Development of Appropriate Technology for Small Farms: Principles and Guiding Questions

As part of the research report Small Farms & The Future Of Ag Tech, CAFF supported the UCANR Small Farms Team in developing a set of principles and guiding questions to assess how appropriate technology is for small farms. CAFF’s Tech Hub would like to share a user assessment tool to do your own assessment using the principles and questions listed below.

Development of Appropriate Technology for Small Farms: Principles and Guiding Questions

University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources Small Farms Network

Small farms in California include a large diversity of crops, types of farming operations, and markets. Most have developed alternative marketing strategies to reduce competition with large, industrial-scale farming businesses that produce large volumes of crops and compete for prices in wholesale markets. Many small farms are diversified, sell directly to consumers through local markets, and/or produce unique smallacreage crops and products for specialty markets, both direct and wholesale. Small farms produce a variety of niche, emerging, and mainstream crops, livestock, and animal products, as well as value-added products and some of California’s major commodities grown on a smaller scale. Small farms also represent diverse demographics, including immigrant and refugee farmers, beginning farmers, veteran farmers, and farmers with limited access to resources and capital. Many produce culturally important crops that contribute to food security and access to healthy produce for their communities.

Technology developed for small farms has potential to benefit the viability and sustainability of these operations, for example through improved ergonomics, reduced labor costs, and alternatives to chemical inputs. However, technology developed without meaningful feedback and inclusion of stakeholder priorities and experiences may not be beneficial for small-scale farmers. Below, we discuss several guiding principles with questions for reflection and discussion on how they might be applied to the development of new technology, tools, and equipment with these types of farmers and their operations in mind.

  1. Human-Centered

 Development of technology for small farms must be driven by the priorities of the end users. The principles of human-centered design (Norman, 2023) provide a useful framework: 1) understand and address core problems, beginning with real-world observations of actual practice; 2) start with the needs and abilities of people, then design technology around their interests; 3) focus on an entire activity with a systems approach, rather than only isolated components; and 4) employ multiple, rapid iterations of prototyping and testing with participation and feedback from end users. Without an approach that centers the end user, technology developed for small farms with the best intentions may fail to address the key challenges and priorities of small-scale farmers.

Collaboration with small-scale farmers as active, continuous end users during the development of new technologies will help to ensure that technologies address on-the-ground priorities and are relevant to the unique contexts of small farm production practices and business operations. The process of collaboration should emphasize authentic engagement with farmers to solicit their input as well as meaningful participation in testing and improvement of new technology. Farmers often give generously of their time and resources to public and private projects, and many innovate on their own and may already have their own prototypes that can be developed and improved for wider use. Farmer contributions to development of new technology should be compensated appropriately, recognized, and protected as intellectual property when appropriate.

Guiding Questions: Human-Centered
  1. How are farmers being engaged to provide feedback during the process of technology development?
  2. How does the technology address the interests, challenges, and priorities determined by small-scale farmers through meaningful community engagement and observations of actual practice? c. How are farmers being compensated for their time and contributions?
  3. Are farmers contributing intellectual property, and is it recognized and protected?
  4. How can frequent iterations of beta testing be built in, with improvements based on direct feedback, before the technology is released?
  5. How does the technology fit into a whole small-scale farming operation, and can it be integrated with other tools and systems in use?
  6. Have safety standards and trainings been developed to avoid safety risks?

2. Appropriately Scaled

Technology developed for small farms must be on an appropriate scale to match the farming operations, budget, and cropping patterns of a small-scale farming operation. Often, innovations in agricultural technology target farming operations with larger operational scales and large monoculture acreages of high-value commodities. These operations differ substantially from small farms in characteristics such as field sizes, row spacing, acreage, diversity of crops, production methods, and marketing strategies. Technologies developed for large-scale monocultures likely are not applicable or accessible for small farmers because they are physically too large for their production contexts, have a cost-benefit ratio that only is profitable across large acreages, would be utilized over a scale that is too small to justify a large purchase, and/or are not adaptable to smaller-scale diversified cropping patterns. For example, although precision agriculture technologies involving automation and remote sensing can be beneficial and costeffective for reducing inputs on large-scale monoculture farms, they are less appropriate for small farms where patterns in crop health, nutrition, etc. can be observed locally and purchase of precision agriculture technology may not be cost-effective.

