Nekesah T. Wafullah - Precision Agriculture - Enabling Technologies-Delve Publishing (2022)

Precision Agriculture: Enabling
Technologies
PRECISION AGRICULTURE:
ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES
Nekesah T. Wafullah
www.delvepublishing.com
Precision Agriculture: Enabling Technologies
Nekesah T. Wafullah
Delve Publishing
224 Shoreacres Road
Burlington, ON L7L 2H2
Canada
www.delvepublishing.com
Email: orders@arclereducation.com
e-book Edition 2023

ISBN: 978-1-77469-649-1 (e-book)
This book contains information obtained from highly regarded resources. Reprinted material
sources are indicated and copyright remains with the original owners. Copyright for images and
other graphics remains with the original owners as indicated. A Wide variety of references are
listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data. Authors or Editors or Publish-
ers are not responsible for the accuracy of the information in the published chapters or conse-
quences of their use. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any damage or grievance to the
persons or property arising out of the use of any materials, instructions, methods or thoughts in
the book. The authors or editors and the publisher have attempted to trace the copyright holders
of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission has
not been obtained. If any copyright holder has not been acknowledged, please write to us so we
may rectify.
Notice: Registered trademark of products or corporate names are used only for explanation and
identification without intent of infringement.
© 2023 Delve Publishing

ISBN: 978-1-77469-520-3 (Hardcover)
Delve Publishing publishes wide variety of books and eBooks. For more information about Delve
Publishing and its products, visit our website at www.delvepublishing.com.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Nekesah T. Wafullah is a skilled agriculture expert with extensive knowledge in

agricultural energy value addition products, agricultural business management services,
project management, various forms of fertilizer, their production, sales, marketing
aspects and application regimes; cross border fertilizer trade policies; youth and women
empowerment and volunteerism. She is adept at project planning and management as
well as creating simple solutions to complex problems. She has experience within
agricultural markets in Kenya, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Rwanda, Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC)- Bukavu and Lubumbashi and Uganda. She mentors high
school and college students and advocates for better performance in Agricultural
science. During her free time, she loves editing books, watching movies, cooking,
baking, networking, reading, and dancing. Nekesah holds an M Sc. in Agricultural and
Applied Economics degree from the University of Nairobi with a major in International
Trade and Policy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.................................................................................................xi
List of Tables.................................................................................................xiii
List of Abbreviations......................................................................................xv
Acknowledgment........................................................................................ xvii
Preface..................................................................................................... ....xix
Chapter 1 Introduction to Precision Agriculture......................................................... 1

Overview.................................................................................................... 2
PA History.................................................................................................. 2
Defining Precision Agriculture.................................................................... 4
PA Misconceptions..................................................................................... 6
Variability and the Production System......................................................... 7
Objectives of SSCM.................................................................................... 8
Need for Precision Farming......................................................................... 9
Some Drivers for PA.................................................................................. 13
Opportunities in Precision Farming........................................................... 18
Issues Confronting Precision Farming........................................................ 19
Chapter 2 Technologies in Precision Agriculture...................................................... 21

Overview.................................................................................................. 22
Global Positioning System (GPS) Receivers............................................... 23
Geographic Information Systems.............................................................. 32
Remote Sensing........................................................................................ 43
Mobile Devices and Precision Agriculture................................................ 59
Internet of Things (IOT) in Precision Agriculture........................................ 70
Robotics and PA....................................................................................... 78
Chapter 3 Variable-Rate Application........................................................................ 81
Overview.................................................................................................. 82
Variable-Rate Application Methods........................................................... 82
Basic VRA Concepts................................................................................. 84
Seeding VRA............................................................................................. 85
Weed Control VRA................................................................................... 86
New and Developing Vra Systems............................................................ 93
Other Useful Devices............................................................................... 94
Sensor-Based Devices............................................................................... 95
Lime VRA................................................................................................. 97
Fertilizer VRA............................................................................................ 99
VRA-N Critique........................................................................................ 99
Current VRA-N Strategies........................................................................ 100
VRA-N Considerations for the Future...................................................... 101
On-The-Go Crop Sensing for VRA-N....................................................... 101
Economic Comparison of VRA Research Findings................................... 102
Chapter 4 Application of Technology in PA............................................................ 105

Overview................................................................................................ 106
Farm Management.................................................................................. 107
Crop Management.................................................................................. 114
Machinery Management......................................................................... 129
Labor Management................................................................................. 134
PA Future Requirements.......................................................................... 142
Chapter 5 Precision Livestock Farming (PLF).......................................................... 147

Overview................................................................................................ 148
PLF in Dairy............................................................................................ 149
PLF in Pig Farming.................................................................................. 152
PLF in Poultry Farming............................................................................ 153
Merits and Demerits of PLF..................................................................... 156
Animal Welfare and Other Ethical Implications of PLF............................ 158
Chapter 6 Precision Agriculture and Quality Practices........................................... 169

Overview................................................................................................ 170
Food Safety Schemes.............................................................................. 171
viii
PA and Gaps........................................................................................... 174
PA and Traceability................................................................................. 176
Model-Based Statistical Process Control.................................................. 185
In Summary............................................................................................ 186
References.............................................................................................. 189
Index...................................................................................................... 193
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Issues affecting the adoption of PA management

Figure 2: Steps in PA
Figure 3: Illustration of good vs poor satellite geometry
Figure 4: A stationary receiver (base station)
Figure 5: Illustration of real-time DGPS
Figure 6: Use of GIS in Agriculture
Figure 7: Six approximate representations of a field used in GIS
Figure 8: Spectral signatures for selected materials on the earth’s surface.
Figure 9: An example of a remote sensing image showing pixels
Figure 10: Remote-sensing detectors measuring radiance
Figure 11: The remote sensing process.
Figure 12: Hydraulic motor to control seed meter
Figure 13: Hydraulic motor attached to the seed-meter shaft
Figure 14: VRA based on On-the-go sensor
Figure 15: VRA spraying system that is a flow-based control system of application rate.
Figure 16: VRA spraying system that incorporates chemical-injection technology.
Figure 17: VRA spraying system using modulated spraying-nozzle control (MSNC)
technology.
Figure 18: Fasting-acting, electrical, solenoid-controlled nozzle assembly
Figure 19: Electronic boom control to eliminate overlaps
Figure 20: Cross-section schematic of a subsurface, soil-reflectance optical sensor
Figure 21: The optical sensor control of the spray nozzle (Weed Seeker)
Figure 22: Boom Design Change from Fixed Boom to Floating Boom
Figure 23: Spinner-Disc Spreader Set Up
Figure 24: Modified VRA Pneumatic granular fertilizer spreader
Figure 25: Precision agriculture in precision land use
Figure 26: Precision farming sections and items
Figure 27: Sample algorithm for decision between shallow and deep tillage operation
Figure 28: Approaches of site-specific fertilization
Figure 29: Truck-mounted multi-bin fertilizer air spreader
Figure 30: Precision irrigation network
Figure 31: A self-propelled forage harvester
Figure 32: Remote service system with manufacturer service database.
Figure 33: Leader-follower system for field work
Figure 34: Poultry management optimization using PLF tools
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Some examples of PA technologies

Table 2: Comparison of Coast Guard and satellite differential correction sources by
feature.
Table 3: Active and passive satellite-based remote-sensing instruments
Table 4: Products commonly derived from digital elevation models (DEM)
Table 5: Common smartphone sensors
Table 6: Economic benefits of precision farming
Table 7: Type of farm databases
Table 8: Yield Monitors in Harvesting Technologies
Table 9: Crop Growth Sensors in Nitrogen Fertilizing Systems
Table 10: Guidance systems:
Table 11: Advantages and disadvantages of autonomous field robots
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

PA Precision agriculture
GPS Global Positioning System
CTF Controlled traffic farming
VRA variable rate application
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
EU European Union
DSS Decision support systems
SSCM Site specific crop management
ICT Information and Communications Technology
IPR Intellectual property rights
VRT Variable Rate Technology
LED Light-emitting diode
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetative Index
DOD Department of Defense
CPU Central processing unit
PPS The Precise Positioning Service
US United States
CEP Circular Error Probable
GISs Geographic information systems
EM emitted electromagnetic
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
EOS The Earth Observing System
MODIS The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
SAVI Soil adjusted vegetation index
TIN Triangulated irregular networks
SRTM The Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission
LAI Leaf Area Index
PIV Particle Image Velocimetry
AAS Agricultural Advisory System
SMS Short Message Service
IoT The Internet of Things
RFID Radio-frequency identification
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
GSM Global System for Mobile
REST Representational State Transfer
MQTT Message Queuing Telemetry Transport
GUI Graphical user interface
SSCM Site-specific crop management
VRA Variable rate application
MSNC Modulated spraying-nozzle control
EC Electrical conductivity
UT User terminals
TC Task controller
UAVs Unmanned aerial vehicles
GMO Genetically modified organism
UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
ECUs Electronic control unit
PC Personal computer
RTK Real-time kinematic
TIM Tractor implement management
PTO Power take-off
PLF Precision Livestock Farming
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points
PPPs Public–private partnership
IPM Integrated Pest Management
EPC Engineering process control
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The book is the product of great effort and time spent. The completion of this book
could not have been possible without the participation and assistance of so many people
whose names may not all be enumerated. Their contributions are sincerely appreciated
and gratefully acknowledged. However, I would like to express our deep appreciation
and indebtedness, particularly to the following: Arcler Education, Inc. and Charles
Kuria for their endless support, kind and understanding spirit during this undertaking.
To all relatives, friends and others who in one way or another shared their support,
either morally, financially or physically, I would like to personally thank you.
xvii
PREFACE
Agriculture has undergone significant transformations as a result of growing changes

in agricultural policy in most parts of the world. In response, recent agricultural policy
reforms have redirected agricultural subsidies away from production support and
toward support for the supply of public goods and services (mainly environmentally
related). However, an increase in output is still required to keep up with projected global
population growth and food demand. Precision agriculture (PA) isn’t a new phrase in
the agricultural world that seems to address sustainability in output and environment.
The simplest way to think of PA is to consider it as everything that makes farming
more precise and regulated, especially when it comes to growing crops and rearing
cattle. It’s an agricultural management approach centered on observing, quantifying,
and reacting to inter- and intra-field variability in crops or animal rearing. PA is today
seen as an “environmentally friendly system solution that maximizes product quality
and quantity while minimizing expense, human involvement, and natural variation.
Precision agriculture is an agricultural management approach based on crop and animal
variability being seen, measured, and responded to.
These variables contain numerous components that can be difficult to compute, and as
a result, technology has progressed to overcome these challenges. Precision agriculture
uses two sorts of technology: those that ensure accuracy and those that are designed
to improve farming operations. Farmers can develop a decision support system for
their entire enterprise by combining these two technologies, maximizing profitability
while limiting unnecessary resource use. Precision agriculture (PA) encompasses more
than just site-specific farming; it also encompasses a wide range of variables. The
terms “precision agriculture” and “precision farming” are frequently interchanged in
talks around the world. Agriculture is one sector in the overall land use situation, but
precision forestry and precision fishing are specifically related to PA. Precision (crop)
farming and precision livestock farming are two different types of precision agriculture.
Food production, on the other hand, is becoming increasingly susceptible to international
trade agreements. As a result, rivalry among producers or regions of production plays a
significant role in decision-making. Nonetheless, this competition should not jeopardize
consumer food safety or society’s long-term food security. To ensure food safety, the
entire food chain must be transparent. That transparency, however, can only be achieved
if everyone with a stake in food production and consumption is aware of the relevant
features of products, processes, and process environments, as well as other factors that
enable them to make educated judgments. A significant change in quality can occur
when agricultural products are kept and exported over large distances and time periods.
As a result, one would be curious as to how quality will change following harvest.
Therefore, Precision agriculture (PA) technologies are based on Good Agricultural
Practices (GAP) principles and might become useful tools for ensuring compliance with
laws and documenting production conditions as proof of compliance. Using precision
agriculture has been shown to ensure compliance with food quality systems and also
achieve animal welfare regulations.
This book reviews some of the most important technologies used in PA in ensuring
accuracy, transparency and improved farm operation in different farming practices for
all farming systems.
xx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO PRECISION
AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
Overview.................................................................................................... 2
PA History.................................................................................................. 2
Defining Precision Agriculture.................................................................... 4
PA Misconceptions..................................................................................... 6
Variability and the Production System......................................................... 7
Objectives of SSCM.................................................................................... 8
Need for Precision Farming......................................................................... 9
Some Drivers for PA.................................................................................. 13
Opportunities in Precision Farming........................................................... 18
Issues Confronting Precision Farming........................................................ 19
2 Precision Agriculture: Enabling Technologies
OVERVIEW
Agriculture has undergone significant transformations as a result of growing
changes in agricultural policy in most parts of the world. Food security is
pressuring most worldwide regions to boost production, however, there
is evidence that this has resulted in substantial negative environmental
repercussions such as water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and
damage to our natural environment (Geiger et al., 2010; Kleijn et al., 2011).
In response, recent agricultural policy reforms have redirected agricultural
subsidies away from production support and toward support for the supply
of public goods and services (mainly environmentally related). However,
an increase in output will be required to keep up with the projected global
population growth from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050. (World Population
Prospects, The 2012 Revision Highlights and Advance Tables, United
Nations, New York, 2013). Despite the seemingly opposing pressures
to save our environment and be resourceful (Tilman et al., 2011), the
agriculture sector must address this major challenge and produce more.
The best approach to deal with this is to look for solutions in science and
technology. Many innovative agricultural technologies have been created or
implemented over the previous few decades. Low-cost positioning systems,
such as the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), proximal biomass
and leaf area index determination from sensors mounted on agricultural
machinery, geophysical sensors to measure soil properties, low-cost remote
sensing techniques, and reliable devices to store, process, and exchange/share
information are just a few examples (Pierce and Nowak, 1999; Gibbons,
2000). These modern technologies, when combined, create a vast volume
of inexpensive, high-resolution data, resulting in the creation of fine-scale
or site-specific agricultural management, called Precision Agriculture (PA).
PA HISTORY
Precision agriculture (PA) isn’t a new phrase in the agricultural world.
Since the first significant PA workshop in Minneapolis in 1992, the topic
has been the subject of numerous conferences throughout the world. Since
1997, an Australasian conference on PA has been organized every year.
Its acceptability in the United States of America was publicly recognized
in 1997 when the US Congress drafted a bill on PA. But where did the
word “PA” and the notion “PA” originate? The combination of grid-based
sampling of soil chemical characteristics with newly developed variable-
rate application (VRA) equipment for fertilizers provided the impetus for
Introduction to Precision Agriculture 3
the current idea of Precision Agriculture in cropping systems in the late

1980s. Fertilizers were applied at rates designed to complement changes in
soil fertility maps developed using a compass and dead reckoning methods.
Crop yield monitoring technology was still in its infancy at the time. Around
1990, the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System (GPS) became available
in a limited capacity for civilian use, sparking a frenzy of activity. The
ability to quickly and ‘accurately’ locate and navigate vehicles generated
a rush of activity. Crop yield monitors began to penetrate the commercial
market once electronic controllers for VRA were designed to handle this
new location information. By 1993, the GPS had been fully operational, and
a number of crop yield monitoring systems had been developed that allowed
for fine-scale monitoring and mapping of yield variance within fields. The
genuine beginning of PA in broadacre cropping was the integration of yield
variability data at this scale with maps of soil nutrient variations across a
field.
As yield monitoring systems advanced, it became clear that methods
other than grid sampling would need to be devised for collaborating data.
Grid sampling at the intensity required to accurately define variability in soil
and crop parameters proved too expensive in many cases, and by the late
1990s, a “zonal” management technique had become a viable management
option. This method separates existing fields into zones with similar crop
responses, allowing for present data resolution limits while maximizing the
benefits of PA for crop management. Both proximal (i.e., on ground-based
platforms) and remote (i.e., aerial and satellite) platforms are being used to
build new systems for measuring or inferring soil and crop parameters on a
more continuous basis. Soil ECs measurement equipment, crop reflectance
imaging, and crop quality sensors are examples of these. Precision agriculture
was adopted by other farming industries, particularly viticultural and
horticultural crops, as a result of the grains industry’s success and potential
for greater success. Non-grain crops have been the subject of increasing
research since the late 1990s. In addition, the environmental auditing
capabilities of PA technology and the possibilities for product traceability
are being emphasized further. Since 1999, advances in Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) technology have enabled industrial guiding, auto-
steering, and traffic farming (CTF). CTF has given environmental benefits
(by reducing soil compaction) as well as economic and social benefits
(by reducing input overlap and enhancing operating timeliness) (such as
reducing driver fatigue). As a result, in the first decade of the twenty-first
century, this type of PA technology has seen rapid acceptance.
DEFINING PRECISION AGRICULTURE

Precision agriculture, or precision farming, is a type of precision agriculture.
The simplest way to think of PA is to consider it as everything that makes
farming more precise and regulated, especially when it comes to growing
crops and rearing cattle. The utilization of information technology, including
GPS navigation, control systems, sensors, robots, drones, autonomous
vehicles, variable rate technologies, GPS-based soil sampling, automated
hardware, telematics, and software, is a crucial component of this farm
management method. Precision agriculture, also known as satellite farming
or site-specific crop management, is a type of farming that involves
observing, measuring, and responding to crop variability both within and
between fields. Although there are more nuanced definitions, the most basic
definition of Precision Agriculture is “applying the appropriate treatment
in the right spot at the right time” (Gebbers and Adamchuk, 2010). It’s an
agricultural management approach centered on observing, quantifying, and
reacting to inter- and intra-field variability in crops or animal rearing. The
US House of Representatives defined PA as “an integrated information-
and production-based farming system designed to increase long-term, site-
specific and whole farm production efficiency, productivity, and profitability
while minimizing unintended impacts on wildlife and the environment” in
1997. Such a concept emphasized “whole-farm” management solutions
based on information technology, emphasizing the potential for increased
productivity while lowering environmental consequences. It was also
planned that PA would be applicable not just to cropping systems, but to
the entire agricultural production system (i.e., animal industries, fisheries,
forestry).
“A type of PA in which decisions on resource application and agronomic
techniques are enhanced to better meet soil and crop requirements as they
vary in the field,” according to the SSM method. Variations in such a
definition are not limited to spatial (i.e., within field variability), but also
include observations made over the course of a season or across seasons.
Farmers combined newly developed fertilizers capable of deploying
variable rate application (VRA) technology with maps that indicated the
regional diversity of soil chemical parameters to begin PA adoption in the
1980s. PA is also linked to more contemporary climate change resilience
initiatives, such as Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), which aims to establish
the technological, policy, and investment prerequisites for sustainable
agricultural development for food security under climate change (FAO,
2013). It is widely believed that better agricultural decision-making should

result in a wide range of benefits. From an economic standpoint, an analysis
of 234 research published between 1988 and 2005 concluded that precision
agriculture was beneficial in 68 percent of the situations (Griffin and
Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2005). Farmers are looking for solutions that decrease
costs without reducing production in an agriculture market where gross
margins and profitability are tightening. Although this is most likely the key
motivation for farmers to embrace such a farm management strategy, it is
far from the only one. In fact, increasing output is a major goal in many of
the Eastern EU 28 nations, and the direct economic benefits are expected to
be greater. The incorporation of information technology into PA processes
has obvious advantages in terms of improving production efficiency and
quality, as well as reducing environmental impact and risk, which includes
unwanted unpredictability induced by the human operator.
PA is today seen as an “environmentally friendly system solution
that maximizes product quality and quantity while minimizing expense,
human involvement, and natural variation.” In fact, the current PA
definitions incorporate terms like risk, environmental consequences, and
degradation, which are all major concerns in the late twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries. Because it is linked to major drivers directly tied to
global challenges such as Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security, PA
is becoming a management technique of increasing interest (Gebbers &
Adamchuk, 2010). There is some evidence from study that PA approaches
mitigate environmental deterioration, such as increased fuel use efficiency,
resulting in smaller carbon footprints. Other examples include nitrate
leaching in agricultural systems, which showed that variable rate application
methods were effective in minimizing groundwater contamination, and
PA approaches, which may reduce erosion when precision tillage is used.
As a result, PA is viewed as a means of assisting in the implementation of
environmental legislation in nations such as the United States and Australia.
In reality, PA was identified as a solution to meet future EU directives in
Member States to minimize agro-chemicals, and it was suggested inside the
EU (Zhang et al., 2002). Precision agriculture also has certain advantages
in terms of social and labor circumstances. Auto-steer systems, for example,
are available for a variety of tractor types, making the job easier. Also, as
precision dairy farming technology advances, there are huge prospects to
improve the delivery of automatic individual cow management apps and
thus minimize labor requirements such as milking twice a day, as well as
approaches for improved animal wellbeing.
PA MISCONCEPTIONS
There are several mistaken preconceptions about precision agriculture.
Precision agriculture is a cropping rather than an agricultural
concept: Because cropping systems, particularly broad-acre cropping,
are the face and driving force of PA technology, this is the case. Precision
farming concepts, on the other hand, can be applied to every agricultural
industry, from livestock to fisheries to forestry. Indeed, it may be claimed
that precision farming techniques are more advanced in the dairy business,
where the “site” is transformed into an individual animal that is tracked,
traced, and fed individually to maximize productivity. These businesses
are equally as concerned with increased production and quality, reduced
environmental impact, and better risk management as the cropping industry,
but precision farming techniques have yet to be implemented on the same
scale. Precision farming, for example, is when a grazer uses advanced
warning meteorological data and market predictions to estimate fodder
reserves and plan animal numbers (Shanwad et al., 2004).
Precision agriculture in cropping equals yield mapping: Yield
mapping is an important step, and the variety of information a yield map
can provide to farmers makes it extremely valuable. They are, however,
simply a first step towards a precision farming management system. The
more difficult agronomic challenge is obtaining information from the yield
map and applying it to improve the production system. Precision Agriculture
(PA) adoption (usefulness) in the United States may soon be stymied due to
a lack of decision support systems (DSS) to assist agronomists and farmers
in comprehending their yield maps. Other data sources, such as crop quality
and soil mapping, economic indicators, or weather projections, may not give
the complete story, requiring additional information for correct agronomic
interpretations.
Precision agriculture equals sustainable agriculture: Precision
agriculture is a technique for making agriculture more sustainable, but it
isn’t the entire solution. Precision farming strives to maximize output while
minimizing environmental effects. Precision farming is currently being
driven by the possibility of increased production (and income) rather than
the more severe issue of long-term sustainability (Shanwad et al., 2004).
Precision farming alone will not solve problems like erosion and salinity, but
it will assist to lessen the likelihood of these issues developing. In addition
to precision farming, sensible sustainable methods must be implemented.
VARIABILITY AND THE PRODUCTION SYSTEM

SSCM relies on the presence of variability, therefore “variability in production
Equals SSCM opportunity” is a generalization. However, the type, amount,
and distribution pattern of variability are all essential considerations.
There are two forms of variability to consider: geographical and temporal
variability. Temporal variability happens over a quantifiable time period,
whereas spatial variability occurs over a measured distance. The magnitude
of both types of variability is defined by the difference between the low and
high values of a measured attribute. The distribution pattern depicts how
variability changes over time in either space or time. These characteristics
of variability have a wide range of management implications, all of which
are fundamentally tied to the production property being measured. There
are, however, a few simple generalizations that are worth remembering. The
observed variability magnitude should be linked to a benchmark level below
which it would be uneconomical to seek to manage. It’s worth noting that
the costs utilized to generate these benchmarks are now viewed through the
lens of a short-term economic outlook. If we could represent environmental
benefits in monetary terms, then places with a small magnitude of variation
in production would be profitable for SSCM management in some cases. The
variability distribution pattern must be studied in relation to management
intervention possibilities. In terms of spatial considerations, the pattern
should be viewed in relation to the smallest treatment unit available (e.g.,
the size and reaction time of VRA fertile application gear). The pattern
should be studied in terms of its impact on key management phases of
the growing season in terms of time (or the whole season if relevant). If
there is no regional diversity, a uniform management system is the most
cost-effective and efficient management technique. The level of temporal
variability in cropping circumstances may appear to be much greater than
spatial variability. If the influence of temporal variability on production
outweighs the impact of spatial variability, serious thought should be given
to whether a uniform or differential risk aversion strategy is the best option.
SSCM is now operating on a zonal rather than a wholly site-specific basis,
based on these considerations. SSCM will begin to approach a truly site-
specific management regime as our ability to assess variability improves,
the capital cost of VRA technology falls, and the environmental benefit is
considered.
OBJECTIVES OF SSCM
SSCM was defined in terms of four key objectives at the start of this
introduction. How one or all of these objectives are satisfied will determine
the effectiveness of an SSCM approach.
Optimizing Production Efficiency: The goal of SSCM is to maximize
returns across a field in general. Unless a field has a uniform yield potential
(and thus a uniform yield objective), identifying diversity in yield potential
may provide opportunities to use differential management to improve
production amount at each site or within each “zone.” The primary focus
should be on improving the agronomic response to the manageable input
that has the greatest impact on productivity and costs. In the absence of
any evident environmental benefits, this will be accomplished by applying
inputs differently at each site or zone in the paddock, so that the marginal
return = marginal cost.
Optimizing Quality: Because yield and biomass sensors are the most
dependable and commonplace sensors, production efficiency is generally
quantified in terms of a yield (quantity) response. The first attempts to market
grain quality sensors were undertaken in the last several years, and currently,
on-the-go grain protein/oil sensors are commercially accessible. Growers
will be able to analyze production efficiency from the standpoint of yield,
quality, or a yield x quality interaction if they can collect grain quality data
on a site-specific basis. Many factors will have an impact on both quantity
and quality. This may change the amount of input necessary to improve
profitability and agronomic responsiveness in production systems where
quality premiums exist. A consistent approach to quality attributes may be
advantageous in some product marketplaces where high-quality premiums/
penalties are given. Reduced fluctuation in production improves the quality
of several agricultural commodities, such as wine grapes or malting barley.
Growers may prefer to modify inputs to achieve uniform output quality (and
decrease variability) rather than improve productivity if quality premiums
outweigh yield losses.
Minimizing Environmental Impact: If better management decisions
are made to customize inputs to meet production needs, the net loss of
any applied input to the environment must inevitably decrease. This is not
to suggest that the manufacturing system does not cause real or potential
environmental damage, but the risk of environmental damage is lowered.
Producers can use SSCM in conjunction with VRA technology to not only
quantify the amount and position of any input application, but also to record
and map it. This provides producers with physical evidence to refute charges
of negligent management or, conversely, information on ‘considerate’
methods to gain a competitive advantage. A broad enhancement in the
producer’s grasp of the production system and the potential ramifications of
alternative management decisions is a byproduct of enhanced information
collection and flow. Apart from avoiding litigation or following product
segmentation into markets, there is no legislative incentive for growers in
Australia to collect and use data on the environmental footprint of production.
Other countries, particularly those in the European Union, are incentivizing
manufacturers to gather and use this data by tying environmental concerns
to subsidy payments. In Australia, such eco-service payments may be
implemented.
Minimizing Risk: Risk management is a standard practice among most
farmers today, and it may be viewed from two perspectives: financial and
environmental. Farmers frequently employ risk management in a production
system by erring on the side of extra inputs while the unit cost of a given
input is regarded as ‘cheap.’ As a result, a farmer may apply an additional
spray, add additional fertilizer, purchase additional machinery, or hire
additional staff to ensure that the food is produced, harvested, and sold on
time, ensuring a profit. In general, limiting revenue risk is prioritized over
mitigating environmental risk, but SSCM aims to provide a solution that
allows both perspectives to be considered in risk management. A deeper
understanding of the environment-crop interaction, as well as a more precise
utilization of emerging and existing information technology, will result in a
more effective management approach (e.g., short- and long-term weather
predictions and agroeconomic modeling). The more information a producer
has about a production system, the more quickly he or she can respond to
changes in his or her own production as well as external market pressures.
Accurate mid-season yield estimates, for example, may give a grower
additional flexibility with forward selling alternatives.
NEED FOR PRECISION FARMING

Farmers have been using the concept of treating tiny parts of a field as
independent management units since the start of agriculture. Different
people have employed various tactics. The soil land capability class system
was designed in the United States to measure the danger of soil erosion.
This classification method implied that land use was determined by the
characteristics of the place. Others have employed a variety of methods.
Native Americans in North America, for example, used inter-seeding beans

and squash between maize plants to alleviate pest pressures and nitrogen
stress, whereas homesteaders used crop rotations to enhance yields and
provide feed for cattle (Clay et al., 2017b). Many farms became mechanized
in the twentieth century, allowing farmers to expand their fields and farms.
To take advantage of the speed of huge tractors and equipment, many places
abandoned the idea of managing smaller-than-field-size units. The farmer
spent less time in the field and covered more acres per day by treating huge
regions the same way. The benefits of greater productivity were thought to
offset any advantages of labor-intensive management of smaller, specialized
units. Today, technology has advanced to the point where a farmer can
monitor, evaluate, and manage in-field variability that was previously
unknown and unmanageable. The instruments available to help all farmers
achieve this goal include microprocessors, sensors, and other electronic
technologies. This textbook focuses on the description and implementation
of these technologies. Variability is the driving force for precision farming
adoption.
The geographical and temporal components of variability can be
separated. The fluctuation in the crop, soil, and environmental factors
over time and space is referred to as spatial variability. The variation in
agriculture, soil, and environmental properties across time is known as
temporal variability. Yield, soil fertility, moisture content, soil texture,
topography, plant vigor, and insect populations all show variation. This
manual covers both geographical and temporal variability. Soil texture, for
example, is a relatively stable property that changes very little over time.
Other parameters, such as nitrate levels, soil moisture content, and soil
organic matter content, can have a lot of variation in terms of both space and
time. Organic matter concentration is often low in light-colored soils, while
it is high in dark-colored soils. Precision farming entails taking soil and
crop samples in order to learn more about this variability. Many decisions,
including what, how, and when to sample, are influenced by variability.
In terms of the cost of collecting samples and analyzing them, sampling
procedures differ. The way a farmer manages money, labor, and time might
be affected by sampling frequency needs. Some agricultural inputs can be
changed depending on maps created from sampling data acquired months or
even years before application. One example of such an input is limestone,
which is used to alleviate soil pH fluctuation. Other inputs, like nitrogen
fertilization, are a function of N mineralization, which is influenced by
rapidly changing soil temperatures and moisture content. It makes sense
to utilize technology that senses and responds to variability in “real-time”

if a feature fluctuates rapidly. Whole-field management methods overlook
diversity in soil-related properties in favor of consistent use of crop
production inputs. Application controllers that allowed farmers to maintain
constant application rates across the field were once considered “state of the
art” by farmers. Constant-rate applications were frequently based on entire
field data. For example, a single composite soil sample is taken from a field
and used to create fertilizer recommendations for the entire field. However,
there are huge regions where fertilizer is under-applied and big areas
where fertilizer is over-applied when using whole-field single rate fertilizer
recommendations. Farmers can do a better job of managing inputs with
today’s technology (which can make a large difference in the profitability
of the crop).
One of the most influential elements influencing the change from whole-
field to site-specific crop management is cost. Precision farming can have an
impact on both input costs and crop revenue by:
• Increasing yields while maintaining the same level of inputs by
redistributing them.
• Getting inputs to the right places when they’re needed
• Crop quality improvement
To achieve these objectives, the farmer must first determine acceptable
objectives and tactics. Farmers should consider the following serious
questions before implementing precision farming:
• What are the geographical and temporal variations in crop, soil,
and environmental characteristics?
• Is this variation having an impact on crop productivity and/or
quality?
• Is it possible to profitably handle this variability?
• What are your immediate and long-term objectives?
• Do I have the financial means to undertake precision farming?
Agronomic Input Rationale

Fertilizers: Farmers apply around 185 million tons of nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) fertilizer to their fields every year. In the
United States, nitrogen fertilizer is applied to 97 percent of all corn acres.
Fertilizer makes up nearly a third of a typical Midwest corn grower’s total
cash production cost. As a result, being able to effectively manage input
costs can have a big impact on profits. Nutrient shortages are well known
for reducing crop growth and decreasing crop quality. Overuse of fertilizers,
on the other hand, can diminish wheat yields and sugar beet sucrose content
(Lamb et al., 2001). As decided by agronomic analysis, it is preferable to
apply the proper source of fertilizer in the right spot at the right application
rate and at the right time. The 4Rs method of nutrition management is what
it’s called. The majority of variable-rate application adoption has occurred
in the fertilizer application sector thus far. Today’s fertilizer applicators may
apply a wide range of fertilizer product combinations across the field. As the
applicator moves across the field, combinations can be altered “on-the-fly.”
The machine operator just maintains a constant pace while driving a suitable
pattern through the field. The applicator can feature a guiding system that
prompts the driver to the right or left if necessary, and it can also prompt
the driver to change speed if necessary. Some navigation systems can even
control the steering of the vehicle. It is possible to maintain correct swaths
while moving through the field at rates of 15 miles per hour or greater with
guidance devices.
Pesticides: Farmers in the United States spend more than $12 billion
each year on agricultural pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides,
which they apply themselves. Herbicides are applied to 98% of all corn
and soybean acres in the United States. Pesticides applied incorrectly might
have detrimental consequences throughout the crop growing season and
beyond. Pest control is poor if application rates are too low. Pesticides can be
hazardous to crops, continue over to subsequent growing seasons, and wind
up in the ground or surface water if application rates are too high. Variable-
rate pesticide spraying is a relatively new concept that has the potential to
save considerable amounts of money while also reducing the risk of crop
and environmental damage. Variable-rate technologies have been reported to
reduce application rates by 50% or more. A substantial amount of pesticide
can be saved if a pesticide is sprayed solely on weed targets in a field rather
than being spread on all plants and between rows of plants.
Seeds: The invention and widespread usage of high-yielding cultivars
can be ascribed, at least in part, to the large increases in crop production in the
United States over the twentieth century. In the early 1900s, one American
farm laborer could feed and clothe eight people. Ever-improving crop types,
along with the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and enhanced field
technology, today allow a single American farmer to feed and clothe over
140 people. Improved water uses efficiency, the development of transgenic
crops, and the production of plant cultivars that allow fertilizer rates to be
raised have all been connected to genetic advancements (Clay et al., 2014;
Lee et al., 2014). It is now possible to precisely distribute seeds and to
modify cultivars and seeding rates to match pests and yield potential.
SOME DRIVERS FOR PA

In agriculture, new technologies are rarely adopted immediately. Despite
the fact that significant effort is put into encouraging users to adopt new
ICT tools, adoption is a complex activity that is influenced by a variety
of circumstances. Precision Agriculture is a relatively new idea of farm
management that was created in the mid-1980s, and the term “technology”
in this study refers to the entire range of instruments available for PA
management (also called Precision Farming). The PA framework is based
on the concept of fit between variables. As a result, PA allows you to do the
right thing at the right time, in the right location, and in the right way. As
a result, PA’s applicability is based on the use of technology to detect and
decide what is “correct.”
PA Drivers of Adoption – Ex-Post:

Farm size; cost reduction or higher revenues to achieve a positive benefit/
cost ratio; total income; land tenure; farmers’ education; familiarity with
computers; access to information (via extension services, service providers,
technology sellers); location were identified as the most important factors
influencing the adoption of PA technologies in the relevant literature. The
typical PA adopter is portrayed as a well-educated farmer who owns a larger
farm with good soil quality and wants to employ more profitable agricultural
practices in order to cope with rising competitive pressures. Although he
is already comfortable with the use of computers, the adopter sees the
benefits of PA in terms of profitability and prefers to hire advisors. The most
frequently mentioned factor influencing the adoption of new PA technology
is farm size. A farm is considered “large” if its total cultivable area exceeds
500 hectares, demonstrating the economies of scale associated with the use
of PA technology (the bigger the size, the greater is the intention to purchase
PA technologies). Adopters’ confidence in computers, according to the
papers reviewed, is the second most important factor influencing technology
adoption. This element encapsulates the farmer’s technological abilities,
which are often acquired from prior experiences with other PA equipment.
Figure 1: Issues affecting the adoption of PA management.
Source: Shannon et al., (2020).
Steps in Precision Farming

The basic steps in precision farming are:
• Assessing variation
• Managing variation and
• Evaluation
We can control the unpredictability that makes precision agriculture
viable by using current technologies to identify the variability and providing
site-specific agronomic suggestions. Finally, any precision farming system
must include evaluation as a component.
Assessing Variability: The first step in precision farming is to assess
variability. It is obvious that one cannot manage what one does not understand,
because the factors and processes that regulate or control crop yield vary
in area and time. Precision agriculture faces a problem in quantifying the
variability of various components and processes, as well as establishing when
and where different combinations are responsible for spatial and temporal
variation in crop output. Techniques for measuring spatial variability are
widely available and have been used in precision agriculture extensively.

