Suing the Mega-Dairies of New Zealand

In the case of Smith v Fonterra, Michael Smith, a Maori tribe leader in New Zealand filed claims against seven polluters, including the mega-dairy conglomerate, Fonterra. In the lawsuit, Smith alleges that the seven companies are not only responsible for one-third of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions, but the company's part in contributing to sea level rise, and damage to the land where Smith, some Maori and other New Zealanders live.

Originally the claim was struck down by New Zealand's Court of Appeals, but the country's Supreme Court reversed this decision and is now allowing all of Smith's claims to proceed. The court found that Smith has the right to sue these companies for the harm caused by their emissions, including Fonterra.

In the U.S., New York State's Attorney General brought suit against meat supplier JBS for misleading the public over their environmental claims.

The Yale researchers also see promise in the JBS case, as it illustrates different legal avenues for climate justice. Though both cases are pending, the efforts are encouraging, says Thomas Poston, co-author of the study and J.D candidate at Yale Law School.

"It's reassuring that our courts here in the United States remain open to this kind of litigation," Poston tells Sentient. "Even if a given case does not reach the result that climate advocates might hope for, the fact that there are still venues for questions of justice and accountability to be raised, and potentially mitigated is a good thing."

Litigation has the potential to shape public discourse, the authors say.

"From farms to slaughterhouse workers to environmental justice communities, water use, the harm to the animals themselves," Bray says, "any and all creative tools to find accountability and to shine a light on these harms are a reason for optimism."


Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

As President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in next month, the farming community wonders if he'll follow through on tariff threats. One expert says for top soybean states such as North Dakota, farmers aren't in a great position to withstand any fallout.

The latest U.S. Department of Agriculture farm income forecast paints a gloomy picture, with declines in commodity prices dragging things down. And the incoming administration appears poised to enact more tariffs - as it did during Trump's first term.

Ben Palen, who runs the consulting firm Ag Management Partners, said this time around, there's increased political instability on the global front and greater export competition.

"I just don't think that you can have a coherent and consistent policy for agriculture if you go from one crisis to another," he said.

Trump regained strong support from agricultural counties in this election, but Palen said his fellow producers need to be prepared for what happens now that the votes have been counted. In Trump's first term, emergency aid was sent to farmers affected by the initial trade war. But Palen noted there's a strong push for the new administration to pursue budget cuts, so financial relief could be harder to come by.

Even though many farmers still back Trump, Palen said he feels this sector doesn't want to get swept up in trade rhetoric and have to be bailed out.

"I think farmers are very good at production," he said. "It's just part of our DNA; we want to produce, produce, produce."

He argued that it's up to policymakers to find new markets for farmers to sell their crops, as opposed to simply focusing on trade disputes.

Other voices, such as the Texas agriculture commissioner, have welcomed the idea of new tariffs, saying the U.S. needs to hold firm against countries such as China.

In the first trade war, U.S. agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion.


get more stories like this via email

By Grey Moran for Civil Eats.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Mississippi News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

Timothy Robb peers into a microscope to reveal the underground realm of the living and dying within a fistful of soil. On the glass slide, he sees clumps of golden-brown minerals and organic matter particles, like pebbled splotches of ink. Nearly everything else in the landscape is a microbe, a motley crew of roving shapes, preparing to eat or be eaten. Hairy orbs of protozoa glide around in search of snacks in the flecks of bacteria scattered all around. A nematode, a microscopic worm, thrashes through the scene in a hurry. A tubular strand of fungi stands still, perhaps absorbing the dust of dead plants.

"This is called shadow microscopy," says Robb, the co-owner of Compostella Farm in southern Mississippi, bringing the microorganisms into focus. It's a way of viewing living specimens under an oblique light, so they appear backlit and magnified, like a shadow box theater. Just prior to this, he diluted the sample in water and shook it, like a "hurricane or earthquake, any biblical catastrophe motion for that soil." This broke apart the soil's structure so he could see everything holding it together, like the dark brown curl of fungi.

"This is what a really good, healthy fungi strand looks like," he says. Its uniform, segmented structure, thickness, and color are often good signs, though he adds that it's not a hard and fast rule, just clues that this might be an architect of healthy soil.

As a vegetable farmer, Robb is mostly in the business of life. But his interest in building healthy soil led him down into this shadowy world of decay, where microbes shuffle carbon and nutrients in an endless cycle that sustains all life on Earth. This world appears chaotic at first glance, but Robb insists that it is elegant. An orderly marketplace, really. He's been working to understand and strengthen this underground economy to replenish his soil.

Researchers have increasingly recognized how essential fungi are to sequestering carbon in the soil and some have come to appreciate the outsized role they play in supporting crop health, mitigating climate change, and even sheltering crops from disease. As fungi's vast benefits come to light, more farmers are tapping into this vital network, learning how to work with beneficial fungi to encourage its growth in the soil, swapping tilling for microscopes.

This growing interest in fungal networks on farms quietly challenges the underpinnings of U.S. agriculture. The prevailing model involves taking care of the crop's nutritional needs with chemicals, bumping up the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in an effort to maximize the yield of the crop. Farm ecosystems are controlled with herbicides that kill weeds and fungicides that kill the fungi in the soil. Common practices, like tilling the soil, disturb the fungal networks and then deepen the dependence on chemical inputs.

"We're reliant on these cheap inputs that are no longer cheap," says soil ecologist Adam Cobb, whose research focuses on mycorrhizal fungi. He notes that farmers are then subject to the whims of a global market, which tends to skyrocket in price during geopolitical conflicts.

These chemical-based practices degrade the soil over time, stripping it of its ability to cycle carbon and nutrients without its supportive network of decomposers. But working to both protect and encourage fungi on farms is a way to reverse course. Robb sees his work of coaxing beneficial fungi back into the soil, which he largely learned from an online program called the Soil Food Web School, as both a challenge to mainstream agriculture and as a way forward to restore agricultural soils.

"It's a criticism of how agriculture is currently conducted," says Robb. "And it's a methodology of introducing the microorganisms that are absent from the soil-the chain of organisms that release different minerals from rocks, clay, or silt particles in the soil."

The Nutrient-for-Carbon Exchange

Fungi are effectively merchants of carbon. In the soil, they give plants the water and nutrients they need, while the plants provide fungi with carbohydrates (i.e., carbon) from photosynthesis. Fungi can act like a second set of roots, extending the plant's ability to draw in water and nutrients.

Mycorrhizal fungi, which encompass thousands of species, can form large, underground networks, connected by branching filaments called hyphae, threading through the soil in every direction. One type of this fungi, known as arbuscular mycorrhizal, attaches directly to the cell membranes of a plant's root, facilitating a smooth delivery. Other microbes in the soil, like protozoa and nematodes, participate in this cycling, too, digesting fungi and bacteria to release their nutrients in a more available form to plants.

"The microbes engineered habitats around the plant roots that would be high in organic matter and make it more efficient for them to be able to obtain water and nutrients that they could then-in this carbon economy-essentially sell it to the plant," says Kris Nichols, a leading researcher on soil microbiology. "It's really an economic relationship."

This relationship becomes especially interesting when business is booming-when the plants are delivering a lot of carbon into the soil that is used to build larger and larger fungal networks while distributing carbon across the soil profile. The carbon accumulates in the soil in many forms, from fungal cell walls to soil aggregates, or pellets of very alive soil that Nichols describes as "little microbial towns," like economic hubs.

When these microbial communities develop, mycorrhizal fungi use their hard-earned carbon to build a protective coating around them, sheltering them from disturbances while more stably storing carbon. To the naked eye, these pellets look like crumbs in the soil.

The accumulation of carbon in the soil effectively slows the carbon cycle, causing carbon to linger in the ground for a longer period of time rather than quickly releasing into the atmosphere, where it takes the form of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas driving climate change. That's the goal of what's been popularly described as "climate-friendly farming," or regenerative agriculture: keeping as much carbon in the soil for as long as possible, in part by keeping these underground networks undisturbed.

And increasingly, fungi have gained scientific recognition for their essential role in slowing this life-ending and -giving cycle. A recent study found that the world's mycorrhizal fungi store the equivalent of a third of fossil-fuel emissions.

How Farmers Can Tap Into Fungal Networks

Peering through the microscope, Robb's task is relatively simple: He counts and measures each microbe-fungi, nematodes, protozoa, and bacteria-to understand the microbial relationships in the soil and gauge its health. He also looks for the indicators of beneficial fungi and a diversity of microbes: different colors, lengths, and shapes.

There's no shortage of bacteria on the slide. It's common for agricultural soils to be dominated by bacteria, which Robb is hoping to shift on his farm, building a more balanced ratio of fungi to bacteria in his soil. It's not that bacteria should be scorned; they too are important decomposers that collaborate with fungi. But it's hard to beat fungi at its game, rightfully a kingdom of its own. Fungi, more complex organisms, are more efficient at storing carbon across vast networks in the soil and more effective at delivering nutrients for certain plants.

The ratio of fungi to bacteria depends on the plants, explains Robb. He mostly grows salad greens across 3 acres of farmland. For his bok choy, mustards, and kale, he's aiming for a 1-to-3 ratio of fungi to bacteria, but his lettuce requires a bit more fungi, closer to 1-to-1. He steeps the compost like a tea, extracting the microorganisms in water, and then runs it through his irrigation system.

"You're introducing millions of fungi and bacteria species to the soil. And that's as far as the management really needs to go, because once the plant gets established, then it's controlling [the relationship with the microbes]," says Robb. He's essentially just giving a plant options, a pool of microbes at its service.

In addition to applying compost tea, Robb supports fungal life by creating mulch from wood chips, which the fungi help decompose.

Robb shows me a pile of wood chips softening in the sun. It's just 3 months old, but already threaded with fine white hairs of saprophytic fungi, resembling a cobweb. "When you can see it visually like this, what you're actually seeing are like thousands of strands wrapped around each other," says Robb, given that hypha are just several microns in size.

Before planting, he'll also coat his seeds in a mycorrhizal treatment, a powder of spores. This inoculates this critical, network-building fungi in the soil. So as soon as the plant germinates, the fungi will be available to swap nutrients for carbon. Periodically, he'll feed the fungi, adding liquid kelp, fish hydrolysate, and humic and fulvic acids to encourage its growth.

Every month or so, Robb peers at a soil sample under the microscope, assessing his progress. It has been about a year since he bought his first microscope and began surveying the local microbes. Most of his soil still isn't where he'd like it to be, still dominated by bacteria, but it's steadily improving. He essentially started from scratch on sandy soil that couldn't hold onto much water or nutrients.

The most visible marker of improvement, at least to the naked eye, might be the crops themselves. A couple years ago, he observed "a precipitous decline in the quality" of his vegetables. They were yellowing and stunted. His lettuce was drooping. Disease was a regular occurrence. This prompted him to look into how to build soil that could hold onto more nutrients, which led him to fungi.

So far, his focus on improving decomposition has improved the health of his crops-now, rows of mostly bright green, leafing, upright crops emerge from dark brown, lush soil.

A Symbiotic Relationship That Predates Humans

The critical relationship between fungi and plants dates back 470 million years, when aquatic plants first transitioned to land. It was a barren landscape, without trees or soil, just endless sand, silt, and clay.

"We had a very mineral land base, but we didn't have soil," said microbiologist Kris Nichols. As plants began washing up on shore, it's thought that mycorrhizal fungi helped them siphon nutrients and water, providing what they needed to move to land, in a symbiotic relationship for the ages.

"We know that this relationship existed," said Nichols. "We have the genetic markers and we have the fossilized plant roots to be able to see, structurally, that it has been this same type of relationship for hundreds of millions of years."

It has taken a while for the role of fungi in supporting plants and soil health to gain mainstream scientific recognition, however. Elaine Ingham, a pioneer in the field of soil microbiology, recalls facing pushback in the early 1980s when she proposed researching the role of soil microorganisms for her dissertation at Colorado State University. She met with her professors to propose her field of inquiry, only to be sternly dismissed.

"They'd look me in the eye and say, 'You don't know what you're talking about. Bacteria and fungi in the soil-they're just there. They don't do anything,'" she recalls. "All of them agreed that I was endangering my ability to get a job at the other end of my research project."

But Ingham was undeterred. "I wanted to understand what bacteria and fungi in the soil were there for," she says. "In all the literature I looked at, you couldn't find anything about what these organisms in the soil actually do." With the blessing of her advisor, she was allowed to pursue a dissertation project, along with her husband Russell Ingham, studying how soil fungi, bacteria, and nematodes interact with plants.