Appropriately scaled technologies should take into account the unique operational contexts of small-scale farms as a central aspect of the development of new technologies that will be relevant and accessible to small farmers. At the same time, technology that is too small-scale or too labor intensive can also be inappropriately scaled. Small farms can include a range of operations, from urban farms on less than an acre, to commercial production of niche specialty crops on a few more acres, to family-operated livestock operations larger than these but still considered small farms by comparison with industrial and corporate farms. Hand tools or walk-behind tractors may be appropriate for very small-acreage farms, while larger small farms may need tractor implements and mechanized equipment with enough capacity for larger volumes of inputs and/or sufficient horsepower to cultivate soil or transport heavier loads. While robotics and larger mechanized equipment can be incompatible with cropping system design or too expensive for a small-scale farm, technology can also be limited by elements that are too small, such as insufficient horsepower, battery life, volume, or other specifications needed for production. The goal should be to match the technology to the scale of the farming operation with the farmer’s interests, production practices, and economic context in mind. 

Guiding Questions: Appropriately Scaled
  1. What scale of operation on the spectrum of small farms is the technology targeting?
  2. What labor, economic, and production constraints are important to address at this scale of operation?
  3. Will the technology be cost-effective for the scale of farm being considered?
  4. Will the technology have enough power, capacity, volume, etc. for the farm size it targets?
3.  Cost-Effective

The cost of technology for small farms should be within the range that a small farming operation can either directly purchase or access through other means, such as shared equipment programs. This applies to costs of purchase or access as well as to costs of ongoing use and maintenance. The purchase, use, and long-term maintenance of technology must have a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the scale of the farming operation, considering the size of the area that it will be used on, labor required, maintenance costs, and any other associated costs. For example, the installation of soil moisture sensors should result in economic benefits such as reduced pumping costs that exceed the costs of purchasing, installing, and maintaining the sensors. Analysis of costs and benefits should also account for opportunity costs of purchasing the technology instead of some other use of available funds, as well as time spent learning to use it.

Cost-benefit ratios can also help determine whether new technology includes multiple implements and functions to maximize the benefits of a more expensive purchase, or whether it is more effective to develop one function that is very effective at addressing a specific priority. Development of a multifunction technology may be successful if a farmer is likely to use all or most of the functions, and if all the functions and parts are cost-effective within the business plan of the farming operation. However, more affordable technology performing a single function very effectively may be easier to learn, use, and maintain, less risky to purchase, and easier to target for continued testing and improvement.

Companies developing technology for small farms may benefit from a business plan based on high volume of low-cost units sold, rather than higher pricing for fewer units. Technology that succeeds in benefiting small farms could be purchased by a large number of small-scale farmers both domestically and internationally. One example of this is the CoolBot, which currently costs under $500 per unit and is purchased by many small-scale farmers across the US. Avoiding potentially burdensome required subscriptions and proprietary controls, keeping technology open-source, and ensuring that farmers can repair technology on their own when possible, also helps keep technology affordable.

Guiding Questions: Cost-Effective
  1. Does a cost-benefit analysis show the technology to be profitable based on reduced costs and/or increased profit, including the costs of purchase/access, operation, additional inputs needed, maintenance, and repair?
  2. Is the up-front cost to purchase, rent, or subscribe to the technology feasible for the scale of small farm being considered?
  3. Is a multi-function or single-function technology more cost-effective to address the priorities identified by farmers?
  4. How many units would a company need to produce and sell to be profitable on the basis of volume?
  5. How can the technology be designed to be profitable for the developers without required subscriptions or proprietary controls?
4.   User-Friendly

Technology, tools, and equipment appropriate for small farms should be easy to use, maintain, and integrate into ongoing farming operations. Firstly, innovations should consider the ability of small-scale farmers to access digital infrastructure. If technologies and equipment require Wi-Fi connection, cell phone modems, broadband, and/or computers for successful use, this may present accessibility and usability challenges for small-scale farmers with limited resources or technological literacy.

Technologies are more accessible if they use easily attainable knowledge to operate rather than advanced technical knowledge. For example, digital technologies that require coding by the operator limit use to a subset of technologically literate farmers who have this skill. New technology can be more accessible when accompanied by opportunities for technical training and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing, with the goal of knowledge being further shared among communities of end users. Training and knowledge sharing can be facilitated by business owners, extension organizations, technical assistance providers, and/or end users. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring these education opportunities are culturally relevant for diverse stakeholders of the small-scale farming community.

Technologies should be streamlined and intuitive to accomplish tasks appropriate to small farm operations and provide information at the decision-making level. While needs and preferences for the level of interpretation made by the user may vary, technologies that require less interpretation are generally easier to use. For example, a decision support technology for irrigation or pest management could produce simplified, practical recommendations based on accurate scientific research to minimize the need for interpretation by the end user, presenting a user-friendly version of the information needed to decide whether to irrigate or manage pests rather than the raw data.

Finally, maintenance and repair of technology should be easy to access, affordable, and simple, and small-scale farmers should be empowered to be as self-sufficient as possible. End users should be able to repair and maintain their own tools and equipment when needed, purchase parts, and be informed of recommended maintenance practices. Whenever possible, small-scale farmers should not be obligated to outside entities or subscription services for essential maintenance and repairs.

Guiding Questions: User-Friendly
  1. Have you identified the potential end users of the technology, and do you have a way to request feedback from them?
  2. Does the level of technical knowledge and education required to effectively use the new technology match the majority of the target end users?
  3. Can farmers either maintain and repair the technology on their own, or easily get it serviced affordably and locally?
  4. Are the parts and components needed for repair and maintenance available and accessible, either locally, domestically, or through an easy-to-use service?
  5. Does the level of complexity match the time, labor, size, and current practices of the farming operations that the technology is being developed for?
  6. Can farmers access information on how to use or improve upon the innovation so that it can better address their interests and challenges?
  7. How much interpretation is required for the user to make a decision supported by the technology?
  8. Does the technology allow easy adjustments to adapt to different field configurations and cropping systems?
5. De-Risked Experimentation

Small farms are small businesses often operating on tight margins, which can make experimenting with new management strategies, technologies, and practices riskier. This is especially true when large capital investments in equipment are required, and/or when innovations are still in an experimental phase. Small-scale farming operations may not have the financial flexibility to experiment with or integrate new technologies, especially those that are costly to purchase and maintain.

Further, adoption of new technologies requires experimentation and may not always be successful immediately, which is highly risky for small-scale operations because their profit margins are less flexible. To ensure that the inherent risks of farming are addressed, the introduction of new technologies should include accessible opportunities to experiment on-farm as well as demonstrate their uses. Efforts to facilitate low-risk technology testing could include tool and equipment sharing or lending programs, costshare programs, demonstration farms, grants to support technology experimentation, and regional events to exhibit relevant appropriate technologies.

While technologies that involve comprehensive use through different phases of farm operations can also benefit small farms, they are more difficult to de-risk for testing and feedback. Technologies that require use from start to finish on a farm rather than being brought in to do a particular task, or that require ideal conditions for use, are more difficult to try out on a one-time basis. For example, a robotic weeder that requires prior setup with the row spacing, bed height, and plant spacing of a farm is difficult to try out on a farm that has already been planted. Tools that function well under ideal circumstances may be difficult to use in more varied and difficult environments, such as uneven terrain, dense vegetation, or dry or wet soils. Small-scale farms are often more diverse and less homogenous than larger-scale industrial farming operations. The more adaptable to different environments without requiring extensive prior setup and adjustment, the easier a technology is to test and evaluate with user feedback and generate interest in adoption. Technologies that can be easily substituted for an existing method are easier to try out instead of the usual method with low risk.

