1 SPAA Intro - GRDC · Victoria: Mallee Sustainable Farming Inc (MSF), Birchip Cropping Group (BCG), Southern Farming Systems (SFS), Riverine Plains Inc. ISBN 978-1-921779-41-1. 3

1

Foreword

It is quite pertinent for PA in Practice II: Using precision agriculture technologies — a guide to getting the best resultsI to come out during 2012. This year marks 10 years since Precision Agriculture Australia (SPAA) started and four years since the fi rst PA in Practice was made available. The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) has been a valued supporter of SPAA right from the start, and with assisted funding from the GRDC, Landmark, John Deere and Incitec Pivot Ltd, SPAA is very proud to present PA in Practice II.

During 2012 precision agriculture (PA) can no longer be seen as ‘new’ or ‘emerging’ technology. Driving around the grain-growing areas of southern Australia observing paddocks, those sown manually (without autosteer) are now in the minority, with the vast majority of growers having already adopted autosteer for the myriad of benefi ts it provides.

There is now a steady, but gradual, increase in the number of growers adopting practical variable rate management of different zones across their paddocks. For some this is as simple as changing fertiliser rates across dune or swale regions of paddocks, while others are varying sowing rates, phosphorous and nitrogen fertiliser rates and chemical applications across their paddocks.

Many of our grower members wanted to know “where are they now” for some of the early adopters in PA in Practice and you’ll fi nd several of the original case study growers have been revisited in the pages of PA in Practice II.

There is much to be gained from reading this book, both for growers new to PA and those seasoned adopters and users. I hope you enjoy reading through the mix of technical articles, SPAA on-farm trial summaries and the snapshots of growers’ experience. You will be sure to fi nd a technology, concept, idea or practical example that can be implemented on your property very soon.

Finally, I’d really like to commend the work done by editors Catriona Nicholls, Matt McCallum and designer Megan Hele in putting this book together.

Randall WilkschSPAA President

PA in Practice II Using precision agriculture technologies: a guide to getting the best results

2

IIPA in PracticeUsing precision agriculture technologies: a guide to getting the best results has been produced by SPAA with funding from the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

More details on SPAA can be found at — www.spaa.com.au

Compiled and edited by Catriona Nicholls, Hot Tin Roof Communications and Matt McCallum, McCallum Agribusiness Consulting.

Case studies supplied by Pamela Lawson, Matt McCallum, Fleur Muller, Kylie Nicholls and Chris Warrick.

Design and production by Megan Hele Design

Corporate sponsors

Farming Systems Groups

SPAA DISCLAIMER

SPAA has prepared this publication, on the basis of information available at the time of publication without any independent verifi cation. Neither SPAA and its editors nor any contributor to this publication represent that the contents of this publication are accurate or complete; nor do we accept any omissions in the contents, however they may arise. Readers who act on the information in this publication do so at their risk. The contributors may identify particular types of products. We do not endorse or recommend the products of any manufacturer referred to. Other products may perform as well or better than those specifi cally referred to.

New South Wales: Central West Farming Systems (CWFS), FarmLink Research Ltd.South Australia: Lower Eyre Agricultural Development Association (LEADA), Eyre Peninsula Agricultural Research Foundation (EPARF), Yorke Peninsula Alkaline Soils Group (YPASG), Upper North Farmng Systems Group (UNFS), Hart Field Site Group, Agricultural Bureau Association SA Coonalpyn branch (ABA).Victoria: Mallee Sustainable Farming Inc (MSF), Birchip Cropping Group (BCG), Southern Farming Systems (SFS), Riverine Plains Inc.

ISBN 978-1-921779-41-1

3PA in Practice II Using precision agriculture technologies: a guide to getting the best results

ContentsIntroduction ......................................................................................... 4

Grower profiles ........................................................................ 10

SPAA survey results ......................................................... 18

Harvest ...................................................................................................... 26

Pre-sowing ......................................................................................... 40

Sowing ....................................................................................................... 66

In-crop ........................................................................................................ 88

PA service providers ................................................... 100

Websites and online resources .......................................................................................... 103

4

introduction

More and more growers are viewing precision agriculture (PA) as a tool to improve their bottom line by reducing costs, and increasing grain

production and quality.

PA for many growers is not a ‘whole new way of farming’, but simply a range of management options that can be applied at various stages of the crop cycle.

PA in Practice II: Using precision agriculture technologies — a guide to getting the best results gives readers an opportunity to keep track of the progress and challenges growers are currently facing with PA technology.

This time round, through PA in Practice II, SPAA delivers a multi-pronged approach to demonstrate how growers are implementing PA through the crop cycle (see Table 1, pages 6–7).

The following pages combine theory and practice with technical content and feedback provided by PA consultants and SPAA group coordinators, supported by grower feedback, case studies and on-farm SPAA trial summaries delivering the latest information in a practical format.

Multiple opportunities

At every stage of the crop cycle, savvy growers are using PA to fi ne-tune their operations — ensuring their investments in time, labour and inputs are going to reap the maximum returns possible through strategic and sustainable management.

As PA consultant and SPAA group coordinator Andrew Whitlock points out, PA is a moving target — it’s about the evolution of agronomy, developing a multi-layered picture of what is happening in the paddock. Andrew reminds growers that PA allows them to collect information year-on-year, throughout the growing season, to tackle constraints and challenges in a step-by-step approach, identifying and managing the most limiting factors down to fi ne-tuning the system through incremental changes.

As such PA in Practice II follows the logical decision-making sequence — starting at harvest and moving through the crop cycle.