Precision agriculture is primarily concerned with analyzing geographical
variability. Although there are techniques for analyzing temporal variability,
it is uncommon to report both spatial and temporal variations at the same
time. Both spatial and temporal statistics are required. We can see crop yield
fluctuation in space, but we can’t forecast the causes of the variability. It
requires observations of crop growth and development over the course of
the growing season, which is nothing more than a variation in time. As a
result, in order to use precision agricultural techniques, we need both space
and time statistics. However, this isn’t true of all the variables and factors
that influence crop output. Some variables are produced more in space
than in time, making them more suitable for current precision management
techniques. Accessing Variability entails the following steps:
• Surveys: Data from the farm is collected as part of surveys. On
the farm, various types of data are collected. Crop data is used in
planting for things like planting rate and depth control, as well
as in zone mapping for application control. In-field monitoring
with vehicles like unmanned aerial systems captures data from
thousands of photos during crop management. Data, such as site-
specific yield maps, can be utilized to manage harvest during
harvest. Farmers and ranchers, as well as individuals who assist
them in making production decisions, will benefit from the
information. However, the information is useful to a variety of
other organizations, including farmers, cooperatives, and others
that support, service, and invest in agriculture. There are now
problems with data rights.
• Interpolation of point samples: Interpolation is a method of
constructing (finding) new data points based on the range of a
discrete set of known data points, and it is a sort of estimation.
Yield maps have become more economically available to farmers
as a result of technology advancements in PA, as they can be
generated quickly after harvesting with a yield monitor fitted
combine. Soil qualities, fertilizer rates, topographical attributes,
meteorological conditions, and the occurrence of pest and disease
infestations are all factors that affect yield maps. For the goal
of assessing in-field spatial variability and crop management
decisions, a yield map can be used alone or in combination with
other spatial features.
• High-resolution sensing: Precision agriculture is a data-driven

field that collects information in order to measure, describe,
quantify, comprehend, and evaluate agro-systems. A variety
of measurement devices have been developed to measure
agronomic characteristics of interest, such as weed detection and
soil physio-chemical parameters, ranging from plant vegetation
status to crop yield. On production systems, these increasingly
advanced systems allow for the acquisition of information at
finer and finer resolutions. Data resolution is frequently used as a
measure for service quality or performance, but what does work
with increasingly higher resolution data imply?
• Modeling: The information-intensive nature of PA practically
begs for the employment of process-level computer simulation
models of crop growth and production. They may be used to
help create an understanding of the past, and they can be used to
predict the consequences of precision agriculture suggestions in
the future.
Managing Variability: Once variation has been effectively identified,
farmers must use management strategies to match agronomic inputs to
known circumstances. These are site-specific and employ precise application
control devices. We can make the best use of technology. We can employ
GPS instruments to regulate site-specific variability so that site-specificity
is pronounced, and management is simple and cost-effective. We must
record the sample location coordinates while gathering soil/plant samples
so that we can use them for management. This leads to efficient utilization of
resources and avoidance of waste, which is exactly what we want. Accuracy
soil fertility management is an appealing but mainly unproven alternative
to uniform field management due to the possibility of better precision in
soil fertility management combined with higher precision in application
control. Within-field variability must exist and be precisely identified and
reliably interpreted for precision soil fertility management to be successful.
This variability impacts crop output, crop quality, and the environment.
As a result, inputs can be applied precisely. The greater the capacity for
precise management and the bigger the potential value of a manageable soil
attribute, the higher its spatial dependence. The difficulty level, on the other
hand, rises when the temporal component of geographical variability rises.
When this concept is applied to soil fertility, it appears that phosphorus and
potassium fertility are well suited to precision control due to low temporal
variability. In other circumstances, the temporal component of variability
in N can be greater than the geographical component, making precision
N management much more challenging. Managing Variability entails the
following steps:
• Soil fertility management that is precise
• Pest control that is precise
• Management of the crop
• Management of water resources
• Management of the soil
Evaluation: There are three important issues regarding precision
agriculture evaluation.
• Economics
• Environment and
• Technology transfer
The most crucial aspect to remember when analyzing precision
agricultural profitability is that the value comes from the use of data, not
from the use of technology. Precision agriculture is frequently justified by
potential gains in environmental quality. Reduced pesticide use, higher
fertilizer use efficiencies, increased controlled input efficiency, and
increased soil productivity from deterioration are all regularly mentioned as
potential environmental benefits. Precision agriculture can be made possible
by enabling technologies; it can also be made applicable by agronomic
principles and decision rules, and lucrative by increased production efficiency
or other types of value. Precision agriculture may occur when individuals
or businesses simply purchase and apply the enabling technologies, as the
phrase technology transfer implies. While precision agriculture does entail
the use of enabling technologies and agronomic principles to control spatial
and temporal variability, the word ‘manage’ is crucial. Much of the effort in
the field of “technology transfer” has been on how to interact with farmers. As
precision agriculture develops, concerns such as the operator’s managerial
skill, the spatial distribution of infrastructure, and the compatibility of
technology with farms will change dramatically (Pierce and Nowak 1999).
Figure 2: Steps in PA.
Source: Swamidason et al., (2022).
OPPORTUNITIES IN PRECISION FARMING

Until and unless a technology advancement is marketed for widespread usage
as a service mode, it does not provide a complete answer for the user. The
surge in interest in PA and its implementation has created a chasm between
technology capabilities and scientific knowledge of the link between inputs
and outputs. PA’s development has mostly been driven by the market, but
further expansion will necessitate coordination between the commercial
and public sectors. Market development, product credibility, and consumer
pleasure are all responsibilities that must be assumed by the private sector
(Mandal and Ghosh, 2000). The public sector, on the other hand, must
coordinate the actions involved in establishing and implementing PA by
providing support programs in order to achieve the goals. End-users must be
able to transmit and adopt technology, which necessitates collaboration across
government, academic, and corporate sectors. The technology’s promise has
previously been proved, but in practice, substantial delivery is challenging
because the benefits require large-scale commercial implementation.
ISSUES CONFRONTING PRECISION FARMING

Precision farming is a new breakthrough in today’s space, electronics, and
information technology that has a lot of potential for increasing agricultural
production and resource utilization. There are some challenges that require
more attention, research, and development to produce the greatest results in
the sector. The following are the issues (Mandal and Ghosh, 2000):
Area coverage and data management: There must be a clear
separation between area coverage, data collection, calibration, correction,
documentation, and integration for the supplier and user’s management
strategy. Because soil and crop factors change over time, repeated coverage
with remote sensing (RS) platforms is required for accurate data, and these
can be used in conjunction with management units to assess problems and
provide the most effective management solution. Geometric calibration,
correction, and registration of various RS data products require algorithmic
analysis.
Scale bias: In Precision Farming, this is a serious concern. Larger
farms can implement it and get greater benefits. To have a comprehensive
knowledge of the bias, the comparative technological benefit, and limitations
of PF over small and big holdings must be tested.
Infrastructure: Not only will technological advances benefit farmers,
but accompanying infrastructure is also required to permit data processing,
storage, accessibility, and timely product delivery at both the user and supplier
levels. The construction of an access and monitoring system will necessitate
a significant investment. Information technology, such as networks, must be
substantially developed before being distributed to end-users. To continue
developing this technology, there is a strong need to participate in impact
assessments for both long-term and short-term planning.
Ownership and privacy: As data is integrated with other entities,
altered, analyzed, and processed, these difficulties get more complicated.
Intellectual property rights (IPR) difficulties are not unique to the farming
system because they are new to it and add to the misunderstanding over
ownership and other associated issues. These underlying challenges, as well
as how to secure data ownership and privacy, must be addressed.
CHAPTER 2
TECHNOLOGIES IN PRECISION
AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
Overview.................................................................................................. 22
Global Positioning System (GPS) Receivers............................................... 23
Geographic Information Systems.............................................................. 32
Remote Sensing........................................................................................ 43
Mobile Devices and Precision Agriculture................................................ 59
Internet of Things (IOT) in Precision Agriculture........................................ 70
Robotics and PA....................................................................................... 78
OVERVIEW
Precision agriculture is an agricultural management approach based on
crop variability being seen, measured, and responded to. These variables
contain numerous components that can be difficult to compute, and as a
result, technology has progressed to overcome these challenges. Precision
agriculture uses two sorts of technology: those that ensure accuracy and
those that are designed to improve farming operations. Farmers can develop
a decision support system for their entire enterprise by combining these two
technologies, maximizing profitability while limiting unnecessary resource
use. Producers can become better stewards of the soil by adding nutrient best
management practices into their agricultural operation when using precision
agriculture technologies.
Tools to ensure that the following are accurate:
• Metering of inputs
• Placement of inputs
• Timing of inputs (influenced by environment)
Tools to enhance:
• Nutrient management planning and field execution
• Field documentation/verification
• Record keeping
Table 1: Some examples of PA technologies
Technology Example and Benefit Description

Guidance Systems There are two basic categories of guidance prod-
• Reduce overlap ucts: lightbar/visual guidance and autoguidance.
• Accurate placement of For lightbar/visual guidance, the operator responds
inputs to visual cues to steer the equipment based on
• Preserve conservation positional information provided by a GPS. For
structures auto-guidance, the driver makes the initial steering
decisions and turns the equipment toward the fol-
lowing pass prior to engaging the auto-guidance
mechanism.
Variable Rate Technology VRT consists of the machines and systems for ap-
• Accurate metering of plying a desired rate of crop production materials
inputs at a specific time (and, by implication, a specific
• Accurate placement of location); a system of sensors, controllers and ag-
inputs ricultural machinery used to perform variable-rate
• Preserve conservation applications of crop production inputs.
structures
Technologies in Precision Agriculture 23
Automatic Section Control Turns application equipment OFF in areas that

• Reduce overlap have been previously covered, or ON and OFF
• Accurate placement of at headland turns, point rows, terraces, and/or
inputs no-spray zones such as grass waterways. Sections
• Preservation of conserva- of a boom or planter or individual nozzles/rows
tion structures may be controlled.
Crop Sensors/Remote Sensing Sensor technology refers to on-the-go optical

• Accurate timing sensors used to measure crop status. These sen-
• Accurate placement of sors utilize an active LED light source to measure
inputs NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetative Index)
• Preserver conservation to predict crop yield potential. NDVI values reflect
structures the health or “greenness” of a crop and can also
provide a relative biomass measurement. Data col-
lected from these sensors are being used to direct
variable rate nitrogen applications in grain
crops and plant growth regulators and defoli-
ants in cotton.
Yield Monitoring/Mapping A yield-measuring device installed on harvest ma-
• Determine the right chines. Yield monitors measure grain flow, grain
amount, timing, and source moisture, and other parameters for real-time
• Siting of new conservation information relating to field productivity.
structures
Source: fabe.osu.edu
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) RECEIVERS
Introduction
Receivers for the Global Positioning System (GPS) give a technique for
determining one’s location anywhere on the planet. Farmers and agricultural
service providers can use accurate, automated location tracking with GPS
receivers to automatically record data and apply varying rates of inputs
to smaller areas within bigger fields. A GPS receiver is comparable to a
standard AM or FM radio. A GPS receiver “listens” for signals transmitted
by the Global Positioning System satellites of the United States Department
of Defense (DOD). These satellites orbit the planet at a height of 12,550
miles and are in predictable places; thus, the system of satellites is referred
to as the GPS constellation. Each satellite transmits almanac data, which
includes the constellation’s satellite positions. The almanac is used by
GPS receivers to determine satellite position. Minor deviations in satellite
orbits are caused by gravitational influences from the sun and moon. The
Department of Defense regularly monitors the satellites and modifies the

almanac data to reflect the satellites’ real orbits. The broadcast signals also
include a precisely timed predictable code that a GPS receiver may use to
calculate the time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver. A GPS receiver’s
CPU utilizes these delays and the satellite’s position to calculate the distance
to each satellite, which it then uses to estimate location via triangulation. A
mathematical method for identifying points on a plane in three-dimensional
space is triangulation. The GPS receiver can calculate its terrestrial position
if the distances to each of the three satellites and your approximate location
on the planet are known. Elevation can also be computed if data from four
satellites are available.
Range Determination Factors

Each GPS satellite transmits two radio signals on separate L-band frequencies
indefinitely (the L band is from 1,000 to 2,000 MHz). A Course/Acquisition
(C/A) code and a Precision (P) code are carried on the L1 signal (broadcast
at 1575.42 MHz). The P code is encrypted in the L2 signal (broadcast at
1227.60 MHz) and may only be decoded by military and other “approved”
receivers. The Precise Positioning Service (PPS), which uses both the
L1 and L2 signals and accompanying P codes, is available to the US and
allied military, US government agencies, and authorized civilian users. The
Standard Positioning Service, which is available to all civilians, accesses
only the L1 signal and the C/A code.
Accuracy
The accuracy obtained generally depends on five factors:
• proper installation,
• the degree of technology used in the receiver,
• the number and location of satellites,
• errors introduced by selective availability (SA), atmospheric
conditions, the troposphere, the ionosphere, and multipathing —
radio signals bouncing off objects in the area, and
• differential corrections.
The accuracy of GPS units can be expressed in a variety of statistical
measures, with no indication of which one is utilized. Position errors are
assumed to be random and follow a normal distribution in most statistical
definitions of GPS accuracy. The Circular Error Probable (CEP) is one way
to assess accuracy. This word refers to estimates of horizontal location. A
CEP of 1 meter means that half of the position estimations will be within
1 meter of the actual position, while the other half could be anywhere in
the universe. The RMS (sometimes known as one sigma) and 2DRMS are
two often used accuracy terms (also known as two sigma). The root mean
square, abbreviated RMS, is roughly equal to the standard deviation (SD).
If the calculated positions were regularly distributed around the genuine
position, 68 percent would be within one standard deviation of the true
position and 95 percent would be within two standard deviations (2DRMS).
Make sure that the accuracies of GPS units are specified in the same words
when comparing them (CEP, RMS or 2 DRMS).
Table 2: RMS statistics of the positioning accuracy for diﬀerent STDGG errors.
Average satellite STDGG error East (m) North (m) Up (m)

number (ns)
9 GPS+4 GLO 0 1.032 2.640 3.550
15 1.121 2.764 3.857
30 1.227 2.915 4.189
45 1.338 3.078 4.521
4 GPS+3 GLO 0 3.683 5.895 10.527
15 4.679 7.476 12.249
30 6.146 9.687 15.634
45 7.763 12.102 19.709
3 GPS+1 GLO 0 10.359 16.854 22.471
15 13.308 21.250 28.727
30 17.610 27.936 37.875
45 22.502 35.647 48.300
Source: Cai & Gao, (2009).

Installation: GPS antennae should be installed on the centerline of a
combine, tractor, or truck, and above any element of the machinery that
could obscure a satellite’s line of sight. A cab-top mounting may be the
best option if the cab is centered, and the top of the cab is above other
parts of the machine. On a steep side slope, however, a high mounting
point will cause a calculation error due to the offset in a horizontal position.
Although GPS and DGPS receivers may have distinct antennas, most use a
combined antenna to keep both centered at the same position. In agricultural
applications such as yield monitoring, spraying, and fertilizer application, a
delay of several seconds is common. Example: If the antenna on a 10-mph

sprayer is located 30 feet ahead of the booms and a rate change is made at
the controller two seconds later, the rate change will occur when the booms
reach the antenna where the change was made. The rate change at the booms
will not occur at the same point as the controller at any other ground speed.
To compensate for time delays in sensing or product application, a time
adjustment must normally be built into the system. Storms, power lines,
2-way radios, neighboring radio transmitters, electric motors, microwave
towers, cellular phones, automobile electrical equipment such as alternators
and ignition systems on spark-ignition engines, and other sources can cause
electrical interference. Altering the antenna’s location or installing noise
reduction kits can help reduce interference from alternators and ignition
systems. Follow the GPS device installation instructions carefully, ensuring
sure that all connections are secure.
Technology: Low-cost receivers only receive signals from one satellite
at a time, which takes longer to calculate the location than a receiver that can
receive four signals at once. At any given time, seven to ten satellites are in
view, and more sophisticated receivers produce the most exact location. The
time it takes to re-establish an accurate position fix following a brief loss of
satellite signals; this can happen for a variety of reasons, including moving
near trees or buildings and losing ‘line of sight’ to satellites. For most
agricultural applications, especially guiding with applicators and airplanes,
reacquisition time is critical. The time it takes to re-acquire a GPS signal has
been reduced thanks to new technologies in GPS receivers. Receivers that
can follow 8-12 satellites are less likely to lose track of them.
Satellite constellations: Slight inaccuracies in distance might result
in big errors in position when using triangulation to calculate the position.
When the satellites are close together, the error in estimating position by
triangulation increases. When a receiver can pick up signals from many
widely separated satellites, the best accuracy is achieved.
Selective availability and other errors: To prevent an adversary from
exploiting GPS satellite signals to determine the location on Earth, the
Department of Defense “scrambles” the signals enough to cause a 100-meter
inaccuracy in an uncorrected location computation. This is referred to as
“selective availability” (SA). Atmospheric, tropospheric, and ionospheric
circumstances, on the other hand, can induce distortions or errors in distance
calculation; natural errors caused by these factors are difficult to forecast. As
a result, even in the absence of SA, differential corrections will be required
to calculate position appropriately. Signals that bounce off other objects

before reaching the antenna generate multipathing, a phenomenon that
causes distorted television signals. Differential corrections cannot correct
multipathing.
Differential corrections: The overall inaccuracy owing to SA, fluctuating
air conditions, and other factors is calculated using stationary GPS sensors.
The principle is straightforward. The true range (distance) of a stationary
receiver is always known since the actual positions of the satellite and the
receiver are known. The pseudo-range is the distance determined by the
receiver utilizing broadcast signals, which is usually inaccurate due to the
combined causes of all faults. The differential correction is the difference
between the genuine range and the pseudo-range, which is known as the
error. Differential correction data can be purchased and used afterward to
repair faults in recorded data in a process known as post processing. The
most popular method for providing real-time corrections is to connect a
differential corrections receiver to a GPS receiver. Many units combine GPS
and differential corrections receivers into a single device. Differentially
corrected GPS (DGPS) receivers are what they’re called. Differential
corrections signals can be obtained from the Coast Guard or the Army
Corps of Engineers, as well as from commercial providers that will provide
signals from a satellite or a land-based tower for a fee. A private differential
corrections source can be deployed where these sources aren’t available, or
for unique applications. Some of the more recent DGPS receivers have the
capacity to receive differential signals from both Coast Guard beacons and
a satellite service.
Figure 3: Illustration of good vs poor satellite geometry.
Source: Haque, (2003).

Coast Guard signals: The Coast Guard signals are broadcast in the 285-
325 kHz frequency range (just below AM radio), where radio waves move
as ground waves and are not confined to line-of-sight reception like FM
radio stations. The signals are a series of pulses that are comparable to those
transmitted by GPS satellites. The signal is less susceptible to electrical
interference and noise than AM-radios and is known as Minimum Shift
Keying modulation. Correction signals from Coast Guard beacons near
St. Louis (@ 322 KHz), Kansas City (@ 305 KHz), Tulsa (@ 299 KHz),
Rock Island (@ 311 KHz), Memphis (@ 310 KHz), and Omaha (@ 298
KHz) are available for free throughout Missouri. In excellent weather, the
Coast Guard beacons have a range of about 150 miles (electrical storms
cause interference). With increasing distance from the transmitter, accuracy
decreases. Many agricultural users are expected to choose this service,
particularly in Missouri, where many signals are available. The rate at which
the Coast Guard differential corrections signal transmits, or repeats signals
is a drawback. The majority of Coast Guard installations broadcast at a bit
rate of 200 bits per second. The age of a satellite’s differential correction can
be as ancient as four seconds at this broad-cast pace. This update pace may
be unacceptable for some purposes, such as advice. Update rates of two to
ten times per second may be required for guiding applications. There are two
channels on most Coast Guard beacon receivers. The differential correction
is received by one channel, while the other searches for the best incoming
signal. If at least two beacons are within range, this helps to prevent the loss
of a DGPS signal.
Satellite-based correction signals: A geostationary satellite transmits
one of the most basic types of differential corrections signals to the user. This
service is provided by companies including Omnistar, Accqpoint, and Racal.
The average annual user charge is between $500 and $800. Throughout
much of North America, the corrective signal is available. High-quality
receivers are generally thought to have an accuracy of one to three meters
RMS (refer to accuracy table 2 and 3). Man-made sources of interference
are negligible. Because the satellite is nearly overhead at most places and
within the line-of-sight of the DGPS receiver, satellite-based signals may
have an advantage for operation around trees and buildings.
Figure 4: A stationary receiver (base station).
Source: Deere and Company

Land-based correction signals: For a price, several commercial land-based
rectification signal systems are also available. Sat-Loc, Mobile Data, and CSI
are among the companies that have installed their own transmitters to broadcast
correction signals. Correction signals are piggybacked onto commercial FM
radio station transmitters by some commercial service providers. Pinpoint
Communications, DCI, and other sub-carriers are among them.
Private GPS receiver and radio transmitter: GPS users who are not
covered by the Coast Guard or commercial sources of differential corrections
can set up a stationary receiver and transmitter to serve as their own source
of differential corrections. Because the Midwest has other options, few users
in Missouri will choose to buy and install their own fixed GPS receiver and
transmitter.
Cost vs. Accuracy

The accuracy of GPS depends in part on how much money you’re willing
to invest, which can range from $100 to $100,000. For some crop scouting
applications, navigating roads, or locating your favorite fishing site on a lake,
a low-cost (from $100 to $500) GPS receiver without DGPS technology
may be sufficient. The RMS horizontal accuracy could be about 50 yards.
A simple DGPS receiver with RMS accuracy of at least three meters and a
typical precision of one meter, which is acceptable for yield monitoring and
grid soil sampling, costs about $3,000 to $5,000. It could cost up to $25,000
to use a GPS receiver for guidance (for spraying, fertilizer application, etc.).
These systems have an accuracy of a few inches. Because sprayers and
fertilizer spreaders travel swiftly, lower-quality GPS technology may not
be able to update location quickly enough for guiding or control, while GPS
systems with high update rates and accuracies of one foot or less are becoming
more affordable. The cost of several differential correction services varies
depending on the degree of service (accuracy). Some suppliers give three
tiers of service, for example, a premium service for accuracy greater than 1
meter, an intermediate service for accuracies between 5 and 10 meters, and
a basic service for accuracies between 10 meters. Depending on the level of
service, typical annual costs could be $600, $250, or $75, respectively.
Coordinate Systems
For mapping, several coordinate systems are used, which may pose software
system compatibility issues. Users frequently need to convert position
data into a plane (flat) coordinate system to merge it with another data set,
produce a map of GPS results, or do additional computations for metrics
like area, distance, or direction (plane coordinate systems are usually easier
to work with than geodetic coordinates). Coordinates must be based on the
same datum when using data and maps from several sources. The changes
in coordinate systems produced by a different reference frame, ellipsoid,
and data modification are significant (up to several hundred meters) and
must be considered. Several commercially available software products from
well-known GIS suppliers wrongly handle coordinate shifts. The National
Geodetic Survey offers software (LEFTI and NADCON) to calculate datum
shifts for a fee. Before being digitized, boundary coordinates on older
paper copies of soil maps should be translated to the chosen datum (usually
WGS84). In most cases, GPS receivers can report position data in multiple
formats. The most widely used format is lat/lon (latitude and longitude).
Degrees, minutes, and seconds are used to represent lat/lon coordinates. A
second of latitude is approximately 30 meters. Latitude and longitude can
be displayed in degrees plus minutes to four decimal places on GPS devices
(instead of minutes and seconds). Most geographic information system (GIS)
software can work with many formats and can convert lat/lon coordinates
to a coordinate system like Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) or State
Plane Coordinates (SPC) to calculate distances in meters or feet.
Figure 5: Illustration of real-time DGPS.
Source: Deere and company

UTM and SPC systems project sections of the earth’s curving surface
onto a flat map and report positions in meters and feet, respectively, as real
distances from a reference point. As a result, no conversions are required
when calculating distance or area. UTM or state plane coordinates can be
computed from GPS data using commercial software available from multiple
GPS providers. These coordinates are normally in the NAD-83 system and
are based on the WGS-84 datum. If they must be converted to NAD-27,
it is best to perform the NAD-83 to NAD-27 transformation in geodetic
coordinates first, followed by the conversion to plane coordinates.
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: The UTM coordinate
system was first introduced by the United States military in 1947 and has
subsequently been widely adopted by civilian mapping in many countries.
The UTM system is globally consistent, and a single set of equations can
be used to calculate coordinates at every place. The earth is divided into 60
zones, each of which spans 6 degrees of longitude and extends north and
south from south 84 degrees to north 84 degrees of latitude.
State plane coordinate system: The United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey created a plane coordinate system for each of the 48 states in the
1930s. A Lambert Conformal or a Traverse Mercator projection was used
to create one to five zones in each state. The projection and size of the zone
were chosen to fit the state’s shape and keep distortions to less than one part
in 10,000.
The Global Positioning System and GPS receivers work together

to allow users to determine their location anywhere on the planet. GPS,
which was developed by the US Department of Defense and is now utilized
for a variety of applications, has also made precision farming a reality. A
GPS receiver and antenna, a differential corrections receiver and antenna,
and cables to interface differentially corrected GPS data from the receiver
to other electronic equipment such as a yield monitor or a variable rate
controller are typical configurations for on-farm agricultural applications.
When installed and operated properly, GPS can offer accurate position
data, but it can also produce misleading readings in poor situations. When
comparing the performance characteristics of different receivers, use similar
statistical measurements. Few, if any, receivers will produce 100 percent
accurate position predictions. Even in the absence of selective availability
(SA), differential adjustments receivers are required to account for other
sources of error to offer the precision required for precision farming.
Table 3: Comparison of Coast Guard and satellite differential correction sourc-

es by feature
Feature Coast Guard beacon Satellite Differential

Accuracy (RMS) <1 m (depends on the <0.75 m uniform over service
distance from area beacon depends on the service
station) provider.
Initial equipment cost lower initial cost higher initial cost
Annual subscription cost none in the USA but signal available $500 to $1000 per
not in many regions of the year, depending on the level
US of service
Interference susceptibility subject to local man-made minimal interference from
noise sources man-made sources
Range 100 to 250 miles large coverage area
- most of the US
Source: Pfost ET AL., (1998).
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Overview
Geographic information systems (GISs) had their roots in the mid-
1960s. Following the lead of Babbage and others, early computers were
largely designed for numerical processing. Other uses, aided in part by
the development of specialist peripherals, such as pen plotters and map

digitizers, began to emerge by 1965. Around this time, the Canada Land
Inventory was confronted with a significant map data processing problem:
how to take the massive number of maps created to chronicle Canada’s
underutilized land resource and turn them into tables of land accessible for
various forms of development and usage. When measuring area from maps
by hand, it was usually time-consuming, boring, and inaccurate. However,
if the maps could be transferred to digital format, simple algorithms might
be used to electronically measure and tabulate areas. As a result, the Canada
Geographic Information System (CGIS) was created in answer to a specific
requirement. Commercial GISs began to arise in the 1980s, delivering a wide
range of functions that were too complex, tedious, inaccurate, or expensive
for humans to execute by hand in various ways. Rudimentary area and
length measurements, data format changes, simple statistical analyses such
as the computation of averages and standard deviations, and a slew of more
complex and sophisticated procedures collectively known as spatial analysis
were among them. In addition, GISs were given additional data display
capabilities, such as mapping and numerous forms of data visualization.
The scientific community quickly recognized GIS’s promise, and it became
a vital tool for research in any discipline dealing with the Earth’s surface
or near-surface during the 1980s and 1990s. Archaeologists were among
the first to use the technology in the social sciences, but political scientists,
criminologists, demographers, and epidemiologists were all early adopters.
Figure 6: Use of GIS in Agriculture.
Source: https://smallfarms.cornell.edu
GIS has changed dramatically because of new applications that go well

beyond the early concept of a digital assistant handling activities that people
find challenging. By 1995, the introduction of the Internet and the World
Wide Web had caused a significant shift in perspective, with GIS being seen
as a tool for exchanging information amongst individuals in addition to its
more traditional use. Many websites were built, offering to give visitors
geographic data sets, build maps on demand, or conduct simple GIS services
according to user specifications, all using data provided by the user or
the site. Spatial analysis has been reinterpreted as a set of procedures by
which one person adds value to information by making visible what could
otherwise be invisible to another person, therefore enhancing the message.
The promise of GIS is no longer confined to the office but is now carried into
the field in the form of portable and wearable devices thanks to technological
advancements. Wireless connectivity is available for downloading and
uploading data to and from Internet sites, and portable devices have the
power to support almost any GIS function. Field GIS has the potential to
transform the nature and practice of field work in social surveys and other
field-based social science.
GIS Representation
A GIS is based on a representation system in which real-world features are
encoded in the digital computer’s binary alphabet. GIS representations of
real-world features often include three aspects: their locations on the Earth’s
surface, using a handy coordinate system like latitude and longitude; their
attributes, or what is known about them; and any important relationships
between them. Adjacency, such as the relationship that exists between two
neighborhoods, and connectedness, such as the links that exist between
segments of a street network, are examples of relationships. In the social
sciences, attributes provide most of the richness of a GIS depiction. Census
tracts, for example, may have a lot of descriptive attributes derived from
the census’ summary tables, such as average income or unemployment
rate. The information collected in the survey from each participant might
be stored as attributes on points reflecting the locations of individuals in a
sample survey. Two separate conceptualizations underpin the portrayal of
geographic variation. In the first one, the characteristics of the Earth’s surface
are individual things, similar to how books, pens, and coffee mugs could be
strewn about a tabletop. Discrete items can collide and there can be vacant
space between them. This discrete object view is very useful for representing
moving or persistent objects, such as individuals or cars. Depending on their

size in relation to the geographic scope of the representation, objects can
be represented as dots, lines, or regions. Polygons (sequences of points
connected by straight lines) are used to depict areas, and lines are used to
represent lines (polylines). The field view is the second. Geographic variation
is defined in this way by the continuous variation of several variables, each
of which is a function of position. Elevation, like population density, is of
this sort since it can be determined at any location on the planet’s surface.
A field of population density, in which each person is a point surrounded by
empty space, is a generalization of a discrete object view. Density estimation
is the word for this generalization process, and it is an important function of
a GIS. Field representations must also be generated from points, polylines,
and polygons, using one of six approved ways, which is a little perplexing.
Values at sample points, spread either sporadically or regularly on a grid,
can be used to represent a field. It could be represented as a collection of
non-overlapping polygons that collectively fill the space, each with the
mean value or integral of the field over the area as a property (e.g., mean
population density or total population). Polylines can also be employed if
the field variable’s isolines (contours) have been digitized. Finally, in the
triangulated irregular network model, a field can be represented as a mesh
of nonoverlapping triangles, with field values associated with each triangle
vertex and linear variation inside each triangle.
Figure 7: Six representations of a field used in GIS.
Source: Longley et al., (2005).

Both discrete object and field conceptualizations are likely to be used by

social scientists. Individual crimes, archaeological relics, and disease-related
mortality are all considered separate objects. However, aggregate variables,
such as those seen in census summary data, are more likely to be interpreted
in terms of fields averaged within reporting zones, which must follow the
requirements of a polygon-based field representation: polygons must not
overlap and must collectively exhaust the space. Crowding, ambient noise,
and topographic slope are all examples of phenomena that could be thought
of as fields.
Georeferencing
Measuring Location: A mechanism for precisely identifying the location
on the Earth’s surface is a necessary component of any GIS depiction.
Based on measurements from the Greenwich Meridian and the Equator,
the Meridian Conference of 1884 defined latitude and longitude as the
international standard for georeferencing. Unfortunately, the Earth is not a
perfect spherical, and it has been approximated by a variety of mathematical
functions over time and in various places of the world, each of which can
result in somewhat different latitude and longitude. The North American
Datums of 1983 (NAD83) are the preferred system or datum in North
America, however other data, such as the earlier NAD27 and data used in
other nations, may be encountered. All of this implies that pinpointing a
precise location is impossible, and differences of up to 200 meters on the
ground may occur between latitude and longitude calculations based on
different data. Despite the fact that modern GIS software makes it simple
to convert from one datum to another, social scientists will occasionally
confront datum variations.
Georeferencing frequently employs methods for projecting the Earth’s
curving surface onto a plane, as well as accompanying planar coordinate
systems, in addition to latitude and longitude. The Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) system, which is commonly utilized by national mapping
agencies, is one of them. UTM is made up of 60 different map projections
and coordinate systems, each of which is designed to offer accuracy within
a six-zone longitude range. Users of GIS in the United States may come
across the State Plane Coordinate systems, which are used by each state for
high-accuracy surveys; users in the United Kingdom may be aware of the
National Grid, and many other nations have national grids as well. While
map projections and the technique of flattening the Earth were necessary for
the period of paper maps, they are somewhat contradictory in a technology
based on digital representation, because nothing in a digital computer

requires flattening. Paper maps, on the other hand, remain a significant GIS
product as well as a source of input. Furthermore, the majority of social
science research is undertaken across small areas, where the distortions
created by flattening the Earth are minor and the advantages of working
in a simple rectangular coordinate system are appealing. Distance and area
are significantly easier to calculate when using planar coordinates stated in
meters rather than latitude and longitude.
Street Addresses and Place Names: Although latitude and longitude, as
well as planar coordinate systems, are useful, they are mostly inaccessible
to the typical individual, who is more likely to recall and record position
using more familiar methods, such as place names or street addresses. GIS
techniques have been created to allow for easy recognition and conversion,
thereby serving as a bridge between the hazy world of human speech and
the exact world of georeferencing. Geocoding and address matching are
two terminologies used to describe these procedures. Consider a survey of
a random sample of households where each dwelling is identified by its
street address. It is important to identify the coordinates corresponding to
each address to map the survey findings. This can be done by using one of
several street centerline data sets available, which depict streets as polylines
and include the ranges of addresses on each side of each street segment
(the stretch of a street between two adjacent intersections). The first street
centerline data sets for the United States were created in conjunction with the
census and were made available to anyone who was interested in free. The
TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing)
data set, which was first developed for the 1980 census, sparked a burgeoning
industry devoted to enhancing and exploiting the data set’s applications.
Geocoding, unfortunately, is not as simple as it appears. Specific addresses
must be interpolated between the addresses of each segment’s endpoints (for
example, in the 900 block, 951 would be just over halfway between 901 and
999), which is a dubious assumption in rural areas where street addresses
may not even exist, as well as in condominium complexes and townhouse
developments. Houses in Japan are frequently numbered according to the
date of construction rather than the order in which they appear on a street.
Even in urban areas of the United States, spelling differences, a lack of a
consistent syntax, and other issues result in automated geocoding success
rates of less than 80%, necessitating costly human intervention.
A second form of geocoding, however on a much coarser scale, is based
on place names. A gazetteer is an index that serves as the foundation for
translating place names into coordinates, and there has been a lot of interest
in these data sets in combination with information retrieval. Consider the
case where you wish to perform a study of a specific city and collect and
analyze whatever data that is available. Many large GIS data archives, such
as the Geography Network (www.geographynetwork.com), developed and
maintained by Environmental Systems Research Institute (a major GIS
software vendor), or the Alexandria Digital Library (www.alexandria.ucsb.
edu), an online map and imagery library developed by the University of
California, Santa Barbara, allow users to search for data within the archive
by starting with a place name and using the services of a gazetteer to
translate it. This reference, together with additional user-supplied criteria,
is then used to search the archive for appropriate data, which may then be
obtained, reviewed, and downloaded. Other gazetteer-based services have
also emerged; for example, geoparsing allows enormous amounts of text to
be searched for place names, which are then used to construct the geographic
context.
Visualization
GIS is a visually oriented technology that encourages users to take advantage
of the power and effectiveness of data when presented in a visual format. GIS
owes much to the legacy of cartography, the science and art of mapmaking,
and to successful efforts by cartographers to systematize the discipline. Maps
are the traditional way of visualizing geographic information, and GIS owes
much to the legacy of cartography, the science and art of mapmaking, and to
successful efforts by cartographers to systematize the discipline. Choropleth
maps, which use shading and other forms of polygon fill to identify values
of the variable of interest, are frequently used to present summary or
aggregate data connected with polygons. Point data is often represented as
symbols, with attribute values denoted by color or symbol size. Commercial
GIS software provides a wide range of mapping approaches, including field
contour or isopleth maps, as well as decorative elements like legends, north
arrows, annotation, and scale bars. However, it’s critical to understand the
underlying distinctions between GIS displays and paper maps, as well as the
benefits of digital technology over traditional approaches. To begin with,
GIS has transformed mapmaking from an expensive and time-consuming
procedure performed by a few highly educated cartographers to a quick
and inexpensive one available to everyone. Anyone with a computer, data,
and basic software can create visually appealing maps (and also misleading
maps). Second, whereas paper maps are virtually immutable once made,
GIS displays are fundamentally dynamic and interactive. GIS displays can
show changes over time or allow users to zoom in and out to see new places
or get more information. On a single screen, many displays can be produced
at the same time. Tables and maps can be linked in intriguing ways, and
maps can be exhibited alongside other types of presentation, such as tables
(e.g., clicking on a polygon in a map display can highlight the corresponding
row in a table). The phrase “exploratory spatial data analysis” was coined to
characterize the interactive investigation of GIS data using maps and other
visual representations.
Spatial Analysis
The essential power of GIS rests in its ability to analyze, whether inductively
in search of patterns and anomalies or deductively in attempts to confirm or
deny ideas based on theory. The spatial analysis tools offered in GIS are all
grouped together to emphasize the relevance of location. Spatial analysis can
be defined as a set of methodologies whose outcomes are determined by the
position of the objects of analysis. This test of locational dependence clearly
distinguishes spatial analysis approaches from more common statistical
techniques, such as regression, which remain invariant when the objects of
analysis are relocated. As a result, GIS can be thought of as a technology
that makes spatial analysis easier, similar to how statistical packages make
statistical analysis easier and word processors make writing easier. Since
the 1950s, a plethora of spatial analytic approaches has been developed for
detecting patterns and anomalies as well as evaluating ideas. Many texts,
such as Bailey and Gartrell’s, categorize spatial analysis techniques based
on the types of data they are intended to analyze approaches for analyzing
point patterns or polygon data, for example. Longley et al. adopted a
somewhat different technique depending on the analytic objectives in 2001,
and this approach is followed in this brief study. Readers who are interested
are directed to that source’s more detailed commentary.
Query
Users can use interactive displays to find answers to simple questions like
“What are the attributes of this object?” and “Where are the objects with
this attribute value?” Some questions can be best answered by interacting
with a map view and pointing to interesting objects. Other questions can be
better answered by interacting with a table view and scanning the table for
items whose properties meet specific criteria. A histogram view is useful
for locating objects with attribute values that fall within specified ranges,
while a scatterplot view allows for object selection based on comparisons of
pairs of characteristics. Finally, a catalog view allows the user to go over the
contents of the various data sets that make up a GIS project.
Measurement
The relevance of area measuring in the creation of CGIS was highlighted in a
previous discussion of the beginnings of GIS. Distance, length, terrain slope
and aspect, and polygon shape are just a few of the elementary measures
offered by GIS. Measurements are often returned as additional properties of
objects, which can then be summed up or utilized as input for more complex
analysis.
Transformation
For the objective of altering items, and creating new objects with new
qualities or relationships, many spatial analysis approaches exist. The
buffer procedure, which is employed in spatial proximity analysis, creates
new polygons containing areas falling within a defined distance of existing
objects. The point in polygon operation detects which of a set of polygons
contains each of a set of points and is used in crime or illness analysis to
summarize point data by area. Polygon overlay determines where polygons
overlap and is frequently used by social scientists to estimate summary
statistics for new areas that do not correspond to reporting zones (e.g.,
to estimate populations of communities whose boundaries do not respect
census zone boundaries). Density estimation fits into this category as well,
because it converts point data sets into continuous field representations.
Summary Statistics
Computing statistics that summarize many important aspects of GIS data
sets are frequently used to search for patterns. The mean is a useful two-
dimensional equivalent of the center of a point data set, and dispersion is
a good two-dimensional equivalent of the standard deviation. The degree
of order in the geographic arrangement of high and low values of an
attribute is determined using spatial dependence measures. For example,
unemployment rates by census tract may be heavily clustered, with nearby
tracts having similar high or low values, or they may be ordered practically
independently, or adjacent tracts may have values that are more varied than
predicted in a random arrangement.
Optimization
To find solutions that optimize specific objectives, a variety of methodologies
have been developed. These include methods for locating point sites for
services such as libraries or retail establishments, determining the best
routes via street networks to save time or money, locating power lines or
highways across the terrain, and creating optimal land use arrangements.
These techniques are frequently included in geographical decision support
systems and supported by GIS software.
Hypothesis Testing
The sixth class includes methods for reasoning from a sample to the
features of a larger population using statistical inference ideas. In science,
the inference is well established, and numerical results are frequently
subjected to significance tests to assess if differences or effects may have
arisen by chance due to a small sample size or are actually indicative of
effects in the entire population. It’s tempting to use statistical inference to
deal with spatial data, but there are a few issues to consider. For starters,
geographic data sets are frequently compiled from all available information
in a given area, making it difficult to trust that the data are indicative of a
larger universe and that the conclusions can be generalized. Instead, one is
more likely to believe in spatial heterogeneity, or the variation of conditions
from place to place; in this case, it is difficult to consider a research area
to be representative of any broader area. Second, geographic data sets are
prone to spatial dependence, which means that the qualities of one object are
unlikely to be really independent of those of its neighbors. The First Law
of Geography, which is typically attributed to Waldo Tobler, describes the
endemic existence of spatial dependency in geographic data. This problem
can be solved in a number of ways. First, objects may be spaced far enough
apart to allow for the assumption of independence, but this would result
in data being discarded. Second, one might limit analysis to a description
of the data and research region, avoiding any inferences about wider areas
or other data sets, although this goes against scientific tradition and peer
review norms. Third, if the actual geographic arrangement of the data is the
subject of interest, one can assume that the universe consists of all potential
spatial configurations of the data, in a type of randomization. However,
while appealing, this approach does not support inference in places where
the data is not available.
Issues
As you can see from the preceding section, the use of GIS raises a number
of questions about the nature of geographic data and inference from cross-
sectional data. It is well acknowledged that cross-sectional data cannot be
used to confirm process hypotheses, but they can be used to reject erroneous
assumptions and examine data in the aim of hypothesis formation. Although
GIS has progressed from the static perspective of paper maps, there is a
lot of interest in incorporating dynamics and developing spatiotemporal
analysis approaches. Uncertainty is a common problem in GIS. It is
impossible to precisely measure one’s location on the Earth’s surface,
and other types of uncertainty are equally widespread. Summary data for
reporting zones, for example, are means or totals that cannot be expected
to apply uniformly within zones, despite efforts to ensure that census tracts
have similar socioeconomic features. The results of aggregated data analysis
are influenced by the boundaries utilized to aggregate (the changeable areal
unit problem), and judgments about individuals drawn from aggregated data
are prone to the ecological fallacy. Nonetheless, the results of GIS adoption
in the social sciences since the 1980s have been spectacular. GIS has clearly
increased the power of cross-sectional data analysis and the integration of
disparate data sources. In contrast to the ubiquitous nomothetic approach
of earlier decades, it has moved the ground of social science to some extent
by increasing the emphasis on local data, geographic variation, and highly
disaggregated analysis.
Use of GIS in Agriculture

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a technology that helps people
make better decisions by creating visual representations of data and doing
geographical analyses. It’s a technology that mixes hardware, software, and
data in one package. As long as the data has a geographic component, it can
represent practically anything. Anything from a desktop computer or laptop
to satellites, drones, and handheld GPS units can be used as hardware. There
are other software packages available, but the ArcGIS suite from ESRI is the
industry standard. GIS is used in the public, private, and non-profit sectors
to manage public utilities and organize the transportation and distribution
of commodities and services. In traditional map construction, GIS is highly
useful for plotting things like fire hydrants along a road or drawing borders,
such as the area of different crop fields on a farm. However, GIS’ true
strength resides in its capacity to evaluate numerous data layers or variables.
A map indicating the number of farm injuries by county, or the number

of crop acres lost to flood by tax map parcel, are simple examples of this
in agriculture. The changing color ramp is the most typical approach for
the polygons representing different ownership or municipality to convey
the change in values. In agriculture, more advanced spatial analyses may
evaluate variables such as soil type, wind direction, rainfall amount, slope,
aspect, terrain, or elevation to aid in crop management, site suitability,
and drainage planning, as well as risk prevention from flood, drought,
erosion, and disease. GIS can assist a farmer in adapting to these various
circumstances, monitoring the health of particular crops, estimating yields
from a specific field, and maximizing crop production.
GIS data is available for free and for a fee from a variety of sources.
Universities, government entities, and commercial businesses all have
spatial data archives. The New York State government maintains a GIS
clearinghouse containing a wide range of datasets, some of which are open
to the public and others which are exclusively available to clearinghouse
members. Addresses, watersheds, aerial photography, municipal boundaries,
district boundaries, tax map parcels, and road networks are among the data.
Crop-Scape, an interactive web-based mapping program that depicts the
kind, number, and location of crops growing across the country, is another
GIS-based resource offered to the public for free. GIS can help to address
world hunger by using land-use and primary food crop statistics, as well as
data obtained by satellites and mobile devices, to identify areas in need and
the underlying causes of food insecurity.
REMOTE SENSING
Overview
To supply data layers for ecological modeling, remote sensing data and
technologies are widely used. Understanding basic remote-sensing concepts
can aid ecosystem modelers in making informed decisions about the utility
and limitations of a wide range of remotely sensed data and products. This
section’s main goal is to provide remote-sensing science and related data sets
that could be useful in ecological modeling. It starts with a basic introduction
to remote sensing concepts. The next part discusses how remotely sensed
data can be utilized to generate a wide range of biophysical data sets that can
be used in terrestrial and aquatic ecological modeling. Several of the more
frequent data sets formed from remotely sensed data are presented, along
with notes on how they are created, their merits, and limits. A summary of
correctness and validation is provided at the end of the section.
Remote sensing is the science and practice of gathering information
about an object without coming into direct contact with it. Remote sensing
is a technique for collecting reflected and emitted electromagnetic (EM)
radiation from the Earth’s terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, as well as
the atmosphere. This is often accomplished by capturing photographs
from planes and satellites to aid in the identification and comprehension of
characteristics on the Earth’s surface. In this post, we’ll go through a variety
of approaches that are commonly referred to as “Earth observation” (EO).
We will only discuss EM remote sensing; we will not discuss geomagnetic
or auditory remote sensing techniques (sonar and seismic sounding). A
photographic or digital camera is a simple example of a remote-sensing
gadget. To create a picture, a camera records energy in the form of light
that is reflected from a surface. When we look at a photograph, the image
resembles the feature that was recorded since most photographic cameras
record visible light. More advanced remote-sensing gadgets can record
energy that isn’t apparent to the naked eye. Images or, in the case of lidar, a
sequence of point data can be acquired via remote-sensing sensors.
History of Remote Sensing

For our purposes, the history of remote sensing will begin with the advent of
the photographic camera in the early 1800s. For topographic mapping in the
1840s, photos were shot from cameras attached to tethered balloons. Camera
technology evolved during the following 100 years or so, but the primary
advancements were in the platforms that held the camera systems. Initially,
individuals experimented with kites, rockets, and even pigeons as platforms.
The advent of the airplane was a significant stride ahead, and the next step
was the ability to put cameras on satellites, which gave a very steady and, of
course, high-altitude platform. Satellites also provide an excellent platform
for collecting systematic data from all around the world, which has proven to
be quite useful in large-scale ecological modeling. By the 1940s, instrument
research had progressed to the point where remote sensing technology had
advanced beyond visible-spectrum photography to include infrared detection
and radar devices. With the launch of the Earth Resources Technology
Satellite 1 (ERTS 1), later called Landsat 1, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) initiated the Landsat program in 1972, based
on this study. Landsat is now the longest-running EO-focused satellite remote

sensing program in the world. Following the launch of Landsat 1, more
satellites carrying a variety of instrumentation including radar, lidar, and
more precise optical sensors were launched. Most environmental systems
(hydrologic, atmospheric, and ecosystems) now have specialized satellite
instrumentation capturing information to assist us in better monitoring and
managing the Earth’s surroundings, as well as giving vital data for use in
ecological modeling. The Earth Observing System (EOS), for example, is a
NASA effort that comprises the acquisition of satellite-based observations,
science, and a data system to aid in the study of the land surface, biosphere,
solid Earth, atmosphere, and seas. The Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer is a sensor from the EOS mission that provides a wide
range of picture products of relevance to ecologists (MODIS). Satellite/
instrument packages will continue to improve, resulting in more precise and
accurate data that may be used in ecological modeling.
Remote Sensing Concepts

Before we get into how remotely sensed imagery might be used in ecological
modeling, we need to understand a few basic remote-sensing ideas.
EM spectrum: From short-wavelength (high-frequency) gamma rays
to long-wavelength (low-frequency) radio waves, the electromagnetic
spectrum (EMS) encompasses all wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
We concentrate on the part of the spectrum that begins in the ultraviolet and
extends to microwave wavelengths. Microwave sensors are utilized for the
microwave section of the EMS, whereas optical sensors are used to monitor
ultraviolet, visible, and infrared wavelengths. Remote sensing is based on
the basic principle that distinct features on the Earth’s surface interact with
specific EMS wavelengths in different ways. The most essential quality
utilized to detect features on the Earth’s surface when dealing with optical
sensors is spectral reflectance, which is defined as the ratio of the intensity
of light reflected from a surface divided by the intensity of incident light. We
can use this information to identify specific features since various features
have distinct spectral reflectance qualities. White sand, for example, reflects
the majority of visible and near-infrared light, but green vegetation absorbs
the majority of red wavelengths while reflecting the majority of near-infrared
wavelengths. The spectral properties of several materials are depicted in the
diagram below.
Figure 8: Spectral signatures for selected materials on the earth’s surface.
Source: Horning, (2008).

Some remote-sensing instruments can also tell you how EM energy
interacts with a feature’s surface or within a three-dimensional structure like
a forest. These will be covered in more detail later in this text.
Image: An image is the most common type of remotely sensed data.
Individual pieces are organized in a grid of rows and columns to form an
image. Pixels are the name for these pieces. Individual pixels can be seen
when zooming into an image. Images feature layers in addition to rows and
columns of pixels. ‘Bands’ or ‘channels’ are terms used to describe these
layers. The term ‘band’ is used throughout this text to refer to the layers of
an image. These bands also correspond to various EMS wavelengths. The
number of bands captured by remote-sensing sensors varies; some merely
record a single band of data while others record hundreds. Photos with many
bands (typically well over 100) are referred to as “hyperspectral,” whereas
images with fewer bands (generally three to a few dozen) are referred to as
“multispectral.”
Figure 9: An example of pixels for a remote sensing image.
Source: Phiri& Morgenroth, (2017).

Individual bands are employed to record radiance values at different
wavelengths in most imagery. The intensity of EM energy is measured by
radiance. In other words, when light strikes the detector, the sensor measures
the intensity of the light. This measurement is usually expressed as watts per
steradian per square meter (W sr1 m2). It’s crucial to remember that optical
sensors measure brightness rather than reflectance. Image-processing
methods can be used to estimate reflectance, which is the ratio of reflected
light to incident light, although the physical attribute recorded by the sensor
is radiance.
Different platforms and orbits: Because it is feasible to decide which
sensors should be attached for a particular application and determine when to
fly, the airplane is still typically the platform of choice for local and detailed
information. An aircraft can fly low in order to obtain high-resolution
imagery. Satellites are the primary remote sensing platform for global and
systematic coverage. Most satellite orbits fall into one of two categories:
geostationary or polar orbiting. Geostationary satellites orbit the Earth in
the equatorial plane with the same orbital period as the Earth, keeping their
location constant above a certain place on the planet and allowing them
to view the same area continuously. These satellites are frequently used to
track the weather; however, they are too far away from the Earth’s surface
(about 38 500 km) to provide extensive environmental monitoring. A near-
polar orbit, which provides a near-global view of the Earth over a regular
period, such as every 16 days in the case of Landsat, is more frequent for
Earth remote sensing. It’s worth noting that the polar regions aren’t visible
from a satellite on a near-polar orbit. As a result, when individuals talk about
global remotely sensed data sets, they usually imply near-global data sets.
Several hundred kilometers above the Earth’s surface, polar and near-polar
orbiting satellites fly.
Figure 10: Radiance measuring Remote-sensing detectors.

Passive versus active remote sensing: Remote-sensing equipment is
frequently divided into active and passive sensors. When reflected by the
Earth’s surface, an active sensor generates its own signal, which is then
measured. Solar energy that is reflected or emitted from features on the
Earth’s surface is measured by a passive sensor. A variety of active and
passive instruments placed on satellite platforms are listed in the table below.
Table 4: Active and passive satellite-based remote-sensing instruments
Sensor name Type Wavelength Resolution (m)

range
IKONOS Optical 450–900 nm 1–4
SPOT5a Optical 500–1750 nm 2.5–10
IRS-P6 – LISS-4 Optical 520–860 nm 5.8
ALOS AVNIR-2 Optical 420–500 nm 10
ASTER Optical 520–11 650 nm 15–60
Landsat ETMþ Optical 450–2350 nm 15–30
MODIS Optical 459–14 385 nm 250–1000
AVHRR Optical 580–12 500 nm 1000
ENVISAT Radar 5.7 cm (C band) 25
RADARSAT-1 Radar 5.7 cm (C band) 10–100
RADARSAT-2 Radar 5.6 cm (C band) 3–100
ALOS – PALSAR Radar 23.5 cm (L band) 10–100
Although most passive sensors function in the visible and infrared
parts of the EMS, some passive microwave sensors are also in use and may
measure wind speed, air and sea surface temperature, soil moisture, rainfall,
and atmospheric water vapor. Passive sensors have the benefit of relying on
the Sun’s light to illuminate the target and hence do not require their own
energy source, making them simpler equipment in general. Most passive
optical sensors are limited by the fact that they require daylight to operate,
while certain sensors can capture nighttime lights and clouds, as well as the
energy released from the Earth’s surface. Weather and cloud cover have a
negative impact on these sensors because they operate in the visible and
infrared wavelengths. Finally, because sunlight is typically reflected from
the top of a feature, such as a forest, it is impossible to quantify vegetation
structure under a canopy.
Active sensors are required to get this type of information. Radar and
lidar are active sensors that use their own energy to illuminate a target and
are made up of a signal generator and receiver. They assess the strength
of the returning signal as well as the time between when the instrument
produces the energy and when it receives it. These two forms of data are
utilized to characterize the structure of vegetation. The term “radar” stands
for “radio detection and ranging.” Clouds and rain have little effect on radar
systems because they operate in the long-wavelength microwave section
of the EMS. They can be classified as all-season systems. The term “light
detection and ranging” refers to systems that use lasers to emit light in the
visible and near-infrared parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. A single
light pulse in a lidar system might reflect off many vertical features, such as
distinct strata in a forest. A single emitted pulse will generate a wave or series
of returned pulses, which the detector will record. These return pulses can be
captured as a continuous wave (full waveform lidar) or in discrete portions
that correspond to the returning signal’s peaks. A variety of lidar systems
have been created, but most of them can record the first and last returns
of the light pulse. The returns correlate to the object’s top (for example,
the top of a tree canopy) and the object’s base substrate (i.e., the ground).
This is great for determining the height of things like trees and buildings. In
terms of how they interact with materials, radar systems differ from optical
systems. Most radar systems’ signals can easily penetrate a forest canopy,
and radar systems with very long wavelengths (e.g., P-band systems) can
even penetrate dry ground. Although lidar is best recognized for its capacity
to acquire digital elevation data that can be used to characterize topography,
these systems show a lot of potential in terms of being able to measure
vegetation structural traits directly. Lidar can perform direct measurements
of vegetation structure and offer vertical structural information that is
largely missing in data gathered with passive remote-sensing sensors that
only record light reflected from the top of a canopy.
Image qualities determination: Different factors influence the amount
of detail that can be resolved (seen) in a digital image. The four types of
image resolution are generally referred to as such. Most people associate
the term “resolution” with spatial resolution, however other “resolution”
terminology used in the formal literature include:
• Spatial resolution: The size of a pixel (smallest discrete scene
element and picture display unit) in ground dimensions is
sometimes referred to as ‘resolution.’ The resolution of an image
is usually indicated by a single number, such as 30m, which
indicates the length of a square pixel if projected onto the Earth’s
surface. If the pixel was rectangular (which isn’t very frequent
these days), the length and width would be provided.
• Spectral characteristics: Bandwidth, band placement, and band
count are all factors to consider. The range of wavelengths
recognized in a specific picture band is referred to as spectral
bandwidth, or spectral resolution as it is also known. This is a
measurement of how accurately an image band measures a piece
of the EMS. The portion of the EMS that is used for a given
image band is referred to as band placement. Along the EMS, for
example, one band might detect blue wavelengths while another
detects heat wavelengths. The essential bands are determined by
the qualities of the features that are to be analyzed. The number
of bands is the final spectral variable. The more bands accessible,
the more precisely a feature’s spectral qualities may be measured.
• Acquisition dynamics: There are two parts to this. The first is
the repeat frequency of temporal resolution, which is the shortest
period a specific feature may be recorded twice. Some sensors
with a large field of view can take several photos of the same area
on the same day, while others have a weekly repeat frequency. It’s
worth repeating that most remote-sensing satellites have a near-
polar orbit and are unable to capture imagery at the poles because
their orbit does not pass over these regions. The acquisitions’
timing is the other factor to consider. Dynamic features, such as
deciduous forests, and occurrences, such as flooding, frequently
have an ideal moment for imaging. Obtaining imagery during
leaf-on and leaf-off phases, for example, aids in the identification
of deciduous vegetation.
• Sensitivity of the sensor: This is determined by the sensor’s
dynamic range and the number of digital integers that can be
utilized to represent pixel values. Sensors have lower and upper
limits below which no signal is registered and above which the
sensor saturates and is unable to detect light increases. The range
between the minimum and maximum digital values authorized for
a specific data type determines the level of information that can
be measured between these extremes. Landsat TM data values,
for example, can range from 0 to 255, while IKONOS values can
range from 0 to 2048. Quantization or radiometric resolution are
terms used to describe the potential range of values.
Remote Sensing Data sets for Ecological Modeling

Remote sensing offers devices and methods for obtaining a wide range of
biophysical data sets that can be used in land and aquatic ecological modeling.
Several of the more popular data sets formed from remotely sensed data will
be detailed in this part, along with comments on how they are created, their
strengths, and limits. This is not a full list, but it demonstrates the wide range
of remote sensing data that can be used in ecological modeling.
Land Cover: Individual types of vegetation are given to discrete classes,
and land cover data is available in image and vector formats. For example,
each vegetation type in an image format would be allocated a unique
number value, and each polygon in a vector format would have attribute
information describing the type of land cover in that polygon. These data
come in a variety of thematic (classification system) and spatial (resolution)
levels of information. A land cover data set’s classification method might
be as simple as forest/non-forest classes or as complex as a species-level
map. One crucial factor to remember about thematic detail is that the
higher the number of classes employed, the lower the per-class accuracy. In
other words, a forest/non forest map’s classes will be more accurate than a
species-level map’s individual classes. The type of remotely sensed data on
which the categorization was based usually determines the spatial detail in a
land cover data set. Individual treetops can be seen using aerial photography
or high-resolution satellite imaging, providing for increased mapping
capabilities at the species level. Optical sensor data is used to construct most
land cover maps. The mapping of wetlands and water under trees, such as
in flooded forests, is one area where radar sensors thrive. Manual and/or
automated approaches can be used to create land cover data sets. Land cover
categorization works on the premise of converting pixel values in a satellite
image into meaningful land cover categories. This is frequently performed
by automated techniques, in which individual pixels or groups of pixels are
assigned to one of the legitimate land cover categories using a computer
algorithm. Visual interpretation approaches, in which the interpreter
employs visual cues such as tone, texture, shape, pattern, and relationship
to other objects to identify and group comparable land cover categories, can
also be used to complete the classification process. In general, the human
brain is better at deciphering spatial properties in a picture, while automated
algorithms are better at processing spectrum (many images band) data.
There are dozens of classification methods in use, but no single “optimal”
method exists. One of the potential drawbacks of categorized land cover
data is that it is discrete rather than continuous. One solution is to construct
a ‘continuous fields’ picture data set for specific vegetation types. Each
pixel value in this data collection represents the percentage of that pixel
covered by a specific land cover class. A pixel value of 65 in a broadleaf
tree continuous fields data set, for example, means that broadleaf tree
species cover 65 percent of that pixel. It is also feasible to build the data of
a continuous field set for imperviousness in addition to other forms of land

cover. This is known as an impervious surface data set, and it is increasingly
being used in ecological modeling, especially when quantifying water
runoff. It is occasionally desirable to quantify different features of patterns in
the landscape using various landscape metrics for use in ecological models
after a land cover map has been created. These measurements provide an
objective way to define patterns that are typically expressed using subjective
terms like “extremely fragmented,” “small patches,” and “heterogeneous
terrain.” These measurements are simple to develop with software tools.
The following are some examples of common metrics:
• Landscape composition
– Proportion – area of one cover type compared to the total
area
– Richness – number of different patch types
– Evenness – the relative abundance of different patch types
– Diversity – a composite measure of richness and evenness
• Spatial configuration
– Patch size and shape
– Connectivity of patches
– Dispersed or clumped patches
– Setting with respect to neighboring patches
Although landscape metrics can be extremely beneficial, they must be
used with discretion. Because many of the metrics are sensitive to scale and
the size of the research region, comparisons across time and place must be
made with caution.
Vegetation Characteristics: In addition to land cover, passive and active
remote-sensing sensors may measure a variety of vegetation properties.
These include the following:
• phenology,
• primary productivity,
• vegetation health and vigor, and
• vegetation structure.
The structure of the vegetation, as well as how the vegetation components
(leaves, branches, and trunk) interact with the spectrum of light employed
by a particular remote-sensing equipment, have a significant impact on the
reflectance, transmittance, and scattering of energy in a canopy. Vegetation
indices have proved useful in mapping droughts, desertification, phenology,

net primary productivity, and deforestation around the world and have been
used widely for worldwide studies to track changes in vegetation health and
cover. The most widely used vegetation indicator, the ‘normalized difference
vegetation index’ (NDVI), is based on the idea that healthy green vegetation
absorbs most incident red wavelengths and reflects the majority of incident
near-infrared wavelengths. The NDVI formula is as follows:
NDVI = (NIR – red)/(NIR + red)
where NIR is the near-infrared band’s radiance value and red is the red
band’s radiance value The ‘soil adjusted vegetation index’ (SAVI), which
was developed to reduce the effect of background material (i.e., soil, sand,
snow), and the ‘enhanced vegetation index’ (EVI), which is less sensitive
to atmospheric scattering effects, are two other common vegetation indices
that use a similar principle as NDVI. Data sets for vegetation indexes are
typically accessible as temporal composites, such as 10-day or monthly. The
‘best’ index values from the composite period are presented in a composite
product. It is feasible to lessen the harmful impacts of clouds and haze
using this method. Radar and lidar data are frequently used to construct
vegetation structure and biomass data sets. Although radar has been used to
measure vegetation attributes such as biomass, leaf area index, and forest
structure, the data is restricted. This is an active research subject, and as
new equipment types are created, operational radar approaches may become
available in the not-too-distant future. Commercial lidar sensors that can
quickly provide vegetation height information and be connected to tree
volume and biomass using allometric tables are available for placement in
airplanes. Unfortunately, employing these devices is costly, and covering
broad areas is generally impossible. Early results from research employing
aerial and satellite lidar equipment to directly analyze vegetation structure
look promising.
Topography: In ecological modeling, elevation data sets and their
derivative products (Table below) are often employed. Digitized points or
contour lines triangulated irregular networks (TIN), and gridded surfaces or
photographs are all examples of digital elevation data. When working with
elevation data, it’s crucial to understand what the elevation values mean.
These numbers can represent the bare Earth’s surface, the surface of the
Earth’s features (i.e., the top of the canopy), or something in the middle.
Table 5: Derivatives of digital elevation models (DEM)
Slope steepness
Slope aspect
Hill-shade and perspective views
Viewshed/line of sight
Topographic features
• Ridges
• Peaks
• Channels
• Pits
• Passes
• Plateaus
Hydrologic parameters
• Flow direction
• Flow accumulation
• Predicted watercourses
• Watershed boundaries
The Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) ‘digital elevation
model’ is a relatively recent topographic data set (DEM). This data set
has a resolution of 30 meters and includes geographic areas between 560-
and 600-degrees south latitude. Outside of the United States, it has been
downgraded to 90 m for the majority of the world. An interferometric radar
device placed on the Space Shuttle was used to collect data for the SRTM
DEM. The elevation value provided by the SRTM data set over forested
areas reflects a location halfway between the ground surface and the top of
the canopy. The precise location is determined by the forest stand’s structural
characteristics. Lidar is increasingly being utilized to obtain elevation data
with centimeter-level vertical accuracy. Lidar devices are commonly used
for coastal monitoring and are carried on aircraft. Lidar elevation data
collecting is unrivaled in terms of accuracy and speed.
Soil Moisture: For ecological modeling, soil moisture is a highly sought-
after data collection. Data that meets the needs of a certain application,
on the other hand, is frequently unavailable because existing data spatial
resolutions are too coarse, accessible data does not cover the area of
interest, or data is not available for the needed duration. With a 25-kilometer
resolution, global soil moisture data obtained from microwave sensors is
now available. People have tried mapping soil moisture using data acquired
from optical remote-sensing sensors, but the results have been variable.
Surface Temperature and Precipitation: Although satellite-based

equipment is frequently used to collect temperature and precipitation data,
data sets built using meteorological station data are still frequently favored
for ecological modeling. In some circumstances, combining data from
satellite-based instruments with data acquired from station data improves
data sets derived from station data. Passive microwave, radar, and optical
devices are used to assess rainfall from satellites. For many ecological
modeling jobs, rainfall estimates data sets acquired from satellite remote
sensing are sometimes too coarse (>4 km). Many satellite-based devices can
monitor surface temperature, with some producing a worldwide daily and
8-day composite data set with a 1 km resolution. Satellite sensors can collect
data with a higher resolution. They do not, however, have as many repeat
cycles as those that produce 1 km sets.
Atmospheric Properties (Clouds): Because it gives a measure of
cloud cover, the cloud mask is likely the most commonly utilized remote-
sensing-derived atmospheric product for ecological modeling. Each pixel
in the MODIS cloud mask product is assigned a clear-sky confidence level
(very confident clear, probably clear, unsure, overcast). This daily data set
is provided with spatial resolutions of 250 m and 1 km. The following are
examples of data gathered from remote sensing regarding the atmosphere:
Aerosol loading and size distribution over oceans
• Aerosol content and optical thickness over land
• Water vapor (precipitable water)
• Cloud optical thickness
• Cloud top temperature and height
• Cloud locations
• Cloud particle phase
• Cloud particle radius
• Total-column ozone content
• Atmospheric wind and temperature profiles
Oceans: Remote sensing offers data for a wide range of environmental
factors in the marine environment. The ocean–land interface and coral
reefs are frequently mapped using optical remote sensing technologies. The
methods used for these applications are similar to those used for terrestrial
land cover mapping, with the exception that short-wavelength blue bands
are more commonly used for coral reef mapping because those wavelengths
can penetrate deeper into the water and provide more information on
features several meters beneath the surface. Sea surface temperature, which
is determined using methods similar to those used for land temperature,
and ocean color, which employs optical images to assess amounts of
phytoplankton in the water, are two other common worldwide marine data
sets. Both of these data sets are collected every day. Remote sensing data on
marine environments include the following:
• Sea surface temperature
• Ocean color (productivity)
• Coral reef mapping
• Ocean surface topography
• Oil slick detection and mapping
• Ocean circulation
• Wind speed and direction
• Fluorescence
Inland Water (Streams, Lakes, Wetlands, etc.): Wetlands, streams, and
lakes are examples of inland water features. A combination of optical and
microwave remotely sensed data is used to measure and monitor a variety
of inland water parameters, though many of these measurements are only
available at local or regional scales, and many of the methods require
extensive field work to correlate actual values with what the remote-sensing
instrument records. Optical and microwave devices are used to map the
extent of inland water features. Radar, for example, is an excellent tool for
identifying and mapping standing water, even if it is hidden beneath a forest
canopy, as in a flooded forest. Optical sensors are used to detect aquatic
plants and measure temperature. Remote sensing data on inland water
ecosystems include the following:
• Water body and wetland mapping
• Flooded forest mapping
• Water surface elevation
• Water depth
• Turbidity/Secchi depth
• Water temperature
• Aquatic and wetland vegetation mapping
• Riparian buffer mapping
• Flow rates
Accuracy Assessment and Validation

It’s critical to know the level of precision associated with a product when
employing data sets produced from remote-sensing systems. Accuracy
figures can relate to either the computed value’s accuracy or the positional
accuracy as compared to the actual biological value. Both values are offered
in some circumstances. The data set should be distributed with the accuracy
statistics. This isn’t always the case, however. There are times when
accuracy numbers for a data set are just unavailable. The statistics usually
provide per-class and overall accuracy information for data sets that reflect
categorized data. With land cover data sets, this is standard procedure.
Values for horizontal and vertical precision are provided for data sets such
as elevation. These numbers are typically expressed as a likelihood of being
inside a certain range. Other data sets, such as those produced from MODIS
data, are certified by a group of scientists, and the validation process is
sometimes inadequate or continuing. When using these data sets, it’s critical
to look for the most up-to-date information on the data set’s accuracy. This
data is frequently available on the internet. There are a variety of approaches
for reporting accuracy, and this is an area of current research. New accuracy
approaches, for example, are being developed that provide information about
the error’s spatial distribution. Instead of utilizing the standard methodology
of recording a value as correct or erroneous, methods are being developed
that use fuzzy statistics to indicate the severity of the error.
In conclusion, remotely sensed and generated data constitute a priceless
resource for ecological modeling. These data cover a large area and are
collected in a consistent manner, which is difficult to achieve with field
methods. This is a rapidly evolving subject, and as sensors and processing
tools advance, data will become more exact and accurate. This section
gives a quick explanation of remote sensing and the different types of
data that may be derived to aid ecological modeling. Remote sensing (RS)
technologies provide a diagnostic tool that can serve as an early warning
system, allowing farmers to respond early to prevent any problems from
spreading and significantly impacting crop output. Several RS solutions are
currently available to the agricultural world, thanks to recent improvements
in sensor technologies, data management, and data analytics. However,
due to knowledge gaps on their sufficiency, appropriateness, and techno-
economic feasibility, the agriculture industry has yet to fully implement
RS technology. Remote sensing technologies are a significant tool for crop
management on a site-by-site basis. Remote sensing has the potential to
provide real-time analysis of a growing crop’s qualities, which can help with
timely management decisions that affect the present crop’s result. Remote
sensing data, like those gathered from other precision agriculture technology,
is more useful when integrated with other data sources. As a result, even
historical images might have fresh significance. Integrating remote sensing
into your management activities will necessitate discipline as well as new
management strategies and technological skills. Remote sensing must be
used in conjunction with a competent traditional scouting program, and the
benefits of improved management must balance the cost of the technology
as well as the extra time spent managing.
Figure 11: How the remote sensing process takes place.
Source: Nowatzki et al., (2017).
MOBILE DEVICES AND PRECISION AGRICULTURE
Overview
Smartphones have earned considerable market shares among many
user sectors due to their utility, ease-of-use, and affordability among the
technologies produced in the last few decades. The number of people who
own a smartphone is continuing to rise. By 2016, it is expected that the
number of users will have surpassed 2 billion individuals around the world.
The multiple built-in sensors are one feature that improves the smartphone’s
potential to assist users with various tasks (e.g., positioning sensors, motion
sensors, and camera microphones). Many areas, such as health care and
education, have utilized cell phones to make their jobs easier. This section
looks at how smartphone sensors are used in one of the most essential
industries, agriculture. Rural farmers who previously had limited access to
up-to-date agricultural information (e.g., market, weather, and crop disease
news) and support from agricultural specialists and government extension
workers now have new prospects thanks to inexpensive smartphones
integrated with various sensors. Meanwhile, large-scale farmers who already
use other information technologies to help them can now use smartphone-
based sensors to boost production and make various chores easier throughout
the farming cycle. Precision agriculture, for example, is one of the latest
farming approaches that has been developed. The use of technology to
measure or monitor field and crop conditions in order for farmers to make
educated decisions in various areas of their farming operation is one of the
key ideas of new agricultural practices. One of the most important success
elements for precision agriculture is the use of sensors for continuous and
autonomous monitoring of various field variables. Dedicated devices (e.g.,
a SPAD meter for leaf chlorophyll assessment, a Li-3100 for Leaf Area
Index (LAI) measurement, and spectroscopy for studying soil structure and
components) have proven useful in agriculture, but they may be difficult
to obtain for rural farmers who lack access to product providers or lack the
financial means to purchase the devices. Some of the functions performed
by specialized devices can, however, be duplicated by smartphones with
built-in sensors. Farmers who already own cell phones can utilize this as an
easier option to download programs.
Smartphone Sensors and Their Use

There are numerous types of sensors available nowadays, and many major
smartphones have accelerometers, GPS, light sensors, temperature sensors,
gyroscopes, and barometers, among others. The sensors found in cellphones
may be divided into three groups:
• motion sensors,
• environmental sensors, and
• position sensors.
Motion sensors are the first category, and they measure acceleration and
rotational force. Accelerometers, gyroscopes, gravity sensors, and rotating
vector sensors are examples of motion sensors. Environmental sensors, the
second type, offer measures of the surrounding environment. This includes
everything from ambient air temperature and pressure from a thermometer to
illumination from a photometer. Position sensors, the third category, provide

information about the device’s physical location. Magnetometers, GPS, and
orientation sensors are examples of such sensors. The sensors found on most
smartphones are listed in the table below. Communication channels (e.g.,
WIFI, Bluetooth, 3G, and NFC) and display channels are excluded from the
sensor list for the purposes of this evaluation.
Table 6: Common smartphone sensors
Sensor Common uses

Accelerometer Detects motion and senses the changes in smartphones’
orientation
Ambient temperature sensor Monitors air temperatures
Gyroscope Detects rotation (spin, turn, etc.)
Light sensor Controls screen brightness
Magnetometer Creates a compass
Barometer Monitors air pressure changes
Proximity sensor Detects if the phone is held up to a person’s ear during
a call
Humidity sensor Monitors dewpoint and absolute and relative humidity
Global Positioning System Uses a user’s location to show the nearby information
Image sensor (camera) Captures a still picture or video
Audio sensor (microphone) Records voices
Fingerprint identity sensor Identifies a user through touching
Moisture sensor Detects if a device has internal water damage
Source: https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/sensors/sensors_overview.
html
The rise in popularity of smartphones has prompted researchers to
investigate the use of smartphone sensors in their study. Many sensors have
been effectively used in a variety of applications. The Global Positioning
System (GPS) enables applications to obtain the device’s current location.
GPS data has also been used to infer transportation modes, in addition to
direct uses of the position in applications (e.g., maps). Accelerometers have
been employed as sensors in fall detection, activity recognition, driving event
detection, and other applications. They record the force of acceleration in
three axes, whether induced by the phone’s movement or gravity. In recent
years, the specifications of built-in cameras (both front and rear cameras)
in modern smartphones have substantially improved. The resolutions of the
cameras are now similar to those of specialized hand-held cameras. As a

result, smartphone applications can now function as a single device that
accepts images or videos from built-in cameras as input, performs computer
vision algorithms, and outputs relevant data from the input images. Indoor
positioning, heart rate assessments utilizing video imagery, and pulse rate
evaluation are examples of such applications.
Case Use of Mobile devices in Agriculture

Farming is a set of agricultural procedures that include a variety of day-to-day
tasks on the farm, such as sowing, weeding, fertilizing, and making related
agricultural decisions. Growing plants, killing weeds/pests, identifying and
correcting plant illnesses, applying fertilizers, and estimating crop growth/
yield are all part of farming tasks. Some of these agricultural loads can
now be lightened and guided thanks to recent improvements in smartphone
application development and increased smartphone availability. Farmers,
for example, can use smartphone applications to calculate optimum fertilizer
levels for crop fields based on the color of crop leaves.
Farming Applications
Working in agriculture fields, farmers have a variety of obligations. Seeding,
weeding, fertilizing, and watering are just a few of the operations that are
done in the field that appear to be repetitious, mundane, and labor-intensive.
However, in order for the agricultural cycle to be productive, those duties
frequently include preparatory decision-making steps prior to the actual
actions. The preceding notion is especially applicable when farmers are
dealing with new and unfamiliar crops. Knowledge of how to recognize
crop illnesses, where they appear on crops, and how to avoid and cure them
can help farmers save time and money in their farming operations. The
following are the subcategories of agricultural smartphone apps.
Disease Detection and Diagnosis: When using sensors on smartphones,
this subcategory of smartphone applications is focused on disease detection/
diagnosis in farms. The system functioned by capturing photos of plant leaves
that were being examined for illnesses, preprocessing them, and sending the
processed images to distant laboratories. The image preprocessing step was
required to reduce the expense of transmitting diseased leaf photos to plant
pathologists in distant labs. A clustering technique was used to divide leaf
photos into three categories: the background, the non-diseased portion of the
leaf, and the diseased portion(s) of the leaf. Leaf photos are then trimmed
to simply show the location of the largest diseased spot on the leaf and
sent to lab experts for additional disease identification over any accessible
network. Suggestions for disease cures and prevention are closely tied to
disease identification.
Fertilizer Calculator: Fertilizer application is an important farming
activity that has the potential to have a significant impact on farm productivity.
Farmers must make decisions about which chemicals to use and in what
quantities to use for each crop. It is possible to determine the chlorophyll
levels and propose the amount of fertilizer to apply using a phone color
estimator.
Soil Study: Another important aspect of farming is soil, which has a
significant impact on agricultural performance. Farmers that have access
to soil data have a competitive advantage in farming, including precision
agriculture. A variety of smartphone applications have been developed
that use smartphone sensors to examine the soil for agricultural purposes.
This takes advantage of the color sensors on mobile phones. Soil color
information is extracted from photos captured by cellphones’ built-in digital
cameras and processed using image processing algorithms to convert RGB
color space to XYZ and HVC color spaces. Color conversion is done entirely
on mobile phones, with no additional software required. Farmers can also
receive precise soil information based on their location, such as pH, soil
carbon, N, P, and K. Environmental contexts such as climate and elevation
of the place might be looked up using the location information. Then, using
geographical data and soil pictures, a mathematical model projected topsoil
organic matter and carbon content.
Water Study: Water quality has an impact on farming and agriculture in
the surrounding areas. The iDee project in Scotland produced a smartphone
application to encourage users to provide information about water
conditions, such as water level, water clarity, obstacles in the river, algae
cover, temperature, nonnative plants in the water, and images of the river
Dee. Other users in the region would then be able to see the info on the water
conditions.
Crop Water Needs Estimation: Farmers must also make decisions about
how much water their crops require. Crop water requirements are determined
by a number of factors, including crop type, season, environment, and crop
growth stage. Crops lose water by transpiration, while adjacent soil, water,
and canopy evaporate. Evapotranspiration is the aggregate term for this water
loss process. Crop water requirements are assessed in order to compensate for
water loss and allow crops to grow in accordance with farmers’ requirements.
Farmers can use a smartphone app called PocketLAI to calculate the Leaf
Area Index (LAI), which is a significant factor in calculating crop water
requirements. LAI was calculated by PocketLAI using an indirect method
based on sensors found on contemporary cellphones. The application’s key
components were two sensors. To calculate the Leaf Area Index, image
sensors (cameras) were employed to take photos of the leaf canopy. When
the gap fraction was precisely measured at 57.5°, accelerometers were
utilized to get the angle of smartphones as the devices rotated in order to
estimate LAI. The angle 57.5° was used in agricultural research to allow
the estimate of LAI to be free of leaf angle distribution and leaf degree
clumping. Farmers could alter their watering/irrigation instruments based on
the water requirements determined by Leaf Area Index. Brightness analysis,
which assesses light brightness intercepted by plants, is closely related to
LAI computation. The use of brightness analysis on plants is to estimate
light radiation.
Crop Produce Readiness Analysis: The use of smartphone-based
sensors to determine the maturity of fruits is an interesting application. This
makes use of the cameras of smartphones. Green fruits were photographed
under white and UV-A light sources to measure ripeness levels. Farmers
might incorporate the technique into their operations by sorting fruits into
piles based on their ripeness levels before sending them to marketplaces.
Instead of farmers personally checking each fruit, this process might be
done in mass using computer vision techniques.
Smartphone apps in the farming area assist farmers in the planting of
crops by sensing the surroundings with a variety of sensors. Photographs,
precise locations on the farm, colors of soil, water, and plant leaves, and light
are all examples of observations. Farmers who are involved in extensive
farming activities are the primary target users of the applications. This sort
of app promises to boost farm output by assessing agricultural specimens,
assisting with agricultural decisions, and resolving task-specific issues.
When compared to smartphone applications in other categories, farming
apps have a common attribute of being highly computational.
Farm Management Applications

Farmers may have relied primarily on paper forms and desktop computers
to record, track, and manage farm resources and operations in the past.
They may keep field records on paper forms while on the field, such as
the amount of pesticide and fertilizer applied, the locations and types of
weeds and disease identified, and yields at each field, and then enter the
collected field data into a computer when they return to the office. These
data are then utilized to generate reports and do other studies (such as cost
analysis) in order to boost overall farming production. This traditional data
collection method, on the other hand, frequently results in nonintegrated
data, making it impossible to extract useful information from it. In many
ways, the recent advancement of smartphone technology has altered
those agricultural management chores. The smartphone’s transportable
nature allows users to utilize it from anywhere at any time. Farmers may
easily bring a smartphone to the field and use it to capture field data and
manage agricultural resources. Furthermore, smartphone sensors such as
the microphone, camera, GPS, accelerometer, and others can make farm
journaling and other farm management duties much easier. Farmers, for
example, can use GPS coordinates to capture images of crops sown and
weeds discovered in the field. Some applications, for example, use speech
recognition technology to assist users in labeling the images shot, rather
than typing. Farmers can also use GPS technology to track equipment and
vehicles in real-time across a farm. Furthermore, most farm management
smartphone apps are connected to cloud servers, where all farm data is
integrated, analyzed, and shown in various forms to aid farm managers’/
owners’ decision-making in order to optimize agricultural operations. Field
data collected using a smartphone is typically synchronized to cloud servers
and is accessible from any Internet-connected device.
Water Management: Users can use farm management software to
handle a variety of farm resources. One of the most important resources
for agricultural production is water. Better water resource management
translates to higher yields and lower operational costs on the farm.
Smartphone applications for better water resource management have been
proposed and developed by researchers. Water flow data is required for daily
irrigation channel operations in order to build appropriate water management
strategies. In general, obtaining such data necessitates the use of expensive
measuring stations, resulting in sparse and low-quality data for water
management decision-making. Smartphones make water flow measurement
jobs considerably easier and less expensive, as they do not require the
installation of a permanent station. Lüthi has created an app that measures
the flow of water. The program calculates the water level, surface velocity,
and discharge rate by evaluating a short video of water flow between two
control locations separated by a given distance captured on a smartphone.
The technique uses a succession of photos to create a separation line of

image segments with and without optical flow to estimate the water level.
Because pixels in the dry sections of the image remain relatively fixed over
time, whereas pixels on the water are constantly changing, this technique
can be used. A modified version of the standard Particle Image Velocimetry
(PIV) method is used to estimate surface velocity. The accuracy of the
water level, surface velocity, and runoff data obtained via their smartphone
application is around 5% of that of data obtained from a commercial radar
sensor, according to preliminary results.
HR Management and Farm Activity Journaling: Human resources
are critical to farm productivity, particularly in poorer nations where
agricultural systems rely mainly on manual labor rather than automation.
Effective farm management requires the ability to maintain track of farm
employees’ actions such as weeding, fertilizing, and harvesting in each part
of the farm at specific times, schedule farm workers to different occupations,
and communicate work plans to farmers. The i-Farm is a system that uses
smartphones, a cloud server, and web browsers to let farmers collect field
data and communicate work plans. In the field, farmers use a smartphone
application to record field data and transfer it to a cloud server. Farmers in
the headquarters can access the data via a web browser. The data can then be
utilized to create a work plan, which can be sent to field farmers as a task list
on their smartphones. The task list can take into account the user’s current
location. The location-aware task list can be built using GPS, even though
the authors did not express so directly. Other apps have been built using a
machine learning algorithm applied to automatically detect farm workers’
behaviors (e.g., harvesting, bed making, standstill, and strolling) based on
data received from various sensors on farm employees’ smartphones while
on the job. Farmers’ operating patterns and frequency of visiting certain
farm plots can be deduced using GPS coordinates. Sound data gathered by
the microphone can be used to determine the use of various machineries,
such as a tractor and a helicopter. Various body movements are identified
using data from a 3-axis accelerometer. The data from accelerometers are
also labeled with a timestamp and GPS locations.
Vehicle Monitoring: Another interesting characteristic of new
smartphone-based sensor applications is vehicle monitoring and position
tracking. Safe-Driving is an iOS software that detects tractor rollovers and
reports them as an emergency. The application does signal processing and
employs a mathematical model to calculate the tractor’s stability index
based on physical factors and data from smartphone built-in sensors such
as accelerometer, gyroscope, and GPS. A warning flashes on the phone

screen when the stability index falls below a specific threshold. When the
index reaches zero, signifying a rollover or accident, the application sends
an email to emergency contacts with the date, time, and GPS coordinates of
the accident area.
Agricultural Land Management: Aggregated geo-data from
agricultural areas can be used for monitoring and to help policymakers
make decisions. Map-IT, a crowdsourcing tool for collecting geographic
information about small things and agricultural areas, can help with this.
A user collects geo-data by taking a snapshot of the area/item of interest
and drawing an outline of the thing on a smartphone screen. The user can
label the object using speech recognition or typing, and then upload it to a
server for further analysis. To determine the object’s original size and shape,
their implementation used the Douglas-Peucker algorithm to first simplify
the user’s outline. The coordinates in the photo are then projected to real-
world coordinates using data from built-in inertial sensors, the distance of
the object from the camera, and GPS position, creating a geo-object with
precise original geometry.
Information System Applications

In many industrial sectors, including agriculture, information is critical to
making efficient decisions. Information is widely acknowledged as a tool
that can assist farmers in increasing agricultural productivity. Farmers can
choose the sort and number of crops to plant, as well as where to sell their
products, based on current information on prices and market demands.
Farmers can take measures to limit damage by receiving timely crop disease
warnings and projections. Farmers benefit from updated farming knowledge
since it informs them of new strategies to increase crop yields. While
such data may be available, one of the primary challenges that farmers,
particularly small-scale farmers, confront is that they are unable to achieve
predicted yield quality, supply, and demand at the market level due to a lack
of information visibility at the time of decision-making. Farmers’ inability
to make optimal judgments at various stages of the farming life cycle has a
significant influence on their earnings. This challenge can be solved with an
innovative agricultural information system.
Information Localization: A hybrid architecture that blends mobile and
web technology and uses the location of the mobile device to improve the
information given to farmers has been developed in order to provide relevant
information to farmers. A database is created to link information to a specific

location on a map. When a farmer uses a location-enabled mobile device, the
app sends location data to the server and receives customized agricultural
data. This allows farmers to acquire pertinent information without having to
sift through massive amounts of information. GPS can be used to retrieve
location data.
Pest and Disease Information: Other solutions proposed are for pest
and disease control, as opposed to the previous option, which provides a
broad framework for agricultural information. Because mobile phones with
Internet access enable stakeholders (such as farmers, policymakers, and
field workers) to swiftly obtain information and report disease outbreaks,
the damage can be minimized. The application is designed for mobile
devices and allows users to view disease outbreak reports on a map as well
as report and edit outbreaks. GPS is utilized to retrieve the nearby map and
information based on the mobile phone’s current position. While the case
study focused on a fire blight survey in Norway, the approach can be used to
disseminate information about most crop disease outbreaks. Village-Tree, on
the other hand, is a smartphone app that offers intelligent pest management
solutions. Using a crowdsourcing technique, Village-Tree collects insect
incidence reports from farms. Then, utilizing spatial-temporal analytic
and image recognition algorithms, the incidence reports, which comprise
location data and photographs of crop disease, are processed in their server.
Finally, their technology generates warning data and provides alerts and
appropriate solutions to farmers so that they can take preventative action.
Farmers’ information requirements can be divided into three stages:
know-how, planting context, and market data. Crop selection and seed
variety are examples of know-how. Knowledge of new crops or seed varieties
that increase yields is advantageous to increase revenue. Weather, plant
protection, and cultivation procedures are all part of the planting context.
Context information is dynamic (for example, weather changes every day
and insect outbreaks occur infrequently) and has a significant impact on crop
yields. Market information, which includes market prices, market demands,
and logistics for selling things, is critical for converting products into
profits. The applications mentioned above offer novel solutions, but only
for a subset of information requirements. The characteristic of smartphone
applications in this category is that they are a channel for receiving and
distributing information, which necessitates less computing and data entry
on the smartphone than apps in previous categories. While it is less clear
how sensors could be employed in this category of applications, GPS has

been effectively used to improve information transmission.
Extension Service Applications

Agriculture is the key economic driver in many countries around the
world, but farmers are still poor and undereducated. Governments provide
agricultural extensions as a service that reaches out to farmers to provide
support, such as teaching farmers about new crops, assisting farmers in
diagnosing crop disease, and registering farms for disaster-affected areas to
get subsidies. Agricultural extension services used to be given by extension
workers and experts who visited farms to give farming advice and answers
to specific problems, which took a lot of travel and resources. The process
has recently been made easier and more accessible thanks to smartphones
and information technology.
Pest and Disease Inspections by Experts: Agricultural extension
services are activities that provide individualized information and solutions
to rural farmers, one of which is assisting farmers in diagnosing pest or
disease problems in their plants so that appropriate treatments or measures
can be implemented to alleviate the problems. A few researchers have looked
into how information technology and smartphones can be used to improve
agricultural extension. The call center technology was used to create the
Indian Agricultural Advisory System (AAS). Farmers can call for assistance.
Farmers can also upload photos taken with their phones to the central server,
allowing call center representatives and professionals to physically evaluate
their issues. The mobile device’s location data notifies call center employees
and professionals about the problem’s location. Farmers can capture images
or videos of infected plants and utilize audio to record their enquiry in their
native language when confronted with diseased plants. The photographs,
videos, and audios are uploaded to a server, where agricultural scientists
can analyze the information and suggest appropriate remedies by phone or
SMS. Because the majority of the research in this area was conducted in
developing countries, the target users’ literacy is a worry, and the use of a
lot of textual data and advanced capabilities of smartphones for research
extension services is limited. Voice and SMS are still widely used in mobile
applications that provide distant extension services.
Tools for Extension Workers: Another way that cellphones might help
extension services is by giving extension employees a convenient tool.
Traditionally, technical staff visit a farmer’s plot with various devices (e.g.,
a GPS, a camera, and an electronic recorder to record data such as the plot
code, photograph identity, or date), and managing the devices becomes a
time-consuming operation. Staff must ensure that each device’s battery is
sufficient before working in the field and must swap between devices while
on the job. GeoFoto is an Android-based smartphone application that helps
extension workers identify land plots, reducing the number of instruments
they have to carry into the field. As field personnel visit farms, the phone’s
GPS and camera data is transferred to the central office. The information
is then examined to ensure that the proper field has been visited. Although
these instruments are not directly used by farmers, they assist extension
personnel in offering more efficient extension services.
INTERNET OF THINGS (IOT) IN PRECISION

AGRICULTURE
Overview
In human history, much advancement has been developed to raise agricultural
yields with less capital and labor input. The Internet of Things (IoT) is defined
as a network of intelligent, interconnected objects that can communicate
with one another and provide useful data about the environment in which
they function. In the context of the Internet of Things, nearly any computer
capable of establishing an Internet connection, such as domestic appliances,
electronics, furniture, agricultural or industrial gear, and even persons, might
be called “things.” While the concept of the Internet of Things is not new, its
adoption has risen in recent years, owing to advancements in technologies that
support it, such as hardware advancements, which have resulted in smaller
and lower power consumption, improvements in Internet connectivity and
between devices through wireless connections, cloud computing, artificial
intelligence, and big data. All of these technical components work together
to form a network of devices that can communicate data and knowledge and
operate efficiently using network inputs.
IoT Towards Smart Farming

Precision agriculture is distinguished by the IT scheme at the other end of
the supply chain, the decision support system in the back office. While the
technology is still in its infancy, the concept of the “linked farm” is gaining
traction. Farming activities, in particular, are becoming increasingly linked
to a variety of historical data, including weather events, climate, economics,
product details and specifications, system settings, and so on. This is what
the Internet of Things is all about: connecting processes so that agricultural
practices may be understood in a multidimensional, interconnected fashion,
providing for a better knowledge of how the entire ecosystem works. Precision
farming will be replaced by ‘decision making’ or ‘smart agriculture.’ On
the basis of the most recent construction of the internet of things and the
available technical analysis of the internet of things, study and research on
the internet of things in terms of technical levels and structures is carried out.
The study of technologies such as RFID, ZigBee, sensors, cloud computing,
and so on is carried out, based on which the internet of things technical
system architecture is further developed, starting from three elements, data
collecting, network service, date fusion, and computation, respectively. In
addition, the system’s sensor nodes were studied and researched, and the
many technologies involved were analyzed and discussed. The Internet of
Things (IoT) is a network that enables a variety of intelligent activities such
as identification, positioning, tracking, monitoring, and management by
connecting devices such as RFID, Smart Sense, GPS (Global Positioning
System), and others to wireless network objects via interfaces to provide
intelligence to objects, allowing for contact and dialogue between humans
and objects as well as objects and objects.
IoT, Agricultural Sensors, & Drones

Smart agriculture and precision farming are gaining traction, but they may
only be the beginning of much wider use of technology in agriculture.
Blockchain technology is gaining traction in the IoT, and it has the potential
to be useful in the agricultural industry due to its capacity to provide
enterprises with valuable crop data. Farmers can employ sensors to capture
crop data, such as identification characteristics, salt and sugar content, and
pH levels, and store it on the blockchain. By 2023, Insider Intelligence
ventures will have placed around 12 million agricultural sensors around the
world. Furthermore, according to IBM, the average farm may generate half a
million data points per day, assisting farmers in increasing yields and profits.
Drones can spray fertilizer at a rate of 40 to 60 times faster than humans.
Given all of the potential benefits of these IoT applications in agriculture,
it’s unsurprising that farmers are increasingly looking to agricultural drones
and satellites for the future of farming. Drones allow farmers to keep track
of how far their crops have progressed through their various growth stages.
Farmers may also use drones to spray sick crops with substances to bring
them back to life. Drone Fly claims that drones can apply fertilizer 40 to 60
times faster than humans can.
IoT and Agricultural Future