It was the start of her life's work to help peel back the layers of the mysterious world of microbes within the soil. To date, the vast majority of the millions of fungi species on Earth remain unknown by scientists, but it's now abundantly clear that many fungi play a critical role in soil health. Ingram, who grew up on a farm, now works with farmers to reintroduce soil fungi through the Soil Food Web School.

Robb came to learn how to work with fungi on his farm when he stumbled upon the school by chance in a footnote of a book. He attended the program without a background in science, but it didn't take him long to feel comfortable behind a microscope. It was an "aha moment" when he realized his soil was depleted of fungi and other microbes-with this, he had the clarity of a diagnosis.

The Vast, Untapped Potential of Fungi

While the Soil Food Web School is one approach, there are practically infinite ways to work with beneficial fungi and microorganisms on farms. Many practices associated with regenerative agriculture and long-standing Indigenous methods encourage fungi. Even if not measured with a microscope, there are signs of fungi at work-like dark, spongious soil.

"We never leave our soil bare. It is always covered with straw, leaf mold, or wood chips," says Leah Penniman, the co-founder of Soul Fire Farm in upstate New York. "We like to think of these wood chips as encouraging the fungi from the native forest around to come into our fields and partner with our orchards and with our crops."

In 2006, when she started Soul Fire Farm, the soil was very degraded and the organic matter-which includes soil carbon-was only at 3 percent. But they've since increased it to 10 percent to 12 percent in some areas. "That has been through a partnership with fungi," Penniman says. Slowly but surely, fungi have emerged from the forest, building carbon in the soil.

Robb also thinks of the forest on the outskirts of his fields. The trees have a relationship with mycorrhizal fungi and microbes that take care of all their needs, without any human intervention. "Those are nitrogen-rich plants, and nobody's applying fertilizer," he says.

He currently adds organic nitrogen to his farm, but hopes to add less and less, allowing the fungi and microbes to increasingly take over in tending to his crops.


Grey Moran wrote this article for Civil Eats.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Kutz for The People Sentinel.
Broadcast version by Mark Richardson for South Carolina News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

It’s high noon on an overwhelmingly hot summer day in Allendale County, and the air conditioning is blasting inside Rachael Sharp’s truck. Looking out at her farm through the windshield, Sharp opens up one of many agriculture related apps on her iPhone. With the push of a button, her irrigation systems nearly half a mile away tremble to life, spraying water onto a vast field of soybeans.

That’s the future imagined by precision agriculture, an umbrella term for the new agricultural technologies transforming farming; artificial intelligence (AI), satellite imagery, cloud computing, remote irrigation, drones and self-driving tractors are becoming the future of agriculture. With billions of dollars of private and public investment behind it and the hope of it helping agriculture mitigate and adapt to the global climate crisis, precision agriculture makes bold promises. 

Locally, some farmers have described the rollout of precision agriculture as a welcome opportunity, while others experienced it as overbearing. But on Rachael Sharp’s family farm, precision agriculture is a mixed bag.

“We’re saving on input costs because we don’t put as much water, nutrients or fertilizers out and there’s not as much left in the environment at the end of the day,” Sharp said, her iPhone open to the Climate FieldView app, which shows her satellite-generated graphics of which parts of her farm need water. “But it spits out so much information that sometimes it feels overwhelming.”

Precision agriculture technology is being marketed aggressively to local farmers — at trade shows, in emails, and over phone calls — with the main promises being the ability to cut costs, get higher crop yields and optimize their farming techniques.


“We went to [a trade show] last year and I bet we saw 35 different people offering precision ag tools and products,” Sharp said. The previous year, Sharp said, only several people were selling precision agriculture products. “It was crazy overwhelming.”

For local farmers on shoestring budgets, these promises are enticing, as recent crises have forced American farmers to grapple with higher input costs on fertilizer, seeds and fuel, as well as unstable markets to sell their harvest. In 2022, American farmers dealt with a 50% rise in the cost of fertilizer after its main ingredient, natural gas, spiked in cost when Russia invaded Ukraine. As climate change worsens, increasing temperatures are forcing farmers to make decisions regarding what seeds to plant and when to plant them.

“We’re looking at planting a soybean [seed] that doesn’t take as long of a growing season,” said Rachael Sharp, noting her concern for what future temperature changes could mean for her farm. “We’ve adjusted to planting it earlier and getting it out of the field earlier because you’re not gonna have as much [growing] time. Our winters these past two years have been so mild, so the oats don’t have the fertilization they need.”