PA during harvest

As PA consultant and SPAA group coordinator Sam Trengove points out in his article on harvest preparation, “rubbish in is rubbish out”. In other words, the collection and management of high-quality data is the fi rst step in driving better decisions for next year’s crop.

A handful of experienced growers share their approaches at harvest and provide a handy reminder of the key steps to successful data collection and storage.

Since the 2008 publication of PA in Practice, precision agriculture has moved ahead in leaps and bounds. Indeed, the uptake of precision agriculture, particularly variable rate technology, has moved from the innovators to the early adopters during the past fi ve years.


Introduction

PHOTO: DAVE GOODEN


Throughout the cycle: PA offers growers decision support tools that provide to-the-minute information on which to base sound decisions as the growing season progresses. PHOTOS: DAVE GOODEN AND ASHLEY WAKEFIELD

PA at pre-sowing

Making sense of the data and developing a profi table strategy is the focus at pre-sowing. PA consultant and SPAA group coordinator Leighton Wilksch reminds readers that the factors that impact on production across a paddock are many and varied. As such it is important to ground-truth any yield data and build up a comprehensive picture of what is happening at a paddock level before making any management decisions.

For many growers in the early stages of implementing PA, the results from small-scale on-farm trials can support larger investments down the track.

Sam Trengove provides a simple guide to setting up on-farm trials and our profi led growers provide their own feedback on how trials have supported their future cropping decisions.

A section on the benefi ts and steps involved in successful inter-row sowing combines the experience of our technical contributors and growers to deliver a practical guide for readers looking to take this next step in PA.

Variable rate technology (VRT) has probably provided the most signifi cant tool for site-specifi c paddock management from pre-sowing right through the crop cycle.

PA at sowing

From soil amelioration pre-sowing through to variable rate applications (VRA) of seed and fertiliser at sowing, growers are implementing innovative approaches to get the most out of their paddocks while managing skyrocketing input costs.

As the crop enters the ground, growers share their stories on employing cost-effective VRA programs to maximise yields and minimise weeds across variable soil types and conditions.

A particular point of interest for readers will be the use of VRA of seed to tackle ryegrass infestations through crop competition.

PA in-crop

Working alongside growing season rainfall (GSR), growers are using a range of crop-sensing technologies, including normalised difference vegetative index (NDVI) maps, hand-held and tractor-mounted crop sensors, to build a clear picture of what is happening in-crop as the season progresses.

Andrew Whitlock reminds readers that PA in-crop is about collecting information to refi ne future paddock zones, evaluating on-farm trials and ground-truthing decisions implemented at the start of the season.

Decision support

As most of the growers featured in this publication point out, consultants are considered an integral part of many successful PA programs. Their experience across a wide range of farming systems and PA technology is invaluable when developing and implementing PA.

The fi nal chapter in PA in Practice II provides a list of current PA consultants followed by useful online resources and websites. PA


6

introduction

Crop stage/PA opportunity

Role for precision agriculture PA in Practice II article Page

Harvest

Yield mapping Yield mapping — quality results require preparation

Technical article — Sam Trengove 26

Clean data yields better maps Tips for data management 28

Farmer feedback Ashley Wakefi eld, Urania, SA 29

Farmer feedback Mark and Steve Day, Lockhart, NSW 30

Farmer feedback Adam Inchbold, Yarrawonga, Victoria

31

Farmer feedback David, Jason and Adam Gooden, Lockhart, NSW

32

Pre-harvest checklist Header and yield monitor preparation — SPAA checklist

33

SPAA trial summary Yield mapping allows convenient comparisons

Crystal Brook, SA 34

Protein sensing Protein sensing for selective harvesting still requires refi nement

Technical article — Rob Bramley 35


Pre-sowing

Data management Getting down and dirty with data Technical article — Leighton Wilksch 40


42

Zone maps Zone maps develop resilience and manage input costs

Case study — Roy Hamilton, Rand, NSW

46

Mapping drives variable rate applications

Case study — Ashley Wakefi eld, Urania, SA

48

On-farm trials On-farm trials yield tailored results Technical article — Sam Trengove 50

Inter-row sowing Set-up sets the scene for successful sowing

Technical article — Ed Cay, Brendan Williams and Matt McCallum

52



56

Variable rate application

Variable rate application grows with experience

Case study — Mark Harmer, Dookie, Victoria

58


Precision approach targets gypsum application

Case study — John Edmonds-Wilson, Coonalpyn, SA

60

Chaff spreading eases salt effects Case study — Stephen Paddick, Yorke Peninsula, SA

62

Wide row sowing Wide row spacings yield a comparative advantage

Case study— Neale Postlethwaite, St Arnaud, Victoria

63

SPAA trial summary On-farm trial demonstrates potential of deep ripping

Buckleboo, SA 64

Table 1. Precision agriculture and the crop cycle

Continued page 7 ... u




Sowing

Sowing Sowing the seeds of success with PA

Technical article — Matt McCallum and Phil Price

66


Mapping drives successful variable rate application

Case study — Adam O’Brien, Ultima, Victoria

68

Variable rate technology boosts effi ciency and profi t

Case study — Mark Branson, Stockport, SA

70

SPAA trial summary Variable sowing rates reduce ryegrass populations

Kybunga and Clare, SA 72

Weed control Ryegrass struggles under targeted approach

Case study — Daniel Adams, Lower Eyre Peninsula, SA

74


Input costs drive variable rate approach

Case study — Roger Lange, Appila, SA

76

Increased profi ts come from input savings

Case study — Neil Luehmann, Berriwillock, Victoria

78

SPAA trial summary Farming to soil potential boosts returns

Paringa-Murtho, SA 80

Matching inputs to potential Cooke Plains and Coonalpyn, SA 82


Variable rate technology provides greater control

Case study — Graeme Baldock, Buckleboo, SA

84

Incompatibility slows progress, but initiates innovation

Case study — Mark and Steve Day, Lockhart, NSW

86

In-crop

Optical sensing technology

Sensors offer potential for in-crop decisions

Technical article —Matt McCallum, Andrew Whitlock and Sam Trengove

88

Weed control Crop sensors keep ryegrass at bay Case study — Mark Branson, Stockport, SA

92

Precision spraying options reduce chemical costs

Case study — Neale Postlethwaite, St Arnaud, Victoria

93

SPAA trial summary Spot spraying weeds can pay dividends

Rupanyup, Wimmera, Victoria 94

SPAA trial summary Crop sensors aid on-crop nitrogen decisions

Various locations across SA and Victoria

96

Table 1. Precision agriculture and the crop cycle (continued)



Harvest

Yield mapping Yield mapping — quality results require preparation

Technical article — Sam Trengove 26

Clean data yields better maps Tips for data management 28




31


32

Pre-harvest checklist Header and yield monitor preparation — SPAA checklist

33

SPAA trial summary Yield mapping allows convenient comparisons

Crystal Brook, SA 34

Protein sensing Protein sensing for selective harvesting still requires refi nement

Technical article — Rob Bramley 35


Pre-sowing

Data management Getting down and dirty with data Technical article — Leighton Wilksch 40


42

Zone maps Zone maps develop resilience and manage input costs

Case study — Roy Hamilton, Rand, NSW

46

Mapping drives variable rate applications

Case study — Ashley Wakefi eld, Urania, SA

48

On-farm trials On-farm trials yield tailored results Technical article — Sam Trengove 50

Inter-row sowing Set-up sets the scene for successful sowing

Technical article — Ed Cay, Brendan Williams and Matt McCallum

52



56


Variable rate application grows with experience

Case study — Mark Harmer, Dookie, Victoria

58


Precision approach targets gypsum application

Case study — John Edmonds-Wilson, Coonalpyn, SA

60

Chaff spreading eases salt effects Case study — Stephen Paddick, Yorke Peninsula, SA

62

Wide row sowing Wide row spacings yield a comparative advantage

Case study— Neale Postlethwaite, St Arnaud, Victoria

63

SPAA trial summary On-farm trial demonstrates potential of deep ripping

Buckleboo, SA 64

8

introduction


John Deere FarmSight™

A new way to look at your business

Picture this: you, your machines, your operators, and your dealer, all working together, making decisions based on timely information gathered from your operation. That’s the vision of John Deere FarmSight™, a new equipment information management strategy for your farm and business needs today and tomorrow.

There are three ways that John Deere FarmSight™ can help improve your farm’s productivity and profitability:

Machine Optimisation lets you easily manage equipment maintenance and monitor vital machine data, such as fuel level, service needs and diagnostic codes.

Logistics Optimisation lets you track your equipment from anywhere you have a wireless connection, even from remote locations. Provide operators with maps and directions to save time.

Ag Decision Support helps you respond to changing conditions and manage risk with easily accessed, timely information about your operation.

With John Deere FarmSight™, you can transform your operational data into actionable, information-based insights to improve productivity — and your bottom line.

JohnDeere.com.au/FarmSight


9

Throughout this publication industry terminology and units of measurement have been standardised for reasons of consistency and ease of reading

(see Table 1).

Row spacings

Row spacings are often quoted in inches, centimetres and millimetres. For the purposes of consistency all row spacings in this publication are presented in centimetres. Table 2 provides a useful conversion tool for ease of reading.

Abbreviations

Industry terminology

Controlled traffi c farming CTF

Electromagnetic EM

Gammaradiometric GRM

Global positioning system GPS

Growing season rainfall GSR

Plant available water content PAWC

Precision agriculture PA

Normalised difference vegetative index

NDVI

Universal transverse mercator UTM

Variable rate application VRA

Variable rate technology VRT

Water use effi ciency WUE

Nutrients

Nitrogen N

Phosphorus P

Sulphur S

Potassium K

Carbon C

Industry terminology

Abbreviations

Fertilisers

Mono-ammonium phosphate MAP

Di-ammonium phosphate DAP

Measurements

Centimetres cm

Gigahertz GHz

Hectares ha

Kilograms kg

Kilometres km

Litres L

Metres m

Millimetres mm

Tonnes t

Table 2. Row spacing conversions

Inches Centimetres

7.2 18.0

9.0 22.5

9.6 24.0

12.0 30.0

14.4 36.0

15.0 37.5

16.8 42.0

Table 1. Industry terminology, abbreviations and units of measurements

industry terminology

In addition to the on-farm trial summaries and topic-specifi c case studies included in PA in Practice II, a number of growers appear throughout the publication,

providing feedback and sharing their experiences with PA throughout the crop cycle.

Grower profilesThe following pages provide a brief introduction to these growers, their farming systems and their current PA approaches.


10

introduction

Daniel considers annual ryegrass to be the biggest threat to his family’s business of continuous cropping. The Adams have employed many

strategies over the years including baling straw from the header, increased sowing rates, a variety of herbicides and mixtures, burning, crop topping legumes and wheat, and weed wiping lentils.

For the past two years they have also used VRA of seed and herbicides to help manage ryegrass in zones within paddocks.

Find out about Daniel’s results on page 74

Location: Cockaleechie, Lower Eyre Peninsula, South Australia

Property size: 850ha

Annual rainfall: 410mm

Soil type: Sandy/loam to clay/loam over light clay

Enterprises: Wheat, canola, barley, lentils

Average dryland wheat/barley yield: 3.0t/ha

Daniel Adams

PHOTO: MARK DAY

grower profiles


Graeme started using PA during 2002 to increase the accuracy of his spraying operations. Since then, he has expanded to yield mapping, autosteer and VRA of seed and fertiliser. Graeme’s current PA equipment includes a KEE Zynx GPS system, two John

Deere headers equipped with a John Deere Starfi re satellite guidance system and yield mapping program called Apex and another Topcon X20 console, which incorporates the variable rate controller, the airseeder controller and autosteer for the tractor.

Graeme estimates that through VRA, PA saved him more than $40,000 in input costs in the fi rst year, despite the initial set-up costs, and signifi cantly increased the accuracy and ease of his cropping operation.

Location: Buckleboo, South Australia



Soil type: Varies from heavy red loam to a sandy loam

Enterprises: Wheat, barley, peas, canola and legume pasture as a break crop

Average dryland wheat yield: 1.3t/ha

Read more about Graeme’s operation on page 84

Graeme Baldock

Mark started yield mapping during 1997, but initially thought it diffi cult to fi nd a practical application for the information. During 2005, Mark travelled to Europe and the United States on a GRDC-supported Nuffi eld Scholarship, which provided him with examples of how to use PA across the whole farm.

In combination with no-till and CTF, Mark now uses PA for VRA fertiliser, seed and weed management.

Mark’s PA equipment comprises a RTK GPS guidance system with 2cm accuracy, AFS Pro 600 yield monitor, Topcon X20 variable rate controller, Topcon CropSpec sensors and a GreenSeeker RT100 hand-held sensor.

Location: Stockport, South Australia


Annual rainfall: 425–525mm

Soil type: Dark-brown cracking clays and red-brown earths

Enterprises: Wheat, barley, peas, beans, canola, a self-replacing Merino fl ock and prime lambs


Find out more about Mark’s PA program on page pages 70 and 92.

Mark Branson


12

introduction


Mark and Steve Day took their fi rst steps into PA during 2002 with a tramlining system based on a 10cm free-to-air guidance system fi tted to a newly purchased 24m boomspray.

Now, 10 years later, this has evolved into a 3:1 12m CTF system with inter-row sowing using 2cm real time kinematic (RTK) Greenstar autosteer on all equipment, 2cm RTK implement guidance on a variable rate seeder and the adoption of VRA fertiliser applications. Now all harvest, sowing, spraying, spreading and windrowing activities are performed on the tracks.

Location: Lockhart, New South Wales



Soil type: Variable heavy clay to red clay loam

Enterprises: 100% dryland winter crops — wheat canola barley and fi eld peas for green manure

Average dryland wheat/barley yield: 3.0t/ha

Mark and Steve offer feedback on PA and how it is working in their operation on pages 30, 54, 59 and 86.

Now, 10 years later, this has evolved into a 3:1

Mark and Steven Day

John Edmonds-Wilson started with guidance on his boomspray, moved to his own base station in 2000 and has now progressed to inter-row sowing and VRA for his fertiliser.

PA has delivered signifi cant benefi ts in terms of reducing erosion and increasing nutrient cycling across his fragile soils.

An additional benefi t John has seen is a noticeable reduction in weeds from inter-row sowing. In his 100% cropping operation, minimal soil disturbance allows John to keep the weed seeds on top of the soil, providing less opportunity for weeds to germinate.

John’s next step will be to head down the CTF path to better manage his sodic soils and to gain better control over his VRA of crop nutrients.

Location: Coonalpyn, South Australia



Soil type: Variable

Enterprises: Winter crops: wheat (bread and durum), malt barley, canola, lentils, faba beans chickpeas and occasionally summer cropping

Average dryland wheat yield: 3.2-4t/ha

Check out the results of John’s PA program on page 60.

John Edmonds-Wilson

PA in Practice II Using precision agriculture technologies: a guide to getting the best resultsPA in Practice II Using precision agriculture technologies: a guide to getting the best results

13

grower profiles

Jason, David and Adam Gooden together with their families have developed a 13.5m CTF system and have been retaining stubbles and

inter-row sowing since buying a 2cm RTK AutoFarm autosteer system during 2003.

Autosteer and GPS technologies are central to their CTF system, which has evolved beyond the ability to drive in a straight line. All wheel tracks run on 3m centres, in multiples of 13.5m and over time the Goodens have gradually matched other farm machinery, such as a Janke planter with knife points and press wheels on 300mm spacings, a New Holland CR9070 header, chaser bin and urea spreader, to the same wheel tracks. The Goodens are fi rmly focused on using PA to improve crop establishment, control compaction, achieve operating effi ciencies and replicate farm activities.

Location: Lockhart, New South Wales



Soil type: Red/brown earth or clay loams

Enterprises: Canola, wheat, barley, legumes and contract services


inter-row sowing since buying a 2cm RTK AutoFarm

Jason, David and Adam Gooden and family

Check out the results of the Gooden’s PA program on pages 32 and 56.

Roy Hamilton has been using PA as part of his cropping system for the past 10 years and has been involved in SPAA trials for paddock zoning and VRA of inputs.

A desire to manage the soil on his property by character, rather than according to fence lines, drove Roy to start using PA technology. He also felt it

was a way to increase the sustainability of his cropping operation in a changing climate, through strategic use of inputs.

Ray shares his experience with developing and using zone maps on page 46.

