Friday, March 29, 2024

Code to bring new data tools

Avatar photo
Farmers can be more confident their information is being protected as organisations handling their data sign up to a new code of practice. It will also provide cheaper services and create benchmarking tools.
Reading Time: 2 minutes

DairyNZ and the Ministry for Primary Industries have funded development of the new Farm Data Code of Practice and associated data standards through the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP), with a contribution from FarmIQ Systems in the first year and co-funding from the Red Meat Profit Partnership this year.

The funding organisations are all involved in PGP programmes that focus on innovation in farming and food processing and are driving developments in farm data recording, storage, analysis and reporting. 

That work led to awareness of the need for a code to guide fair behaviour and standards to get consistency.

“The advantages for farmers will be good security of information and transparency about what it’s being used for,” DairyNZ strategy investment manager Jenny Jago said.

“With this in place, data sharing across organisations will be easier and less expensive – reducing the need for farmers to supply the same information more than once. 

“In the long run, the code and standards should help encourage innovation in farming and data use.”

Red Meat Profit Partnership project manager Michael Smith said common standards and processes were fundamental for integrating farmers’ data and enabling the creation of benchmarks – from which all farmers could get value. 

“We’re looking to set up benchmarking tools that let farmers understand their past performance and compare themselves with their peers.”

Agricultural software development company Rezare Systems was managing the project which started in June 2012.

There had been significant pastoral industry co-operation in all aspects. A steering group had overseen the development of the code and data standards and six industry organisations provided the mandate for the establishment of the Code of Practice.

“This project has shown that many types of farm data are being collected or created,” Rezare managing director Andrew Cooke said. 

The organisations using farm information ranged from small ones offering specific software-based services such as helping farmers manage effluent or forecasting to companies offering animal management services, fertiliser suppliers and banks and even regional councils and others involved in compliance.

'In the long run, the code
and standards should help encourage innovation in farming and data use.'

“Some of the data relates directly to what’s happening on the farm and other data has been generated or calculated by companies at their own cost.

“The key point is the need for open and transparent discussions about farm data. People need to be clear and upfront,” he said.

A number of organisations were now in the process of applying for accreditation under the Farm Data Code of Practice, which was completed in June. 

It defined what was expected of organisations storing, handling or moving data on behalf of pastoral farmers. An independent review panel was being set up to assess the applications and should be running early next year.

The data standards being developed would help the process by encouraging organisations to use the same term to describe one type of data within a database. This would get computer systems talking the same language. 

For example, the terms for various classes of stock were being standardised under the Stock Reconciliation Standard, which was completed and published in September. 

The Financial Data Standard, also published in September, standardised terms for farm financial information and key performance indicators.

Four further standards were being developed covering animal data, land application data, feed and grazing data and irrigation and effluent data.

Accreditation under the code was a voluntary process and organisations that became accredited would be able to use a trademark to show their participation. They would undergo a three-yearly review of their practices.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading