Transcript Comparing Two Sets of Data - International Plant Nutrition

Foundation for Agronomic Research
( FAR )
Dr. Harold Reetz, Jr.
President
What is FAR?
• FAR Objectives
• THE OBJECTIVES of the Foundation for
Agronomic Research (FAR) are to:
•
1) strengthen and support agronomic research;
•
2) identify critical research needs and opportunities;
•
3) provide leadership in implementing research and
•
educational programs.
FAR Objectives
• THE OBJECTIVES of the Foundation for
Agronomic Research (FAR) are to:
• strengthen and support agronomic research;
• identify critical research needs and opportunities;
• provide leadership in implementing research and
educational programs.
FAR Board of Directors
•
Chairman:
•
Mr. Michael M. Wilson, Agrium Inc. •
•
Vice Chairman:
•
Mr. Bill Doyle, PotashCorp
•
President:
•
Dr. Harold F. Reetz, Jr., PPI
•
Vice Presidents:
•
Dr. Terry L. Roberts, PPI
•
Dr. Paul E. Fixen, PPI
Board Members
Mr. Charles Adams, Helena Chemical Co.
•
Mr. Dennis J. Addis, The Andersons
•
Dr. S.E. Allred, Frit Industries, Inc.
•
Dr. Dan Froelich, Cargill, Incorporated
•
Dr. Ray A. Hoyum, IMC Global, Inc.
•
Mr. B.R. Jarrett, Unity Fertilizer Company
•
Mr. Kenneth D. Kunz, Honeywell Inc.
•
Mr. G. Kenneth Moshenek, Royster-Clark, Inc.
•
Dr. Larry S. Murphy, Fluid Fertilizer Foundation
FAR Research Initiatives
• Narrowing the Yield Gap with
Knowledge and Technology
•
Nebraska
•
Kansas
•
Indiana
•
Ontario
Over 300 bu/A corn in
Nebraska
Systems approach
Environmental and economic
analysis
Soil microbiology and crop
physiology
• Managing Crop
Production for End-Use
Quality
• Quality component in several
FAR projects
• Addressing needs and
demands of end users
• Other initiatives under
development
• Maintaining long-term studies
• Corn as an alternative crop
Soil and Crop Management Systems
Information Management and Outreach
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
U.S. Department of Agriculture, agreement No. 00-52103-9679 of the Initiative
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) program.
H.F. Reetz, Jr.
T.S. Murrell
Project Objectives
• Provide internal and external communications for
precision agriculture research projects
• Conduct a needs assessment to help define the content
areas of greatest interest to producers and their advisers
• Develop a series of case studies that will describe the
integration of site-specific technology into management
strategies
• Develop a series of training modules on precision ag
systems
• Expand and update the Site-Specific Management
Guidelines publications
• Test and disseminate the developed outreach materials
on groups with precision agriculture interests
Internal and External Communications
• Public and Secure Webs
• www.FARmresearch.com
• SharePoint Team Services
• ArcIMS
• InfoAg 2003 Planning Site
Assessing Information Needs
• Needs identified of potential benefit farmers:
• Interpretations of site-specific data (yield and
fertility information)
• Transforming data into economically significant
management decisions
• Using site-specific technologies
in on-farm research
Site-Specific Management Guidelines
• Short publications (2-6 pages)---40+ completed
• Objective: practical advice on a focused topic
•
Soil electrical conductivity mapping. SSMG-30.
•
Yield monitors – Basic steps to ensure system accuracy and
performance. SSMG-31.
•
Bt corn and insect resistance management: What are they?
SSMG-33
•
Obtaining soil information needed for site-specific
management decisions. SSMG-35.
•
Variable rate nitrogen management for corn production:
Success proves elusive. SSMG-36.
•
Estimating corn yield losses from unevenly spaced planting.
SSMG-37
•
Collecting Representative Soil Samples for Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Fertilizer Recommendations SSMG-38
•
A ‘Cookbook’ Approach for Determining the ‘Point of Maximum
Economic Return’ SSMG-39
•
Selecting the Appropriate Satellite Remote Sensing Product
for Precision Farming SSMG-40
•
(Available on-line at http://www.ppi-far.org/ssmg.)
InfoAg Conferences – 2001, 2003
• Indianapolis, IN
• Pre-conference Tour with
Purdue University
• Pilot final draft of
training packages
• Exhibits, Posters
• CCA Credits
• “Networking”
• Website
Richard Barnheisel
U. of Kentucky
K Model– Interface with ArcGIS:
Data Hungry!!
Corn Yield by Grid Point
Perceived K Levels by Grid Point
450
180
400
339
348
353
317
310
300
289
317
310
300
289
316
305
353
360
314
300
287
380
337
331
324
317
353
348
220
237
287 350
175
300
170
K test lbs per acre
168
253 250
165
200
bu/ac 160
187 150
155
100
150
187
50
175-180
170-175
165-170
160-165
155-160
150-155
145-150
140-145
145
0
405
287
287
305
240
173
281
180
390
294
294
310
220
203
325
259
280
307
307
315
187
170
349
220
303
287
287
273
253
390
400
331
0
1
2
3
4
5
Year
6
7
8
9
140
10
Lat
Lon
Funding for 2004-2005 from Illinois Fertilizer
Check-off program to continue this development.