At a time of destabilization for local growers, precision agriculture’s tools offer a way to navigate the instability. Through the use of nodes, soil probes, sensors, drones and satellite imagery, precision agriculture collects data regarding soil chemistry, seed usage, crop damage, weather patterns and other variables. Then, using cloud computing, algorithms, and machine learning, these data are then analyzed to show farmers which areas of a field need the most, or the least, attention.

“In a sense, it’s like micromanaging a field,” said Michael Plumblee, Assistant Professor of Agronomy at Clemson University, who has been involved in the local rollout of precision agriculture. “Rather than treating everything across the field as the same, we identify different management zones within the field.”

Precision agriculture digitizes almost every step of the farming process, from tilling and sowing to irrigation and fertilization to pest control and harvesting.

“There’s enough precision agriculture technology now to make better actions with the limited resources we have, [since] we don’t have infinite water, infinite fertilizer, and infinite labor,” said Vicente Ossa, the marketing manager for WiseConn, a precision agriculture company that sold its automated irrigation system DropControl at a July trade show in Barnwell.

The global market for precision agriculture is expected to grow from $8.5 billion in 2023 to $14.9 billion by the end of 2028, according to a market research report by BCC Research. North America, the report says, has the highest market share in precision agriculture globally.

As climate change creates increasingly unpredictable growing seasons, warmer winters and threatens crop yields in the southeast, data analysis will become an important part of helping farmers make better decisions, according to Kevin Royal, the precision agriculture specialist at the Edisto Research and Education Center in Blackville.

“Farmers place their bets on what variety to plant based on what they think the weather’s gonna be like this year from the field conditions and from historic data, but that’s where the AI comes in,” Royal said. “Based on historic patterns and projected temperature changes, it gives you recommendations.”

Using data gathered from a field, artificial intelligence can be used to help farmers adapt to climate change and reduce a field’s emissions. For instance, targeted use of nitrogen fertilizer cuts down on excessive use; nitrogen fertilizer creates nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 

Algorithms and machine learning are increasingly being used in farming operations as agriculture increasingly becomes an industry of data; by 2021, 87% of farms were using some form of AI. However, artificial intelligence itself is a growing emissions source, as the energy-hungry data centers that power artificial intelligence will consume twice as much energy in 2026 as they did in 2022, according to the International Energy Agency.

The technological innovations of precision agriculture will play a key role in adopting the practices that keep agriculture on track to meet emissions reductions targets, according to a World Resources Institute report. Precision agriculture is being used to track and reduce energy usage, particularly from groundwater irrigation, which farmers are increasingly relying on as rainfall patterns become less predictable. By using less water in irrigation, Sharp has cut down on energy consumption; irrigation pumping accounts for 16% of all greenhouse gas emissions from energy use in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the United States.

“In South Carolina, we spend a lot of money irrigating,” Jose Payero, an irrigation specialist at Clemson University who has developed an app that allows farmers to insert field data and energy variables. Payero led a demonstration on irrigation energy consumption at a farm field day in Blackville on September 12. “You can calculate what the cost is per acre, and the total cost for your farm, depending on your energy source,” he told a crowd of farmers.

Precision agriculture is also helping farmers confront local ecological issues. As previously reported by The People-Sentinel, booming populations of wild deer and pigs in the region have caused widespread damage to local farms, pushing local farmers into the red.

“Now they can actually figure out what percentage of that field has been damaged by wild pigs and how that may increase over time,” said John Mayer, a research scientist at the Savannah River National Laboratory, who has studied wild pig populations for decades. “That’s one of the major ways precision agriculture [is] able to help with the wild pig populations.”

In Rachael Sharp’s fields, wild deer have been a persistent issue, but satellite mapping now shows how parts of the field are more damaged by deer than others. “It sees things that the human eye wouldn’t see until probably much later, which has been helpful because by that point in time it’s too late.”

Although Rachael is joining farmers in adopting precision agriculture technology, other farmers, such as her 76-year-old father Don Sharp, are cautious. Despite the purported benefits of precision agriculture, its technologies are expensive to adopt, and Don Sharp shares the concerns of many local farmers about growing corporate control over small farms.