The future of agricultural technology will be based on the collection and
analysis of large-scale agricultural data in order to maximize operating
productivity while lowering labor expenses. However, there are many
more changes to consider with the Internet of Things, and the Internet of
Things will touch far more sectors than agriculture. They don’t think of
agriculture in the same way that most people think of the internet. Instead,
most individuals are preoccupied with their laptops or mobile phones. Do
people understand that Internet of Things (IoT) technology allows farmers
to connect their devices to the internet to improve their farming operations?
IoT technology allows farmers to use the internet to reduce waste, improve
pest control, expedite animal management, and boost output.
Waste Reduction
With limited resources for growing crops or raising livestock, farmers are
constantly looking for ways to reduce waste. Conservation of resources,
particularly water, is critical, particularly in California, which is experiencing
a drought. While traditional conservation strategies such as irrigating only
after sunset can help to reduce waste, the Internet of Things (IoT) technology
can help to further reduce waste and conserve resources. Moisture and pH
levels can be measured using smart connected sensors buried in the soil,
for example. These sensors, which are linked to smart irrigation and smart
fertilizer systems, can then administer just the correct quantity of fertilizer
and water to guarantee that the crops grow in the best conditions possible.
Better Management of Pests

Farmers are gradually aiming to cut or perhaps eliminate pesticide use as the
public pushes for more fresh food and less pesticide use. Farmers could better
track pest populations using internet-connected sensors and cameras. In the
event that insect populations grow to the degree where agricultural yields
are threatened, farmers can use pheromones to control the pest population
without using synthetic pesticides.
Boost Efficiency
In order to maximize harvests and earnings, farmers must boost productivity.
The Internet of Things (IoT) technology helps farmers become more efficient
in a variety of ways, including tracking farm machines. IoT technology will
allow farmers to track anything from tractor fleets to grain conveyor belts.
Sensors that are connected to the internet, for example, can be incorporated
into tractors to evaluate if they are performing at their best. The sensor will
provide a warning to the farmer if the tractor is not performing at its best,
allowing for immediate repairs. This will help the tractor avoid unexpected
breakdowns, allowing it to work more efficiently and for longer in the field.
Internet sensors can also be integrated into grain conveyor belts. These
sensors may measure a variety of factors, including belt friction. When the
grain belt causes too much friction, the sensor device will provide the operator
a signal to utilize more lubricants. A proactive approach to maintenance will
allow the equipment to be operated for longer periods of time, resulting in
increased output.
Advantages of IoT in Agriculture

In agriculture, as in other industries, the Internet of Things promises
hitherto unattainable efficiency, resource and expense savings, automation,
and data-driven processes. However, in agriculture, these benefits are not
enhancements, but rather answers to a variety of severe challenges that the
entire business is confronting.
Excellence in efficacy: Today’s farming is a race. More soil products
must be developed, land availability must be reduced, and climate variability
must be increased. IoT-enabled agriculture allows farmers to track their
commodities and conditions in real-time. You’ll be able to quickly discover
new views, predict problems before they occur, and make informed decisions
about how to address them. Agriculture also employs the automation of IoT
solutions, such as demand-based irrigation, fertilization, and robot selection.
Enlargement: 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities by
the time we reach 9 billion people. Greenhouses and IoT-based hydroponic
systems allow for a short food supply chain and should be able to feed these
people fresh fruits and vegetables. Smart closed-cycle agricultural systems
allow food to grow nearly anywhere: in supermarkets, on the walls and
rooftops of buildings, in shipping containers, and, of course, in the comfort
of everyone’s home.
Decreased resources: Many Ag IoT solutions are built on making the

most of available resources such as water, electricity, and land. Precision
farming based on the Internet of Things uses data from multiple field sensors
to allow farmers to precisely distribute exactly enough resources within a
single plant.
Process cleaner: The same can be said about pesticides and
fertilizers. Precision farming systems based on the Internet of Things not
only help farmers conserve water and resources, making farming more
environmentally friendly, but they also reduce pesticide and fertilizer
consumption significantly. When compared to traditional farming methods,
this technology produces a healthier and more organic end result.
Versatility: One of the benefits of integrating IoT in agriculture is the
enhanced agility of the systems. Farmers can react swiftly to large changes
in temperature, humidity, air quality, and the health of each crop or soil in
the field thanks to real-time monitoring and forecast systems. Agricultural
specialists can now save crops in the face of extreme weather fluctuations
thanks to new skills.
Enhanced quality of goods: Data-driven agriculture enables the
expansion of both more and better goods. Using soil and crop sensors,
aerial drone monitoring, and farm mapping, farmers can gain a better
understanding of the complex relationships between environmental
conditions and crop quality. They can use connected systems to mimic the
optimum circumstances and improve the nutritional content of the goods.
IoT and Agricultural Network Platforms

The platform of the IoT agricultural network is applicable to both big data
analytics and cloud models.
The Analytics of Big Data:

Big data analysis was used to extract the essential and relevant information
from a large amount of data in a variety of formats. Farm data is used to create
models for controlling agricultural diseases and crop growth. Agricultural
producers can use big data analysis to help them make better decisions about
crop output and cost analyses. Big data analytics were the emphasis of the
IoT agriculture network platform. The network platform is made up of six
parts:
• Farmer / User interface,

• Big Data processing,
• Sensing and tracking,
• Storage facilities,
• Protocols for communication, and
• Physical implementations.
This platform provides access to the Internet of Things backbone and
aids in the collection of data on soil fertility, weather conditioning, moisture
status, crop tracking online, and other topics.
• Experience with Farmers: The farmer experience part is intended
to assist farmers in tracking agricultural productivity in a variety
of ways, including identifying the suitability of fruitful choices
and awarding farmers for good crop development. Climate
factors, crop growth conditions, soil quality, and livestock health
monitoring all aid farmers in tracking the state of their business
and mitigating lower output threats.
• Predictive analysis: This study makes the entire ecosystem
smarter by combining smart agricultural market intelligence with
IoT technology. Its main goal is to assess, examine, and process
digital agricultural data knowledge. Predictive analysis is used
to confirm the probabilistic probability of crop productivity till
the next season. Various detecting devices are used to assess
agricultural disease, meteorological conditions, and predict profit
/ loss based on crop productivity. Predictive analysis makes it
easier for the farm to think about the ideal planting and harvesting
times, as well as different farm management tactics.
• Multicultural Evaluation: According to scientific approaches,
big data processing removes the possibility of crop harm in
this analysis. The Botanic Aquaculture sheet provides big data
in order to optimize the rate of water growth. When big data
analysis allows it, other multicultural approaches like citriculture,
horticulture, and floriculture offer immediate benefits. It’s useful
for crop or plant decision-making, as well as seasonal growth
and pest management. Vermiculture is a technique for growing
earthworms. Arboriculture is a term that refers to the cultivation
of woody plants. Olericulture is a program that predicts and
calculates the pace of growth of different vegetable plants.
• Tracking and sensing: The application of diverse equipment

for sensing and monitoring is used in the study of sensing and
monitoring. Sensors collect data and record information about
agricultural diseases. The sensing layer collects data processed
by numerous resources automatically. Statistical studies have
been conducted on data acquired from sensors in order to monitor
the disease. Farmers can access essential information such as
pH value, temperature, soil moisture, and humidity via the web
and SMS service. The farmer can acquire quick and trustworthy
information by tracking data from real-time photos and videos.
• Protocols of Contact: Contact protocols collect and encapsulate
agricultural data. The collection and transmission of data through
the usage of these protocols have been called the nerve center of
IoT in agriculture. WIFI, Lora-Wan, and Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) technologies connected to the Internet are
examples of these protocols. When third-party service providers
such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE), CDMA, or the Global System
for Mobile (GSM) are unavailable, ZigBee is often regarded as
the essential enabler for long-distance communication.
• Facilities for Storage: Farmers store crop-related data in order to
better analyze it in the future and use it for increased efficiency
in several seasons.
• Physical Commentaries: Several sensors, actuators, and
microcontrollers are physically implemented to track diverse
agricultural applications. The physical layer also includes
switches, routers, and gateways, among other network appliances.
At this layer, the entire environment is sensed, and the system
then operates according to a set of instructions.
Cloud Infrastructure:
The cloud provides a big amount of storage via large virtualized machines
linked together to do the required operation. To provide decision-making
information, IoT approaches are utilized to evaluate and manage farm data
via sensors and devices. The platform has been presented with four layers:
Cloud Storage, Gateway, Fog Computing, and hardware modules. The cloud
storage layer stores all agricultural data in the cloud, including temperature,
soil, fertilizer, crop, and agricultural marketing, and offers a networked
infrastructure with on-demand services. Web applications and analytics
tools are frequently built in the cloud or made cloud-based. The majority
of gadgets or sensors are not designed to connect to the internet in order to
share data. Local gateways are designed to handle this data sharing issue by
acting as a bridge between all hardware devices and sensors for networking,
protection, and controllability. The ability to automate and administer the
greenhouse monitoring system in real-time improves with the installation
of a greenhouse or field gateway. Fog computing involves capital, while
hardware modules and cloud facilities are spread. Fog computing reduces
the computing load on the cloud and ensures real-time processing.
The basic goal of fog computing in this proposed network platform is to
optimize cloud computing resources’ on-demand scalability by combining
cloud and edge computing. Several actuators, sensors, microcontrollers, and
central processing units have been put into hardware modules to track and
feel various agricultural conditions. On global or local networks, hardware
modules are distributed and used to develop services or processes. For
the deployment of smart farming, a quick response time and the ability to
communicate information are critical. Each of these characteristics (quick
reaction time and capacity to communicate information) is met by two
protocols: Representational State Transfer (REST) and Message Queuing
Telemetry Transport (MQTT). It is more efficient for smart farming than
utilizing a distributed big data center system because it divides massive
computations into simple and smaller jobs like crop, temperature, nutrients,
electricity, atmosphere, soil moisture, and so on. The IoT Agricultural
Network’s Topology and Protocols The topology of the IoT agricultural
network depicts how many parts of the network are connected and is an
ideal smart farming scenario. This widely used agricultural solution
transforms a variety of electronic devices, including cellphones, laptops,
and field terminals, into hybrid computing grids for storage. Sensed data is
subsequently processed and saved, and stored data from numerous sensors
and devices become valuable for aggregation. On the basis of aggregation
and analysis, farmers can track many crop data from anywhere in the
field. Furthermore, it includes an appropriate network arrangement for the
streaming of agricultural photos.
In conclusion, the Internet of Things-based agricultural production
system was established on farmers’ long-standing need to assure that their
land would be viable in the future. It also meets the community’s demands
and concerns about nutritional food and environmental safety. An agricultural
production system was designed using IoT technology and implemented
as a GUI visualization tool for agricultural production. By studying the
relationship between crop statistical information and information on the

agricultural climate, the IoT-based agricultural production system has
improved farmers’ ability to appraise current circumstances and estimate
future harvests. Farmers may also improve the quality of agricultural
products by tracking the full cycle from seeding to sale utilizing this IoT-
based agricultural production strategy. The internet is transforming many
aspects of day-to-day agricultural operations in many ways, thanks to the
Internet of Things. Waste reduction, greater pest control, and increased
productivity are just a few of the benefits of IoT technology in agricultural
operations. As farmers continue to face escalating expenses and limited
resources, IoT technology will be critical to cutting costs and optimizing
yields from available resources. The Internet of Things is poised to take
farming to the next level. Smart farming is already growing more popular
among farmers, and high-tech farms are becoming the standard thanks to
agricultural drones and sensors. By providing real-time field monitoring,
IoT-based Smart Farming boosts the overall agricultural system. With the
use of sensors and interconnectivity, the Internet of Things in Agriculture
not only saved farmers’ time but also reduced the waste of resources like
water and power.
ROBOTICS AND PA
Overview
The primary motivation for automating farming procedures is to save
time and energy spent on repetitive farming tasks while also enhancing
productivity. Precision agriculture, often known as smart farming, is a
type of farming. This agricultural revolution is changing the way food is
produced. Smart farming necessitates a significant reduction in chemical
inputs. Tillage, planting, harvesting, and seed sowing are also included to
satisfy the crop conditions across the field. It makes extensive use of cutting-
edge technologies such as GIS tools, satellite imagery, and more. This
method can also be used to estimate intrinsic spatial variability and identify
significant elements that affect yield. It also guarantees that differences in
soil qualities or crop yields are discovered and mapped, allowing for prompt
action. Several autonomous guided robotic vehicles have been designed to
weed agricultural fields automatically. Precision agriculture typically entails
intricate operations that can only be carried out by machines. Precision
agricultural robots not only combat weeding issues, but also undertake
complicated precision agriculture activities to increase crop output to a

considerable amount.
How Robots Work in PA

The robot navigates the field and does the work that has been set to it. It
assists farmers by blowing weeds, applying herbicides, and harvesting
crops, as well as having navigation systems to help them find their way
around. Cameras are also used to choose green plants from the soil. Weed
control is critical because weed growth affects crop output by more than
half. As a result, the robots have a precise spraying mechanism that sprays
herbicides onto the crops. The use of sensors in this robotic system allows it
to monitor plant nutrient levels and provide fertilizer as needed.
Main Advantages of Robots in PA

• They’re light, which means they won’t compact the soil.
• Emissions of carbon dioxide are reduced.
• Weeds are eradicated.
• Chemicals that are applied precisely can help to reduce soil
degradation and water contamination.
• Many of the robots can work to a precision of 2 cm, allowing
each seed to be properly put and mapped.
• Robotics in the field can help promote multi-cropping systems,
which can help with natural pest management and increase
biodiversity and yields.
• Water efficiency can be improved by using scouting and crop
care technology to optimize irrigation.
Commercialization of Robots in PA
Due to the introduction of unique and technologically superior robots, the
precision agriculture robot market is seeing a growth in investments globally.
Agricultural robots, sometimes known as ‘agri-bots,’ are progressively being
implemented around the world to help farmers and increase production
by assisting in operations such as harvesting and scouting. Harvesting
has long been an automated activity, and this trend is continuing over the
world. Hand-picking is still the norm for the more fragile crops. Octinion is
working on a strawberry harvesting robot. Augean Robotics, meanwhile, has
built a lightweight, self-driving, rugged cart robot that can follow a person
about and carry their belongings. Many companies, such as Soyl, offer field
mapping services that allow farmers to apply fertilizer at varying rates. Here
are a few more concrete examples:
Auto-Probe: Ag-Robotics’ Auto-Probe is a precision agriculture robotic
device that provides current soil services to boost crop output and cost
savings. In comparison to any other commercially available equipment, it
also provides efficient, consistent, and accurate soil analysis. This automated
system has a 6’ deep probe and takes samples faster than semiautomatic or
human sampling methods. The following are some of the Auto-main Probe’s
advantages:
• Capable of sampling 150 acres within an hour
• Generates a quality sample every 45 seconds and sends it to cabs
• High yield
• Low cost
• Increased return
Boni-Rob: Boni-Rob is an autonomous field robot that is equipped
with a global positioning system (GPS) and agro-sensors with spectrum
imaging technology, created by Amazonen-Werke in collaboration with
Robert Bosch GmbH, Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences, and other
partners. A quick-change device for sensors and a chassis with individual
wheel drive are included in the robot. This gives you a lot of flexibility, with
track widths ranging from 75 to 200 cm and adjustable ground clearance
between 40 and 80 cm. It can navigate on its own and find the GPS location
of individual plants before mapping and recording them. This device is
capable of continuously determining and monitoring plant growth statuses.
The following are some of Boni-key Rob’s benefits:
• Aids plant breeders by automatically acquiring measured data of
many plants
• Highly efficient
• Rapidly produces the output
• Eliminates weeds
• Selective application of fertilizer
CHAPTER 3
VARIABLE-RATE APPLICATION
CONTENTS
Overview.................................................................................................. 82
Variable-Rate Application Methods........................................................... 82
Basic VRA Concepts................................................................................. 84
Seeding VRA............................................................................................. 85
Weed Control VRA................................................................................... 86
New and Developing Vra Systems............................................................ 93
Other Useful Devices............................................................................... 94
Sensor-Based Devices............................................................................... 95
Lime VRA................................................................................................. 97
Fertilizer VRA............................................................................................ 99
VRA-N Critique........................................................................................ 99
Current VRA-N Strategies........................................................................ 100
VRA-N Considerations for the Future...................................................... 101
On-The-Go Crop Sensing for VRA-N....................................................... 101
Economic Comparison of VRA Research Findings................................... 102
OVERVIEW
Before implementing a site-specific crop management (SSCM) program, a
number of questions must be answered. Many of these issues are economic
in nature, while others are agronomic and environmental in nature, and still
others are technological in nature. This section will explore the many variable-
rate devices available, as well as which technologies might be most suited
to a cropping system and production management plan. With a traditional
sprayer, most farmers have used a form of variable-rate application (VRA).
A traditional sprayer uses spray nozzles and a pressure-regulating valve to
apply a chemical that has been tank-mixed with a carrier (typically water) to
give a desired volumetric amount of spray mix at a specific vehicle speed.
Any deviation from the calibration rate in boom pressure or vehicle speed
results in an application rate that differs from the desired rate. Applicators
have taken advantage of this in the past. For example, if the applicator
notices a strong weed infestation, he or she can manually raise the pressure
or slow down the speed to administer a larger (but unknown) herbicide rate.
VARIABLE-RATE APPLICATION METHODS

What techniques of variable-rate fertilizer, lime, weed control, and seed
application are available? This is an essential technological question. There
are several VRA technologies on the market that can be used with or without
a GPS system. VRA is made up of two core technologies:
• Map-based VRA: Map-based The application rate is adjusted by
VRA using an electronic map, also known as a prescription map.
The concentration of input is modified as the applicator moves
through the field, using the field position from a GPS receiver and
a prescription map of the desired rate.
• Sensor-based VRA: VRA based on sensors does not require a
map or positioning system. Sensors on the applicator take “on-
the-fly” measurements of soil parameters or crop attributes. A
control system calculates the input demands of the soil or plants
based on this continuous stream of data and sends the information
to a controller, which provides the input to the place measured by
the sensor. Because map-based and sensor-based VRA both have
their own set of advantages and disadvantages, several SSCM
systems have been designed to combine the advantages of both
methods.
Variable-Rate Application 83
Map-Based VRA
The map-based method makes use of maps of previously measured items
and can be used in a variety of ways. Crop growers and consultants have
devised techniques for changing inputs depending on the following factors:
• soil type,
• soil color and texture,
• topography (high ground, low ground),
• crop yield,
• field scouting data,
• remotely sensed images, and
• numerous other information sources that can be crop and location-
specific.
Some techniques are based on a single source of information, while
others include multiple sources. The user, regardless of the technique, is
ultimately in charge of the application rate. By “reading” the prescription
map, these systems must be able to determine machine location in the field
and relate that location to a desired application rate. The map-based method
could, for example, incorporate the following steps to produce a prescription
map for the nutrient VRA in a specific field:
• Perform systematic soil sampling (and lab analysis) for the field.
• Generate site-specific maps of the soil nutrient properties of
interest.
• Use an algorithm to develop a site-specific nutrient prescription
map.
• Use the prescription map to control a fertilizer variable-rate
applicator.
During the sampling and application processes, a positioning system is
utilized to record the location of the sampling sites in the field and to apply
the prescribed nutrient rates to the relevant sections of the field.
Sensor-Based VRA
The sensor-based method allows you to change the pace at which inputs are
applied without any prior mapping or data collection. While on the move,
real-time sensors measure the desired parameters – usually soil properties
or crop traits. The data collected by such a device is then analyzed and used
to regulate a variable-rate applicator right away. The sensor technique does
not necessitate the deployment of a positioning system or substantial data

processing prior to implementing variable-rate applications. If the sensor
data is collected and geo-referenced, it can be used in future site-specific
crop management exercises to create a prescription map for other and future
operations, as well as give the grower an “as applied” application record.
BASIC VRA CONCEPTS

VRA; Variable rate application (VRA) is an abbreviation for a method of
applying various rates of inputs in appropriate zones over a field. VRA’s
objectives are to maximize profit to the fullest extent possible, improve
input application efficiencies, and assure long-term sustainability and
environmental safety.
VRA management zones: VRA management zones depict a field’s
inherent variability and are used to control the VRA of inputs throughout
the field. Most fields have five separate zones on average, but this varies for
every field.
Prescription map: A prescription map is an electronic data file that
contains particular input rate information for each zone of a field.
Remote sensing: The science and skill of obtaining information about
the earth’s surface without actually coming into contact with it is known
as remote sensing. This is accomplished by recording energy radiated or
reflected from the earth’s surface. The collected data is then processed and
evaluated, and the results are used to create a prescription map for usage in
a variable-rate application.
VRA and increased economic potential: By carefully optimizing
inputs in each management zone, VRA maximizes your economic return.
VRA enables you to concentrate inputs on management zones that yield the
best results, while reducing inputs in zones with lower productivity or when
previous management has resulted in a scenario where inputs are in short
supply.
SEEDING VRA
By modifying the seed-metering drive speed, planters and drills can be
converted to VRA seeders. This will have a significant impact on the plant
population. By detaching or disconnecting the planter’s seed-meter devices
from the ground driving wheel, VRA seeding can be done. The seeding rate
can be changed on the fly by connecting a motor or gear box (to adjust the
speed of the ground wheel input). Many of these devices will be linked to
a prescription map and have two or more rates. A two-rate scenario might
be a system that reduces seeding rates outside of a center-pivot irrigation
system’s reach, while several rates might be needed to account for soil types
(water-holding capacity) and organic matter.
Figure 12: Hydraulic motor control seed meter.
Source: Grisso et al., (2011).

A hydraulic drive unit, processor, and groundspeed sensor are all part of
a commercial system. To manage the speed given to the seed meter shaft,
a hydraulic motor (driven by tractor hydraulics) is connected to an electric
stepper motor. To transmit a signal to the hydraulic drive, a controller
receives a groundspeed signal and coordinates it with the planter width and
seeding rate. Seeding rates are synchronized with fertilizer, herbicide, and
insecticide application rates on some planters/ drills since they are operated
by the same meter shaft.
Figure 13: Hydraulic motor attached to the seed-meter shaft.
Source: Daniel& Paulus, (2018).

VRA seeding is being developed using on-the-go sensors (see the figure
above on weed control VRA). Different levels of organic matter are detected
by soil organic matter (SOM) sensors, which change the plant population
rate correspondingly. There are soil moisture meters available for depth
modification and adjusting planting rates.
WEED CONTROL VRA

Some type of “task computer” is required for map-based weed control
VRA systems to deliver a signal showing the target rate for the present
site. Second, a mechanism is required to physically change the application
rate to meet the present specified rate. There are several distinct types of
VRA-compatible control systems on the market today. There will be three
categories discussed:
• Flow-based control of a tank mix.
• Chemical-injection-based control, with the subset, chemical-
injection control with carrier.
• Modulated spraying-nozzle control system.
All of these methods, by the way, sprang from a need to automatically
match application rates to groundspeed fluctuations. These methods
prevent a lot of application errors that might happen when groundspeeds
deviate from the calibrated setting. The capacity to apply variable rates is a
reasonable next step once an electronic system manages the application rate.
This necessitates the ability to adjust the prescribed application rate, or “set
point,” based on the rate prescribed for that site.
Figure 14: VRA based on On-the-go sensor.
Flow-Based Control Systems

The simplest of the three types of tank mix control is flow-based control.
To apply the correct rate of tank mix, these systems integrate a flow
meter, a groundspeed sensor, and a controlled valve (servo valve) with
an electronic controller. The proper flow rate (gallons per minute) for the
present groundspeed is calculated by a microprocessor in the console using
parameters such as sprayer width and required gallons per acre. After that,
the servo valve is opened or closed until the flow-meter reading matches the
calculated flow rate. A VRA can be created if a communication link can be

established between this controller and a “map system.” These systems have
the benefit of being quite straightforward. They can also adjust the rate of
the boom as rapidly as the control system can respond to a new rate order,
which is usually rather quick (three to five seconds). Flow-based controllers,
like any other technology, have limits. By permitting varied pressure rates to
be transmitted to the spray nozzles, the flow sensor and servo valve control
the flow of the tank mix. This can cause significant changes in spray droplet
size as well as drift issues. Some systems will alert you if the pressure is
outside the nozzles’ optimal functioning range. The driver can reduce the
vehicle’s speed to return the pressure to a safe level. This is the most popular
method. Its normal operating procedures state that the operator must mix the
chemical with the carrier in the spray tank and that there will likely be some
remaining tank mix. However, this is a reasonably basic method that should
suit the majority of needs while providing operators with the ability to use a
single herbicide, VRA.
Figure 15: VRA spraying system that is a flow-based control system of applica-
tion rate.

Chemical Direct-Injection Systems

Direct injection of the chemical into a stream of water is an alternate method
of chemical application and control. Instead of managing the flow rate of a
tank mix, these systems use a controller and a chemical pump to govern the
rate of chemical injection. The carrier (water) flow rate is normally constant,
whereas the injection rate is adjusted to account for changes in groundspeed
or the prescribed rate. The system can be utilized for VRA if the controller has
been created or adapted to accept an external instruction (from a GPS signal
and prescription map). Chemical injection decreases chemical exposure
during tank mixing by eliminating residual tank mix. Another benefit of
this system is that the carrier’s constant flow may be modified to operate
the boom nozzles at the desired size and dispersion of spray droplets. The
long transport delay between the chemical-injection pump and the discharge
nozzles at the boom’s ends is the main disadvantage of variable-rate control.
Before the increased rate reaches the nozzles, the volume within the spray
plumbing (hoses and attachments) must be applied. As the new chemical
concentration works its way out through the boom, this can cause delays in
the rate change and “Christmas tree” patterns of application. For example,
a simulation of a farmer-owned broadcast sprayer (60-foot boom divided
into five sections) revealed that a newly specified rate would travel over
100 feet forward before reaching the sprayer’s end nozzles. A well-designed
plumbing system and well-matched nozzles, on the other hand, can reduce
reaction time. Some control systems will look ahead (knowing where they
are and how fast they are going) and make the necessary changes. As a
result of these restrictions, systems that use both carrier and injection control
have emerged. VRA should be utilized in conjunction with carrier control as
indicated in the next section, according to all manufacturers.
Figure 16: VRA spraying system that incorporates chemical-injection technol-

ogy.
Direct Chemical Injection with Carrier Control

Chemical injection with carrier control necessitates that the control system
adjust both the chemical injection rate and the water carrier rate in response
to variations in speed or application rate. The injection pump is managed by
one control loop, while a servo valve is controlled by a second controller to
ensure a matching carrier flow. As though it were coming from a premixed
tank, an ideal system of this type would produce a mix of consistent
concentration. Many of the advantages of both of the previous systems may
be found in this system. Chemicals are injected directly into the tank, so
there is no leftover mix to worry about, and the operator is not exposed
to chemicals during the tank mixing procedure. The switch from one rate
to another occurs as quickly as both the chemical and carrier controllers
can make the switch, which is normally quite quick. A more complex
system with a greater starting cost is one disadvantage, as is the challenge
of delivering changing volumes of liquid through spray nozzles when rates
change, resulting in changes in droplet and spray characteristics. These
systems will give you a lot of control over your spraying operations and
offer the capability of VRA of herbicides from a prescription map if you
conduct a lot of spraying and want to avoid the hazards of tank mixing.
Modulated Spraying-Nozzle Control Systems

VRA with spray drift control is possible with modulated spraying-nozzle
control (MSNC) systems under a wide range of operating situations. The
timing and length of nozzle discharge are controlled by MSNC. The amount
of time that spray is delivered from traditional nozzles is controlled by high-
speed valves. The technologies allow for on-the-fly changes in flow rate and
droplet size distribution. Here’s a quick rundown of the system. Sprayers with
MSNC use standard sprayer nozzle assemblies in conjunction with direct
acting, in-line solenoid valves. A spraying system with modulated spraying-
nozzle control is seen in the diagram below. The system is controlled by
a microprocessor and an application controller that responds to flow and
pressure sensor signals.
Figure 17: VRA spraying system using modulated spraying-nozzle control

(MSNC) technology.

When a flow control valve is open, the main notion of MSNC spraying
is to run each nozzle at maximum design pressure and flow. The key is to
change the length of time the valve is open to change the flow rate (and
consequently the application rate) without modifying the droplet size
distribution or spray pattern. A typical nozzle assembly is fitted directly to a
fast-acting, electrical, solenoid-controlled nozzle assembly (figure below).
Solenoids that operate at a frequency of 10 Hz are used in MSNC systems.
This means that a controller that responds to input from a computer and a
collection of sensors can cycle the solenoid position between open and closed
10 times per second. In one-tenth of a second, a cycle of events (valve open/

spray/valve close) occurs. Valve response must be extremely fast for MSNC
systems to function optimally. Each valve receives an electrical signal that
causes one of two flow conditions: full flow (fully open valve) or zero flow
(completely closed valve). The solenoid-operated valves respond to an
electrical signal in around 4 milliseconds (ms) or 0.004 seconds. During
any 0.1-second cycle, changing the valve position from open to closed and
back (or vice versa) would take 8 ms. If the control system changes valve
position every 0.1-second, this translates to a minimum duty cycle (length
of time the value is open for flow) of roughly 10% and a maximum duty
cycle of about 90%. The MSNC system can also be programmed to run in
full-open mode (100 percent duty cycle). Because the amount of time (duty
cycle) each flow-control valve stays open determines the flow rate from
each nozzle, the percentage of full, rated nozzle flow would be equal to the
duty cycle represented as a percentage. This results in a flow rate range of
about 9-to-1 from each nozzle, despite the MSNC systems being sold with
a more cautious flow-control range of 8-to-1. Take, for example, a typical
nozzle with a rated capacity of 0.8 gpm and a pressure of 40 psi. Reduce
nozzle flow rates with the MSNC technology while retaining droplet size
distribution and spray pattern features. As a result, it is the usual procedure/
strategy to install nozzles that will fulfill the highest flow requirement in a
given spraying circumstance.
Figure 18: Fasting-acting, electrical, solenoid-controlled nozzle assembly.

After this, the MSNC system is used to lower rates as needed. The
reduced risk of plugging is one advantage of utilizing larger nozzles. The
MSNC system, in addition to adjusting nozzle flow rates at a given system
pressure, can be operated at lower pressures to enhance droplet size and
limit drift potential in locations and under atmospheric circumstances where
drift would likely cause harm. By extending the amount of time the nozzle
remains open during a minute, application rates can be maintained even
while system pressure is reduced. It may appear to be a risky venture to
open and close nozzles while a sprayer travels through the field. No liquid
will be discharged if a nozzle is held closed for even a fraction of a second.
Surely, sections of a field will be ignored during typical sprayer operation! A
1/20-second (1/2-cycle) “phase shift” of adjacent nozzles is used to address
this. When one nozzle is turned off, the nozzles next to it are switched on.
These sprayers use broad spray-angle nozzles to maximize spray pattern,
overlap, and minimize the effect of “pulses and pauses” created at the
nozzles (110-degree angle versus the more-common 80-degree angle).
The capacity to control both application rate and droplet-size distribution
throughout a field is one of the possible benefits of adopting a chemical-
application system.
• Produce a broader range in flow rates with much more consistent
spray characteristics than conventional sprayers.
• Vary nozzle flow rates and/or travel speeds over a wide range
without affecting spray pattern or droplet-size distribution.
• Vary droplet-size distribution without changing the application
rate to minimize drift potential near sensitive areas or to increase
spray coverage needed for some contact-type products.
VRA nutrients can also be applied using MSNC technology. While drift
control isn’t a big deal in fertilizer application, the MSNC gives applicators
another option if they want to use site-specific crop management techniques.
NEW AND DEVELOPING VRA SYSTEMS

A few different control systems have been described in this article. However,
this is a rapidly changing field, and new models with advanced features are
introduced on a regular basis. Searching the Web for product descriptions
and specifications using the manufacturer’s name as a keyword can be
helpful. However, Web-based materials change frequently, and a search will
almost certainly yield new information that will aid in the selection of a
system that is fit for specific farming techniques.
OTHER USEFUL DEVICES

There are some regions of the field where chemicals should not be used.
A grass waterway, for example, is a best management practice (BMP) for
reducing erosion from a field, but if a nonselective herbicide is sprayed in the
region while passing over the section, the BMP will be severely damaged. A
boom control can automatically switch the boom (or sections of the boom)
on and off to prevent application to specific locations by mapping these
areas of the field. If the boom portion is in a previously applied area (figure
below), the controller can automatically switch it off, preventing overlaps.
It also eliminates skips by re-energizing boom portions after leaving an
area where it was previously applied. If the sprayer passes over an area
where chemicals have already been applied, the controller recognizes the
overlap and turns off certain portions or nozzles of the implement to prevent
the use of superfluous chemicals. This boom control can be quite useful
when spraying odd-shaped fields, grass streams, or impediments in a field.
Applicators should assess the expense of an automated boom section-
control device against the possible savings on inputs before purchasing the
equipment. However, due to autonomous boom management, one Virginia
farmer reported a 15% reduction in input costs (crop protection chemicals
and liquid fertilizers).
Figure 19: Electronic boom control to eliminate overlaps.