Perceived K Levels by Grid Point
450
st lbs per acre
400
350
300
250
200
150
Training Packages
• Developing training in three areas identified in Needs
Assessment
• Using Soil Test Data
• Using Yield Data
• Using On-Farm Research
• Packages include:
• Sample Data Sets
• Exercise workbooks
• Slide Presentations
• Trainer’s Manual
• CD with all materials
Training Package Delivery
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
InfoAg 2001 & InfoAg 2003
International Precision Farming Conference 2002
NACAA – 2003 Green Bay, Wisconsin
MAGIE – 2003 Danville, Illinois
Numerous CCA Workshops
IL Community College Ag Teachers (2)
Cargill Ag College
Ohio, Indiana Workshops
Etc…
Estimating nutrient balance: PKalc
• Calculations can be
• Done by hand
• Performed in a
spreadsheet
• Performed by PKalc
• Calculator that
facilitates balance
calculations
• Minimizes
calculation errors
www.farmresearch.com
www.ppi-ppic.org
PKalc
PKalc Tool for P & K Budgeting
Free download: www.ppi-ppic.org,
www.ppi-far.org,
…or www.FARmresearch.com
Gain from Technology
• Nearly 10 tons of P and K
fertilizer sales
• Yield increase—about 30
bu/A
• More efficient use of N and
manure—less total N used
• A well-managed farm in a
“mature market”
How have soil test distributions been changing?
• Generate distributions
of the percent of the
soil samples that fall
into various agronomic
categories
• Use percent because
number of soil tests
taken may change
from year to year
• What percentage
tests “low” vs. “high”
How have soil test distributions been changing?
60
• Example Indiana field:
50
44.44
40
30
• 1997: 176 – 200 ppm
• 1999: 126 – 150 ppm
• 2001: 101 – 125 ppm
20
11.11 11.11 11.11
Relative frequency (%)
• Category with most
samples moved
downward:
11.11
11.11
10
0
0
0
0
1997
60
50
50
40
30
20
14.29
7.14
10
7.14
7.14
0
7.14
7.14
1999
0
0
60
50
50
40
• K levels are declining
under current
management practices
30
21.43 21.43
20
10
7.14
0
0
0
0
0
200
225
250
275
300
0
100
125
150
175
Ammonium acetate K category
upper limit (ppm)
2001
Farmer feedback from examining these trends
• Data analysis was meaningful and
understandable
• Farmers realized the importance of
fertility and the need to stay on top of
this part of their operations
• Site-specific management is reducing
variability of some soil test levels
• Farmers hope that continued analysis
will help them manage for higher
yields
• Analysis encouraged more farmers to
collect site-specific information
Est. crop removal / fertilizer use
Phosphorus balance example
2.5
Underapplication
2.0
Agronomic
withdrawal
1.5
1.0
0.5
Agronomic build
Over- application
0.0
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Difference from optimum soil test level
(Actual soil test level – optimum soil test level)
25
Training Package:
Using Yield Monitor Data
A training package for the
Simple Analyses of Yield Monitor Data
“I have all of these
yield data, what can I
do with them?”
What areas in the field were profitable this year?
• Net return:
(yield map)(crop price) – total expense map
(182 bu/A)($2.00/bu) - $275/A = $89/A
• Unit production costs:
total expense map / yield map
($275/A) / (182 bu/A) = $1.51/bu
What areas of the field have been consistently
profitable?
Years with profit
All Crops
Conclusions
• Yield monitor data can answer the same
questions we have always asked, only at a much
smaller scale
• There are still major bottlenecks to widespread
analyses of yield monitor data:
• Automated “cleaning” of yield data
• Availability of step-by-step instructions for
performing analyses
• Instructions tailored to a variety of GIS software
Enhanced Farm Research Analyst
Software tool for designing and onfarm research and managing and
analyzing data.
Design Plot Plan with Treatments
Create Analysis Buffer
Remote Sensing Images
Analysis Approach to On-Farm Research
• Simple analyses
• Confine statistical analysis to
tools available in Microsoft Excel
• Easy to use; familiar terms and
procedures
• Most dealerships already have
the software
• Create step-by-step instruction
on how to:
• Is there a statistically significant
difference among treatments?
• Which of the treatments
differed?
Remote Sensing Applications
August 11, 2003 Satellite Image,
east central Illinois
August 11, 2003 Satellite Image (enhanced)
John Ahlrichs, Digital Globe
Plans for 2004
• Development of GIS component for
training packages
• PKalc GIS
• Variable Soil Test Trends in a Field
• Yield Data Cleaning Workshop
• GIS for CCAs Workshop
• Publish completed packages
• Electronic versions via web
• Hardcopy versions for workshops
• Create online CCA self-study modules
Watershed Approach to Nutrient Management
• Communication
• Education
• Research
• Basin-focused
• Key watersheds
• Increase N use efficiency by identifying the
specific needs in each area.
• N & P focus---but also how K affects it---balanced
nutrition.
FAR Coordination
• Nebraska project—Ecological Intensification
• Purdue project---Nutrient placement, intensive
management, root studies, grain quality
• Kansas project---Yield, nutrient interactions
• Spatially-targeted recommendations for a watershed
• Rate study module
• NURD database
• Module for Grain sample handling and analysis of results
tailored to the area.
FAR-led Consortium on TSP Training
FAR
CTIC
CCA
Extension
Extension
Work with NRCS, CTIC, ASA/CCA,
Extension, Community Colleges
Learn and Teach for the Future
Intensive vs. Extensive Management
What is our future??
Dr. Harold F. Reetz, Jr.
President
Foundation for Agronomic Research
107 S. State Street, Suite 300
Monticello, Illinois 61856-1968
Phone: 217-762-2074
e-mail: [email protected]