Ūkininkai tiek naudojasi skaitmeninėnis priemonėmis

"Žemės ūkis labiau, nei daugelis kitų pramonės šakų naudoja skaitmenines technologijas ir dirbtinį intelektą, kad taptų efektyvesnis. Potencialas ateičiai yra didelis. Tačiau yra ir problemų.

 

Dirbtinis intelektas (AI) jau seniai atsidūrė žemės ūkyje. Beveik pusė Vokietijos žemės ūkio verslų (47 proc.) šiuo metu nagrinėja galimus dirbtinio intelekto panaudojimo būdus. Maždaug viena iš dešimties įmonių (9 procentai) naudoja dirbtinį intelektą, o dar 38 procentai planuoja arba diskutuoja apie jo naudojimą. Kuo didesnė įmonė, tuo intensyvesnis AI naudojimas ir įsitraukimas į jį: Nors tik 27 procentai įmonių, turinčių 20–49 hektarus, naudoja, planuoja arba diskutuoja apie dirbtinį intelektą, šis skaičius yra 38 procentai įmonių, kurių plotas 50–99 hektarai, o didelės įmonės 99 hektarai - 52 proc. Tai yra reprezentatyvios 500 žemės ūkio įmonių apklausos, kurią skaitmeninė asociacija „Bitkom“ ir Vokietijos žemės ūkio draugija (DLG) pristatė pirmadienį, rezultatai.

 

„Žemės ūkis yra vienas iš AI pradininkų ir lenkia daugumą kitų pramonės šakų“, – sakė „Bitkom“ generalinis direktorius Bernhardas Rohlederis. "AI gali labai palengvinti žemės ūkio įmonių naštą, kad ūkininkai turėtų daugiau laiko kitoms užduotims. Visų pirma mažesnės įmonės turėtų labiau išnaudoti AI galimybes."

 

Remiantis apklausa, ūkininkai mato didžiausią AI panaudojimo potencialą klimato ir orų prognozėse. 54 procentai įmonių, kurios dirba su dirbtiniu intelektu, ją jau naudoja arba planuoja naudoti, koncentruojasi į jį. 36 procentai ūkininkų mato potencialą rinkos analizėse ar kainų prognozėse ir po 28 procentus derliaus ir gamybos planavime ar derliaus prognozėse. 46 procentai įmonių, kurios naudoja, planuoja ar diskutuoja AI, nori pagerinti pasėlių apsaugą. Tačiau dirbtinis intelektas taip pat planuojamas, aptariamas ar naudojamas už arklidės ir lauko ribų: 39 procentai tikisi, kad tai palengvins jų kasdienio biuro darbo naštą.

 

Sutaupoma laiko ir didesnis efektyvumas naudojant skaitmenines technologijas

 

Biurokratija yra viena iš daugelio priežasčių, dėl kurių ūkininkai patiria spaudimą. Kaip didžiausius iššūkius apklausti ūkininkai įvardijo taisykles ir nuostatas (97 proc.), politinės paramos stoką (96 proc.) ir per mažas žemės ūkio gamintojų kainas (91 proc.). Klimato kaitos poveikis ir didėjantys tvarumo reikalavimai taip pat kelia problemų daugeliui įmonių.

 

Nepaisant to, didžioji dauguma ūkininkų (79 proc.) skaitmenizaciją mato, kaip galimybę savo verslui. 15 procentų tai vertina, kaip riziką, o 6 procentams skaitmeninimas neturi jokios įtakos. Apklausos duomenimis, didžiausi privalumai – laiko taupymas (69 proc.), didesnis gamybos efektyvumas (61 proc.) ir fizinis palengvinimas (57 proc.).

 

Tačiau įmonės taip pat labai tikisi skaitmeninių sprendimų visos pramonės ateičiai. 80 procentų mano, kad skaitmeninės technologijos leidžia gaminti ekologiškesnę žemės ūkio produkciją. Konkrečiai, ūkininkai tikisi, kad skaitmeninės technologijos padės jiems naudoti mažiau pesticidų ir sutaupyti kitų išteklių. Didelė dalis taip pat tikisi, kad ši technologija pagerins gyvūnų gerovę. Tuo pačiu metu pats skaitmeninimas yra iššūkis maždaug pusei (54 proc.) žemės ūkio įmonių.

 

Skaitmeninimas žemės ūkyje nebėra ateities svajonė. Apskritai 90 procentų įmonių naudojasi bent vienu iš daugybės skaitmeninių sprendimų. Labiausiai paplitusios yra GPS valdomos žemės ūkio mašinos, kurias šiandien naudoja 69 procentai ūkių. Prieš dvejus metus buvo tik 58 proc. Skaitmeniniai laukų indeksai ir karvių ar paršavedžių planuotojai taip pat gana plačiai paplitę – 68 proc. Tai leidžia, pavyzdžiui, suprasti gyvūnų veisimosi ciklus.

 

Atrodo, kad kažkas vyksta ir kalbant apie tvarumą: 36 procentai ūkininkų pasikliauja tokiomis trąšomis, kurios leidžia tręšti „specifiškai vietovei“, kur augalams jų labiausiai reikia. Beveik trečdalis ūkininkų taip pat naudoja augalų apsaugos produktus, kad puršktų tik tada, kai reikia.

 

Nors automatinės šėrimo sistemos veikia 24 procentuose ūkiuose, o 22 procentai ūkininkų naudoja melžimo ar tvartų robotus, robotus lauke galima rasti tik pas 5 procentams ūkininkų.

 

Kliūtys išlieka praktikoje

 

Nepaisant tam tikro potencialo, praktikoje dar reikia daug pasivyti: ūkininkai dabartinį politinį darbą žemės ūkio skaitmenizavimo srityje vertina 4,7 balo vidurkiu. Atitinkamai, gera pusė (52 proc.) įmonių mano, kad jos nepakankamai įsitraukusios į politinių priemonių planavimą. 51 proc.  viena didžiausių kliūčių ūkininkai laiko netinkama prieiga prie interneto. 

 

Po to kyla susirūpinimas dėl duomenų suverenumo praradimo ir didelio skaitmeninių sistemų sudėtingumo, kurių kiekviena turi 49 proc. 

 

Paskutinis, bet ne mažiau svarbus dalykas – reikia finansuoti ir naujas technologijas. 75 procentai ūkininkų kliūtimi laiko iš esmės dideles investicines išlaidas. Taip pat nerimaujama dėl didesnės biurokratijos ir netinkamo sąsajų standartizavimo ir sistemų tinklų sujungimo, kai kalbama apie skaitmeninimą ir dirbtinį intelektą." [1]

 

1. So digital sind die Bauern. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. Jun 3, 2024. Von Anne Kokenbrink

This is how digital farmers are

"More than many other industries, agriculture uses digital technologies and artificial intelligence to become more efficient. The potential for the future is great. But there are also problems.

 

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long since found its way into agriculture. Almost half of the agricultural businesses in Germany (47 percent) are currently looking into the possible uses of artificial intelligence. Around one in ten businesses (9 percent) use AI, and a further 38 percent are planning or discussing its use. The larger the business, the more intensive the use and engagement with AI: while only 27 percent of businesses with 20 to 49 hectares use, plan or discuss AI, the figure is 38 percent for businesses with 50 to 99 hectares and 52 percent for large businesses with 99 hectares or more. These are the results of a representative survey of 500 agricultural businesses presented by the digital association Bitkom and the German Agricultural Society (DLG) on Monday.

 

"Agriculture is one of the pioneers of AI and is ahead of most other sectors," said Bitkom CEO Bernhard Rohleder. "AI can massively reduce the burden on agricultural businesses, leaving farmers more time for other tasks. Smaller businesses in particular should make greater use of the possibilities offered by AI."

 

According to the survey, farmers see the greatest potential for the use of AI in climate and weather forecasts. 54 percent of businesses that are involved in AI, are already using it or are planning to use it, are concentrating on this. 36 percent of farmers see potential in market analyses or price forecasts, and 28 percent each in harvest and production planning or yield forecasts. 46 percent of businesses that use, plan or discuss AI want to improve crop protection. But AI is also being planned, discussed or used outside of the stable and field: 39 percent hope to reduce the burden on daily office work.

 

Time savings and greater efficiency through digital technologies

 

Bureaucracy is one of many reasons that put farmers under pressure. The farmers surveyed cited the rules and regulations (97 percent), a lack of political support (96 percent) and agricultural producer prices that are too low (91 percent) as the biggest challenges. The effects of climate change and increasing sustainability requirements are also causing problems for many businesses.

 

Nevertheless, a large majority of farmers (79 percent) see digitization as an opportunity for their own business. 15 percent see it as a risk, and for 6 percent digitization has no impact. According to the survey, the biggest advantages are time savings (69 percent), greater efficiency in production (61 percent) and physical relief (57 percent).

 

But companies are also placing great hopes in digital solutions for the future of the entire industry. 80 percent believe that digital technologies will enable them to produce agricultural products in a more environmentally friendly way. Specifically, farmers hope that digital technologies will help them use fewer pesticides and save other resources. A large proportion also hope that the technology will improve animal welfare. At the same time, digitalization itself represents a challenge for around half (54 percent) of agricultural businesses.

 

Digitalization in agriculture is no longer a thing of the future. Overall, 90 percent of businesses use at least one of the numerous digital solutions. The most common are GPS-controlled agricultural machines, which 69 percent of businesses use today. Two years ago, this figure was only 58 percent. Digital field records, cow or sow planners are also relatively widespread at 68 percent. These can be used, for example, to track the animals' breeding cycles.

 

And something also seems to be happening in terms of sustainability: 36 percent of farmers rely on applications that allow fertilizer to be applied "partially" where the plants need it most. Almost a third of farmers also use such applications for crop protection products in order to only spray where it is necessary.

 

While automatic feeding systems are running on 24 percent of farms and 22 percent of farmers use milking or stable robots, robots can only be found in the fields on 5 percent of farmers.

 

Obstacles remain in practice

 

Despite some potential, there is still a lot of catching up to do in practice: farmers give the current political work on the digitalization of agriculture an average grade of 4.7. Accordingly, a good half (52 percent) of the farms feel that they are not sufficiently involved in the planning of political measures. 51 percent of the farmers consider inadequate internet access to be one of the biggest obstacles. 

This is followed by concerns about the loss of data sovereignty and the high complexity of digital systems, each with 49 percent. 

Last but not least, new technologies also have to be financed. 75 percent of farmers see the usually high investment costs as an obstacle. Concerns about more bureaucracy and inadequate standardization of interfaces and the networking of systems also resonate when it comes to digitization and AI." [1]

1. So digital sind die Bauern. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (online) Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung GmbH. Jun 3, 2024. Von Anne Kokenbrink

Sweet gains, bro

"Editor’s note (June 20th 2024): The Supreme Court has ruled in Moore v United States, upholding the tax at issue (the “mandatory repatriation tax”). The court declined to weigh in on the constitutionality of a tax on unrealised gains.

What is income, really? Ask an economist and they might describe “Haig-Simons” income—the value of a person’s consumption of goods and services, plus the change in their net worth over a certain period. A lawyer might refer to Section 61(a) of the IRS Code 26, which defines “gross” income as “all income from whatever source derived”, including but not limited to commission, interest, property deals and wages. An accountant might talk about how to reduce that gross income, via deductions or carve-outs, to a skinnier “taxable income base”.

The answer matters. Whether governments should levy taxes on unrealised capital gains, as well as realised ones, is a topic of hot debate. In March, during the State of the Union address, Joe Biden reiterated his commitment to imposing a “billionaire minimum income tax” if re-elected. This would include a 25% tax on unrealised capital gains for Americans with more than $100m in assets, which he expects would raise $500bn (2% of GDP) over a decade. The Supreme Court is also considering the question. Its justices are poised to issue an opinion in Moore v the United States, a case in which the plaintiffs are arguing that a one-off tax on gains from an overseas investment was unconstitutional, since the 16th amendment, which enshrines in America’s constitution the federal government’s right to impose income taxes, does not apply to unrealised income.

A large portion of ultra-rich Americans’ wealth is in unrealised gains. Since the release of the “Secret IRS Files” by ProPublica, an investigative-journalism outfit, in 2021, a strategy known as “buy, borrow, die” has come under particular scrutiny. It allows those who employ it to avoid income and capital-gains taxes altogether.

Say you own a successful business—so successful that your stake in it is worth $1bn. How should you fund your spending? If you pay yourself a wage of $20m a year, the federal government will collect 37%, or some $7.4m. So perhaps you should take a salary of $1 and sell $20m-worth of shares. If these were gifted to you upon founding the firm, the entire sum represents capital gains and will be taxed at 20%, which would mean a $4m hit. 

What if, instead, you called up your wealth manager and agreed to put up $100m-worth of equity as collateral for a $20m loan. In 2021 the interest rate on the loan might have been just 2% a year, meaning that returns from holding the equity, rather than selling it, would easily have covered the cost of servicing the borrowing. Because the proceeds of loans, which must be eventually repaid, are not considered income, doing so would have incurred no tax liability at all.

The strategy is even more compelling once the “stepped-up basis” is considered. When the holder of an asset dies, the value for capital-gains assessments is “stepped up” from its purchase cost to its value at the time of death. In this way, “buy, borrow, die” does not simply defer capital-gains taxes—it can eliminate them entirely. Nothing is paid on gains made between the original purchase of an asset and the value at the death of the original holder.

Taxman confounded

Low interest rates and booming stockmarkets make a “buy, borrow, die” strategy particularly attractive. At Morgan Stanley and Bank of America (BoA), both of which run large wealth-management businesses, the total value of securities-backed loans to clients leapt from around $80bn in 2018 to almost $150bn in 2022. Banks are more than happy to make such loans. As lending tends to be collateralised by securities that can be easily seized and sold, it is treated as low-risk by regulators.

During the past few years of high interest rates, however, borrowing against assets has become a riskier proposition. At Morgan Stanley such loans are structured as revolving lines of credit; three-quarters of them appear to have floating interest rates. If borrowing adds up to, say, 50% of a portfolio at a lofty valuation then a rout in the market can leave debtors with nothing. In 2022, after the share price of Peloton collapsed, John Foley, founder of the exercise-bike firm, ended up scrambling to restructure his loans, selling a $55m house in the Hamptons just months after he had bought it. At BoA and Morgan Stanley the value of loans secured in such a manner had crept down by the end of 2023.

Yet politics, rather than high interest rates, represents the biggest threat to the strategy. There are three arguments against Mr Biden’s proposal: that it is unfair, that it is unconstitutional and that it would be an administrative burden. The fairness argument rests on the idea that unrealised gains are, in many ways, unreal. After all, the value of assets could change the day after a tax is paid. This perhaps explains why a survey by academics at New York University in 2021 found 75% of Americans oppose such taxation.

A clue as to whether the Supreme Court believes that wealth taxes are constitutional will arrive in the coming days, when justices opine on Moore. The plaintiffs were taxed under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was passed in 2017 and imposed a mandatory repatriation tax on the earnings, since 1986, of foreign corporations in which American shareholders own at least 50% of the stock. The levy applies regardless of whether the earnings were distributed to shareholders.

If the justices side with the plaintiffs, they may stop the push for an unrealised-gains tax in its tracks. But they seem unlikely to do so. Sonia Sotomayor, speaking for the court’s liberals, has noted that the concept of “realisation” was “well established” when the relevant constitutional amendment was ratified in 1913. As such, the early-20th century lawmakers could have specified that unrealised assets were to be left alone had that been what they intended. On top of this, at least two conservative justices have suggested they will not weigh in on the constitutional point.

As for the idea that wealth taxes on private assets are unworkable, that is too simplistic. Versions of them are already widely used in America, undermining arguments that they are impossible to administer in the country. Levies on property at the local or state level in effect act as taxes on unrealised capital gains. Every single American state has property taxes, which range from 0.3% to 2.3% of the property value each year. In more than half of states, property values are reassessed annually. Mr Biden’s plan also seeks to minimise headaches. It includes measures to smooth volatility so that losses incurred in one year can be offset against gains in another.

Still, the bureaucratic effort to levy a new countrywide tax, on a small pool of people, on every kind of asset they might hold, would be wince-inducing. Valuing assets such as bonds and stocks is relatively straightforward. But private assets, whether a Picasso or an investment in a startup, would be another matter entirely. Adam Michel of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, points out that it took 12 years for the IRS and Michael Jackson’s estate to reach a court-mediated agreement on the value of the late pop star’s assets. “Going through such a process every year for all taxpayers with assets near some threshold is unworkable,” he argues. Several European countries that have tried to levy wealth taxes and ultimately abandoned the effort have described administrative costs as a reason why.

Thankfully for Mr Biden, there is a less radical alternative that would have much the same effect as going after unrealised assets. 

Eliminating the stepped-up basis, which Mr Biden also hopes to do, would remove lots of the incentive to buy, borrow and die. 

It would also probably avoid a serious legal challenge and be easier to administer. Such a move would raise a quarter of the sum the president expects his grander plan to fetch. Taxing capital gains at death would raise another hefty chunk. And closing a few additional loopholes would just about cover the rest." [1]

1. Sweet gains, bro. The Economist; London Vol. 451, Iss. 9402,  (Jun 22, 2024): 77, 78.