SENSOR-BASED DEVICES
Because the amount of soil organic matter impacts the performance of some
herbicides, soil organic matter sensors can be utilized with VRA preplant
herbicides (often mentioned on the label).
Figure 20: Cross-section schematic of a subsurface, soil-reflectance optical

sensor.
Source: Adamchuk and Jasa, 2002

Without prescription maps or other inputs, such a sensor might be
used to autonomously change herbicide rates. The herbicide applicator
pulls or pushes the sensor through the soil in this application. Because
weed infestations are patchy, uniformly treating entire fields can result in
ineffective weed management or excessive herbicide use. Remote sensing
may be a technology that might help with weed scouting and management
decisions. Our eyes serve as distant sensors. In a soybean field, we can
easily discern between weed-free and weedy sections, as well as different
weed species, based on leaf shapes and sizes. Separate reflectance values
from individual features are averaged over the full pixel area within the
sensor when a remote-sensing instrument captures reflectance at the field
scale. Some sprayers are configured to turn on and off the application device
based on reflectance data of bare ground compared to green weeds growing
between crop rows. A Weed Seeker, for example, is a commercial unit with
a reflectance sensor that detects chlorophyll. The data is interpreted by
the microprocessor, and when a threshold signal (indicating the presence
of weeds) is crossed, a controller activates the spray nozzle. The Weed
Seeker system uses near-infrared (NIR) light-reflectance measurements to

discern between green vegetation, bare soil, and crop residue utilizing close-
proximity optical sensors.
Figure 21: The optical sensor control of the spray nozzle (Weed Seeker).
Source: da Costa & Mendes, (2020).

A light source and an optical sensor are included in each sensor unit.
The sensors are targeted at the ground and positioned on a bar or spray
boom ahead of the spray nozzle. A signal is supplied from a controller
to a solenoid-operated valve to discharge herbicide when a chlorophyll
(green) reflectance signal exceeds a threshold (specified by the user during
calibration). The technology is programmed to turn on just before a weed
is encountered and stay on until the herb is passed. It can go at speeds
ranging from 3 to 10 mph. The unit can greatly reduce chemical application
volumes in locations where weed infestation levels are variable (compared
to uniform, continuous applications). Because the Weed-Seeker is unable
to discern between plant kinds (preferred crops versus undesirable weeds),
its agricultural applications are limited to between-the-row applications in
standing crops or on-the-spot treatment of the fallow area.
Figure 22: Boom Design Change from Fixed Boom to Floating Boom.
Source: Miles, (2018).

The boom-height control is another sensor-based control device. Despite

the fact that this is not a VRA device, it does increase spray boom coverage,
eliminating streaks and inappropriate overlaps. The ultrasonic sensors detect
the distance to the ground 40 times per second. This information enables
the control system to make responsive height adjustments, allowing sprayer
booms to follow the contours of the terrain automatically. In all types of
rough terrain, the technology has demonstrated reliable control at average
speeds of more than 18 mph.
LIME VRA
VRA lime application, according to economists, is one of the most profitable
SSCM solutions for soil pH management. The yield response to soil pH is
unique in that it can decline with both low and high pH levels. As a result,
there is a yield penalty for either underapplying or overapplying lime;
hence, increased precision equals higher yields. Similarly, the additional
penalty (for excessive inputs) might be imposed artificially on other crops
and inputs by environmental restrictions and tariffs, greatly enhancing the
potential economic gains from precision farming. Thousands of acres are
sampled around the United States at scales ranging from 2.5 to 4.0 acres.
Both spinner spreaders and pneumatic applicators use VRA for dry chemicals
(lime amendments and nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium,
NPK)). With a single hopper body, spinner spreaders can only change one
product at a time.
Figure 23: Spinner-Disc Spreader Set Up.
Source: Trey C et al., (2018).

Material is transferred from a hopper to the spinning disks by a conveyor

belt or chain. Adjusting the gate opening and/or modifying the conveyor
speed control the application rate. The conveyor is controlled by a driving
system identical to the one used for VRA seeding.
Figure 24: Modified VRA Pneumatic granular fertilizer spreader.
Source: Chattha et al., (2014).

VRA pneumatic applicators use an air stream to evenly distribute the
substance through a piped boom. Dry material suspended in an air stream is
distributed by these applicators, which feature centrally positioned bins or
hoppers. With metering devices on each bin, single or multiple items can be
blended and metered on the go. Grid sampling or an on-the-go sensor can be
used to create the pH prescription map. The on-the-go sensor scoops a little
amount of soil, pushes it against an electrode, waits a few seconds for the
electrode to stabilize, records the reading, and then rinses the mechanism to
prepare for the next sample. The apparatus is installed on a toolbar hauled by
a pickup truck, large ATV, or small tractor and is a separate operation. The
“pH Manager” option on the commercial Veris-Mobile Sensor Platform is
touted as having sensors to monitor soil electrical conductivity (EC).
FERTILIZER VRA
Fertilizer applications might encompass a wide range of devices. Many of
the VRA fertilizer application technologies are comparable to weed control
(liquid applications) and liming (dry chemicals). Weather effects, nutrient
availability, and seasonal cycles can all hamper their efficiency. We’ll go
over the important nutrients and why certain of them are more likely to be
used in conjunction with VRA.
Phosphorus VRA: Phosphorus (P) VRA is likely to be the second-most
profitable VRA activity. Because soil phosphorus (P) is not as transient as
soil nitrogen (N), grid soil testing can be used for several years. Furthermore,
there is evidence that increasing soil-test phosphorus may have long-term
economic benefits. Because of the high financial expenditure required to
reveal the intrinsic disparities in soil-test phosphorus within a field, it is
often profitable to do so – at least at one point in time.
Nitrogen VRA: Despite the potential economic and environmental
benefits of VRA nitrogen (N) management, growers have been slow to
adopt it. The fact that suggested nitrogen fertilizer rates are typically poorly
connected with real economically optimum nitrogen rates is a key stumbling
block. Nitrogen response patterns are generally field and season-specific,
and they can vary greatly even within the same field, making the generation
of prescription maps even more difficult. In side-by-side assessments of
uniform and VRA-N management, neither strategy consistently outperformed
the other in terms of yields, profitability, whole-field nitrogen use, or plant
nitrogen use efficiency. Better crop-simulation models, enhanced nitrogen
sensing and application equipment, and a better knowledge of temporal
fluctuation in nitrogen soil test levels may help producers capture the benefits
of VRA-N management in the future. VRA-N has the highest potential with
real-time crop sensors, as these systems are designed to “detect” the nitrogen
demands of the crop at the time of application. To calibrate the sensor, these
devices require well-fertilized areas in the field. Current research is being
conducted to see if these systems will be widely used in the future.
VRA-N CRITIQUE
Corn farmers must choose the right amount of nitrogen fertilizer to apply
to their fields every season. Growers must now decide whether to apply
nitrogen at a consistent rate or use VRA within fields, thanks to today’s
GPS-enabled application equipment and accompanying precision farming
tools. Nitrogen application rates that are more precisely tailored to match
crop needs should boost profitability, reduce environmental risk, and maybe
result in better grain quality. Variable nitrogen application, on the other
hand, has lagged behind other precision farming technologies in terms of
adoption. Why is this? According to recent university research: Managing
nitrogen in subregions of fields, or even entire fields, is a difficult task
that calls into question several long-held nutrient management views. The
development of decision-making criteria that can accurately predict nitrogen
rates for subregions of corn, wheat, rice, cotton, and other crops that are
economically optimal and environmentally sustainable will be critical to the
success and eventual adoption of variable-rate nitrogen management.
CURRENT VRA-N STRATEGIES

Many academicians thought that providing accurate nitrogen
recommendations for subregions of fields would be a given by the mid-
1990s. The advent of various new instruments to routinely monitor site
factors that directly affected crop-nitrogen status, soil nitrogen availability,
and crop production contributed to this optimism. Preseason and late-spring
soil nitrate tests, late-season stalk nitrate tests, remote sensing of crop and soil
parameters, site-specific yield monitor data, and soil electrical conductivity
maps were among the testing. However, in order for these new spatial tools
to be useful, the prescribed nitrogen maps that they helped create had to be
precise and repeatable year after year.
Proactive Strategies
Variable-rate nitrogen methods were the first to take a proactive, prescriptive
approach. Individual “management zones” were created by dividing fields
into smaller subregions and applying methods developed for whole-field
nitrogen control to these smaller “management zones.” Prior to the growing
season, a variable nitrogen rate prescription map was created, and fertilizer
was applied at the regular time (s). Grid soil sampling and agricultural
production zones were among the methods used. Many research found the
following:
• Neither the VRA nor the uniform-rate nitrogen techniques have a
consistent income advantage.
• The nitrogen technique had little effect on yields.
• Both strategies produced identical nitrogen rates across the entire
field.
• When utilizing VRA-N, postseason soil nitrate levels were not

significantly lowered.
• Depending on crop-related factors, either technique could
outperform the other in a given growing season.
To be able to forecast nitrogen reaction patterns on a field scale, much
more research is clearly required.
Reactive Strategies
Reacting to actual nitrogen levels in crop fields during the growing season is
a second way to site-specific nitrogen management. Nitrogen is administered
only when and where it is needed, and crop nitrogen status is monitored in
near-real time. Plant or canopy reflectance of light or chlorophyll content
is employed in this method to detect plant nitrogen stress. This method can
make use of remotely sensed crop canopy imaging, but it usually necessitates
the presence of a nitrogen-fertilized “reference strip” within the field. These
optical approaches, interestingly, produce in-season nitrogen prescription
maps based on crop nitrogen stress rather than expected yield levels.
VRA-N CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

New nitrogen management systems will be adopted if they reduce risk while
also being cost-effective, accurate, simple to implement, and environmentally
friendly. Grid soil sampling for nitrogen concentration is unlikely to be
used in corn production due to the high cost of sampling and analysis, as
well as the short shelf life of sample data. Any nitrogen-recommendation
algorithm based on yield objective, productivity index, or soil type should
be thoroughly tested in the field for accuracy and reliability. The knowledge
of how to best employ the technology available to modify nitrogen fertilizer
rates within a field undoubtedly outnumbers the technology. Variable rate
nitrogen techniques will need to be carefully adjusted to match local soil,
climatic, environmental, and agronomic variables whenever they are finally
successful.
ON-THE-GO CROP SENSING FOR VRA-N

The Green-Seeker and the VRA-N are two commercially available sensor-
based systems. By computing the vegetation index, NDVI, both sensors
indirectly estimate the amount of chlorophyll (greenness) and biomass
(Normalized Difference Vegetation Index).
Nitrogen Application for Grain Crops

The concept behind nitrogen applications using the Green-Seeker is that the
amount of fertilizer required at a specific location within the field can be
determined by putting in a nitrogen-rich strip at planting or soon after, and
comparing spatial variability of crop growth across the field to crop growth
from the nitrogen strip. The nitrogen-rich strip creates an environment
where nitrogen isn’t a yield limiting issue. A nitrogen-rich strip is created
by choosing one transverse strip across the field (usually one pass of the
fertilizer application equipment) to get a complete nitrogen application at
planting. The crop sensor system is then calibrated by taking NDVI readings
from the nitrogen-rich strip at side dress. The sensors then scan NDVI
values as the fertilizer applicator passes over the field, compare them to the
NDVI values from the nitrogen-rich strip, and apply an adjusted amount of
nitrogen. For example, if the NDVI value in the nitrogen-rich strip was 0.5
but 0.6 elsewhere in the field, no nitrogen would be injected because the
sensor decided that enough nitrogen was already present. If the nitrogen-
rich strip had a 0.5 NDVI but another part of the field had a 0.4 NDVI,
nitrogen would be applied there. The use of a ramping calibration strip has
recently been suggested. Instead of a single nitrogen rate administered over
the field, a range of nitrogen rates is applied across the field. Growers will
profit from this because they will be able to witness the actual response to
a range of nitrogen rates, and they will have more knowledge on how to
properly establish the breaks for the various nitrogen rates when defining
ranges for variable-rate application.
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF VRA RESEARCH

FINDINGS
Lambert and Lowenberg-DeBoer (2000) created a list of 108 papers that
included economic data from research projects. According to their findings,
63 percent of studies demonstrated good net returns for a specific precision
farming technique, 11 percent showed negative returns, and 27 articles
showed mixed outcomes (26 percent). Except for VRA yield monitor
systems, where just yield data was used to generate a prescription map, more
than half of the studies found positive economic benefits for all precision
farming technology combinations evaluated. Approximately 60% of the VRA
research on nitrogen or NPK applications found economic benefits. When
all of the research is grouped by crop, corn, soybeans, and sugar beet studies
all indicated positive earnings in more than two-thirds of the cases. Only
20% of wheat trials yielded profits, and the remaining 20% yielded mixed
results. Seventy-two percent of corn studies and twenty percent of wheat
studies that reported numerical estimations for VRA-N revealed profits. The
level of returns varies greatly depending on the crop and technology used. In
sugar beet studies, the average return on VRA N is $74 per acre (net $48.25).
Based on 2.5-acre grids, estimated returns to lime VRA ranged from $3.46
to $5.07 per acre. VRA plant populations for maize have been observed
to range from $0.97 to $2.72 per acre. VRA weed control returns ranged
from $0.01 to $11.67 per acre, depending on weed pressure and patchiness.
Although there were some good net returns, Lambert and Lowenberg-
DeBoer (2000) did not have enough confidence in the general assumption
that similar outcomes could be produced under similar circumstances due to
the mixed findings. Conclusions in these papers frequently stated that more
research was required in order to achieve a valid conclusion.
Table 7: Economic benefits of precision farming
Reported economic benefit (%) from preci-

sion farming technology
Technology Crop Yes No Mixed Studies
VRA-N Corn 72 6 22 18
Potato . N . 1
Wheat 20 40 40 5
Soybean . . M 1
Sugar beet Y . . 1
Corn-soybean Y . . 1
VRA-P, K Corn 60 40 . 5
Potato Y . . 1
Corn-soybean Y . . .
Wheat . . M 1
VRAlime Corn Y . . 2
Soilsensing Corn Y N M 3
Sugar beet . N . 1
VRAseeding Corn 83 17 . 6
VRAweeds,pests Corn Y . . 2
Wheat Y N . 2
Soybean Y . . 2
VRAirrigation Corn Y . . 1
Corn-cotton . . M 1
VRAyieldmoni- Corn Y N M 3
tor
Sorghum . . M 1
Cotton . . M 1
VRAgeneral Barley Y . . 1
Corn-rice Y . . 1
Corn 63 13 25 8
Potato Y . M 2
Wheat 60 20 20 5
Sugar beet Y . . 3
Oats Y . . 1
Source: Lambert and Lowenberg-DeBoer (2000).

In conclusion, one management method for addressing the diversity that
exists within agricultural fields is variable-rate application of cropping inputs
such as seed, lime, fertilizers, and pesticides. Sensors, electrical controllers,
and mechanical drive systems, which operate as VRA technologies, are
required to adjust the rate of inputs on the fly. Sensor-based VRA and map-
based VRA are two methods of VRA. Each strategy has advantages and
disadvantages. In the future, the optimum method might be a hybrid of the
two. Most VRA technologies are currently commercially accessible, but
they require time and consideration about how to implement the prescription
maps. The decision to use VRA and the input prescriptions are truly site-
specific. Although VRA will not benefit every farm or field, it does provide
potential for growers to improve both productivity and environmental
efficiencies of crop production and should be carefully studied. It’s important
to be educated about changes in production agriculture, no matter what
degree of technology you use today. Not all new technologies provide all
producers with apparent and adequate economic rewards. Knowing how to
use the technology, on the other hand, will allow you to pick which pieces of
the precision puzzle will help you survive and grow in a competitive world.
CHAPTER 4
APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN
PA
CONTENTS
Overview................................................................................................ 106
Farm Management.................................................................................. 107
Crop Management.................................................................................. 114
Machinery Management......................................................................... 129
Labor Management................................................................................. 134
PA Future Requirements.......................................................................... 142
OVERVIEW
Precision agriculture (PA) encompasses more than just site-specific farming;
it also encompasses a wide range of variables. The terms “precision
agriculture” and “precision farming” are frequently interchanged in talks
around the world. Agriculture is one sector in the overall land use situation,
but precision forestry and precision fishing are specifically related to PA.
Precision (crop) farming and precision livestock farming are two different
types of precision agriculture. In most countries, viticulture and horticulture
are considered components of agriculture; another way to think about
these categories is as farms that operate only outside, on the one hand, and
farms that operate both outside and inside, on the other. Outdoor farming
is the most common, as it encompasses a wide range of precision farming
tasks. Precision farming, regardless of classification, must be viewed from
a farm-level viewpoint. Farm management, crop management, machinery
management, and labor management are all activities of interest. PA
measures can be found in all of these areas and may help with sustainability
and traceability.
Figure 25: Precision agriculture in sustainable land use.
Source: Zhang, (2015).

Application of Technology in PA 107
Figure 26: Precision farming for on-farm activity management.
FARM MANAGEMENT
To assess, plan, and control farm processes, as well as to follow social
and environmental conventions, information-driven farm management
requires data and algorithms. Databases that are widely used ensure that any
necessary documentation is available, as well as allow for detailed analysis
and predictions. Aside from typical on-farm data storage and processing, an
expanding number of off-farm services are also available and in use.
Table 8: Type of farm databases
System Characteristics Advantage Disadvantage

On-farm On-farm data Private data ownership Being alone in
storage Preferred hardware •Long-term data storage
On-farm-specific Specialized software • Hardware exchange
software • Software update
Provider (fertil- Data storage No on-farm infrastruc- Only provider-specific
izer, plant protec- Farm-related ture predictions
tion, contractor, analyses and Analyses be demand Data ownership?
etc.) predictions Predictions by demand Data security?
Specialized on-farm
services
Manufacturer Data storage No on-farm infrastruc- Only company-related

Remote machine ture provider-specific predic-
analysis and Improved machinery tions
service service and repair Data ownership?
Farm data contribute Data security?
to machinery improve-
ment
Cloud Offered by soft- No on-farm infrastruc- Data ownership?
ware companies ture Data security?
and others Great choice in re-
Data storage quired apps
Access of web- Ongoing develop-
based apps and ment of new and more
services beneficial apps

Small and medium-sized farms, as a rough estimate, continue to use on-
farm systems because most of them have personal field-based knowledge
and experience, whereas larger farms with more employees and less field-
based information prefer either contractors for fertilizing or plant protection,
or rely more on the on-farm dominant machinery supplier.
Data Acquisition and Data Analysis

The process is carried out automatically. The primary purpose of data
collecting is to create thorough field records and give cost element data
for bookkeeping. There are many different data acquisition systems, yet
there is currently no data definition standard. The way data is processed
is changing. Smaller farms frequently keep customized software systems
with cultivated field data histories adapted to simplified usage and little or
no specialized analytical tools. Improved software packages are combined
with a central database and farm-specific analytical tools by focusing on
some PA approaches. Those systems are frequently supplied in collaboration
with tractor manufacturers and contractual partners in order to facilitate
data transfer from mobile technology to the farm database and software
applications. Data storage in the cloud is still an exception, owing to
concerns about data ownership and security. Concerns about financial data
and financial information may also be perceived as a barrier to employing
this more advantageous and powerful data processing option. The following
are some examples of automated data collection systems:
• Specialized implement controllers
• Multipurpose process controllers
• Tractor terminals
• ISOBUS task controllers
• Controllers at self-propelled vehicles
Soil Mapping
Detailed soil maps were established and have been available on-farm for
field-related measures for a long time, even though they were not viewed as
part of precision farming in the past. The resolution of these entirely analog
documents varies by location and country, and they are increasingly being
made available free of charge. Soil mapping devices can now determine
soil type and nutrients. The former is primarily detected on-the-go using
electromagnetic or electroconductivity sensors like the EM38® or Veris®,
whereas soil nutrient data is primarily collected through soil sampling
technologies and accompanying chemical analysis. The time intervals
between soil nutrient assessments are frequently required by environmental
rules. Soil type and nutrient data are mostly utilized to develop field-specific
homogenous fertilization strategies based on the base nutrients (once per
growing season) and nitrogen fertilization (once or multiple times per
growing season).
Yield Mapping
One of the earliest widely accepted precision farming technologies was
the yield monitor, which was used in combine harvesters. Data collection
in yield monitors is done with particular sensors and processors. At the
combine, signal processing is done in a company-specific manner. Almost
all high-performance harvesters come with yield monitors that use different
sensor types based on the crop being harvested. Moisture sensors are also
state-of-the-art in grain harvesting systems and forage harvesters. The yield
monitoring system includes data transfer to the farm management system
(FMS) and mapping software. Grid mapping and contour mapping are the
most common ways to divide yields into one-metric ton classes using GIS
software.
Table 9: Yield Monitors in Harvesting Technologies
Harvester Sensor Type Moisture Sensor Relative Accu-

racy (%)
Grain Impact, light barrier Capacitive 5–10
Cotton Light barrier – 5–10
Forage Feed roller displacement Capacitive and 5–15
NIR
Root crops Weigh cells – 5–10
Sugarcane Weigh cells, roller – 5–15
displacement
Source: Vellidiset al. (2003).

Grid mapping simply arranges all available yield measurement results
in a grid according to their location. Grid sizes can be a single or multiples
of the combine’s working width, or they can be tied to the application
technologies’ working width, again as a single or multiples. The mean of
a grid and its variation are calculated by averaging yield measurement
measurements with their standard deviation. Different colors represent yield
zones, and different yield monitor systems use different colors to represent
yield zones. Contour mapping is a method of yield differentiation that is based
on geostatistical data processing processes. Measurement mistakes induced
by neighborhood influences (up and back harvesting design), differences in
operating velocities, or interruptions in the workflow are being investigated.
Despite this, all mapping methods deal with unavoidable measurement
inaccuracies generated by filling and emptying the material flow at the field
end. As a result, yield maps of small fields (short field length) contain more
erroneous data than yield maps of bigger fields or plots. Yield mapping is
commonly used at the farm level, according to a general evaluation. First
and foremost, it makes the primary goal of farming, yield, and its variation
apparent within the field, allowing for more exact responses in future growing
seasons. It also provides current information and expertise of a field’s given
yield performance as a preliminary measurement process. Using those
data to create a map of a field-based nitrogen balance, for example, will
provide more “real information” as well as a better comprehension of the
map’s findings. When it comes to fertilization, a well-known component,
distinction based on the field’s “mean yield” can help with classification.
The yield of a first map can be classified into two classes: above average
and below average. Most sectors would be better served by a system with
three yield classes, such as 10% around the average and classes above and
below. Finally, a system with five classes, the first with 10% around the
average, two more classes with 20% above and below the average, and two
more classes above and below the average, may be used to describe in-field
yield fluctuations in an operation-oriented manner. Farm-specific methods
based on the control and precision of existing fertilization technology will
be able to accurately administer the appropriate amount of nutrients in a site-
specific manner in this way. There are also a number of problems about yield
monitoring on a regular basis:
• Because there is no standard in data harmonization and data
processing, yield maps made from yield data of different
manufacturers within a field or across a growing period may not
be comparable. In this case, yield maps are usually just colorful
graphics.
• Different climatic conditions and different crops in a crop rotation
effect yield measurement over time. Even with similar crop
management practices, analyzing and interpreting the outcomes
is quite difficult. Crops for which no feasible yield measurement
technology is currently available also have a significant impact.
• Finally, long-term data management is problematic, especially on
smaller farms with no data storage and retrieval professionals.
Weather Monitoring
Crop farming is influenced by weather conditions in terms of field
measurements and yield. Similarly, meteorological conditions on a farm can
vary greatly, particularly in terms of wind speed, which has ramifications for
pest control, and rainfall, which has implications for fertilization and nutrient
movement in the soil. In addition, the timing of every activity is determined by
weather conditions and forecasts. Farms with a higher topographic diversity
of fields, as well as larger farms, require more regionally differentiated
weather data from their own weather stations. Using practically all weather
stations on the market is possible because of common sensors and signal
processing methods. The data link to the FMS can be either a wired hookup
or radio communication, with the first potentially causing problems owing
to lightning and thunderstorms, but the latter providing independence
through a parallel power source. The use of more powerful computers and
more sophisticated models have improved weather forecasting during the
previous few decades. On-farm use of this information is frequently free,
although more extensive information necessitates particular contracts with
suppliers or may be a free-of-charge amendment provided by other service

providers or top agricultural machinery manufacturers.
Administration
Farm management is increasingly impacted or reliant on laws and regulations
enacted by legislation. Restrictions in various parts of the world include the
following:
• Nitrogen limitations, which establish a maximum amount per
hectare via so-called farm-gate regimes. More diverse rules are
looking to the field-gate, and it is possible that the gate may come
to the part-field in the near future, along with enhanced site-
specific technologies.
• Prohibited agents are used, especially in pest control
circumstances.
• Limited time intervals in conjunction with manure applications to
frozen soil or during periods of no plant growth, which prevent
lateral flow and contamination of groundwater.
• Natural resource exclusion zones, such as streams, surfaces with
an inclination greater than a certain threshold, and nonarable land
restrictions.
In all of these cases, accurate data collection with no gaps and reliable
documentation must be ensured.
On-Farm Research
Fertilization, pest management, and irrigation treatments for plants mostly
follow standard models and/or adviser-created guidelines. While the first
two proposals are based on general guidelines, the latter may be more
relevant to actual farm situations. On-farm research is therefore critical
anytime local conditions need to be integrated more deeply. Different sorts
of implementations can be used, primarily focusing on fertilizing or pest
management:
• During fertilizing or spraying, untreated windows can reflect the
influence of any nearby applications.
• Strips with varied application rates can be used to test different
amounts or concentrations of substances.
• Small test plots with identical treatments and diverse varieties

provide accurate information on a variety’s performance.
Overall, on-farm research necessitates careful handling as well as exact
and detailed data collection. The outcome primarily benefits agricultural
management, with an emphasis on boosting profits. It also leads to more
exact fieldwork in uniform treatments during fertilization, pest management,
and irrigation, eliminating over-applications as well as flaws that lead to
lower yields or harmful infestation.
Quality Management
Farm work is frequently transferred from family members or well-trained
farm employees to untrained laborers employed full-time or part-time.
In addition, the movement of field work to contractors and/or machinery
communities (shared ownership) is becoming more common, and monitoring
will suffer in all of these circumstances. Well-defined work order and specific
data from any field activity, which might be incorporated in existing field
records or in quality management data pools, are required for more precise
farm management.
Traceability and Good Agricultural Practices

When evaluating the farm management tasks discussed in this subchapter,
it’s evident that high-quality data collecting, as well as the implementation
of various methodologies, as specified by PA, are essential for more
accurate farming. Similarly, data storage is the second difficulty. Over time,
agricultural data will become extremely important. With the development
of new storage devices and upgraded formats, this information necessitates
complex data management systems and long-term data storage technologies.
As a result, special attention should be paid to data ownership and security.
However, there are still significant holes in the documentation storage
scenario. These are primarily linked to data collecting procedures that are
neither sensor-based nor automated:
• Worker identification is important in general, but it is especially
important when dealing with hazardous substances or instruments.
• In tractor–implement combinations that follow the ISOBUS
protocol, implements without electronics are allowed.
• Seeding, planting, fertilizing, and plant-protection agents
• Yield sensors are employed in all harvesting processes.
• Soil stress and compaction are caused by field operations in

less-than-ideal conditions, or by unsuitable tires or tire inflation
pressure, or by axle loads that are too high.
Consequently, the data where failures will occur are generally manually
acquired, as humans are never perfect:
• Forgotten in times of heavy workload or at the end of a long
working day
• Wrong figures either as wrong or unclear reception or willfully
done to hide the right ones
• No perception, regarding certain items such as soil damage or soil
compaction
• Others
Finally, detailed data records describe efforts to do farm labor more
accurately, to comply with community laws and regulations, to reach the
requisite quality items in field operations, and, if necessary, to track products
back to the field and plot.
CROP MANAGEMENT
Site-specific crop production and crop management may require advanced
agricultural technology, new sensors, data processing, and powerful software
systems. These features were initially motivated by profit maximization, with
a focus on yield and fertilization; nevertheless, environmental concerns are
becoming increasingly important. In this way, the concepts and capabilities
of this notion are made available to both conventional and organic farming
systems, despite the fact that precision farming is still not the norm in the
latter and many limits exist. Crop management encompasses the entire
plant growth season, beginning with tillage and seeding or planting, then
fertilization, plant protection, and irrigation, and ending with the harvesting
of mature plants. In today’s crop management activities, however, the
utilization of precision farming technologies varies greatly.
Tillage
Despite the fact that tillage hasn’t been the focus of precision farming
applications for very long, a number of utilities have been applied to tillage
measurements, and spatial variable tillage (by intensity and depth) has been
researched and debated. The most significant impact on tillage optimization
is GNSS-based autonomous tractor guiding. Its primary purpose is to
prevent overlaps and gaps. Various studies have found that overlapping
can be decreased by 5%–10%, with the relative values increasing with
narrower working widths. Changed turning regimes, such as broad U-turns
with skipping passes rather than swallow tail turns, will cut turning times in
half. On short fields and with modest working widths, this improves field
efficiency (small-scale farming). Combining autonomous steering with
tractor headland automation improves these impacts while also reducing
workload. Some studies have attempted to assess the impact of site-specific
primary tillage by altering the tillage depth based on soil type and moisture.
While soil type remains constant throughout time, soil moisture is a variable
that is difficult to monitor on the go nowadays. As a result, in order to
implement site-specific tillage, accurate soil moisture sensors are required
first.
Figure 27: Sample algorithm for decision making in shallow and deep tillage
operations.
Source: Sommer& Voßhenrich, (2004).

Minimum till and no-till technology, as well as the availability of

autonomous guidance systems for agricultural machinery, aided the growth
of controlled traffic farming, a farming method that concentrates all field
traffic on permanent tracks and was initially explored in the 1980s. Despite
the fact that it is a complete system, it will be mentioned here.
Seeding and Planting

Seeding and planting have always been the processes with the most stringent
precision requirements. They are the building blocks of a crop stand. Markers
have traditionally been used to correctly position passes as they travel down
the field. During seeding in modern plant production systems, track lines
are put out by multiplying seeding implementation widths, matching the
application technology’s working width. Those track lines demonstrate, on
average, too small gaps up to 8% of working width in manually directed
seeding, as well as higher overlapping induced by rising slope. Aside from
tillage, GNSS navigation systems are increasingly being used to help with
seeding and planting. With the larger operating breadth of seeders and
planters in both rear-mounted and trailed tractor implement configurations,
this makes sense. In level areas and in non-slippery soil conditions, parallel
passes with this technology will achieve a precision of 0.02–0.05 m. Pass
connection errors are typically lower with rear-mounted equipment since
the location sensor is still close to the implement, and the tractor implement
geometry stored in the ISOBUS controller may also be lowered. The seeding/
planting tools are a long distance from the tractor-mounted location sensor
when using trailed seeding and planting combinations. As a result, pass-to-
pass errors increase in unfavorable conditions. To overcome this difficulty,
an additional location sensor at the implement can optimize the tractor’s
guidance. A second active steering system with a GNSS receiver at the
implement is another option. Section control of seed drills or planters is also
possible with GNSS-based position location, which automatically switches
the entire metering unit, or portions or single rows of a planter, on or off at the
headland to minimize overlapping. This function not only lowers seed costs,
but it also increases plant growth in important headland areas and simplifies
harvesting at the end of the season. Farmers modify plant density, especially
during planting, based on soil type and topography (three-dimensional)
maps. Modern planters and seed drills have electronically controlled electric
drives that allow the seed rate to be adjusted to changing field conditions,
either manually by the driver or based on maps. In locations with a triangle
or rectangular geography, these technologies also allow for equal-distance
planting. Weeding and even pest management may be taken over in the
future by small autonomous field robots that move over the field or follow
weed patches. In this planting concept, even single plant husbandry would
be conceivable.
Application in Fertilization
Site customized fertilizing was quickly implemented following local yield
measurements in combined harvesters and georeferenced soil monitoring.
There are three alternative approaches to mastering this new challenge and
opportunity from a methodical standpoint.
Figure 28: Approaches of site-specific fertilization.
Fertilizing by Balance
A highly reliable estimation of essential nutrients related to a nutrient
balance can be performed using local yield measurement from the previous
harvest combined with soil nutrient sampling and analysis at the start
of the vegetation. It’s known as “balanced farming” or, more recently,
“prescription farming.” Long-term data from a field’s historical data can
also be incorporated into the estimation. However, whatever selections are
made, this approach focuses mostly on “one-treatment only” applications,
as any changes during the growing season cannot be incorporated in the
final determination, or can only be included with poor dependability. This
strategy focuses on fundamental nutrients (P, K, Ca, etc. ), a single nitrogen
treatment, the selection of the most favorable crop type, and the nearby needed/
preferred chemicals. Application maps and proper application implements
are then used to guide fertilizing activities. Grid-based application maps
are common. When section control is possible, the grid size is limited by
either the spreader’s working width (it makes no sense if it’s narrower) or
the section width. Application maps may follow ISOBUS standards or be in
a proprietary format specific to the spreader controller in use. Spin spreaders
and air spreaders are two types of application equipment. Spin spreaders
typically have no or two section control units and can only distribute one
fertilizer type, either a single or a mixed nutrient agent, depending on the
nutrient application. The required distribution amount is strictly controlled
according to the map, resulting in more fast rather than smooth modifications.
When the controller considers the duration of the flight in relation to the
disseminated material, the required amount of output can be adjusted prior
to the map-based boundary, allowing for highly precise dosing. Driving at
different speeds reduces precision. Air spreaders help with section control
while still adhering to the above-mentioned distribution criteria. Curved
application tracks have an additional impact. If the application map includes
path planning information, this curve can be incorporated into the control
algorithms. Otherwise, there will be under- or over-application at the boom
ends. Furthermore, the multi-bin design of the spreader allows for on-the-go
nutrient mixing.
Figure 29: Truck-mounted multi-bin fertilizer air spreader.

