Prof tyler 2

Is Precision Farming the Way to go? Can Smaller Farmers Consider this

with their own Equipment?

Don Tyler, Ph.D. John Wilkerson Ph.D.

Michael Buschermohle Ph.D. University of Tennessee

NO-TILL Conservation Agriculture Conference 2012

“Make the Move Towards Sustainable Agriculture in 2012”

1. Site-Specific Collection of Information

2. Site-Specific Decision Making

3. Site-Specific Application of Information

Precision Agriculture Involves.....

GPS – Global Positioning System

•Satellite–Based Navigational System • Technology that allowed precision farming to go from a concept to reality

• Non-intrusive flow rate sensor patented by The University of Tennessee

• A joint effort between Case Corporation,

AgLeader Technology, and The University of Tennessee

• Commercially available in US, Australia,

and Brazil

Cotton Yield Monitor

In-cab monitor

Flow Rate Sensor

Corn Yield Map

1.3-3.1 3.2-6.3 6.3-9.4 9.4-12.5 12.6-14.2

t/ha

Cotton Yield Map

0.29-0.87 0.87-1.18 1.18-1.39 1.39-1.59 1.59-1.90

t/ha

SYSTEMS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT

• Real Time Sensors • Predetermined Management

Zones

REAL TIME SENSORS

• Continuous Measurement, Continuous Variation

• No Set Management Zones • Application Pattern Different for Each

Input and Each Time • Ideal Where Possible • Not Feasible For Most Inputs

Variable Rate Inputs

Plant Population

Nutrient Management Weed Detection

Patchen (Weedseeker)

Weed Map

Only 3% of the field area was sprayed

High weed pressure areas

Chemical Applied YES NO

Potential Benefits of Real-Time Plant Health Sensing

Detection of plant diseases or chemical damage, insects, fertility deficiencies, etc.

SYSTEMS FOR SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT

• Real Time Sensors • Predetermined Management

Zones

WHY MANAGEMENT ZONES ?

• Response Varies Within Fields • Precision Agriculture Varies Management

to Match Response • Management Zones Are “Fields Within

Fields” • Divide Fields into Areas of Similar Response • Used as Basis For Site-Specific Management

For Each Zone

INFORMATION FOR SETTING MANAGEMENT ZONES

• Soil Survey • Topographic Maps • EC, EMI, or GPR • Intensive Soil or Topo Maps • Aerial or Satellite Imagery • Producer Knowledge • Yield Maps

• Grid Soil Sampling

• Zone Sampling

Site-Specific Soil Sampling

Zone Sampling

1.3-3.1 3.2-6.3 6.3-9.4 9.4-12.5 12.6-14.2

t/ha

“Right Rate” at the “Right Place”

130 acres

Average P2O5 Application – 30 kg/ha

kg P2O5 / ha 0-14.6 14.7-24.6 24.7-33.6 33.7-44.8 44.9-67.2

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

30 lb/ac 60 lb/ac 75 lb/ac 90 lb/ac

30

60

75 90

27 27 27 27

-3

-33 -48

-63

P 2O

5 kg/

ha

Blanket VRA lbs reduced

34 30

112

90

67

45

22

0

-22

-45

-67


34 kg/ha 67 kg/ha 84 kg/ha 101 kg/ha

-3

67

30

-37

84

30

-54

101

30

-71

Kg reduced


-60.0

-40.0

-20.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

30 lb/ac 60 lb/ac 75 lb/ac 90 lb/ac

-2.4

-26.1 -37.9

-49.8

P 2O

5 ran

d/ha

Blanket VRA $ Savings

-312 -215

-409

-330

-165

0

165

330

500

-500

660

-20

34 kg/ha 67 kg/ha 84 kg/ha 101 kg/ha

YIELD MAPS AS MANAGEMENT ZONES

• ADVANTAGES:

– Yield Integrates All Factors

– Ultimate Measure of Productive Potential

– Readily Available From Yield Monitors

• DISADVANTAGES:

– Reasons for Variability Not Known

– Relative Yield Differences Vary by Year

Yield Stability

Normalized Yield

Managing Fields by Zones

Field average 11 t/ha

1.3-3.1 3.2-6.3 6.3-9.4 9.4-12.5 12.6-14.2

t/ha

Field Average 11 t/ha

12.2 t/ha 11 t/ha

= 1.12

8.84 t/ha 11 t/ha

= 0.81

Normalized Yields

Managing Field Variability

Delineating Management Zones 2006

2006 - 2007

2006 - 10

2006 - 2008

2006 - 2009

Yield Stability

Zone Management

Making Management Decisions

• Sampling for soil fertility

• VRA application of crop inputs

• Scouting for insects and diseases

High

Medium

Low

Low

High

Medium

Managing Field Variability Normalized Yields

Normalized Zone Corn t/ha

Soybeans t/ha

< 0.85 Low 5.6 2.0

0.86 – 1.15 Medium 8.8 3.2

> 1.16 High 11.3 3.8

2 yr avg. 8.6 3.0

Liming with Variable Rates

Value of liming acid soils is well known Acid Soils:

– Rhizobium bacteria less robust – Nutrients less available – Aluminum and Manganese available at toxic levels

mainly at pH <5.5 Variable Rate Liming

– May reduce total lime needs for field – Even with cost of technology may reduce costs – More efficient way to use liming materials

General Assumptions Long term investment (5 to 7 years)

Land ownership

Lack of knowledge of field variation (target pH 6.5)

Lack of effective technologies for changing lime recommendations and application methods

Water pH

Ten 1 hectare grids

4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.3 6.3 - 6.8 0.05 ha (15 x 30 m) grids

Two 5 hectare grids

Milan Experiment Station 2003

Spring ’03 Grid

sampled 15 x 30 m plots

Double crop soybeans

Fall ’03 Limed after harvest with var. rate spreader

Alternated lime rate and no lime.

4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.3 6.3 - 6.8

Water pH

2003 pH and Soybean Yield MES Variable Rate Lime Study

9.0 2.46 4.9 7.8 2.43 5.0 6.7 2.37 5.1

10.1 2.11 4.8

5.6 2.76 5.2 - 5.4 4.5 3.05 5.5 - 5.8 3.4 3.09 5.9 2.2 2.99 6.0

No lime recommended 2.99 >6.1

t/ha Lime applied after harvest

Average Yield (t/ha)

Water pH

25%

Water pH

1 hectare grids 30 tonnes Lime

4.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.3 6.3 - 6.8 0.05 ha (15 x 30 m) grids

29 tonnes Lime

5 hectare grids 0 tonnes Lime

pH Range Yield t/ha

4.5 – 4.9 2.56 c

5.0 – 5.2 3.26 b

5.3 – 6.0 3.91 a

6.1 – 6.8 4.13 a

2003 Winter Wheat Yields

Probability < 0.05

pH Range Yield t/ha

4.5 – 4.9 2.36 c

5.0 – 5.2 2.89 b

5.3 – 6.0 3.05 a

6.1 – 6.8 3.09 a

2003 Double Cropped Soybean Yields (June planted after wheat)

Probability < 0.05

t/ha Lime Recommended

pH change 2003-2005

2005 Soybean Yield Lime Not Applied Lime Applied

3.4

5.6

7.8

10.1

5.9 – 6.2

5.1 – 5.5

4.6 – 5.2

4.6 – 5.0

3.5 3.4

2.9 3.2

2.0 2.8

1.8 2.7

4.5 5.6 – 5.9 3.4 3.4

t/ha

3.4 5.9 – 6.1 4.1 4.1

5.6 5.1 – 5.5 3.6 4.1

7.8 4.6 – 5.3 2.8 3.8

4.5 4.6 – 5.0 2.3 4.0

4.5 5.6 – 5.8 4.2 4.3

t/ha Lime Recommended

pH change 2003-2005

2006 Soybean Yield Lime Applied Lime Not

Applied

t/ha

Summary of Lime Study

Wheat and soybean yields did not decline until pH was below 5.5.

Grid sampling at 1 hectare grid size located most acid areas.

Lime should be targeted to the most acid areas of field.

Data will be used to develop better management strategies for variable rate liming.

Yield Monitoring for In-field Management

Yield Map Profit/Loss Map

High Low Profit Loss

Summary

• Technologies developed within the past decade are allowing producers to reach new levels of production efficiency.

• These technologies must be: – Economically viable – Environmentally sound

• Don’t confuse the technology with the management

Is precision farming the way to go? Can a smaller farmers consider this with their own equipment?

• Precise management doesn’t require technology

• Equipment size is not a limitation for all precision technologies

• Precision farming involves: – Precise information collection

– Using the information to make decisions

– Applying information to enhance management

Managing Field Variability Yield Data

1.3-3.1 3.2-6.3 6.3-9.4 9.4-12.5 12.6-14.2

1.3-3.1 3.2-6.3 6.3-9.4 9.4-12.5 12.6-14.2

1.3-3.1 3.2-6.3 6.3-9.4 9.4-12.5 12.6-14.2

t/ha

t/ha

t/ha

Normalized Yields

Managing Field Variability

Managing Field Variability Normalized Yields

Normalized Zone t/ha

< 0.85 Low 5.4

0.86 – 1.15 Medium 7.9

> 1.16 High 9.8

3 yr avg. 7.8