Userbog t1_ixmms53 wrote
I want to chime in as an agronomist with industry and academic experience in precision Ag. I currently work on irrigated vegetable farms in the southeast, but with familiarity of dry cropped grain production in the mid-west.
Most of our calories and fibers (corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton), especially those fed to livestock, are grown in dry cropped areas of the southeast and mid-west United States. That means that the majority of acreage is not irrigated and uses rainfall. The impact of soil moisture meters (tensiometers, etc.) for decision making in industrial scale production will be limited to irrigated operations.
As for nutrient analysis, the cost of fertilizing isn't in testing the soil. Most state labs do this for free. It is the cost of the fertilizer itself. The idea of testing in the field is novel and potentially time saving, but I imagine they mean some sort of electrical conductivity or total dissolved solids meter as a proxy for total nutrients. As far I know there is no economically viable way to analyze particular soil nutrients via a remotely operated field sensor. Shit would be pretty expensive, as is stated in the article itself:
"It may actually be cheaper to have people do the extra work than have sensors and sensor-based irrigation and fertilization."
You are still going to need somebody to mix fertilizers into solution for fertigation as with some vegetable operations. If it is dry cropped, someone is still going to drive the tractor to spread/spray the fertilizer.
I DO see drones and remote sensing helping tremendously with pest scouting and precision pesticide applications which would save money and time, and help to avoid resistance issues. Also, remote sensing for plant health can help optimize timing and amount of nitrogen applications in season, ESPECIALLY in big dry cropped acreages of crops such as wheat, even if the actual nutrient application is made by tractor.
edited: to clarify between remote sensing of nutrients in the soil vs in plant tissue
jvdizzle t1_ixn5wdx wrote
I worked in agriculture sensors for years and every time I see articles like this I chuckle a little. They make it sound so easy.
It mentions IoT soil nutrient sensors as if they already exist off the shelf. My company worked on developing one for years that could detect NPK, and it's such a niche technology, incredibly expensive to manufacture, and not very accurate yet. We're probably at least 10-20yrs out from having a reasonably cost highly accurate sensor.
As far as sensor arrays go, it's just not economic. Imagine having to cover 100 acres of fields in sensors. 1000 acres. One sensor per acre isn't enough for precision. At that scale you're looking at tens of thousands of sensors, for a medium sized farm. That's potentially six figures of investment, plus a monthly fee for the software. Most farms aren't going to put down that kind of money in one go, so companies that are offering IoT solutions are going to get a trial run in one small section. It will take many seasons until they even get access to a substantial portion of land. The sales cycle is slow. Most startups can't wait that long and will go out of business.
Remote sensing via satellite will always be more economical than physical sensors and I think the industry will continue to move in that direction.
Userbog t1_ixqmrxr wrote
Awesome reply. I agree, remote sensing via satellite or even drone maybe. Can you explain how the field sensors for detecting soil NPK worked? What were they actually measuring?
jvdizzle t1_ixrhi7p wrote
Existing solutions aren't specific enough right? This new tech was trying to improve specificity by targeting the conductivity of the specific nitrate/phosphate and K ions using nanostructures.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments