Category Archives: Water

MicroFarm Open Day 3-5pm 2 April 2014

Ballance web150  BASF web  CLAW-light-150

The second MicroFarm Open Day date will focus on beans, sweetcorn and water management.

Bean planting P6 Airey 3 web

Bean planting – Richard Airey picture

The green beans are destined for McCain Foods Hastings plant. The four micropaddocks include demonstrations of:

  • Two row spacings 20″ and 15″
  • Four plant populations
  • Different varieties
  • Drip vs spray irrigation
  • Phosphorus: non vs normal vs double rate
  • Herbicide management variations

Sweetcorn demonstrations

  • Strip-till
  • No irrigation
  • Drip irrigation
  • Very late spray irrigation

Irrigation discussion

  • Soil monitoring records from 2013-2014 crops
  • Where crops are getting water from
  • Impact of drought stress
  • Cost of drought stress

More details on the MicroFarm website

Many thanks to:

Ballance AgriNutrients, BASF Crop Protection, Centre for Land and Water, ThinkWater, Netafim, HydroServices, McCain Foods, FruitFed Supplies, Agronica NZ, Nicolle Contracting, Te Mata Contractors, Drumpeel Farms, Agnew Hort, Greville Ground Spraying, True Earth Organics, Tasman Harvesting, Plant & Food Research and Peracto Research for support with this work.

Irrigation: Do peas benefit? Do farmers?

At the MicroFarm, we just harvested our second lot of peas.  We tracked their water use since planting to build on learning from our first crop (see the December 2013 issue of “Grower”, reproduced here>).

Pea Harvester MicroFarm2

Once again, HydroServices’ Melanie Smith established three neutron probe access tubes in each of two crops. These were read weekly and analysed to tell us paddock soil moisture content down to 80 cm.

Both pea crops were planted on the same day with the same drill. Paddock 1 is dryland and Paddock 2 has drip irrigation installed 200mm deep.

Figures Paddock 1 and Paddock 2 show soil water content for each crop.

Paddock 1_Peas
Paddock 1_Peas

 

Paddock 2_Peas
Paddock 2_Peas

We see the crops tracked about the same at the start. In mid-December, Paddock 2 received two 9mm irrigations from our buried dripline.

Melanie estimated that the irrigation was 80% efficient, so only added about 7.5mm to the budget each time. Paddock 1 is not irrigated, and continued to drop towards stress point.

Paddock 1 reached Refill Point on Boxing Day two days before rain fortunately lifted it back out of stress. Paddock 1 again hit stress point on about 6th January. With no more significant rain, it stayed stressed. With irrigation applied as required, Paddock 2 remained stress-free throughout.

Overall, the two crops used similar amounts of water through until early January. After that the 0 – 30 cm soil reached stress point, and water use from the unirrigated Paddock 1 began to taper off.  The steeper lines in the bottom part of the graphs show it began to get more water from deeper in the profile.

By harvest, Paddock 1 was using only about half as much water as the drip irrigated Paddock 2 and drawing it from much deeper in the profile.

The difference in what a crop did use and what it could have used if the water was available is described by Potential Soil Moisture Deficit.

We estimate that by harvest, Paddock 1 suffered about 100mm of PSMD. I am not sure what the pea response is to stress. I am told it is a “very elastic” crop. For many crops this would indicate a growth reduction of about 20%.

So did irrigation pay?

We sampled each crop pre-harvest and found Paddock 2 had about 30% more fresh weight canopy than Paddock 1. The difference was easily seen, being significantly taller and generally more “lush”. The peas in Paddock 1 reached harvest maturity at least three or four days before the irrigated peas in Paddock 2.

We get paid for peas not canopy. We also sampled yields and quality as measured by TR (pea tenderness) and found differences.

There was a lower tonnage in Paddock 2, but the quality (and pay-out value) was much higher.

At harvest the Paddock 1 tonnages were reasonable at 6.85 t/ha paid yield. But TR was 137; a bit high and the lowest pay-out grade.

We delayed harvesting Paddock 2 for two days. The paid yield was similar at 6.55 t/ha but the TR was 102, a 30% higher pay-out grade.

Paddock 1 returned $2,059/ha and Paddock 2 returned $2,625/ha gross, so a benefit of $566/ha from irrigation.

We applied 81 mm so our return from irrigation was $6.99/ha/mm applied. Many people quote an irrigation cost of about $2/ha/mm so let’s claim a benefit of $5/ha/mm applied.

Looking at it another way. If we had a 20ha paddock, irrigation would have made us about $8,000 better off. If we also sold pea hay, the benefit would be even greater.

Answer: Irrigation pays!

Thanks to: Centre for Land and Water, ThinkWater, Netafim, HydroServices, McCain Foods, Ballance AgriNutrients, BASF Crop Protection, FruitFed Supplies, Agronica NZ, Nicolle Contracting, Drumpeel Farms, Greville Ground Spraying, True Earth Organics, Tasman Harvesting, Plant & Food Research, Peracto NZ

Irrigation demand: alike as two peas?

The MicroFarm has two crops of peas almost ready for harvest. We have been tracking their water use since planting. We want to learn as much as we can about our soil and irrigation.

HydroServices’ Melanie Smith is our specialist support for soil moisture monitoring. She established three neutron probe access tubes in each of our first two crops. These are read weekly and analysed to give a Paddock soil moisture content down to 80 cm.

Both pea crops were planted on the same day with the same drill. One had some nitrogen starter-fertiliser because our discussion group wondered if it would make a difference, but that is another story. For now, we are talking irrigation management.

We are seeing significantly different patterns from our two crops. Significant in that considering the usual 30 cm root depth, one crop needed irrigating a week before the other. Significant in that one would get through to harvest at the start of December without needing to be irrigated. The other would need irrigation. What’s going on?

Let’s look at two graphs: Paddock 3a and Paddock 4a which are the two crops in question.

Paddock_3_a
Paddock_3_a
Paddock_4_a
Paddock_4_a

 

 

 

 

The top parts of these graphs show soil water content in the top 30 cm. We see that in each case the Full Point (116 mm) and Refill Point (82 mm) is the same. So we have 34 mm of readily available water our plants can access from the first 30 cm depth of soil.

The graphs show Paddock 4 reached Refill Point a whole week before Paddock 3. In fact, Paddock 4 hit Refill Point almost three weeks before Paddock 3, and but for a chance 12 mm rainfall would have gone into critical deficit in early November.

Let’s compare these graphs a bit more closely.

We see they tracked about the same to start with, then at the beginning of November Paddock 4 suddenly used significantly more water from the 0 ‑ 30 cm root zone than did Paddock 3. This is around the time the canopies reached full ground cover.

Our observations of the crops suggest Paddock 3 had more canopy so we thought it would be using more water than Paddock 4. Looking at the lower parts of Graphs 3a and 4a, we see that Paddock 3 used more water from deeper in the profile at 40 – 50 cm.

We did some Visual Soil Assessments and found more evidence of soil compaction in Paddock 4. Being the main gate access into the area it has seen more tractors, trucks and paddock forklift activity. So we expected to see compaction limiting root development.

Now lets look at the water content in the whole soil profile, right down to 80 cm, presumably well past any pea roots (Figures Paddock 3b and Paddock 4b).

Paddock_3_b
Paddock_3_b
Paddock_4_b
Paddock_4_b

The first thing to notice is much higher water storage, because 80 cm of soil has more readily available water than 30 cm of soil. So now Full Point is 314  mm and Refill Point is 232 mm giving 82 mm of readily available water for our crop to grow before we would need to irrigate.

When we compare these two graphs we get a different picture. Now we see the two crops using similar amounts of water through until 14 November. After that, Paddock 3 (the fuller canopy and better soil condition) used slightly more water than Paddock 4, and actually hit Refill Point a day or so earlier.

Overall, it seems our Paddock 3 crop is getting more water from deeper in the profile, accessing water from 50 ‑ 80 cm deep.

For a lower price crop like peas, reducing costs makes a big difference. Can avoiding compaction save the need to irrigate?

How deep are your crops’ roots?

HydroServicesBlue

 

Many thanks to HydroServices for the soil moisture monitoring at the MicroFarm

Intensive cropping: Dealing with reality

We have a group in Hawke’s Bay focused on best management for field cropping.  We want to know how far we can push production without degrading the soil, our base resource.

We have drafted a five year cropping programme, based around process crops, but with other crops in the mix. This is typical in the region where process crops are mixed with onions, squash, some cereals, occasional potatoes and often winter grass.

In our programme we have tried to eliminate animals and pasture, looking instead at maximising vegetable production. Given the different seasons, season lengths and the realities of planting dates that must fit factory schedules, this gets a bit tricky.