“I think in another 30 years small family farms will be out of business and corporations will own [their land],” said Don Sharp, who has been farming the same land since he was a teenager in the 1960s. At that time, there were roughly 3.5 million farms in America; now, there are 1.89 million farms in America.

Just getting precision agriculture into rural areas faces numerous challenges. Its technologies require high bandwidth speeds for uploading and downloading data collected from farms, creating a major barrier for local farmers; as with many rural communities across the United States, rural counties like Barnwell, Allendale and Bamberg counties have inequitable access to broadband.

“We need to double the food supply for the world in the next 50 years, but we’re basically out of agricultural land, so broadband will be essential for precision agriculture,” said Christopher Ali, a professor of telecommunications at PennState.

But the lack of broadband in rural areas is beginning to change. In November 2021, President Joe Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which contains $42 billion in funding for a nationwide buildout of broadband infrastructure, called the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program.

“Last fall, we just got high speed internet through the infrastructure grants [and] we are so thankful for it,” said Richard Rentz, a farmer from rural Bamberg County. “It has been a game changer in a lot of ways.”

The deployment of broadband infrastructure on Rentz’s farm has allowed him to begin precision agriculture practices like variable rate seeding, which involves using data to plant seeds in areas of a field that have higher productivity.

“[Precision agriculture] has been saving us on everything,” Rentz said. “When you start varying lime and varying fertilizer, the payback is pretty quick, and even with variable rate seeding, the payback is relatively quick. … Certainly it saves on everything.”

For Tony and Steve Douglas, two brothers who farm in nearby Aiken County, lack of internet access has created numerous problems. While using automated steering on their tractor, which is connected online via cell phone tower, connection will frequently drop.

“You know how a signal is,” Tony Douglas said. “You be down in the bottom [of a field] and the cell service drops to your tractor and it messes up your rows. Then you gotta drive around and try to find a signal. It was really frustrating.”

Internet and broadband accessibility will be one of the biggest barriers for implementing precision agriculture, according to Royal.

“As we’re becoming more dependent on moving that data from the field to the cloud, wireless broadband is a big issue,” said Royal, who serves on a working group at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that encourages the adoption of precision agriculture. “Broadband can help or hinder your adoption of precision ag. In some places it’s great and in some places, it’s really tough.”

Farmers in America and in rural counties like Allendale are also getting older; the average age of an American farmer is 58.1 years old, and roughly 58% of farmers in Allendale are over 65, according to USDA statistics. Older legacy farmers like Don Sharp are less familiar with technology, and fear being left further behind; even 37-year-old Rachael struggles to understand the new technology hitting the market.

“A lot of people that are coming into farming now, they don’t know anything but using tech to make decisions,” Rachael said. “Fear shouldn’t be the reason farmers are adopting these technologies but it feels like it is.”

But learning gaps and an aversion to new technology is something that precision agriculture companies are beginning to adjust to. Development of new innovations in precision agriculture will only be as good as farmers’ ability to utilize them, Ossa said, so working with farmers to improve technological literacy will be a key step in moving forward.

“We had a client who was very old and not close to technology at all and didn’t have a smartphone,” Ossa said. “We were able to simplify it in a way that an everyday guy can use. He understood the value that we are bringing and got a phone.”

But as coordination between precision agriculture systems improves and artificial intelligence learns more about farms, the need for humans to make decisions about agriculture will continue to fall, according to Royal.

“With machine learning, you’ll eventually have a local bot or a service you subscribe to that’ll take years worth of data and help you build a more dynamic map of where your good yields can be or where your poor yields are projected to be,” Royal said.

Despite its acclaimed benefits, the Sharps have noticed that precision agriculture systems frequently fail to understand characteristics about their land that they have accumulated through decades of farming.

“They definitely overpromise and underdeliver,” Sharp said. “They tell you all these wonderful things it's going to do for you and that can be true, but we’re already trying to raise crops and a lot of farmers don't have time to sit down and learn. I think the Silicon Valley people think everybody knows as much as they know.”

For now, Don Sharp still keeps an inventory on pen and paper. Although he is not against utilizing precision agriculture, he worries of a future where the farming lifestyle continues to be pushed out of both agriculture and society.

“I always say that he who plants a seed beneath the soil and waits for it to grow believes in God,” Don Sharp said. “You don’t really have that type of farmer anymore. They’re a dying breed.”


Jessica Kutz wrote this article for The People Sentinel.


get more stories like this via email