Location: Rand, southern New South Wales


Annual rainfall: 425mm, 290mm of this during the growing season

Soil type: Predominantly red-brown earth to a brown-grey clay interspersed with black cracking clay. A small area of loam

Enterprises: Wheat, canola, triticale and a self-replacing fl ock of 900 Dohne ewes

Average dryland yields: Wheat: 3.3t/ha, canola 1.5t/ha

was a way to increase the sustainability of his cropping

Roy Hamilton


14

introduction


Adam is sold on the benefi ts of PA technologies and has adopted a range of PA hardware and software to maximise cropping returns.

His current system has evolved over the past 12 years and is a far cry from when Adam fi rst used a Garmin hand-held GPS unit to yield map in 2000. Today his system encompasses the use of 2cm RTK AutoFarm and FarmPro autosteer systems for inter-row sowing, spraying, spreading and harvesting. Prescription maps are used to apply VRA phosphorus and nitrogen using an AgLeader Insight controller fi tted to a Simplicty air-seeder and a Bredal spreader. Adam has also adopted EM38 technology, canopy sensors and protein monitoring to further refi ne paddock zones.

Location: Grand View, Yarrawonga, Victoria



Soil type: Variable – grey clay in low lying areas to light red-brown earth

Enterprises: Winter cereals, canola, oaten hay, beef cattle breeding and fattening, lucerne hay, summer crops

Average dryland wheat yield: 3.0-4.0 t/ha

His current system has evolved over the

Adam, Ingrid, Richard and Dorothy Inchbold

Read about the results of Adam’s PA program on pages 31 and 42.

Mark Harmer started dabbling in PA and VRA during the mid-1990s. He became interested in using PA technology because of the large variety of soil types across his

property. He could see the benefi t of identifying the boundary of these different soil types, so he could then treat each zone appropriately.

Learn more about Mark’s experience with VRA on page 58.

Location: Dookie, north-east Victoria



Soil type: Multiple soil types including black vertosols, sand ridges, red earths, duplex clay loams and heavy sodic loams

Enterprises: Wheat and canola

Average dryland wheat yield: 5t/ha

Mark Harmer


15

grower profiles

A run of poor years from 2002 to 2008, and a massive increase in fertiliser pricing at the end of 2007 was the impetus for Roger to adopt PA. Roger saw VRA as an opportunity to reduce costs without reducing yield

potential and he set out to prove this with trial strips across several paddocks on his farm.

Read about the results of Roger’s VRA phosphorus trials on page 76.

Location: Appila, Tarcowie, Pekina, South Australia



Soil type: Mainly red-brown earths with some limey rises and hard-setting red clay

Enterprises: Wheat, barley, lentils, oaten hay, canola, pasture


Roger and Bridget, Mark, Neil and Judy Lange

For Neil Luehmann, Berriwillock, Victoria, the aim of PA is not to increase yields but to reduce costs and so increase profi t margins. Neil has been using yield maps since 2003 and during 2007 he went to 2cm autosteer on his seeder, harvester and sprayer.

Neil shares his innovative approach to VRA on page 78.

Location: Berriwillock, Victoria



Soil type: Sandy red loam

Enterprises: Wheat, barley, canola, vetch hay


Neil shares his innovative approach to VRA on

Neil Luehmann


16

introduction


Adam believes that VRA is an ideal tool to manage production risk on the family’s potentially higher-yielding soils and fi nancial or cost risk on their less reliable

soils. The O’Briens fi rst ventured into PA with a sub-metre John Deere Autotrac unit, which they still use for most operations.

They have retrofi tted their existing two-bin fl exicoil box to work as a VRA seeder and are looking at moving to a triple-bin system and a spreader to better target nitrogen during the season and manage the phosphorus separately to nitrogen.

The O’Briens work closely with farm consultants Dodgshun Medlin to develop tailored PA solutions for their cropping system.

Location: Ultima, Victoria



Soil type: Sandy loam, loam, sandy clay loam

Enterprises: Canola, lentils, chickpeas, wheat, barley

Average dryland wheat yield: 2.5 t/ha – average3.5 t/ha – best performing soils1.5 t/ha – worst performing soils

Adam, Bill, Kevin and Damien O’Brien

Check out the O’Brien’s results on page 68.

Back in 2008, Stephen was ready to permanently retire unproductive salty areas within paddocks from cropping that were costing him

money in wasted inputs. However, he is now ameliorating these salty zones with a machine that can effectively chop and spread a thick layer of straw over these zones and lift production from <0.4t/ha to more than 1t/ha.

Check out Stephen’s results on page 62.

Location: Wallaroo, Yorke Peninsula, South Australia



Soil type: Calcareous loams and sandy loam with low lying areas of high salt and boron

Enterprises: Wheat, barley, oaten hay, canola, lentils, chickpeas


money in wasted inputs. However, he is now

Stephen, Shane and Brian Paddick


17

grower profiles

Ashley Wakefi eld has been using PA for 16 years, which stemmed from a fascination with computers and electronic technology in agriculture.

Early on Ashley started yield mapping, but found it frustrating converting the yield maps and data into useful zone maps that

provided a true representation of each paddock. He now confi dently generates phosphorus replacement zone maps for VRA fertiliser, radiometric and EM38 maps for zone integration and NDVI maps for VRA nitrogen.

Ashley’s PA equipment comprises a John Deere yield monitor, Topcon CropSpec crop sensors, Nirtech protein monitor, Yara nitrogen sensors and Topcon rate controllers.

Although Ashley admits it is diffi cult to quantify the benefi ts of PA, he believes the technology has saved on

Location: Urania, South Australia



Soil type: Grey loam

Enterprises: Cropping


input costs and made his cropping operation more sustainable and easier to manage.

Check out Ashley’s results on pages 29 and 48.

Ashley Wakefield

The Postlethwaite family has been at the forefront of innovative cropping practices in the Wimmera region of Victoria for many years. They moved to a continuous cropping system based on full stubble retention and no-till 30

years ago, after removing livestock from their farm.

Controlled traffi c farming and wide rows were the logical next step after adopting 2cm autosteer. These practices have helped reduce compaction, saved on input costs and helped combat herbicide-resistant annual ryegrass.

The Postlethwaites have manufactured their own shielded spraying unit, which they now produce commercially along with other CTF equipment.

Location: St Arnaud, Victoria



Soil type: Grey vertosols with some areas of red vertosols and red sodosols

Enterprises: Wheat, barley, lentils, beans, chickpeas, canola, vetch green manure


Allen, Yvonne, Neale and Trevor Postlethwaite

Read more about Neale’s PA system on pages 63 and 93.


18

The three-year project (2009–2012), funded by the GRDC, involved setting up, facilitating and delivering targeted PA support to 16 regional PA

groups across southern New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. With more than 120 activities hosted during this time, the project has been an outstanding success. During the past 12 months alone, more than 40 workshops were hosted and more than 400 attendees participated in one or more of these SPAA training opportunities.

The training programs were offered in a number of formats, from targeted small groups, one-on-one training, fi eld walks and intensive hands-on training through to major events. This approach ensured SPAA could offer something that met the needs of all growers and advisers regardless of their preferred learning style.

Project evaluation

As the project comes to an end, the importance of measuring the impact on the southern grains industry is important. This evaluation assists SPAA, and indeed future project stakeholders, to determine where PA users require, if any, more assistance to implement PA and adopt the technologies to their full capabilities in their farm businesses.

SPAA evaluated the project through a survey completed by 80 respondents selected on their participation in one or more SPAA-related training activities. Participants were asked a series of questions about their involvement, skills and knowledge across a range of tools and technologies covered (some in depth and some just mentioned), PA needs and goals, barriers, future opportunities and more. The survey was carried out by either semi-structured face-to-face interviews or through participants completing a written questionnaire.

The following is a summary of the results from the 80 respondents. In a number of cases, more than one reason was offered or rated for each question.

During the past three years, Precision Agriculture Australia (SPAA) has been working with farming systems groups in the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) Southern Region to increase the adoption of PA ‘beyond guidance’.

Precision Agriculture Australia boosts adoption ‘beyond guidance’

introduction

PHOTO: LEIGHTON WILKSCH


Survey results

The fi rst question set the scene on current rates of PA application, asking respondents why they do or do not use PA.

Responses revealed a clear increase in adoption of PA technologies, although some common barriers to adoption still remain and need to be addressed (see Table 1).

Respondents were also asked to comment on why their peers may or may not be using PA technologies in their farming businesses. Results were in line with those shown in Table 1.

Importance of PA

To gain a better understanding of the priority of PA within farming businesses, SPAA asked respondents to rate PA on a sliding scale of priority — low, medium, high (see Figure 1).

Half of the respondents felt PA was important and ranked it as a medium priority for their overall business. Surprisingly, 35% ranked PA as a high priority, specifi cally to address paddock zoning and soil variability issues, increasing yields and maximising input effi ciency due to the rising costs of production.

Table 1. Reasons for adopting (or not adopting) PA

Why I’m using PA Why I’m not using PA

Effi cient and targeted inputs (36) Lack of confi dence (4)

Maximise farm profi t (31) Cost (4)

Maximise yield/productivity per input costs (18) Equipment not yet set up (4)

Reduce input costs (17) Not aware of benefi ts (little variability, environmental effect) (2)

Identify problem areas or manage areas differently (10) Lack of skill (2)

Sustainability, water use effi ciency and soil health (6) Software challenges (2)

Using guidance only (3) Staff issues (1)

Work safety (3)

Reduce business risk (1)

Better understanding of variability on farm (1)

Test new methods and measure results (1)

Note: numbers in brackets indicate number of responses for each statement.Source: SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Survey 2. Prepared by Nicole Dimos July 2012

Medium 50%

Low 6%

No answer9%

High 35%

Figure 1. The priority of PA in the farming business

Source: SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Survey 2. Prepared by Nicole Dimos July 2012

Beyond guidance: SPAA has been working with growers to move precision agriculture beyond guidance.

survey results

20

Active participation

Having identifi ed the rationale for PA adoption and application in the farm business, SPAA then investigated the impact of SPAA training activities on adoption and use of PA.

The pre-sowing events were popular among growers, mainly driven by the opportunity for participants to clean their yield data, allowing them to convert the information into prescription maps ready for their variable rate application (VRA) programs.

Getting growers to take the next step from guidance into using VRT before and throughout the growing season was a key aim of the project. The project specifi cally aimed to increase the level of adoption of VRT to 30% by 2013.

The advanced training program was hosted annually, with SPAA bringing in PA experts to up-skill two local representatives from each of the grower groups.

The aim of this approach was to build expertise within each region, so the local group had a known contact to turn to for advice and support. The approach was a clear highlight

of the program (see Figure 2).

Crop walks also offered participants numerous opportunities to view PA in the paddock.

Figure 2. Numbers of participants attending SPAA events 2009–2012*

*Some 2012 courses yet to be held at the time of surveyingSource: SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Survey 2. Prepared by Nicole Dimos July 2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pre-harvest

Pre-harvest

Pre-harvest

Pre-harvest

Pre-seeding

Pre-seeding

Pre-seeding

Crop walk

Crop walk

Crop walk

Local FSG

Advanced

training

Advanced

training

Advanced

training

Local FSG

Local FSG

2009

Partic

ipan

ts (n

umbe

rs)

2010 2011 2012

AllVicNSWSA

Up-skilling: SPAA training programs aimed to boost skills in local providers to build expertise in each region.


introduction

Table 2. Feedback on the key messages gained from SPAA extension programs

Feedback Number of responses

Good to see PA working/in action/simple approach/PA can solve issues 8

Economic gains from PA are evident 7

Greater understanding of the principles of PA and the tools available 5

Feel inspired when PA works/on the right track 5

Can see clear relevance to soil constraints 4

Implementation is possible (not has hard as it appears) 3

Am more confi dent with tools and technology 2

Clear production and effi ciency gains 2

Provides and objective measure/can get tied up managing each individual paddock 2

Converting yield (including clean-up and analysis) to prescriptions 2

Shared experiences with other growers 1

Helped decided on product purchase 1

Must do fi eld inspections 1

Systems approach 1

Still assessing the cost:benefi ts 1Source: SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Survey 2. Prepared by Nicole Dimos July 2012

SPAA also asked survey respondents to provide feedback across the extension approaches. Key messages gained from meetings and trials are shown in Table 2.

Throughout the project, SPAA exposed participants to a range of PA knowledge and technologies. Some groups were in their infancy in terms of their PA usage at the start of the project. As such, the topics they wished to improve on were the fundamentals of PA and guidance technology.

Many other groups, particularly in South Australia, where training had already occurred for a number of years, offered the opportunities to expose growers to topics more advanced than yield mapping and the application of VRA throughout the crop cycle.

Even with the diverse range of PA experience across groups and regions, it is clear that overall the project delivered knowledge gain, with many respondents believing they were quite competent at using a range of PA tools by the end of the project (see Table 3).

At the time of the survey, respondents were currently using guidance (90%), yield monitors (81%) and 74% were actively using the data collected from their yield monitors to adjust management during the following growing season.

Many of the survey respondents reported being able to transfer the data themselves. Pleasingly, 64% of respondents now use VRA compared with 44% of survey respondents at the start of the project.


On-farm trials on the increaseThe 2012 SPAA survey also identifi ed that many growers are now implementing on-farm trials to observe the effects and gain an increased understanding of how PA tools can be implemented.

Growers know variability occurs across paddocks and many are using on-farm trials to test PA programs before making a larger fi nancial commitment across a whole paddock of farm.

Respondents clearly identifi ed that on-farm trials are a cost-effective tool to test potential PA technology. More information about on-farm trials can be found in the Pre-sowing chapter on pages 50–51 within this publication.

survey results

21


22

introduction


Future opportunities

The 2012 survey results suggest there is still a need for further PA training, particularly in the areas of data management, data layer interpretation, software training and overcoming compatibility issues (see Table 3). Eighty six per cent of respondents identifi ed further training was needed to boost their knowledge and skills in PA to meet the needs of their businesses.

SPAA also asked respondents to identify which method of delivery they would prefer for future training events (see Table 4).

In addition to exploring training delivery preferences, SPAA asked respondents to rate the current project delivery approaches.

Table 3. Impact of SPAA training activities on grower knowledge, adoption of PA and interest in further training

PA discussion topic* Before activity

After activity

My farm uses these tools (purchased or contracted) (Y/N)**

More training needed in this area (Y/N)**

Understanding PA fundamentals 3 4 Yes (71%) No (6%) Yes (25%) No (41%)

Using GPS guidance for my cropping program

4 4 Yes (90%) No (1%) Yes (20%) No (53%)

Understanding yield monitors 3 4 Yes (81%) No (11%) Yes (41%) No (28%)

Transforming yield data into yield maps 2 3 Yes (60%) No (30%) Yes (56%) No (23%)

Interpreting PA yield maps 2 4 Yes (74%) No (15%) Yes (63%) No (16%)

PA data management, including integrating different data layers

2 3 Yes (38%) No (46%) Yes (75%) No (4%)

Getting VRA to work the way I want 2 3 Yes (64%) No (24%) Yes (65%) No (13%)

Setting up management zones (making zone maps) for VRA

2 3 Yes (55%) No (32%) Yes (65%) No (16%)

Using PA software to achieve my aims 2 3 Yes (57%) No (20%) Yes (72%) No (4%)

Being able to overcome equipment and software compatibility problems

2 3 Yes (50%) No (25%) Yes (63%) No (13%)

Able to use active crop sensors (for example, nitrogen sensors)

1 2 Yes (8%) No (68%) Yes (48%) No (17%)

Able to use weed sensing (for example, Weedseeker™) equipment

2 2 Yes (6%) No (68%) Yes (41%) No (30%)

Grain protein sensors 1 2 Yes (5%) No (68%) Yes (51%) No (18%)

Understanding and using remote sensing data (for example, airborne imagery)

2 3 Yes (25%) No (55%) Yes (52%) No (20%)

Understanding and using soil sensing data (for example, EM surveys)

2 3 Yes (37%) No (45%) Yes (51%) No (21%)

Able to use soil moisture probes to help cropping decisions

2 3 Yes (25%) No (52%) Yes (50%) No (21%)

Interpreting PA maps that include different data layers (for example imagery, soil sensing, elevation)

2 3 Yes (43%) No (41%) Yes (67%) No (11%)

Able to conduct my own on-farm trials using PA methods and to use the results to assist my cropping decisions

2 3 Yes (63%) No (21%) Yes (55%) No (22%)

* Respondents were asked to rate each PA topic out of 5: 1 — poor (I still need help) 5 — excellent (I can do it confi dently now).**Where responses don’t add up to 100%, not all respondents answered the question.Source: SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Survey 2. Prepared by Nicole Dimos July 2012


23

Table 4. Training delivery preferences

Training delivery method Preference for this method (%)

Up-skilling consultants and advisers 55

Develop PA support services in local suppliers 65

Small group training with similar equipment 81

Large group training 54

In-fi eld activities 66

Major PA events — expos and conferences 63

Other — training tutorials delivered through videos, reseller support. 4 Source: SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Survey 2. Prepared by Nicole Dimos July 2012

Rating each delivery approach out of a maximum of fi ve, the overall project score was four — a satisfying result (see Figure 3).

