Site-Specific Management Center Newsletter February 2001
The annual meeting of the North Central Region
Site-Specific Management Committee (NCR-180) was held in Madison, Wisconsin
from January 4-6. This meeting brings
together representatives from academic institutions, government, and industry
to exchange ideas on research, teaching, and outreach initiatives in the area
of site-specific management (SSM) of agricultural systems. This year, of the 57 attendees, 37 were from
universities, 9 were from various government agencies, and 11 were from
industry. In all, 21 states and the
District of Columbia were represented.
Dan Ess, Purdue Extension Agricultural Engineer, was in attendance,
representing Indiana. Purdue’s
permanent representatives to the Committee are Jess Lowenberg-DeBoer,
Agricultural Economics and Sylvie Brouder, Agronomy.
In years past, the meeting was formatted to
permit each state to present a summary of SSM-related activities from the
previous year. This year, that format
was abandoned in favor of a theme-centered meeting in which discussions of
critical issues facing SSM were led by experts in those areas followed by
extensive discussions among the presenters and members of the audience. (For those still interested in a summary of
SSM-related activities in participating states, see the NCR-180 reports posted
at http://precision.agri.umn.edu/ncr180.html).
The themes discussed this year were related to
various aspects of the “science of precision agriculture.” They included:
·
Pest
management
·
Economics
·
Remote
sensing
·
Spatial
analysis
·
Irrigated
agriculture
Pest
management
– Critical issues involving the site-specific management of insects, weeds, and
disease were addressed by researchers from Michigan State University, Penn
State, and the University of Minnesota.
The group emphasized the importance of dealing with temporal as well as spatial
variability when treating pest problems in the field, especially those
presented by weeds. This led to a
discussion of appropriate timing of treatment(s) and the effects of differences
in crops and cultural practices. The
group stressed the potential for real-time sensing technologies to make real
impact in the effort to more effectively target and treat pests.
Other discussion topics included: the
relationship between precision agriculture and area-wide pest management using
IPM techniques, and the implications of loosely monitored refuges in
genetically engineered crop production.
Economics – Dr. David Bullock, an
agricultural economist from the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign (UIUC),
presented a framework for the discussion of the economics of precision
agriculture. (For the summary of his
presentation, see http://w3.aces.uiuc.edu/ACE/faculty/bullockd.html). In his presentation, Bullock called upon
crop scientists, soil scientists, and agricultural engineers to begin designing
and implementing techniques and technologies to help define relationships
between crop yields and the combined influences of managed inputs, spatially
dependent characteristics, and unmanaged time-dependent variables on a
site-specific basis. He concluded that
until crop response functions could be identified for specific management units
within fields, the prospects for widespread, profitable implementation of
variable rate input applications were highly doubtful. He argued that it was the job of the
assembled researchers to help identify the relationships cheaply and reliably
enough to permit producers to make a profit.
(Editorial note: The good
news is that systems such as those that produce high-density electrical
conductivity and seeding rate datasets are already helping to meet these
needs.)
Bullock also challenged
the conventional wisdom of “the benefits of new technology going to early
adopters.” He seemed to indicate that
it is possible that SSM technologies and techniques might need further
development before significant economic benefits result.
Remote
Sensing –
Jim Schepers, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, and Todd Peterson,
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, combined to discuss the history of commercial
ventures in remote sensing (RS) for agricultural applications. The two highlighted challenges faced by
commercial vendors to date, the current status of RS enterprises (commercial
and otherwise), and the conditions under which RS could make widespread
contributions to crop producers. They
also discussed the potential of remote sensing in applications such as grain
yield and quality prediction and management zone delineation.
Coverage of sensing/imaging topics continued as
agricultural engineers from UIUC and CNH Global described cutting edge spraying
and fertilizer application technologies.
Both the sprayer and the fertilizer applicator utilized near-real-time
image capture and analysis to drive variable rate applications at “realistic”
operating speeds (on the order of 10 mph) in the field.
Spatial
Analysis
– Germáán Bollero, UIUC, presented concepts in principal component analysis,
an alternative to more commonly used multiple regression
techniques. One weakness of multiple
regression is that the coefficients developed are meaningless if correlation
exists among the independent variables (for instance, measured soil fertility
factors) and correlation almost always DOES exist. Principal component analysis was shown to provide a means of data
reduction that can permit the identification of measured variables that are
important for explaining crop yield.
Irrigated
Agriculture
– Dale Heermann and Harold Duke, USDA-ARS researchers from Colorado, presented
results of their research in the areas of irrigation and fertigation. As in other areas, the importance of
temporal variability in crop needs for an input was emphasized. From the presentation and discussion, it
became clear that the technology for automated, scheduled, remote-controlled
application of water is in place. Manufacturer
concerns about liability and the general lack of incentives to conserve water
have stymied commercial applications, however.
As always, many of the really interesting
discussions took place in the corridors rather than the meeting rooms. This year there was much talk of the impacts
and implications of recent and pending mergers in the industries that serve the
site-specific management community (for instance, AGCO and Ag-Chem,
Case-International and New Holland,…) and of hard lessons learned through
another year’s experience in implementing SSM.
In summary, there is still much to learn before
many of even the longstanding questions about the science of site-specific
management can be answered. The good
news is that universities, government researchers, and industry are working
together to ensure that there will be answers to the site-specific questions of
crop producers around the country. As a
possible sign of good things to come, next year’s meeting of the NCR-180
Site-Specific Management Committee is scheduled for the Happy Valley of
State College, Pennsylvania.
For
additional information, contact:
Dan
Ess
Assistant
Professor and Extension Agricultural Engineer
Agricultural
and Biological Engineering
Purdue
University
1146
Agricultural and Biological Engineering Building
West
Lafayette, IN 47907-1146
Phone: (765) 496-3977
e-mail: ess@ecn.purdue.edu