Guiding Questions: De-Risked Experimentation
  1. How will farmers learn about and experiment with the technology?
  2. What opportunities are there for on-farm demonstrations, cost-share programs, equipment lending or sharing programs, or events that facilitate farmers trying out new technologies?
  3. How can de-risking experimentation with technology be built into funding and business models, such as options for compensating farmers if trialing new technology results in an economic loss?
  4. Have you evaluated how your technology might fall short or fail during use? What problems might arise during use, and how might they be resolved?
  5. How long do you expect your technology to last? 5 years or longer?
  6. How can you build in evaluation of both continuous user and new users?
  7. Does the technology require comprehensive use throughout the farming system from start to finish, or is it possible to trial for one-time uses?
  8. Does the technology require certain conditions to function well? How well can it adapt to variable on-farm environments?
6.  Protective of Privacy

Processes for collecting and using data from sensors, online platforms, internet of things (IoT), geographic information systems (GIS) and other technologies must be transparently outlined for users and safeguarded as confidential. Farmers are required to report a wide range of information to regulatory programs and can face substantial risks if they are out of compliance. This is especially true for small-scale underserved farmers because there are often resource, language, and capacity barriers to successful regulatory compliance. In addition, the widespread presence of ambiguous data use terms has caused concern from users across many technology applications. Given these contexts, there is understandable skepticism among farmers of all scales to engage with technologies that have obscure data use or sharing policies. Appropriate technologies should be protective of data privacy to enable more farmer engagement and ensure that technology use is respectful and safe for all farmers. Further, as data continues to become a central commodity in itself, data use and sharing policies should be both fully transparent and easily understood, as well as having an option for users to opt out of data sharing.

Guiding Questions: Protective of Privacy
  1. Does the technology collect data from farmers?
  2. If so, how is the privacy and confidentiality of the data protected?
  3. If data is collected, will the farmer be compensated for their data at an appropriate rate?
  4. Is data shared with third parties, and if so, what is it used for?
  5. Are end users fully informed of how data is used and shared?
  6. Is there a clear process for end users to opt out of data collection and use?
  7. Is there a process with accountability for data to be deleted after a certain period of time?
7. Strengthening Local Economies

New technologies should maximize opportunities to connect and strengthen local and regional food and agriculture economies by improving transparency, assuring reliability, and facilitating new connections across the local agriculture and food system. Decentralizing the purchase of both crops and agricultural inputs can contribute to increasing regional economic activity through improved interactions between farm operators, ancillary services, and consumers in the community. Technologies focused on logistics management can also create more connection points among multiple entities in the food and agriculture sector.

Some examples of technologies that improve networking and connectivity include those developed to promote e-commerce and online sales. These technologies help to connect small farms and local businesses to promote shorter food supply chains, higher circulation of local capital, and closer connections between production and consumption. Other examples include technologies that could improve a small-scale farmer’s access to locally produced agricultural inputs and services, such as facilitating the distribution of appropriately sized and locally available loads of compost for small acreages, collection of drip tape and other agricultural plastics for recycling, or purchasing appropriate volumes of alternative pest management supplies (e.g. pheromone lures, traps, or biological control organisms).

Guiding Questions: Strengthening Local Economies
  1. What gaps currently exist in access to markets, inputs, or services that the technology could help address?
  2. How could the technology address gaps in connection among farmers and sellers of inputs and service?
  3. How will the new technology increase sales, access to market channels, capabilities for farm business management, and/or access to desired inputs?
  4. How will the new technology strengthen the local food system and economy?

References:

Norman, Donald A. Design for a Better World: Meaningful, Sustainable, Humanity Centered. Cambridge, MA, MA: The MIT Press, 2023.