|
roaming | (Part 1 here: http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=496857)
(Part 2 here: http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=496918)
(Part 3 here: http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=496939)
The fourth session of the day was by a representative from Field to Market, a 501(c)(3) which is a "collaborative stakeholder group" focused on "inputs and production" looking to "provide supply chain tools and solutions" to help consumers make educated choices about the food they purchase/consume, and to help producers be a more efficient and environmentally-friendly part of the supply chain. How's that for some jargon? :-) What does it mean in practice? It means that when the big corporate guys like WalMart, General Mills, PepsiCo, etc, make a commitment to "sustainable sourcing" or "earth-friendly supply chain practices", they rely on groups like Field to Market to help validate their claims. The "collaborative stakeholder" bit means that Field to Market includes representatives from everyone in the supply chain, from producers to processors to wholesalers and retailers to universities to government agencies.
The presentation had several things set against it from the start, in my opinion. First, her group is based in California, and while she was clear that the organization believes that "you (farmers) know best how to manage your farms", those left-coast roots, coupled with the environmental and "social responsibility" agenda (and I don't mean "agenda" in a bad way, necessarily, but I can't think of a more neutral word at the moment), put her on somewhat of an uncomfortable footing with the audience. Which is too bad, in a way, because I think her group is examining some important issues and has some valuable input to share if the rest of the ag community can listen without being defensive.
In general, I would agree with dko_scOH's comments that this presentation was not bad, but also didn't seem to quite fit in. I felt a little bad for the presenter, as no one had any questions for her when she was done, and I think hers was the only such presentation. (In fairness, she had probably the worst slot of the day, going right after lunch.) While the other presentations were primarily informative, with hers there seemed to be a subtle undertone of persuasion, as though she knew she had a hill to climb, and you could almost sense the skepticism - if not a mild hostility - in the audience. Kind of like the NSA doing a "on the merits of surveillance" speech at DEF CON. But it was good to see that there are other groups using "big data" in other ways, and I do think the supply chain and sourcing issues that her group is attempting to address are going to increase in importance, whether the ag production community likes it or not.
Enough of my analysis... what does Field to Market do?
- benchmarking and data collection to find out how producers are currently performing (nationally, regionally, locally) with regard to managing soil conservation, soil carbon, irrigation water use, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality. Currently have 360+ growers and ~130000 acres in "projects" designed to benchmark producers against other producers in their sourcing region.
- identifying opportunities for improvement
- looks for long-term improvements, not season-to-season trends/gains
- provides data and tools to allow players in the industry to substantiate claims of sustainability, which are increasingly being demanded by shareholders right alongside traditional P&L reports
They also have a "Fieldprint Calculator" which allows producers to evaluate how management decisions can affect environmental impact and sustainability goals.
Re-reading my first comments above, I realize that while I don't think anything I wrote is unfair or inaccurate, I think it gives a negative impression of this presentation, and that's not my intent. It was not at all a bad presentation. In fact, I think it's valuable to hear from people doing stuff outside your typical area of interest or comfort zone. We could have a "all producer all the time" conference, but that would pretty well defeat the purpose of what I think the Big Data Workshop was intended to do, and turns a chance for discussion into an echo chamber. Maybe next year they can invite the EWG...
http://www.fieldtomarket.org
(Part 5 here: http://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=498506)
Edited by torn 9/2/2014 18:14
| |
|
PrecisionAg.com Big Data Workshop, Part 4