Central to our plan are vining peas and green beans, two crops with specialist harvest equipment. Viners are very heavy. The bean harvester weighs in at about 18 tonnes plus 4 tonnes of crop when full. The pea viners are around 22 tonnes, plus a couple more of crop when full.

Feb04 012xx

These machines have large wheel or track footprints, so impact a wide path. And pea viners typically travel across the lie of the crop, not up and down rows, so can track anywhere. How does that fit our plans to adopt controlled traffic!

Gary Cutts of Tasman Harvester Contractors is at the centre of the action. The company currently has nine harvesting machines with a price tag of around $1million each. From December, the machines earn their keep, harvesting 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Peas are a very delicate crop and only have a premium harvesting window of 24 hours. Before that they’re too young, and after that they’re too old. It’s an exact science to determine when to pick.

For a successful harvest Gary’s team must respond to demand from the factory and deliver on time. Delays that affect factory processing are costly.  

The new harvesters, especially those on tracks, can get on to the ground even in very poor weather. But what is their impact on the soil? They are very heavy, they have big feet, and the soil may be weakened by wetness.

Gary contacted Marc Dresser at Landcare Research after hearing him at a LandWISE Conference. Marc is a specialist in soils and mechanical engineering whose knowledge is unrivalled. He worked with Gary on tyre selection and tyre pressures to optimise performance.

Together they reduced harvester tyre pressures from around 30psi to 20psi. They reversed the direction of jockey bin tyres too. Gary says the difference is immediately noticeable in the field. Coupled with a change to tracks, the soil load has been greatly reduced.

Gary still wants to know what the impact on the soil is. Are harvesters doing damage? If they are causing compaction, what is best practice remediation? When should it be done? How does it impact following crops?

We want to know too. And we want to know what a farmer can do to best prepare their soils before the harvesters arrive. Before the crop is even planted.

We can control traffic in pretty much all operations with the equipment in use now – except for the viners. We’ve looked at a number of scenarios, which suggest that the 30” row is the factor that sets the standard. Smaller tractors might straddle two rows, bigger machines can straddle four. If equipment is sized accordingly, we can get the trafficked area down to about 17% of the ground. Except for the viners.

Most paddocks only see peas about once in five years, so that leaves 4 years and 11 months of controlled traffic. But in our super-intensive farm, we might see peas almost every year and green beans too. We really do need to know how to manage this aspect of some of our important regional crops.

Frustration to Irritation

Many irrigators would identify with Hugh Ritchie’s presentation title, “From Frustration to Irritation”, in which he related his 13 year journey from dry land to irrigated farming.

Speaking to 74 delegates at the LandWISE/Irrigation New Zealand “Going into Irrigation” conference, Hugh said irrigation was the key to unlocking profitability, allowing the farm business to develop significantly. Yields have increased across the entire crop range, higher value crops have replaced low value options, and consistent yields stabilised income and enabled development and growth.

Before irrigation, the Ritchies grew arable and ryegrass seed crops and ran some deer. Now the deer are gone, and a wide range of process and fresh vegetable, arable, and high value seed crops are grown, with some sheep in the mix.

Looking back, Hugh realises he has learnt an immense amount about irrigation. What would he do differently if starting again? He’d probably design the farm around the irrigation, not fit the irrigation to the farm layout he had. “My irrigators don’t like trees,” he said. “They always come off second best!”

Tony Davoren from Hydro-Services discussed supply reliability and volumes. He showed the seasonal requirement for water for a mixed cropping operation. Piling crop demand on crop demand across the season, he showed peaks where volume is needed at times when reliability is critical. Inability to meet peak demands will impact yields. “The first 90% of yield goes to pay your costs,” he said. “You cannot afford to lose yield through water-shortage: that loss was your profit. Access to reliable supplies is vital.”

When should you start planning your irrigation system? Stephen McNally from OPUS Consultants showed that, whether major scheme or on-farm system, the same planning is needed. And it takes a long time from start to finish. To start irrigating in four years, start planning now.

Stephen stressed the need to gather resource information to reduce uncertainty, to determine irrigation system needs and costs, and to constantly review them against the farm business plan. Stephen also cautioned against taking cheap up-front capital options. Cheap systems invariably have high running and maintenance costs, and these rapidly outweigh any savings made at the start.

Dan Bloomer discussed “Specifying an irrigation system”, one subject of new Irrigation NZ resources for potential irrigators and irrigation managers. These contain valuable information and checklists to ensure potential irrigators collect all the information needed for a designer to do their job.

Carolyn Hedley developed the theme in “Assessing a farm for irrigation”. Carolyn discussed irrigation system options, the critical role of soil, and the availability of soils information via Landcare Research’s website “S-Map”. The use of new soil survey techniques was also discussed.

California Water Resources and Irrigation Advisor, Michael Cahn, explained how fertigation can be used to manage nutrients. This is an important aspect of irrigation in California, and increasingly in New Zealand. As farming intensifies and environmental limits are reached, care with nutrients is vital. Fertigation allows “just-in time” application, minimising any risk of leaching or volatilisation losses – saving money and the environment.

Andrew Curtis outlined Audited Self-Management to support good irrigation practice and provide assurance to the community that the water, a common good, is being appropriately used. He noted the responsibility irrigators have to demonstrate excellence in irrigation, and that audited self-management could reduce the overall cost of compliance monitoring.

Farm visits followed.

Lindsay Smith discussed his choice of irrigation for dairying, and his concerns about access to groundwater and links with the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme.

Ian Annan described how MrApple is ensuring maximum use is made of limited water, and that all conditions are met.

The day wrapped up at Mike Rittson-Thomas’ buried dripline irrigation system. “It was put in anticipating a five year life. Thirteen years on it is due for replacement but I have to be happy,” Mike says. “Now I’m waiting to see if the Storage Scheme goes ahead. If it does my options open up. I currently have limited water, so if it doesn’t, I’ll be looking at this again to eke out what I have.”

LandWISE and Irrigation New Zealand partnered to present the John Deere, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and FMG sponsored special-focus day. Seventy four people heard from eight presenters, then moved out to visit and hear the experiences of the three farmers; dairy with pivots, orchard with micro-sprinklers, and sheep/beef farmer with buried dripline in lucerne.

 

Risk Management for Good Practice

The future hasn’t happened yet. Today we make educated guesses and do something. Later, we’ll discover if our choices were good.

We use “good agricultural practice” even though it is no guarantee. What seems right today turns out not to be. Hindsight is easy. Its value is in building knowledge for foresight the next time around. Foresight is part gamble, but greatly enhanced with local knowledge, historical context and good advice.

Growers need to make a profit. And they are expected to keep people, property and the environment safe. This is central to good agricultural practice. With so much uncertainty about so many factors, and so many things to consider, getting it “right” is a big ask.

Good agricultural practice applies deliberate choices based on good information, acknowledging and accounting for unknowns. It weighs the likelihood and implications of possible events against potential costs and rewards. Much attention has been placed on the financial side, but increasingly the environmental aspects must be taken into account.

Implementing a formal risk management approach enhances good agricultural practice. Risk management involves identifying hazards, assessing associated risks and implementing interventions. Things will go wrong, but the frequency and consequence are reduced.

Hazards are things that can cause or lead to events with undesirable consequences. Heavy rain, frost, pests and market collapse are hazards.

Risk combines the likelihood of the event happening with the severity of consequence. There will be heavy rain events, but how often? They can destroy crops, leach nutrients, wash away soil and damage infrastructure. What are the immediate and on-going severe consequences? How much will they cost? What effect on waterways?

Interventions are actions that avoid, minimise or mitigate the event or consequence. The size of risk and effectiveness of intervention help determine the investment that is justified.

Good practice has always had an element of risk management. Making it explicit helps demonstrate that the potential impacts of adverse events have been considered and appropriate management applied.

Who should decide what good practice is? Should it be prescribed, or should farmers have choice?

We prefer to have choice. Every site on every farm is unique – yes, your soils are different! By assessing our own situation and making our own justified plans, we can get the best fit for site, fit for purpose good practice.

Creating a full risk management plan for every aspect of farming is a daunting task. The same process can be followed to manage any risk. But it will be harder if we are dealing with unfamiliar topics or are not sure of the possible problems and solutions. We want to make it easier.

As part of the “Holding it Together” project, we scoped a risk management process to address soil quality and loss. We saw resources to help farmers work efficiently through a robust process, identifying and quantifying hazards and risks, and sifting through potential interventions would be useful.

A book or website with checklists and supporting information would make things much easier. Imagine clicking on a “hazard” and seeing a list of risks and image sets showing relative severity and ideas on avoiding the impact. Follow the cues relating things to your farm. Click “Print” and your Good Practice Risk Management Plan is complete.

