Precision Agriculture and Conservation
The tools and practices that make up precision agriculture have several potential ways to improve crop production systems. One that is sometimes overlooked is the potential impact on water and air quality. I would like to collect some examples of how precision agriculture can be documented to have (1) helped improve water quality through reduced losses of soi, nutrients, and pesticides into water supplies; (2) helped reduce greenhouse gas losses to the atmosphere; (3) produced other positive environmental effects.
Views: 31
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Hopkins on -
Dr. Reetz,
I certainly agree that the impact of precision ag on improving water and air quality can be overlooked. There needs to be more studies that show how American producers can save significant quantities of energy by implementing precision agriculture practices on their land. According to USDA's National Resources Conservation Service, if guidance systems were used on 10 percent of the planted acres in the U.S., fuel use would be cut by 16 million gallons, herbicide use by 2 million quarts, and insecticide use by 4 million pounds per year. Less fuel, natural gas, herbicide, and insecticide used on the farm results in financial savings for the producer, and obviously have positive environmental effects.
-
Permalink Reply by K. Elliott Nowels on -
Harold, you've probably already seen Clay Mitchell's video on individual nozzle control around waterways:
http://www.mitchellfarm.com/?p=57
May be along the lines of what you are looking for...watch closely, it's quite entertaining, too.
Happy Easter,
Elliott
-
Permalink Reply by Matt Hopkins on
-
Elliott and Harold
I've posted the Clay Mitchell video here on PrecisionAg Network...it's very entertaining.
-
Permalink Reply by Harold F Reetz on -
Thanks. Good video.
-
Permalink Reply by DHutton on -
Just barely from the outside of the precision arena and looking in I wonder how a Farmer or Custom Applicator can justify NOT using even the most basic of guidance systems and additional technology to improve application accuracy and produce the benefits cited in the original post.
A very basic guidance system costs less than $1000 and can be moved from one power unit to another simply by unplugging the device and moving it to another machine and reinstalling. That device has accuracy in the limits of approx 12 inches. HemisphereGPS Outback S-Lite
Higher line equipment, the S-3, adds "swath control" costs $2100. And finally, adding boom selection another $1500.
NOTE: the mention of a particular Manufacturer's equipment is not an endorsement. This is just one equipment line whth which I have more than a basic familiarity. There are many more similar product lines out there.
NRCS and USDA have for years funded EQIP, CRP, and now CCPI programs across the Country. Just google "your State" "your County" and "EQIP" "CRP" or "CCPI". Click on the programs button to find sources of funding for techniques and studies that may "improve water quality" "reduce losses......" and documented results realized by participants in previous years studies.
The only very basic requirements of participants (and they vary from State to State and Program to Program) are to apply for limited funding, attend get acquainted meetings at the NRCS office, and then agree to implement varying levels of technology, new practice, etc and THEN document results for three to five years. The programs pay well for implementation, and support the cost of continued implementation and documentation during the participation years.
If added to the financed cost of a new power unit or implement the "additional cost" of adding modest precision equipment can be less than $20/month over the life of the finance agreement. We pay more per month for air cleaners and oil changes to ensure that equipment performs well.
-
Permalink Reply by Harold F Reetz on
-
Excellent points. Farmers who have implemented guidance systems heve almost always been pleased with the decision and report substantial savings on fuel and production inputs, and report many other benefits, So why do all farmers NOT use guidance systems? Maybe inertia....reluctance to change?.....other investment priorities? Even without the incentive of EQIP and other cost-sharing programs, guidance systems make sense. Those programs make it an even better "win-win" decision.
In fact, guidance systems have probably been one of the most successul technologies in precision agriculture, and they are being more widely adopted every year. It just takes time. Many farmers wait until they make an equipment upgrade to add such components. It is a hot topic for our InfoAg Conference (www.infoag.org) this summer.
Thanks for your thoughts.
© 2012 Created by Matt Hopkins.