The most popular aspects of the project included the skill depth of the presenters, the shared learning experiences the project offered, practicality and the specifi c software training.

Challenges posed by PA software are often quoted as barriers to PA adoption, with poor local support for the software programs. The SPAA project was commended for offering multiple opportunities to deliver training across a number of software programs.

PA satisfaction

Regardless of respondent skills and capabilities, those actively involved with the project were satisfi ed with the PA tools they were currently using and aspired to change their farming practices. A total of 77% of respondents felt their PA tools were meeting their needs, whereas 15% were confi dent there was still more they could do with PA in the future (see Figure 4, page 24).

Figure 3. Respondent rating of SPAA delivery approaches


Res

pond

ent rating of SPAA

delivery ap

proa

ches

(1 = poo

r, 5 = exc

ellent)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Practical examples

Level of knowledge by presenters

Local trials

Specific software training

Hands-on features

Learning from growers

Cost/value for training

Frequency of activities

Overall project score

AllSAVicNSW

survey results

introduction


24

An important driver of PA adoption is economic benefi t as identifi ed by many of the case study growers featured in this publication. While some PA tools are expensive to adopt, respondents generally reported a rapid return on investment (72.5%). Only 15% of respondents were not yet able to see the economic gains (see Figure 5).

Respondents to the 2012 survey identifi ed the following reasons as the top barriers to PA adoption:

• Poor compatibility of PA equipment (18)

• Cost of implementation (16)

• Required skill set (computer) (13)

• Time (to implement) (12)

• Limited support services (10)

• Infrequent use/low confi dence (10)

• Lack of reliable local results/evidence/cost benefi t (10)

Future PA goals on farm

The impact of the training SPAA offered delivered knowledge in PA ‘beyond guidance’. A large proportion of respondents indicated they intended to adopt VRA on their properties, both at sowing and in-crop application. Most would use VRT to apply fertiliser and seed in an attempt to improve their input effi ciency.

This is demonstrated by the case studies in the following pages that reveal the variety of ways growers across southern Australia are incorporating VRT.

Other common PA goals included yield and weed mapping. Both aspects of PA, and their incorporation in successful farming operations, are highlighted time and again by growers in this publication.

The SPAA crop walks hosted during winter and spring, provided the opportunity for local groups to inspect PA trials based on local challenges identifi ed by the group. They also highlighted the importance of soil testing and understanding zones, which respondents also rated highly as a PA goal.

These fi eld walks also encouraged growers to share their experiences with PA tools and offered a chance to look over equipment and see some new technologies in action, such as in-crop sensors.

Yes 77.5%

No 15%

No answer7.5%

Yes 72.5%

No 15%

No answer12.5%

Figure 4. Are your PA tools meeting your needs?

Figure 5. Are you seeing a return in investment in PA?



Although SPAA offered a signifi cant number of training programs during the past three years, there continues to be barriers to PA adoption across the grains industry.


Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about the future opportunities PA has to offer their business. The following list indicates areas in which respondents are keen to adopt PA into their farming systems:

• VRA at sowing and in-crop to increased effi ciency with inputs (45)

• Yield mapping (6)

• Weed mapping (6)

• Increase understanding of in-paddock variability/soil testing (5)

• In-crop sensors (5)

• CTF/inter-row sowing (5)

• No change (4)

• Remote sensing (3)

• GreenSeeker™ (2)

• Software programs (2)

• Protein monitoring (2)

• Produce profi t maps (2)

• EM surveys (2)

• Look at all data layers collected (1)

• Make more user friendly (1)

• Trials (1)

• Get PA adviser (1)

• Input decision making (1)

• Shielded sprayer (1)

• Moisture monitoring (1)

• Better record keeping (1)

• Guidance (1)

PA offers efficiency gains

The increasing cost of farm inputs, such as fertilisers, fuel and herbicides, has resulted in growers focusing on more effi cient use of these products to reduce farm business costs, while maintaining production levels.

PA tools have been identifi ed as a way to achieve these effi ciency gains. These tools also can deliver productivity gains to the grains industry by targeting inputs to areas of greatest opportunity.

SPAA has recognised that the adoption of PA beyond guidance varies between regions due to a number of factors including the complexity in managing yield variability across paddocks and farms, and the economic benefi t derived from managing that variability.

Regardless of the varying levels of adoption across regions, total adoption of PA beyond guidance is increasing as a result of this project.

The use of on-farm demonstration and grower groups has helped develop targeted solutions for overcoming local problems and has proven a successful method for extension of PA.

With this experience and strong grower and service provider networks in place, SPAA is well positioned to face the challenges presented by PA and support ever increasing numbers of growers to move into more complex areas of PA adoption through proven delivery methods and hands-on support. PA

Nicole Dimos, SPAA

m: 0437 422 000e: [email protected]

contact

Field inspection: SPAA crop walks provided the opportunity for local groups to inspect PA trials based on local challenges.

survey results

PHOTO: LEIGHTON WILKSCH

Documents

1 SPAA Intro - GRDC · Victoria: Mallee Sustainable Farming Inc (MSF), Birchip Cropping Group (BCG), Southern Farming Systems (SFS), Riverine Plains Inc. ISBN 978-1-921779-41-1. 3