Dan Bloomer and Phillipa Page, LandWISE

Steps towards Farming Within Limits

The article was first published in The GROWER magazine.

Farming within limits is the phrase of the year, by-line of numerous conferences, and part of many conversations. Farming within limits is nothing new. Financial constraints, market size, climate and soils, labour . . . you name it.

But farming within off-farm environmental limits puts a new spin on the topic. Both regulators and growers are under pressure to lift performance. Fortunately Horticulture New Zealand took a lead role years ago when it launched New Zealand Good Agricultural Practice.

New Zealand GAP is constantly evolving to meet new opportunities and requirements. And the bar will continually lift as governments, markets and other stakeholders expect ever higher standards from producers. But good agricultural practice is, and will be, the core of farming successfully within limits.

Successful growers already aim for profitable production with environmental stewardship. They have systems that ensure the basics are done well, and for continuous improvement. They measure to manage, they record to report.

These leaders of the pack are prepared for, and often do well from, change. They have a mind-set of adapting management to meet or beat changing situations. They already do a bit extra such as riparian planting and supporting local stream care. They are ready for most, if not all, that “farming within limits” may throw at them.

It is a year since the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Freshwater Management 2011 came into effect requiring councils to set limits on fresh water quality and the amount of water that can be abstracted from our rivers, lakes and aquifers.

Councils have four years left to establish programmes that will give effect to the NPS by 2030. They will need to amend regional policy statements, proposed regional policy statements, plans, proposed plans, and variations. It is a lot of work, and councils are under pressure to have the necessary changes in place sooner rather than later.

Government stated, “We are committed to monitoring improvements in fresh water management from the NPS and reviewing its effectiveness within five years as the complete package of reforms is rolled out.” There is a strong sense of urgency.

Growers can take action now. Both on and off-farm activities are needed, and many things can happen in parallel. There is a need to be involved, and no need to wait to do things better.

The freshwater quality driver points to many things; irrigation and nutrient management, soil conservation, stream enhancement, eel fishery management, and a range of environmental offsets. It is the effect of the combination of all management and mitigation that will determine the outcome.

Of the off-farm activities, Horticulture New Zealand Natural Resources and Environment Manager, Chris Keenan, says, “The key task in front of growers right now is participating in a limit setting process, because that will determine how much effect limit setting will have on the business.” Chris Keenan further notes that if they are going to do this effectively, they will need to be organised. Catchment management groups will be necessary in many cases, if not all cases.

On-farm, growers can adapt their management.

Two critical on-farm factors under direct grower control are water and nutrient management. We can’t control the rain, but we can definitely control irrigation and artificial drainage. And we are in control of our fertiliser application and can do quite a lot to keep nutrients in the root zone.

Our evaluation of irrigation systems and irrigation management records shows a wide range of performance. Some growers are highly focused, manage intensely and have high water use efficiencies.  Unfortunately, some don’t.

Without carefully monitoring soil moisture levels, weather forecasts and irrigator performance testing, effective efficient irrigation is impossible. You must know how much is needed, and how much is going on. If the basics are not right, no amount of fancy technology will help.

The same is true for nutrient management where a wide range of performance is evident. Some growers apply excellent soil fertility testing, nutrient budgeting and planning, and fertiliser spreader calibration; essential steps to maximise nutrients use.

Water and nutrient management are closely linked. Too much water will cause unnecessary nutrient loss to freshwater, just as will too much fertiliser.  Too little water reduces crop growth which leaves unused nutrients in the soil, often also increasing losses that end up in freshwater.

Fortunately, efforts to manage water and nutrients better can improve farm profitability as well as environmental performance. So it can be a win-win. Focus on getting the basic things right. Look for big, easy gains first. Then look at fine-tuning.

Catchment management groups, farmers getting together to manage the overall effect of all activities on the quality of water in each catchment, are a powerful way to make progress. Such groups provide a forum for ideas, a place of co-operative learning, agreement on actions and priorities, and opportunities for benchmarking performance.

If everyone performed at the level of the top quarter, overall performance would rise significantly. Then the community would be able to see the fresh water quality improvements sought.

Coping with Extreme Weather Events

This article first appeared in The GROWER in February 2012

 

Growers suffered significant losses during recent heavy rain. We cannot handle the most extreme events without suffering losses. But we can do a lot to reduce impact and avoid damage from minor events.

Building resilience will help with adverse events and returning to normal operation once the event is over. Focus on soil and its ability to absorb, drain and hold together when large rain events occur. Soil must be protected and enhanced and suitable drainage designed and installed. Managing traffic, reducing cultivation and managing water movement are critical.

Water needs to be absorbed into the soil and allowed to drain through it. The amount absorbed depends on the soil’s infiltration rate and the time that water stays in one place. Well-structured soil has good porosity, which maximises infiltration and drainage.

Compaction means soil damage: soil is deformed forming solid layers with little or no porosity. Water cannot get through these layers fast enough, so builds up in the soil above, drowning plants and weakening soil aggregates.

The common solution is cultivation; ripping soil to break up wheel track compaction. This is expensive and self-defeating as cultivation further weakens the soil and makes future traffic even more damaging.

About 80% of all compaction happens with the first pass, so keep traffic off paddocks in the first place or keep it to defined “roads” as much as possible. Then there is little if any need to cultivate.

While we need to drive on paddocks to plant and harvest crops, we can control essential traffic and keep the rest away. LandWISE farmers have shown clearly that controlled traffic and permanent bed systems reduce equipment needs, save fuel and labour, reduce time to next crop and enhance soil quality. Win, win, win, win and win.

Water runs downhill. Even seemingly flat paddocks have high and low points. If the infiltration rate is too low, water runs to low spots where it ponds. Slowing water down with surface residues or by ground shaping keeps it in place long enough to soak in and avoid ponding and erosion.  Lots of micro-dams hold rain where it falls, and slow any rivulets that may form.

HortNZ’s SFF Holding it Together project showed the benefits of furrow dyking that slows water in wheel tracks, giving it time to soak in rather than pond in low areas. This reduces soil erosion and protects crops against flooding and drowning. To sport nuts: “stop, trap, control the ball”!

Once controlled, pass it in a timely fashion. Consider artificial drainage if the soil cannot drain fast enough. Mole and tile drains provide extra flow capacity through the soil. Open drains provide a controlled way to take water to a safe disposal point.

A number of innovative drainage options are available. Old ideas linked to new GPS and computer mapping have revolutionised tile laying, surface drainage planning and ground contouring. Each has its place.

Precision tile-laying maps paddocks with GPS. It automatically surveys elevations while the tractor drives along the next tile line, calculates the depths and grades required, and precisely controls tile laying depth. It is fast and cheap compared to old practices.

Surface drainage planning controls water movement across the surface. It aims to remove excess water safely before it waterlogs the soil, by ensuring a path without ponding areas. New technology allows very detailed surveys and planning, and results in minimal soil movement for optimum drainage.

In extreme cases, surface levelling changes the whole paddock contour, directing water to safe boundaries. Because it typically moves a large volume of soil it is expensive and can have a significant soil impact. But it has other advantages such as avoiding high, dry spots and ensuring even depth to water table.

We often think of water management as irrigation, especially in summer. But we must have our soils and drainage in good order at all times of the year.

Dan Bloomer – LandWISE

LandWISE NEWS June 2012

Conference 2012

The 10th Annual Conference was our biggest gathering with over 160 attendees. We extend our thanks to the speakers, sponsors, trade supporters and delegates that made the event such a success. There were some important issues up for discussion by excellent speakers and we have received very positive feedback.

2012 saw our first Focus on Viticulture, an extra day dedicated to wine growing technologies. Keynote Rob Bramley started the conference and was well supported by the remaining speakers. Rob and Tim Neale both made a number of presentations over the three days, and we are very grateful for their high quality inputs.

The second day investigated implications of the National Policy Statement for Fresh Water Management. Thanks to Land and Water Forum Chair Alistair Bisley, HBRC CE Andrew Newman, LandWISE Chair Hugh Ritchie and the others who presented clear outlines of the concepts, process and possible future.

The field event at Hugh Ritchie’s farm was also extremely well received and we thank Hugh and the other presenters for their work setting everything up – a significant undertaking. The Anderson Road block was transformed into a precision farmer’s perfect sandpit for the day.

Live demonstrations of Trimble surface levelling and Keith Nicole’s GPS tile laying were of much interest. These drainage options were supported by Precision Irrigation’s variable rate irrigation fitted to the towable pivot on-site. and Hydro-Services showing soil moisture monitoring options including neutron probes and electronic sensors and telemetry from WaterForce.

New Board Members

Long term Board members, David Clark and Chris Butler, retired this year.

We have two new Board members, both from Pukekohe. Paul Munro from Peracto and Brent Wilcox from AS Wilcox were elected at the AGM.

LandWISE News March 2012

LandWISE 2012 – 10th Annual Conference May 2012

Put the 22, 23 and 24 May 2012 in your diary for the 10th Annual LandWISE Conference.

The title is Site Specific Management: growing within limits. We are looking at the changing requirements for farming, in particular the increasing need to demonstrate that farming has minimal environmental impact. Look for a focus on soil water management, irrigation, monitoring and drainage.

For the first time we also have a day focused on Smart Viticulture. This builds on current LandWISE work with local viticulturists investigating the benefits, costs and logistics of applying zonal management using precsion viticulture techniques.

  • People with viticulture interests will find Day 1 extremely useful. They will also see there are great presentations on the other days.
  • LandWISE traditionalists be assured; Days 2 and 3 follow the usual pattern. But do have a look at the Day 1 programme – you’ll find a lot there that can give you completely new ideas.

The draft programme and more details are available here http://www.landwise.org.nz/events/landwise2012/. This page will be updated as conference draws nearer, and you’ll receive direct messages too.

Conference registration is available on-line. As usual, discounted rates for members.

Conference Platinum Sponsor

We are very pleased to announce Eastern Institute of Technology as a new Platinum Sponsor for Conference 2012. There are strong cross-overs between an institute such as this and LandWISE with our focus on upskilling for the primary industry sectors.

EIT has a very strong viticulture and wine programme, and is also active in agriculture and horticulture in Hawke’s Bay and the East Coast/Tairawhiti.

Key Speakers

We are also delighted that Rob Bramley from CSIRO in Adelaide will be one of our key presenters. Rob is well known for his precision viticulture work, but is also very experienced in broadacre crops.

Tom Botterill from the Geospatial Research Centre at the University of Canterbury will talk about machine vision and robot pruning. More announcements coming soon . . .

 

Driverless Tractor

LandWISE Member Matt Flowerday from GPS-It sent a link to this site for a new driverless tractor.

A few of you have expressed interest in autonomous tractors – so with a favourable exchange rate and a $US 150,000 price tag, here’s your chance.

It’s interesting for a few reasons:

  • The 225 kW tractor can be controlled in real-time from a base station with a remote control device that can be up to 40 km away. The master base station can handle up to 16 operating tractors at one time.
  • Hew can couple units together for more power, like train locomotives
  • It uses twin laser unit called LIPS (Laser Imaging Position System) rather than GPS (we need to learn more about LIPS)
  • Power is diesel electric with a 15 to 25% better fuel economy than conventional systems

Australian Conferences

Dan attended the SPAA Precision Agriculture Australia Expo in Port Lincoln, South Australia and the precisionagriculture.com.au Conference in Maroochydor, Queensland in February.
Speakers discussed nutrient tests we don’t use, plants we seldom grow, pests, diseases and weeds that remain thankfully foreign, and yields most New Zealand farmers would consider disastrous. They talked of soil electromagnetic sensors, pH sensors, biomass sensors, protein sensors, animal trackers and robots. Of precision farming in Canada, Scotland, England, New Zealand, Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

The messages were strikingly familiar. In essence; know and look after your soil, monitor your crop, and apply inputs where they give the best returns.
At both events, the farm was the focus; the technologies merely tools to help manage better. Much, much better.

A couple of areas to watch:

  • UAV proliferation. There are more and more self-flying ‘toy’ planes and helicopters suited to crop inspection tasks. With increasingly light and quality cameras, and return to base GPS guidance they have great potential. There are a few issues yet with processing the data, and like all sensor things, ground trothing is still needed.
  • RFID Tags. The advances in electronic tagging have been very fast, and new applications are only now being realised. With new technologies, the range of some devices has become quite extraordinary, offering ability to track items or animals at increasing distances. Cheaply.

A Guide to Smart Farming

Our Guide to Smart Farming book has been the subject of tremendous acclaim from farmers, industry, researchers and teaching staff in New Zealand and overseas. Thanks for the feedback!

About 7,000 copies were printed, and we’ve only 300 left in stock, so that’s a lot that are out there and, from what we hear, being read.

Purchasing copies:

A Guide to Smart Farming was distributed free to people in the LandWISE Community. Extra copies are available through TradeMe at $29.90 plus post including GST. Search TradeMe guide smart farming and it will pop up.

See the Table of Contents here>