[JoeAltmaier]

I'm not sure the farmer should be getting in the way of data collection. Regional and global optimizations can be mined from a large enough set of ag data. Do we really want to nickel and dime research this way? Its a fair question.

I know; there's a sense of ownership. But farmers are just one participant in the chain of data management. They just happen to be the one person residing physically over the land. So they could charge rent on data. But should they?

[weberc2]

The point is that everyone except farmers are profiting from the data the farmers are helping to collect. Perhaps the better question is "why should everyone except farmers get to nickel and dime research in this way?"

[JoeAltmaier]

I didn't read that. I read that no money was changing hands; just agreements. And of course the farmers benefit greatly; that's the whole point of it all, to make better yields.

[weberc2]

Why do you think increasing yields greatly benefits farmers? If the pencil industry doubles its output, do you imagine their profits will increase twofold?

[costcopizza]

Note he said better rather than increase.

Better could mean anything from maintaining current output with less costs to increasing the quality of your crop.

[weberc2]

The phrase "better yields" is exactly synonymous with "increased yields". A crop's yield is its volume, measured in bushels. There is literally no other way to interpret this.

Citation: I grew up on a farm, and my family has farmed for at least 200 years.

EDIT: This is a particularly weird reason to downvote me...

[JoeAltmaier]

And that'd be pedantic. Better can be more cost-effective, cheaper in time or money or equipment or quality of land required. I grew up on a farm, live on one now, my family has farmed for 300 years, so I guess I win?