Precision Farming What it is and how to implement it Tim Chamen, CTF Europe (with plagiarization of some commercial offerings!)
Definition of PF The application of technologies and agronomic principles to manage spatial and temporal variability associated with all aspects of agricultural production for the purpose of improving crop performance and environmental quality
Precision farming alternative definitions an agricultural concept relying on the existence of in-field variability inputs managed according to yield potential in a specific field area
Precision Farming - my definition or understanding Addressing in-field variability minimising inputs per unit of economic output Using precision techniques to reduce waste minimising inputs per unit of economic output! Sustainable increase in production efficiency
Natural or semi-natural causes of in-field variability Soil texture (sand, silt, clay proportions) Soil fertility inherent properties Topography Conductivity map Provided by Shading
Unnatural causes of in-field variability Poor soil management tillage traffic tillage and traffic closely related Excessive traffic necessitates excessive tillage (Arndt & Rose, 1966) Poor precision misses multiple dosing
Main discrete drivers for PF More efficient use of time To address skilled labour shortage To reduce pesticide use To make the crop saleable (documentation) Deliver to assurance schemes, traceability etc. Address Legislation and Compliance Help comply with NVZ s, LERAPS, etc. Reduce costs Increase profit
What tools are needed for PF? Ability to measure: spatial variation in soil texture spatial variation in nutrients spatial variation in crop yield spatial variation in weeds, diseases and pests variation in input accuracy topography boundaries, field features and management options
What tools are needed for PF? Ability to respond to variation: precise machine control: auto-steer at a cost-effective precision variable rate applications solids and liquids tillage depth and intensity Ability to calculate return on investment change in cost per tonne of production
Benefits of machine guidance Reduced overlap Use full width of the machine Save time, input costs, wear & depreciation Increased field efficiency Every new land precisely the right width & exactly parallel Increased quality of work Perfect row spacing Contained wheeling damage Controlled Traffic farming Improved operator comfort Less concentration required More time to watch & adjust implements.
Manual Guidance Grassland Fertiliser 100ha Without Guidance With Guidance 15 metres 8% overlap 22 hrs 400 passes 168 tonnes 10 hrs 186 passes 11 tonnes 28 metres 0.1% overlap 12 hrs 214 passes 157 tonnes Annual Savings - 2,315 John Deere Guidance Solutions - Carl Goff: Burden Bros Agri Ltd. John Deere Lightbar Cost 999 Paid for in 5 Months alone!!! 11
Components of PF Soil texture mapping clay content Response: vary tillage energy input vary seed rates apply fertiliser to suit yield potential Feedback: yield monitoring and mapping yield per unit of input identify cause of variation refine response
Components of PF Nutrient mapping: in the soil in the crop satellite or UAV images, GAI monitoring, N-sensing Response vary input to maximise yield at minimum cost per tonne Weed, pest and disease mapping Response: vary input according to pest presence and density Feedback comparison of maps from year to year (weeds rather than pests and diseases)
Weed mapping and boom section control
Components of PF
Components of PF Compaction mapping: load, pressure, repeated passes Response: tillage deeper or subsoiling BUT increases risk or re-compaction Low ground pressure tyres limited when loads increase it s load that does damage at depth but less so with tracks Confine compaction to least possible area of permanent traffic lanes controlled traffic
Compaction mapping Plough-based system 88% run over, 97% of which run over repeatedly (Kroulik, 2011) Negative effects of traffic last for at least 5 years Plan view of field showing typical trafficking
Bigger machines mean more damage at depth Pressure in the soil at 0.4 m depth, bar 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 14 fold increase 7 fold increase 12 t 0.5 0 1930 1940 1980 2010 2012
Controlled Traffic Farming Divides cropped area into trafficked and non-trafficked zones maximize area of non-trafficked zone Controlled Traffic Farming (CTF) made infinitely easier by satellite guidance and autosteer CTF needs autosteer using RTK the only means by which repeatable positioning can be achieved
Yield increase, % Consistently higher crop yields % increase in yield by crop type under controlled compared with random traffic 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Barley (4) Oats (5) Peas (1) Sugar beet (1) Wheat (13) Onions (1) Maize (13) Potatoes (4) Forage grass (4) Numbers in brackets denote number of research results from which data were taken
Yield increase with no traffic Increase in yield associated with: improved fertilizer use efficiency better N recovery Torbert & Reeves, 1995: Wolkowski, 1990, Lipiec, 2002 better water use efficiency some evidence of increased protein content
Traffic effects on soil functions Infiltration erosion (3 5 fold increase with no traffic) loss of nutrients (not included in yield data) Diffuse pollution poor uptake of N by-pass flow Low ground pressure traffic Zero traffic
Traffic effects on soil functions Drainage waterlogging short and long term loss of nitrogen» nitrous oxide emissions exacerbated by poor aeration» spatially highly variable due to compaction Plant available water 30% less poor soil exploration by roots less pore space smaller pores
Traffic effects on seedbeds This is caused by us!
Traffic effects on seedbeds Poor and uneven establishment crop at different growth stages Random traffic Spring oats Controlled traffic
Traffic effects on soil fauna Bad for earthworms from 40 up to 2 per sq m with 5 t wheel loads earthworms can have beneficial effects on soil-borne diseases less take-all No traffic: Good for Peter also good for Paul slugs also like better soil structure proactive stance and cultural controls
Traffic effects on soil strength RTF CTF
Where to from here? We know random compaction: costs us a lot of time and money degrades soils their function and environmental impacts creates in-field variability
Conclusions Does PF without CTF make sense?! visit www.ctfeurope.eu to find out more CTF is the best option we have for improvement it saves money fuel 2/ha compared with 17/ha 330 hp tractor rather than 550 hp RTK - GPS guidance and autosteer make it easier it has no negative outcomes