Fertilizing by Growth
The growth factor must be incorporated in application management whenever
several applications provide benefits, such as preventing overfertilization
and allowing a reaction to unpredictable weather conditions. This is
especially true when nitrogen fertilization in humid climates with variable
rainfall. The difference between the targeted growth target and the on-site
growth scenario determines the amount of fertilizer required at a given
moment under these conditions. It is commonly recognized that the amount
of chlorophyll in a crop indicates the amount of chlorophyll present, and
that there is a strong link between chlorophyll content and nitrogen intake,
as chlorophyll is primarily composed of nitrogen. As a result, a greenness
or chlorophyll sensor might provide the information needed to calculate the
required amount of nitrogen based on a standardized growth development
curve of a certain variety and the predicted yield. Split nitrogen fertilizing
tactics in three to four applications are popular in Europe, where this sort of
precision fertilizer is widely used. In Europe, there are about 1000 systems
in operation (as of 2014), with an average field capacity of around 4,000
ha/year per system. The normal control approach involves applying more
nitrogen to areas of the field with lower biomass; however, this is frequently
reversed for the final dressing. The bulk of the systems use proprietary data
link interfaces to control rear-mounted spin spreaders. Sensors are usually
positioned on the tractor’s cabin roof in a fixed position throughout the
growing season, using simple wiring, and there is usually no location sensor.
Crop Growth Sensors in Nitrogen Fertilizing Systems in Europe are shown
in the table below.
Table 10: Crop Growth Sensors in Nitrogen Fertilizing Systems
Sensor Type Principle Fertilizing System

Yara N-Sensor Passive Online
Yara ALS Active Online
CropCircle 430 Active Online
GreenSeeker Active Online
Isaria Active Online with map overlay
Source: Auernhammer& Demmel (2015).

A more detailed assessment of the aims using those online systems

delivers four different strategies:
• Yield maximization in more than 50% of use with the risk and the
acceptance of overfertilization and also with extended fertilizer
costs.
• Quality optimization in about 30% improving the protein content.
• Crop harmonization in about 10% to get higher harvesting
performance.
• Manual overcontrol in about 5% when soil properties are known
or visible on-the-go.
Manufacturer-specific control algorithms are now available for the
major cereal crops, including maize and rapeseed, and long-term research
into their usage with potatoes and other root crops is underway. Wireless
data transfer, ISOBUS standard integration, and the usage of ISOBUS user
terminals (UT) build on previous attempts to use standardized electronic
communication systems and enable simple sensor migration to various
tractor–spreader combinations. The ISOBUS can be utilized with location
sensing to generate “as-applied maps” via the task controller (TC).
Fertilizing by Sustainability
Any growth sensor, as compared to manually controlled nitrogen
administration, only replaces the “eye of a farmer” where all of his field
expertise and knowledge are ignored. In order to create a sustainable system,
long-term geographical field data such as soil type, topography, local yields,
soil resistance, rain fall, and other factors must be factored into the set-point
definitions. This necessitates the use of a sensor with a map-overlay system
capable of adjusting growth sensor data based on statistically well-confirmed
dependencies or well-established agronomical laws of interactions. Sensor
fusion can be used to determine the ultimate set point of the needed local
application. This technique could be widely employed in mineral fertilizing,
organic fertilizing, pest management, and seeding and planting if it is
included into the ISOBUS standard.
Organic Fertilization
Aside from mineral fertilization, which farmers strive to apply with
precision, organic fertilizer is mostly ignored. This may be appropriate in
manure spreading since this form of organic fertilizer can be viewed as a soil
agent that improves organic matter in the soil and helps to stabilize humus.
It is, however, inadmissible when used in conjunction with slurry, which is a
fast-acting nitrogen fertilizer. Furthermore, the unavoidable requirement of
very precise pass-to-pass operation may be shown at this moment employing
two different solutions:
• Wagon platforms with weight sensors and a variable hydraulic
drive to feed the manure to the spreading unit according to the
specified application rate can be used to spread manure uniformly
or even site-specifically. This method can be used for either
homogenous or site-specific applications.
• The ability to measure the flow rate and nitrogen content of a slurry
on-the-fly is critical in slurry application. NIR sensors produce
good results and allow for accurate nitrogen administration in
the field, similar to how mineral nitrogen fertilizer is managed.
P and K content could also be added to a more accurate slurry
application.
Again, location sensing is required in organic fertilization in order to
build “as-applied” maps for long-term improved field management.
In Summary
Fertilizer, particularly site-specific nitrogen fertilization, is the most
advanced precision farming technology available today at the field level.
“Well anticipated one application alone” or “growth adjusted multiple”
operations can respond exactly in a site-specific manner, depending on
given conditions and nutrient requirements, to avoid overfertilization with
leaching, as well as underapplication, which causes yield losses. Nonetheless,
there are still several issues at the farm level:
• Simple balance attempts are frequently used to predict fertilizer
amounts when prior field data is disregarded or unavailable owing
to data management.
• Growth sensors have a lot of potential for real-time crop state
measurement in a variety of applications, but they’re presently
limited to cereals. Only a few plant kinds are covered by
application algorithms, and in most cases, field calibration is
required.
• With section control, application techniques can ensure highly
precise dosage. While precise pass to pass operation precludes
overlapping, when there is no pass planning information or a real

look-ahead direction sensor in the system, under and over supply
occurs.
• Stepwise set-point modifications with no smooth and thus no
natural transitions are typical of application control based on
application maps.
• Sensor fusion with historical field data in growth sensor systems
is still an outlier.
• In many tractor–spreader pairings, data communication is
proprietary, forcing the farmer to stick with the established
method, with no option to alter either the tractor or the spreader
without creating new issues and challenges.
Application In Plant Protection

In contrast to fertilization, which uses a variety of precise methodologies
to calculate the required amount of nutrients in relation to a set production
target, non-GMO plant protection measures are difficult to predict ahead of
time. When monitoring reveals an infestation bigger than a predetermined
threshold, or when spot-wise significant expansions of weeds, insects,
or fungi are noticed, treatments are usually activated. In other words,
plant protection might take two forms: first, monitoring the situation, or
second, ignoring it and following well-established recommendations with
homogenous whole-field treatments.
Monitoring
When there are no specific aids or instruments available, full and accurate
monitoring takes an enormously longer period as farm and field sizes grow
larger. As a result, extensive research has been conducted worldwide to
bridge this gap, including the development of sensors and on-the-go weed
detection technologies for tractor–sprayer combinations, autonomous
vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). However, few of these
solutions can be found in the field. Aside from government-sponsored or
extension-based plant monitoring efforts that cover all key crops and critical
plant infestations, on-farm monitoring using sensors in conjunction with
sprayers is becoming more common:
• NIR-based growth sensors mounted on tractors or spray booms
detect local biomass and administer more agents in dense crop
standings, as well as the contrary during whole-field treatments.
• Plant-density sensors installed on the front of tractors are also

utilized to react in a similar way.
Application
Chemical plant protection has played and continues to play a vital part in
the development of modern agricultural plant production, thanks to the
invention of potent herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. This tendency
has been followed by application technology. Wider spraying booms, larger
solution tanks, and faster working speeds improved its performance. The
number of applications has dropped substantially, necessitating more exact
distribution. Electronics became the most suited technology, and practically
all sprayers in “developed” plant production zones now have them. Electric
three-way or by-pass valves control the liquid flow in a closed-loop control
system based on the needed spray pressure and application rate for each
nozzle type. True ground speed information is provided by radar velocity
sensors or speed data from GNSS receivers. Electronic section control
based on application maps is also possible using position data from GNSS
receivers. With wider spraying booms in rocky and hilly fields, as well
as while working at higher speeds, boom handling takes more attention.
In this situation, high-performance sprayers have distance sensors in the
boom sections, which allow for active hydraulic or electrical boom distance
management, as well as active boom suspension. Sprayer wheels may kill
extra plants with trailing sprayers and nonlinear field structures if no action
is taken to guide the sprayer within the tractor path. Precision sprayer track-
guidance detects tractor driving and activates the sprayer drawbar with
appropriate guidance operations. Even with sprayer track control, curving
passes result in under- and over-application at both boom ends if the pass
direction is not factored into the control algorithms and/or the driving speed
is too fast compared to the control time delay and nozzle adjustment time.
Finally, as previously mentioned, NIR-based single nozzle control can be
included in a site-specific treatment that regulates output volume based on
locally sensed crop biomass. Alternatively, the sensor signal can be used to
create local overcontrol based on site-specific application set points.
Mechanical Weeding
Weed control accounts for approximately half of the pesticides used in
cereals. Most pesticides might be substituted by mechanical weeding, which
is more environmentally friendly. On the one hand, vision-based implement
guidance is available and is primarily employed in row crops or cereals with

long row spacing; organic farmers often use this technology more frequently
than conventional farmers. GNSS-based RTK implementation guidance,
on the other hand, is accessible. Interrow weeding is possible with both
systems, but in-row weeding is still a problem.
In Summary
In general, all of these electrical and sensor-based control options provide
the maximum level of precision during chemical application in the field.
However, in the future, more localized information will be required to
improve these treatments. With the following issues, ongoing development
of in-field monitoring is the key to environmentally sound plant protection
measures:
• Any manual monitoring is time-consuming and necessitates a
high level of expertise.
• Adapted sensor technologies for the rapid and accurate
identification of weeds, fungus, and insects are still in the works.
• At the farm level, autonomous air-based or land-based platforms
for such sensors are not available or have limitations in operation.
• Furthermore, monitoring systems with cognitive skills for
correctly identifying and maintaining spots with various
propagations may not be accessible today.
Further improvements in spray technology are required, such as:
• Even at higher vehicle speeds, on uneven or hilly surfaces, and
in nonlinear field circumstances, spray booms with a continuous
adjustment to the crop surface with no lateral and horizontal
deviations.
• Injection methods that target certain infestations.
• Integration into monitoring equipment with micro-agent handling
that is site-specific or plant-specific, as well as newly created
physical or electrical treatment options.
Finally, in newly developed field cropping systems, more emphasis
should be paid to mechanical weeding in conjunction with autonomous
vehicles in interrow, in-row, and single plant environments. When all of
these factors are considered, it is possible to conclude that, unlike precision
fertilization, future ecologically friendly, sound, accurate, site-specific, or
even plant-specific plant protection is still a long way off. Furthermore,
monoculture GMO crop cultivation with specific monoculture agents will

not be able to overcome expected issues.
Application in Irrigation
Irrigated land accounts for only 15% of all arable land on the planet, but it
yields approximately half of the value of all crops sold (UNESCO, 2007a).
Agriculture (including horticulture) consumes more than 85 percent of the
world’s water (UNESCO, 2007b). By 2025, it is predicted that irrigated
lands and water usage would have increased by 20%. Irrigation systems are
classified as gravity-based (flooding furrows or entire fields) or pressure-
based (irrigating entire fields) (sprinkler systems and drip irrigation).
Around 94 percent of irrigated land in the world is watered by gravity.
About half of the irrigated land in the United States is watered by gravity,
while the other half is irrigated by pressure systems. Due to the fact that
agricultural irrigation consumes the majority of the world’s water, several
efforts have been made to improve water efficiency. Precision irrigation
and site-specific irrigation have also been addressed and investigated as a
result of the development and use of precision farming technology in crop
production. Regrettably, they can only be used in pressure watering systems.
Improved and automated irrigation control and site-specific irrigation are
the two steps or levels that can be identified.
Figure 30: Precision irrigation network.

Source: Saleem et al., (2010).
Irrigation Monitoring and Control

Irrigation is frequently handled manually, based on the farmer’s knowledge.
Frequently, the volume of water applied is determined solely by the time the
equipment (pump and sprinklers) is turned on. In a first trial, installing and
using a water meter improves irrigation accuracy and efficiency significantly.
Furthermore, systems based on the Penman–Monteith equation (expanded
by local weather data from small electronic on-farm weather stations) or soil
moisture sensors, or a combination of both, have been designed, examined,
and evaluated to improve water efficiency. Due to the difficulty of combining
all three properties, the development of fast-reacting, low-maintenance,
and low-cost soil moisture sensors is currently in progress. Furthermore,
to cover the entire irrigation region with soil moisture sensors, wireless
networks are required. These types are paired with ECUs for the pump,
valves, and automation drive in bigger center-pivot or linear-move irrigation
systems. These control units provide full monitoring and visualization
functions that provide real-time information on the system and the amount
of water applied on a farm PC or smartphone, as well as sending an alarm
if a defect is detected. Continuous and intensive development characterizes
the automation of center-pivot and big linear-move irrigation systems.
Site-Specific Irrigation
Due to the fact that soil heterogeneity affects soil water balance and
necessitates irrigation, researchers observed substantial soil heterogeneity
within a center-pivot circle with a diameter of 400 500 m and created and
investigated devices for spatial variable irrigation. For several years, this
technology known as “site-specific variable rate irrigation” (SS-VRI) has
been commercially available for center-pivots, but adoption by farmers
has been very low. Higher irrigation water costs, water scarcity, and the
establishment of economic incentives for compliance with environmental or
other restrictions are all projected to offer the essential incentives for much
more widespread adoption of modern irrigation technology.
Harvesting
During the growing season, the farmer’s efforts are all geared toward
increasing yields, achieving the desired quality, and delivering the finished
product with minimal losses at the proper time and at the lowest cost.
Harvesting technology is growing in size, becoming more tailored to the
harvested crop, and becoming more complex in order to boost efficiency
and lower costs. Higher qualified operators or more electronics and well-
designed control capabilities with a high degree of automation are required
to achieve this progress in the field. Self-propelled equipment concepts are
the ideal way to achieve increased size and performance, as well as expanded
control and automation.
Figure 31: Self-propelled forage harvester.
Source: Auernhammer et al., (1995).
Guidance
To avoid cutting losses or overlapping, large harvesters perform best when
driven inside the true working width or very precisely along prescribed
rows. Operators are challenged by this throughout the day and sometimes
even at night, and their attention does not suffer as a result. Mechanical row
guiding sensors have become standard equipment in row crops such as corn,
silage maize, and sugar beet, and are utilized more than 80% of the time.
Edge detectors were recently implemented to guide self-propelled combine
harvesters along the edge of the standing crop with a precision better than
10 cm, as the header width of self-propelled combine harvesters increased.
These sensors, like row sensors, are part of today’s harvesting equipment
and require no calibration or additional field infrastructure. High-precision
GNSS-based guidance systems (RTK) are now employed on harvesting
equipment. These guidance controls are unaffected by laying crops, and
they also allow for skipping passes at headlands, resulting in shorter turning
times and less soil compaction. Guidance devices in transport vehicles in
silage maize harvest operations (Europe) and grain carts emptied on-the-
go have lately made more precise work possible. In this situation, material
loss is avoided by precise parallel speed modifications of both vehicles.
Adjusting the loading device (spout) in conjunction with additional optical
sensors that measure the filling condition ensures that the transport unit is
always loaded perfectly.
Operation Control
Only when internal process units are effectively calibrated and in harmony
with their neighbors does large-capacity harvesting machinery provide
optimal performance and precise work with low losses. Preprogrammed
adjustment tools, found mostly in combine harvesters, allow for manually
initiated harvester employment in relation to the upcoming crop. The site-
specific control improvements can then be saved over time and applied to
future operations. These field-specific control modifications have lately
been sent in real-time via a wireless connection to combines from the same
manufacturer and kind (members of a group or swarm in a leader–follower
concept). Apart from guidance systems that provide the driver greater freedom
and allow more time for equipment observation and control, so-called cruise
control systems that optimize all separation and cleaning operations achieve
continuous material throughput with less variance. This improvement can
be viewed as a significant and useful supplemental feature, whether used
in conjunction with a control approach to maximize throughput under time
constraints, improve output quality, or reduce losses.
In Summary
Never before has such massive, mostly self-propelled harvesting machinery
performed as well as it does today. This is made possible by a variety
of sensors, high-performance control algorithms, and quick and finely
adjustable actuators, all of which can be improved further:
• Optimization of in-machine units based on previously obtained
site-specific pre-information from parallel tracks. Site-specific
data may also be derived from spatial soil data or inclination
maps. This information could be utilized to improve cleaning at
combine harvester sieves or to enable more intense or smoother
soil separation from root crops.
• Aside from regionally different differences in crop quality, the
quality of harvested crops may differ more broadly with increased
working width. As a result, selective harvesting and on-the-go
division of low- and high-quality compositions such as protein

or starch would be an alternative, both for product and financial
reasons.
• Soil compaction is a serious issue in environmental protection
during harvesting in wet weather. A basic alternative is to use
better tires or rubber belt undercarriages.
• However, overcollection of material in the hopper or tank in
relation to an on-the-go operation determined by soil moisture
value may be seen, which could be a constraint.
• Furthermore, the further advancement of harvesting technology
may be questioned. Unmanned followers, who are all smaller
in size, can improve an operator’s overall performance and can
be quickly adaptable to diverse working situations such as field
size, field shape, topography, and others, but they will still be
controlled manually.
MACHINERY MANAGEMENT
The most cost-effective use of farm machinery necessitates time-critical
logistics to ensure that any required equipment will arrive at the right spot at
the right time with no breakdown. While this condition is less important on
small family farms with obvious overcapacity, it is a “must-have” in large-
scale farming and contractor work organizations.
Route Planning
Specialized, high-priced machinery is increasingly being employed in
collaboration, as well as in so-called machinery rings, or, in most cases, by
contractors around the world. However, regardless of the organization, the
fundamental goal is to “do the essential activity in a timely manner,” which
is extremely difficult in places with equal or very comparable conditions.
“Sugar beet planting” is a good illustration of this, as it must be done as soon
as possible to ensure a long growing time. Beet will also provide the largest
yields only in the richest soils, which are usually located in a small area.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as maturity, thus beets should be left in
the ground for as long as feasible. Beet should be grown as long as there is
no frost, but from the standpoint of the sugar mill, the request is to begin
processing as soon as possible in order to achieve a long processing time
at the lowest cost per sugar unit. To put it another way, in a given region,
planting should be done in one day, and as a result, all activities during the
growing season should meet the same standard, whereas any delay in any
operation will result in a loss of profit and/or quality. Only highly precise
route planning in agreement with all engaged farms, including various
pricing, will be successful in similar operations. Any mission is contingent
on;
• Available georeferenced field data with extra field metadata as
required by the process or, if “unknown,” a customized GNNS-
based field inventory and field metadata recording. The field
traffic scenario, including road conditions and limits, is essential
in both circumstances.
• Job schedule or flow diagram depending on the farmer’s preferred
time of day, field sizes, in-field conditions, field to field distances,
road conditions, working time each day, and other factors.
• Single or multiple job execution, involving either groups of
identical machinery or the machine that performs the leading
duty, as well as the necessary transport units and amenities.
Several systems are available and used for optimization with the highest
possible precision in two different ways:
• Operator-driven systems (contractor, cooperative, and large-scale
farm) focus on the most efficient use of available equipment
to complete all essential field chores in the shortest amount of
time with the least amount of idle time and the lowest feasible
timeliness costs.
• Sugar beet, sugarcane, vegetables, starch potatoes, and other
processing industries are driven by the need to keep the facility
functioning.
Also important for combinable crops are route planning systems that
follow the maturation of small grains on tightly scheduled routes from south
to north first, then repeating this process for corn harvesting later in the
northern hemisphere or vice versa in the southern hemisphere. The end of
the era requires special attention because weather conditions are frequently
uncertain and rapidly changing.
Process Monitoring
Existing machinery sensors, GNSS receivers, and telecommunication
equipment, combined with GIS and on-screen software, provide centralized
or decentralized real-time monitoring of any mechanized field job. As a

result, the settings of the machinery, as well as the progress of the task, may
be monitored at any time. It will be able to achieve this with well-tailored
measures.
• Confirm that the current work situation is in excellent alignment
with the machinery’s performance in the field and with the
workflow in comparison to the prior work plan.
• To obtain more work progress and maybe compensate for a specific
workflow delay, identify possible/necessary modifications in the
machinery settings.
• Be mindful of the repercussions of any early completion of an
ongoing field activity on the day’s work schedule, the worker, or
the involved machinery.
• Detect and document any misuse or incorrect use by time and
location, especially when using unskilled or less trustworthy staff.
The monitoring of various transportation units, primarily during the
harvest of a large amount of biomass (e.g., silage, sugarcane, and sugar
beet), provides benefits as it relates to transportation chores on difficult field
roads and/or heavily loaded public roadways.
• Transport capacity in the number of units can be easily adapted
to the required task.
• Unexpected traffic situations can be compensated for by altered
navigation or to extended transportation units.
• Any idle time of the harvesting unit(s) may be eliminated to fulfill
the field task within the scheduled time.
In conclusion, process monitoring of machinery utilized in a single task,
or related with clusters of comparable machinery, or in combination with
transport units, benefits the entire process as well as any of the connected units
through reduced idle time. Unexpected events can also be easily identified,
immediate action can be taken, and the overall task can be completed in
accordance with the work target and schedule.
System Control
System control focuses on “how it should be done,” whereas route planning
and process monitoring focus on “what should be done” and “what
happens.” Harvesting is the primary focus of system control, which includes
a (big) fleet of harvesters, field grain carts, and a fleet of transport units.
The most difficult obstacles arise while moving from one crop or harvest
region to another. While the harvest must be completed without bringing the
entire fleet to a halt, equipment movement must be initiated, and new field
harvesting must be readied and started in such a way that nonproductive time
for all equipment is minimized. Still, this form of fleet management relies on
well-trained human resources, but fundamental research and simulation are
increasingly in the works and will soon reach the field.
Remote Service
This section focuses primarily on the machinery. Manufacturers of machinery,
in particular, are highly interested in finding answers to problems or receiving
feedback on their goods. This can be accomplished in two ways: first, by
obtaining field-level data for further improvement and development, and
second, by offering proactive maintenance and repair to reduce breakdowns
and idle time. The system is based on the collection of continuous or
intermittent data from machinery and transmission to a centralized database
with access for manufacturers, dealers, service providers, contractors, and/
or farmers. Advanced engineering at the manufacturer’s level, as well as
service providers, require a system like the one described above because
complete and realistic field use data has not been available to them.
• Discover weak structure or design points in machines
• Provide the settings under different conditions
• Monitor different loads at specific in-machinery locations
• Analyze running time and load spectra
• Create more advanced maintenance information material and
service instructions
• Develop improved and field-level designed replacement
technology
Farmers, on the other hand, face some limitations when it comes to
sharing their process data with manufacturers, as they earn no personal profit
and must also consider data security considerations. Even if this approach
appears to benefit all parties involved, it is quite difficult to bring it to the
farm level with the necessary broad acceptability.
Figure 32: Remote service database framework.
Source: Ahrends, (2003).
Service Hiring
Users may enter a special service leasing contract if they utilize the machinery
at its maximum capacity on a regular basis and know they will receive rapid
servicing and/or repair in the event of a breakdown. Data are part of the
contract in this situation, and they must be supplied to the database without
restriction. The contract will also specify how the data will be used.
Machinery Hiring
Contractors may hire machinery to receive the latest technology and avoid
unforeseen malfunctions due to aging or wear and tear. Data becomes part
of the contract when it is used to provide guaranteed operational readiness
and may be retrieved by the manufacturer or service provider to the amount
and density required.
In summary
Only optimal machinery management ensures that each task is completed on
time and with the needed precision. Farmers frequently have overcapacity
combined with extensive experience in the arrangement and use of their
own machinery, since they prefer to avoid risk. Contractors, on the other
hand, try to get the most out of their technology and typically work with
fleets of machines or integrated machinery systems. In addition to long-term
contracted clients, new clients with no prior history must be supplied. At the
field level, well-designed management systems can help with:
• Route planning with optimization techniques integrated to
complete any required activity at the appropriate place and at
the right time while maintaining the required performance. To
maintain the facility’s functioning, more specialized instruments
either aid contractors or focus more on the processing business,
such as sugarcane processing.
• Real-time process monitoring allows you to stay informed about
ongoing processes, inspect machinery with altered settings,
and implement improvements through various communication
protocols.
Additional tools can be found in research and testing relating to
improved system control in interconnected operations, such as harvesting
and transportation vehicles. In virtual land consolidation systems
(transborder farming), several aims such as reduced idle periods, increased
work performance, and reduced soil compaction through cost minimization
can be shown. In the future, autonomous field operation systems will pay
more attention to these activities. In this sense, remote service systems
can also be seen. Less breakdown time may be predicted because of faster
and better servicing and repair, which is mostly driven by manufacturers.
Furthermore, field experience will lead to enhanced machinery design,
allowing next-generation advancements to be better tailored to the demands
of farmers. Machinery management was not always recognized as a critical
component of precision farming. However, as farm sizes, machinery sizes,
and machinery performance grow, so do the demands in this sector.
LABOR MANAGEMENT
Everything that has been accomplished or will be completed in precision
farming has to do with labor, which refers to people. Humans, on the other
hand, have varying abilities, education, and knowledge; they vary in age;
they have varying motives; and, no matter what labor they accomplish, they
eventually become exhausted. Precision farming, on the other hand, entails
doing everything more precisely, especially when dealing with human
variances and fatigue. As a result, more automation and better tools are
required for precise labor.
Tools and Implements

Farms of less than 1 hectare account for 72% of all agricultural operations
worldwide, whereas larger farms of 1 to 2 hectares account for 12%. These
84 percent of all farms own only 12% of all agricultural land (Big Picture
Agriculture, 2014) and cultivate it primarily by hand or with animals. Better
fitted tools could lead to more accurate work in these situations, just as they
do in highly mechanized regions with highly sophisticated implements for
exact labor. The following are some instances of plant-related tasks:
• A wheel-guided plow allows for precise working depth in
comparison to plow draw bars carried on animal shoulders.
• Seeding with wheel-driven metering devices guarantees uniformly
distributed seeds compared to hand spread seeding.
• Fertilizing with any equipment driven by a wheel with material-
adjusted dosing facilities minimizes fertilizer input with uniform
distribution.
• Plant protection with hand-operated backpack sprayers will apply
chemicals more precisely than hand powdering.
• Finger knife mowers cut laterally more precisely than reaping
hooks.
• Rotating mechanical threshing devices achieve better grain
separation than flails.
All these instances, in addition to more precise work, offer improved
performance and, in many cases, lower failures, losses, and workload.
Guidance Systems
Self-propelled machinery like tractors with implements, combine harvesters,
and sprayers dominate modern agriculture. With additional engine power,
they all allow for faster speeds, wider working areas, and improved
performance. However, they must all be led by drivers, often for lengthy
periods of time as well as at night, in dust, fog, and often on very slick
soil surfaces. As a result, any sort of guidance automation is beneficial, as
it relieves human workload and allows for consistent output of steering
precision throughout the working day. The systems that can be employed on
a farm are dependent on the operating conditions.
Table 11: Guidance systems
Sensing Type System Machinery Acceptance at Field

Level
Mechanical sensors Furrow guidance Plow No
Interrow cultivator
Row guidance Maize choppers More than 80%
Sugar beet harvesters
Optical sensors Camera row guidance Tractor Less, mainly in
Interrow cultivator special
crops and in horti-
culture
Laser edge guidance Combine harvester More than 80% of
large
harvesters
GNSS systems Parallel swathing Tractor–implement Add-on
combination
Steering assistance Tractor–implement Add-on
combination
Self-propelled har-
vesters
Auto-steering Tractor–implement High
combination
Self-propelled har-
vesters
Auto-steering and Tractor with mount- Low

Headland manage- ed (front, rear) or
ment trailed implements

Mechanical Systems: Furrow guidance was the first to emerge.
Aside from fruitless attempts to boost working speed with plows, tractor
rear-mounted interrow cultivators were the focus of attention in order to
eliminate the cultivator guide. During planting, a V-shaped plate or a mole-
blade established the guidance furrow in a simple way; a guidance plate at
the interrow cultivator followed and did a good job if the guiding furrow
was not disturbed by rain, soil movement, or other factors. Furrow guidance
systems never gained traction in the field since no high-quality guidance
was achievable and future tool carriers with interaxle-mounted cultivators
could be handled by the driver alone. While established furrows in the field
may never ensure stable circumstances, strong-stem plants like maize can.
So, with a properly adjusted sensor, harvester application guiding along
the rows became conceivable, giving the driver more freedom to either
supervise the method, improve job quality, or allow more precise control of
material delivery into a parallel transport unit. The benefit of both accurate
work with greater harvester performance and optimized loading of transport
units is described by a very high acceptance of this guidance system.
Optical Systems: Highly precise guidance is difficult in constructing a
solid centerline from one or more parallel crop rows independent of wind
disturbances in higher crops, changes in the growth habitat, or deficits in one
or all the rows, therefore camera-based systems continue to suffer. Changes
in illumination produced by the sun’s height, as well as shadows, dust, and
fog, may cause issues. On the farm, laser-based edge navigation in combine
harvesters is widely used. The major labor reasons can be seen in fast and
simple oversteering in particular situations or in laying crops, as well as
more freedom for the correct management of current combine harvesters’
rising complexity and size.
Satellite Systems: Due to their great accuracy regardless of field
circumstances, time of day, or other effects, GNNS-based guiding systems
are gaining popularity. Aside from direct integration into new machinery,
several retrofitting methods, primarily in tractors, are available and generally
accepted. Parallel tracking along an A–B line in a linear or nonlinear shape is
the primary application in the field. The field’s overall usage can be divided
into three categories:
• Driver-assisted use refers to parallel tracking along linear A–B
lines whereas unshaped areas, as well as headlands, are manually
guided.
• Auto-steering means parallel tracking all over the field but not at
the headlands.
• Extended auto-steering integrates headland management systems.
Until now it is restricted to U-turns but can include down (up)
shift, hitch, and hydraulic functions and power-take-off (PTO)
engagement, and disengagement.
Guidance systems are now the most widely used precision agricultural
equipment on the planet. This trend is also projected to continue, with
all larger tractors and self-propelled agricultural gear being covered very
soon. The shift to GNNS-based systems will also continue. All available
technologies provide secure handling with simple actuation and manual
oversteering from a labor standpoint. Huge advantages include a significant
reduction in workload and a proportional boost in comfort. However, in
small- and medium-scale agricultural systems employing tractor–implement

combinations, headland management techniques remain a challenge. To
lessen the potential of accidents and damage when turning, more basic
methods should be employed whenever possible. In extended fields with
few variations and low monitor and control demands, manual management
may be welcome in the field to break up the monotony of auto-steering.
Leader–Follower Systems
If a certain level of surveillance and quick time intervention is available,
auto-steering opens the door to driverless cars, at least inside fields. This
can be implemented in a system where a manned leading vehicle is either
followed by or followed by an unmanned vehicle as a first and easy solution.
There are two possible outcomes:
• The follower is a member of the same species. It takes over all
settings from the leader via wireless communication. It might
also be monitored in the other direction by the leading driver,
who would be able to stop the following quickly if something
went wrong.
• The follower is a distinct form of follower with a different job,
such as a chaser bin that works with the combine and transport
unit. In this situation, overloading in parallel pass makes it
straightforward to call the follower to the best place. Later, the
follower may go to the storage container on its own to unload
and await the next call. Again, the leading driver looks out for the
follower, but as distances get longer, unforeseen disruptions and
unforeseeable events may occur.
Figure 33: Leader-follower system for field work.
Source: Zhang & Noguchi, (2015).

• In comparison, a leader–follower system of the same type might
be simpler, but it hasn’t been implemented yet because moving
vehicles are required under the Vienna Agreement Law of 1948
to have a driver on board.
• There are no secure communication links (spies, hackers, etc.).
• Agricultural machinery is typically large and powerful; thus, any
uncontrollable conditions would be dangerous, especially near
public roadways or urban areas.
• On auto-steered vehicles, well-trained high-cost specialists would
be required instead of less-trained drivers.
Field Robots
For one follower, leader–follower systems could cut labor requirements in
the field by around half, and even more for numerous followers. Depending
on the required service and field monitoring duties as well as the quantity of
robots, field robots could lower labor requirements by 10%–20% compared
to nonrobotic situations. Field robots, on the other hand, are moving vehicles
that may or may not be legal. Even if laws and regulations alter, there will be
two additional questions:
• Who wants to take on the ultimate responsibility for operating
enormous, massive autonomous vehicles on the ground with little
or no human supervision?
• What would be the most appropriate aim if the sole solution for
tomorrow’s mechanization is small autonomous vehicles?
A very clear solution can only focus on the circumstances relating to the
required operations in various domains from this perspective. If all of the
most essential advantages and disadvantages are taken into account, a three-
fold answer or prospect can be derived:
• Large, enormous autonomous field robots are unlikely to be
used in the near future, mostly due to safety and responsibility
concerns.
• Small autonomous field robots can’t meet the high-power
requirements and can’t carry a lot of stuff.
• Small autonomous field robots with specialized sensor
applications or extremely specific application tools that require
only easy-to-transport improvements could be the first accepted
field solution.
Table 12: Advantages and disadvantages of autonomous field robots
Task Advantages Disadvantages

Large Autonomous field robot
Tillage Increased working time 24h/ Potential hazardous incidents
day Reduced site-specific interactions
Immediately preparing field Relatively high soil compaction
conditions to directly follow- Large headland for trouble-free turn-
ing seeding or planting ings
No timeliness costs and mini- Possible high timeliness costs
mized weather influences through rainfall-stopped pre-prepa-
ration
Seeding and Increased working time 24 Potential hazardous incidents
Planting h/day Reduced site-specific interactions
Auto-refilling is challenging
Application of Extended working time Potential hazardous incidents by
fertilizers and related to best wind and vehicle or by agents
chemicals humidity conditions Reduced site-specific interactions
No exposure of the operator Auto-refilling is challenging
to chemical agents
Harvesting Extended working time Potential hazardous incidents
related to crop and soil condi- Reduced site-specific interactions
tions inlaying crops
Auto-unload is challenging
Small Autonomous field robot
Tillage Reduced soil compaction Required power increases the mass of

Most site-specific adaption in the vehicle
variable tillage effects Less overall capacity
Minimized headland need Management and maintenance of
Minimized timeliness costs “herds” asks for highly qualified
by pre-preparation people
Seeding and Enlarged working time 24 h/ Less overall capacity
planting day Management and maintenance of
Minimized headland need “herds” asks for highly qualified
Less payload required people
No auto-refilling in small “Herd supply” in refilling is chal-
fields required lenging
Application of Enlarged working time 24 h/ Less overall capacity
fertilizers and day Management and maintenance of
chemicals Minimized headland need “herds” asks for highly qualified
No auto-refilling in small people
fields required “Herd supply” in refilling is chal-
lenging
Harvesting Extended working time Less overall capacity
related to crop and soil condi- Management and maintenance of
tions “herds” asks for highly qualified
Minimized headland need people
Possible selective harvesting Auto-unload is challenging
in low-mass row crops
Source: Zhang, (2015)

One of the most crucial activities in every business, including
agricultural practices, is labor management. Aside from reducing time and
workload, more exact task fulfillment at the field level is a challenge for
future sustainable land use. In this manner:
• Auto-guidance in any form is the most promising labor
management technology, and it will grow in popularity with little
restraint.
• The usage of leader–follower systems, which allow for smaller
agricultural equipment, has resulted in an improvement in output.
• Small autonomous field robots could first be used at the plant
level for scouting, monitoring, and performing extremely targeted
treatments.
Miniaturization will continue in the future, bringing field robots to
flowering plants and then to larger-stemmed plants.
PA FUTURE REQUIREMENTS
After more than two decades of precision farming, farm utilization remains
low in comparison to the enormous potential of today’s information-based
land usage. While larger farms and farms that rely on contractors for part or
all of their work are making progress, smaller and mid-sized farms are having
difficulty transitioning from familiar mechanical machinery to electronics-
controlled equipment due to the need for additional investments and specific
knowledge, as well as a general mistrust of data acquisition, data storage,
information management, and communication (Tey and Brindal, 2012).
Another factor could be the move from precision agriculture to the farm
level. Fertilization in site-specific farming has only grown in popularity as
a result of the anticipation that it will make everything simpler, easier, and
more profitable. When basic nutrients were addressed, this resulted in more
questions than answers in terms of nitrogen application strategies. In this
scenario, there was no solution, or there were too many responses, in terms
of the appropriate nutrition management:
• How should the most beneficial yield maps be established?
• How should management zones be defined?
• Should more nitrogen be used at the more fertile zones or should
the opposite occur?
• Should on-the-go growth sensors and straightforward online
control of the spreader follow integrated algorithms only?
• Do yield map-based measures influence plant protection?
• What is the overall value of year-by-year yield mapping?
There are numerous other unanswered questions for which there are no
reliable, unreliable, or philosophical answers. To put it another way, farmers,
particularly pioneering farmers, continue to be isolated, losing interest,
drive, and excitement.
Big data Challenge: “Information-driven farming” refers to any type of
site-specific farming. Data generation, data exploration, data modeling, and
data-based operation control are all terms used in this context to describe
farming. Field operations data will soon be uploaded to the cloud. Web
services must therefore make sure that any required data investigations or
data modeling always use the most up-to-date, advanced, and well-tested
scientific algorithms. Farm management will expand to include the usage of
applications with two goals:
• Any financial data will remain in the farm management system,

where it will be kept safe and accessible only to a restricted
number of people.
• Field operation measures obtained from big data will be sent
from the cloud to in-field precision farming technology in a
timely way, as well as to the farm management system for secure
documentation.
But none of this will become a reality in the future until huge data in the
cloud can be kept and handled in a very secure manner, with farm-granted
access permissions and contractual and financial agreements in place for any
data user.
Models: Existing models are mostly employed, assessed, and approved
in conventional farming systems under homogeneous settings in today’s
precision agricultural practice. New models that are well-adapted to the
inhomogeneities of different farming kinds, given farm scenarios, farm-
related norms and legislation, and other elements will be in high demand
in the future. All of these models can be further segmented into highly
specialized farming systems. Any information on human overcontrol during
operations, as well as other effects or unforeseen events, must be fed into the
cloud. This enables more and better modifications to the real world during
the learning process.
Automation: While site-specific farming suffers on small and mid-sized
farms, farmers show a preference for more and higher automation, despite
the widespread acceptance of guidance systems on these farms. In the future,
auto-steering in tractors and self-propelled machines will be an internal
application, and automation will integrate the entire tractor–implement
combination. In tractor implement management (TIM), control will shift
from the tractor to the implement, which will execute the job, recognize the
optimal conditions, and advise the tractor to react in a well-adapted manner.
If the following conditions are met, this will be achievable.
• Tractor and implement communication adhere to well-established
norms that are open to all manufacturers, particularly small and
medium-sized businesses. Safety control is essential in this
scenario to avoid unnecessary breakdowns while also allowing
for targeted maintenance and repair.
• Communication between tractor and implement relays in a so-
called full-liner response, where both machines are manufactured
by the same company. In this solution, the terms “safety” and

“responsibility” will be clearly defined.
The tractor and implement(s) can then be considered as one self-
propelled unit. Stop and go, left–right steering, forward speed adoption,
PTO-revolution adjustment, hitch position shifting, and flow control at
auxiliary hydraulic valves will be among the modified settings provided by
implements to the tractor. Field machinery may also be automated, with
cloud settings incorporated into the loop either as part of a task operation or
in real-time during job execution. In this situation, automation will lead to
the Internet of agricultural utilities.
Sustainability: Precision farming, in any form, type, or application, is
always interacting with land and nature at the farm level. But, more often than
not, it is used primarily to increase profit, often at the expense of negative or
even harmful long-term effects on the environment, such as overfertilization
with increased leaching, waste of scarce water, and a reduction in the number
of crops in the rotation; or, even worse, switching to monoculture crops.
Precision farming, whatever name is used in the future to replace the well-
known term of today, should be more than profit-driven; it should move
toward sustainable agriculture in the proper way. As a result, in addition to
the dominant economic possibilities and expectations, environmental and
social repercussions should be integrated targets:
• To begin with, each model and field operation should include
detailed site-specific data as well as historical data.
• Crop rotation, including cover crops and their beneficial benefits
on soil fertility, plant growth and decrease, and weed, plant
disease, and insect control, should also be prioritized.
• Irrigation should focus on minimizing water consumption while
using the most appropriate plant kinds in more arid climates,
whereas in more humid climates, the decrease of soil compaction
and soil erosion should be the primary goal.
• Chemicals should be used less frequently, if at all, in all plant
protection systems, with physical weed control and spatial or
single-plant-related highly specific plant protection measures or
organic agents being used instead.
• Finally, the majority of crop production will end up in the hands
of consumers in some form or another. Traceability instills
confidence in the product and provides for secure returns in the
event of a problem.
With all these considerations, it’s evident that PA entails more than just site-
specific application. PA stands for “sustainable agriculture,” which has no
parallel in conventional or organic farming systems.
CHAPTER 5
PRECISION LIVESTOCK FARMING
(PLF)
CONTENTS
Overview................................................................................................ 148
PLF in Dairy............................................................................................ 149
PLF in Pig Farming.................................................................................. 152
PLF in Poultry Farming............................................................................ 153
Merits and Demerits of PLF..................................................................... 156
Animal Welfare and Other Ethical Implications of PLF............................ 158
OVERVIEW
The world’s population continues to rise, and diets in several major countries
are shifting as more people can buy animal products. As a result, the global
demand for meat and animal products is expected to rise by 40% in the
next 20 years. Meeting this demand for animal products would result in a
huge growth in the global livestock population, particularly in the BRIC
(Brazil, Russia, India, and China) countries. Farmers used to have a few
cows and pigs, as well as some broilers or laying hens, and they had plenty
of time during the day for audiovisual scoring to follow and monitor their
animals, and they were not burdened by too many animals, but that situation
has entirely changed now. In the past, livestock management decisions
were nearly exclusively based on the farmer’s observation, judgment, and
experience. Precision livestock farming (PLF) systems can act as the farmer’s
eyes and ears, working 24 hours a day, seven days a week to assist him.
Modern farmers will face increasing pressure to care for a higher number
of animals per farm in order to run a profitable business, which will only
intensify in the coming years. Precision livestock farming is one technique
that could provide genuine prospects for practical implementation. It
attempts to provide the farmer with a real-time monitoring and management
system based on continuous animal monitoring utilizing contemporary
technologies. In the future, computer models will be an intrinsic feature of
PLF management systems. Precision livestock farming aims to develop a
management system based on continuous, automatic, real-time monitoring
and control of production and reproduction, animal health and welfare, and
livestock production’s environmental impact. Precision livestock farming’s
major goals are to maximize individual animal potential, detect sickness
early, and reduce medication use through preventative health measures. To
improve management techniques and farm performance, technologies are
being used to evaluate physiological, behavioral, and production markers
on individual animals. That is followed by criteria for precision cattle
production.
• Continuous measurement and analysis of animal factors are
required.
• A credible prediction (expectation) of how the animal variables
will vary must be supplied.
• Algorithms for software analysis and interpretation are being
developed.
Precision Livestock Farming (PLF) 149
PLF IN DAIRY
Precision dairy farming is the application of technology to track physiological,
behavioral, and production parameters on individual cows to optimize
management and farm performance. Precision Dairy Farming may reverse
the trend toward group management by focusing on individual cows using
technology. Precision Dairy Farming includes a variety of technologies,
ranging from daily milk yield tracking to assessment of specific properties
(such as fat content or progesterone) from milk samples taken at each
milking. The key goals here are to maximize individual animal potential,
detect sickness early, and reduce medication use through preventative
health practices. Precision dairy farming is defined as the application of
information and communication technologies to improve fine-scale animal
and physical resource variability in order to improve farm economic,
social, and environmental performance. The following are the numerous
technologies used in the dairy industry.
Biometric Based Identification: For the identification of individual
cattle, the muzzle point picture pattern is a basic animal biometric trait. It
looks like a human fingerprint. The vascular pattern of ruminants is unique
to each individual animal. The retinal image is recorded after the eye is
scanned.
Automatic Milking System: Cows can visit the milking robot on their
own will, which is one of the advantages of autonomous milking. As a
result, the frequency of visits to the milking robot varies greatly, resulting
in a wide range of milking intervals. The milking stall, the teat cleaning
system, the teat identification system, a robotic arm device for attaching
the teat cups, a control system containing sensors and software, and, of
course, the milking machine are all part of an automatic milking system.
Increased milk output from more frequent milking is aided by automatic
milking. Daily milk yield recording, milk component monitoring (e.g., fat,
protein, and SCC), pedometers, automatic temperature recording devices,
milk conductivity indicators, automatic estrus detection monitors, and daily
body weight measures are among the precision dairy farming technologies
employed. Heat detection by testing progesterone, mastitis diagnosis by
measuring lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and ketosis detection by measuring
beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) were all incorporated to an advanced milk
analysis instrument (Herd Navigator, DeLaval, Sweden) in 2008. This
system automatically collects representative milk samples from individual
cows at certain milking moments during milking and selects, using a bio-
model algorithm, the parameters to be examined when the animals come to

the milking parlor.
Activity Monitoring: Detection of behavioral estrus continues to play
an important part in the overall reproductive management program, despite
the widespread deployment of hormonal synchronization procedures that
allow for timed artificial insemination (TAI). Because of the impact of AI
service rate on reproductive performance and the difficulties of optical
estrus detection on farms, new electronic systems that incorporate activity
monitoring as a means of associating increased physical activity with estrous
behavior in cattle are being developed. During estrus, restlessness and
overall physical activity skyrocketed. Later research has demonstrated that
counting the number of steps taken increases is a good method for detecting
Oestrus, especially when combined with a specific algorithm.
• Rumination collars: Rumination is detected using rumination
collars by analyzing chewing noises and removing sounds
associated with eating. The ruminating time metric could be
useful in two areas: nutrition management and health, as well
as a cow welfare sensor. In the scientific literature, it is widely
acknowledged that a dairy cow ruminates for 35-40% of the day
on average.
• Reticulon-rumen boluses: These boluses use sensors
(temperature, pH, pressure) to monitor rumen function, which
could be linked to rumen pH for SARA (Sub Acute Ruminal
Acidosis) detection as well as eating and drinking behavior. The
advent of rumen wireless telemetry to detect sub-acute ruminal
acidosis, automated weighing, and, more promisingly, body
condition score (BCS) by image capture has improved metabolic
disease monitoring.
• Calving detection: It can be tracked by using accelerometers
affixed to the tail head to measure tail movement patterns
prompted by labor contractions, or by using thermistors to
measure the sudden change in temperature of a vaginal device
when it is expelled during labor.
• Bovine Infrared Thermography (IRT): In veterinary medicine,
infrared thermography (IRT) is mostly utilized for diagnostic
purposes, but it can also be used to measure animal welfare and
feed consumption efficiency. Thermal infrared scanning was
utilized to detect Oestrus as well as a research tool for studying
skin temperature variations. IRT has been used to anticipate udder

temperature changes and to investigate the possibility of early
mastitis diagnosis in dairy cows. IRT can be used to detect mastitis
and can be used to measure udder temperature. Only the back
surface of the distal half of the udder was measurable due to the
limits of the milking parlor architecture. However, most mastitis
episodes affect both hindquarters. IRT can be used to identify
changes in hoof (coronary band) temperature in dairy cows that
are linked to visual abnormalities in the hoofs that are diagnostic
of laminitis and can help in the early diagnosis of laminitis,
especially in the early stages of lactation. The temperature of the
coronary band differs significantly between cows with lesions and
cows without lesions. Because the temperature of the eye region
is more consistent than that of any other anatomical location, an
infrared thermal camera can be integrated into a water trough that
animals visit on a regular basis and where they are identified to
automatically collect an infrared image of the eye region.
Potential Benefits of Precision Dairy Farming

Precision Dairy Farming technologies are considered to provide enhanced
efficiency, lower costs, better product quality, decreased negative
environmental consequences, and improved animal health and well-being.
The fields of health, reproduction, and quality control are likely to be the most
affected by these technologies. For larger herds, where individual animal
observation is more difficult and less common, the benefits of summarizing
data and reporting exceptions are expected to be greater. Precision Dairy
Farming technologies become more practical when dairy enterprises
grow in size, because of a greater reliance on less-skilled workers and the
opportunity to take advantage of scale economies connected to technology
adoption. Dairy producers may make more prompt and informed decisions
thanks to Precision Dairy Farming technology, which leads to increased
productivity and profitability. Real-time data can be used to track animals
and provide exception reports that highlight significant deviations from
the norm. Dairy management and control operations can be automated in
many circumstances. Alternatively, the system’s report could provide a
recommendation for the management to consider. Precision Dairy Farming
technology information is only useful if it is properly analyzed and applied
to decision-making. For analyzing the massive amounts of data generated by
Precision Dairy Farming technology, integrated, computerized information
systems are required. This information could be put into decision support
systems that help people make better decisions by combining data from
numerous sources. Dairy farmers have traditionally relied on their intuition
and experience to spot strange animals. While this expertise is priceless and
will never be totally replaced by automated technologies, it is impaired by
human perception limitations of a cow’s condition. It is frequently too late
to intervene once an animal develops clinical signs of stress or sickness.
These clinical signs are usually preceded by physiological responses that
are not visible to the naked eye (e.g., changes in temperature or heart rate).
A dairy manager may be able to intervene sooner if changes in physiological
markers are detected. Dairy cow physiological monitoring technologies
offer a lot of potential.
PLF IN PIG FARMING

In pig farming, precision technologies include sound analysis for welfare
assessment, behavior monitoring, image analysis for automatic body weight
estimate, waste monitoring, and slaughter house registration systems.
Real-Time Sound Analysis: In intensive pig farms, respiratory diseases
are common; their incidence and prevalence are high, and coughing is the
most common clinical symptom. Pig vocalization has been demonstrated to
be linked to pain, and a taxonomy system of these noises has been tried. Cough
sounds in pig houses are also commonly assessed by vets for diagnostic
purposes. Attempts have been undertaken to identify the characteristics of
coughing in animals in this regard. Cough noises can only be examined on
a farm visit, and an automatic monitoring tool for animal coughs can help
enhance farm management by recommending relevant remedies.
Monitoring Of Drinking Behavior: The presence of a drinking pattern
as well as the specificity of drinking behavior are two characteristics that
allow drinking behavior to be used as a predictor of health or production
issues. Monitoring the water consumption of developing pigs in real time
appears to be one technique to improve management.
Body Weight Estimation by Image Analysis: A top-view camera has
been used to monitor each pen. Shape recognition techniques were used
to automatically identify individual pigs based on their distinct painting
patterns. The following is how the weight estimate process evolved:
• First, to localized pigs in the image, an ellipse fitting algorithm
was employed.
• Second, the area the pig occupied in the ellipse was calculated.
• Finally, the weight of pigs was estimated using dynamic modeling.
The constructed model was then tested by comparing the estimated
weight to manual weight measurements taken twice weekly on each
individual pig.
Feed-Animal-Food Chain: This chain investigated the benefits of data
exchange via traceability across supply chain stakeholders, specifically
between feed producers, farms, and slaughterhouses.
Automated Welfare Assessment: The computerized monitoring of pig
welfare is gaining popularity. Because animal well-being is multifaceted,
it is difficult to quantify. A welfare quality assessment technique has been
established by the European research project Welfare Quality. This protocol
is based on the Five Freedoms, as are many animals’ welfare projects.
• Freedom from hunger and thirst
• Freedom from discomfort
• Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
• Freedom to express normal behavior
• Freedom from fear and distress
PLF IN POULTRY FARMING

Chicken production has more than doubled in the last 30 years, with a total
of 25.9 billion birds produced in 2019 and an increase of up to 80% in
2020 compared to the previous year. In 2019, the European Union produced
13.3 million tons of poultry meat, with Poland leading the way (2.6 million
tons) and being one of the world’s largest exporters, accounting for 9%
of total global exports (1.5 million tons). Poultry meat production is still
the most common type of overall meat production, and it is predicted to
increase in the coming years. As a result, there’s always a need to find new
ways to increase poultry production efficiency while also enhancing the
quality and animal welfare. In the poultry industry, we’ve noticed that good
welfare conditions have a major impact on the health and quality of the
birds’ products, which can affect economic efficiency. Birds with a high
level of welfare are healthy, have a happy affective state, and exhibit natural
behaviors. Behavioral disorders, manifested in numerous behaviors such as
increased aggression, lameness, cannibalism, or feather pecking, are one of
the most serious difficulties in current chicken production that can have a
substantial influence on welfare and lead to economic losses. Furthermore,
in order to lower costs, today’s poultry farms attempt to reduce the number
of personnel while maintaining or growing the number of birds, resulting
in decreased herd wellbeing and the inability to display a certain species’
behavior feature. As a result, animal behavior, nutrition, and ambient factors
must all be closely monitored in order to improve production efficiency
and animal welfare. Furthermore, growing public concern about chicken
breeding and welfare has led to the development of systems that improve
control and monitoring efficiency. Precision Livestock Farming (PLF)
techniques allow for the unattended collection of widely understood data on
housing conditions and animals in real-time utilizing intelligent technology,
allowing for the collection of valid data despite the lack of direct human-
animal contact. Data acquired by sensors or other equipment from a variety
of sources can be processed to aid in the development of an automated
management system based on real-time information that allows for the
control of animal welfare, health, and performance. The compatibility
of precision tools with commercial poultry farm equipment based on the
obtained data is an important component that permits the successful use of
PLF tools. PLF technologies can aid in the early detection of animal welfare
issues, the improvement and acceleration of management choices, and the
reduction of economic losses.
Figure 34: PLF tools for optimization of poultry management.
Source: Berckmans, (2017).

Tools Used to Monitor Behavior and Production Parameters

There are a variety of PLF tools available on the market for various farm tasks.
The goal of this study is to provide a broad overview of the PLF tools now on
the market as well as their potential in the commercial poultry industry, based
on scientific studies completed in large-scale farming situations. The focus
of this section is on optimizing production cycle management opportunities
in five main areas: housing and microclimate control, weight monitoring,
sound analysis, locomotion and activity tracking, and disease detection
and hygiene maintenance aspects, rather than on direct use or adaptation of
technology by farmers and the resulting socio-economic impact.
The system for real-time monitoring of the eggshell temperature and
weight loss of eggs. The embryo’s ability to regulate its microenvironment
(temperature, humidity, and gas concentration) is critical as it transitions
from an endothermic to an exothermic living entity. Real-time monitoring
tools have been created to measure the eggshell temperature and the weight
loss of the eggs during the entire incubation period in order to change the
climate control continuously during the incubation period. This data is
utilized to improve the efficiency of the incubation process. The goal is to
enhance hatching results while also decreasing the hatch window.
Continuous automated monitoring of feed intake of broilers by sound
technology. It has been demonstrated that by placing a microphone in the
broiler feeder pan, it is able to pick the pecking patterns in which the birds
really eat the feed. By keeping track of how much food the bird wastes after
eating it. This measuring technology has a very small inaccuracy, less than
1%.
Automatic Body Weight Estimation: Broiler weights are measured
using a model-based weighing technique. To connect the pressure or
voltage measured by the weighing scale to the weight of the birds, a fixed,
population-based statistical relationship is usually used. Another issue is
that as the fattening stage comes to a close, the overweight birds jump less
on the moving scale. There is software available to help with this issue.
Early Warning System in the Broiler house: Disease, climate control
issues, blocked feeder lines, electricity issues, malfunctioning drinking
lines, and failed lighting systems are just a few of the issues that can arise.
It comprises three or four cameras positioned on the ceiling that provide
images of bird dispersal. According to the PLF system, the behavior of the
birds can detect 95% of all abnormalities.
Precision Feeding: Precision nutrition is the process of supplying an

animal’s nutrient requirements as precisely as possible for the purpose of
maintaining a safe, high-quality, and efficient output while minimizing
environmental impact. Nutrient requirements are an independent statistic
of an individual animal, not a population measure. Precision feeding has
been advocated as a key strategy for improving nutrient use and, as a result,
lowering feeding costs and nutrient excretion. Precision feeding appears to
be the most promising strategy for lowering GHG and ammonia emissions.
Precision feeding is based on the idea that each animal in a herd is distinct
in terms of age, weight, and production capacity, and hence has varied
nutrient requirements. Precision feeding is employing feeding strategies
that allow the right amount of feed with the proper composition to be
given to each animal in the herd at the right time. The precise evaluation
of the nutritional potential of feed ingredients, the precise determination
of nutrient requirements, the formulation of balanced diets that limit the
amount of excess nutrients, and the concomitant adjustment of the dietary
supply and concentration of nutrients to match the evaluated requirements
of each animal in the herd are all essential elements for precision feeding
in livestock production systems. Individual feed intake and body weight
data are automatically collected in real-time by the suggested sustainable
precision livestock farming system. Using modern modeling tools, this
information is used to predict the appropriate nutrient concentration of diets
to be supplied daily to each pig in the herd.
MERITS AND DEMERITS OF PLF
Merits
• More efficient use of resources
• Reduction of harmful emissions per unit
• Reduction of drug use through early detection of pathological
issues
• Complete traceability of livestock through the food chain.
• Reduction of workload through automation
• Management of animal welfare
• Automatic control of product quality.
Demerits
• Precision livestock farming is more likely to be used in large-
scale intensive systems in which there is limited potential for
delivering satisfactory welfare outcomes.
• Information obtained from precision dairy farming technologies
is only useful if it is interpreted and used effectively in decision-
making
• Animal IDs may sometimes read errors
• Equipment failure may occur because often they are sophisticated
to handle, have low temporal resolution, and require good
visibility of the subjects
• Data transfer errors may be due to over-supply of data, and the
time-consuming handling of software programs
• Lack of validated research results concerning the effects of
application, high capital input and high costs
• Applicable to a restricted spatial area.
• Slow adoption rate due to uncertain return on investment, high
fixed costs of investment and information acquisition, and lack of
demonstrated effects of these technologies on yields, input use,
and environmental performance. Such technologies are adopted
by younger and well-educated farmers.
Precision livestock farming is a multidisciplinary science that
necessitates collaboration between “animal people” (physiologists,
veterinarians, ethologists, animal scientists, and so on) and “technical
people” (bioengineers, software and hardware engineers, and ICT people)
in order to create successful support systems for farmers. Smart farming is
unquestionably the way of the future in livestock production, as it strikes a
compromise between practicalities, such as efficiency and economic return,
and acceptability, such as animal health and welfare. In order to put precision
livestock farming into practice in underdeveloped nations, research trials
need to be done and examined.
ANIMAL WELFARE AND OTHER ETHICAL

IMPLICATIONS OF PLF
Introduction
The use of technology to monitor and control farm animal care is known as
smart or precision farming. Sensors that measure a variety of environmental
and animal-based characteristics, as well as control systems to make
management decisions, with or without human interaction, are all part of the
system. Because of the ability to continually monitor and regulate animals
throughout their lives, both productivity and welfare might potentially be
improved by early detection of health problems, resulting in focused (and
hence reduced) medication use, lower mortality, and improved health.
As a result of these outcomes, further social advantages such as reduced
waste, increased efficiency, and reduced environmental impact are realized.
Furthermore, smart data collected from thousands of farms can be analyzed
to uncover solutions to management, illness, welfare, production, and
even environmental challenges that were previously based solely on one
company’s expertise or small-scale research studies. The intelligent use of the
enormous data sets made possible by smart farming can be used to improve
the results of smart farming. Precision farming, on the other hand, creates
ethical problems, particularly due to its potential negative consequences on
animal welfare. The fear is that the promotion of more intensive farming,
an emphasis on collective welfare rather than individual welfare, and the
replacement of trained stock people with anonymous algorithms will lead
to a decrease in animal welfare. Although one of the declared goals of smart
farming is to increase animal welfare, it is unclear whether this is done in
practice. One reason for this ambiguity is because most of the technology
is still under development and has not yet been widely implemented in
practice enough to determine its full consequences. Precision agriculture for
livestock is thus at a critical juncture, with potentially beneficial or negative
consequences for animal welfare. We shall argue that three variables will
primarily affect the final ethical decision on smart farming in her paper.
These are the ones.
• whether smart farming embraces a public-acceptable definition
of “animal welfare,” including whether that term encompasses
the animals’ point of view
• whether computer recognition of animal wellbeing is successful

enough and given a high enough priority to meet the ethical
standards demanded by the public and actually improve welfare
• whether smart farming can actually deliver its promised
improvements in animal welfare when applied in practice.
Definition of Animal Welfare

The first factor that will determine whether smart farming is perceived as
increasing or harming animal welfare is if it will be possible to come up with
a definition of “welfare” that everyone can agree on, including scientists,
farmers, animal welfare organizations, and members of the public. This may
appear to be a minor issue, but it is a major roadblock to reaching a consensus
on the ethics of smart farming because there is currently no agreed-upon
definition of “welfare” in any language. For some, “good wellbeing” means
making the animal’s surroundings as “natural” as possible, but for others, a
natural life does not ensure high welfare, and what animals require can be
better supplied in a controlled and artificial, environment in which technology
plays a large role. Longevity, reproductive success, behavioral diversity,
heart rate variability, eye temperature, skin temperature, and hormone
levels are currently among the recommended welfare measurements, among
many others. Because there are so many different welfare “criteria,” what
one person considers to be an ethical way of maintaining animals may be
unacceptable for another. Precision farming may face significant opposition
if no universally accepted definition of animal welfare exists that genuinely
improves animal welfare. This is because precision farming does not meet
the standards of a particular definition and does not live up to its promise
of improving animal welfare. Despite Machine Learning’s promise for
establishing the conditions that lead to optimal welfare outcomes, there is
still a need for a definition of what constitutes a “good” or desired welfare
outcome. A possible unifying concept of good welfare is that an animal is in
good health and well-being.
• in a state of good physical health and
• has what it wants.
This is a condensed version of a number of other frequently used
methodologies, and it conveys what welfare means to a wide range of
people. All of these plans emphasize the significance of physical health
to excellent welfare, and “what animals desire” emphasizes the animals’
own perspectives on their surroundings (Welfare Quality R, 2018; Franks,
2019). It also fits with contemporary trends toward defining welfare more
positively, so that animals have a Life Worth Living (LWL) or, even better, a
Positively Good Life, rather than negatively as the absence of pain. Animals
having “positive emotions” (Boissy et al., 2007) or being in a “positive
affective state” (Mendl et al., 2010; Gygax, 2017) have been discussed in the
scientific literature, but the simpler wording is more understandable to non-
scientists and more directly indicative of the data that needs to be collected.
Computer Recognition of Animal Welfare

The advantage of precisely defining welfare in terms of health and what
animals want is that it lends itself directly to computer recognition of animal
welfare. This is significant because smart farming’s ethical credentials will
rely heavily on people believing that computers are capable of recognizing
and analyzing animal welfare and that the computers are subsequently
designed to ensure that excellent welfare is a top priority. As a result, the
welfare definition employed in smart farming must be directly translatable
into terms that a computer can identify and implement in practice. Smart
farming technology now includes “smart sensors” that collect real-time data
from animals and/or their environment, the integration of various types of
data into big data sets that can be used for Machine Learning to improve
production and welfare, and systems that provide fine control of an animal’s
environment and diet. Translating all of this data into tangible welfare
benefits, on the other hand, is highly dependent on how well computers
interpret the data they collect in terms of welfare. How well can computers
distinguish between the two components of good welfare?
Computer Recognition of Health and Disease

Veterinary medicine has used computers to monitor health in a far more
limited way than human medicine, although automated approaches for
identifying indicators of disease or damage in farm animals are gradually
becoming more common. This is most advanced in the dairy industry, where
changes in the health state of each individual cow have a significant financial
impact, and farmers believe that investing in technology that provides
specific information on each animal is critical to their overall business.
Lameness in dairy cows, for example, may now be identified automatically
using a variety of methods, including visual images, accelerometer data
from devices attached to the cows’ legs, pressure sensitive pads that track
how the cows distribute their weight, and even the sound of their footfall.
Changes in behavior, such as longer periods of lying, shorter periods of

feeding, or rumination, can be deduced automatically from visual images
and accelerometers, and can serve as early indicators of lameness and
other health concerns. Changes in tail posture in pigs can be monitored
automatically by cameras and utilized as alerts for tail-biting epidemics,
a severe source of harm. Digital imaging technology can also be used to
examine various postures that indicate sick or injured birds, as well as to
identify lame broilers based on irregularities in their body oscillations, step
frequency, and step length. Individually tracking large animals like cows or
sows can be done by inserting tags, trackers, or measurement equipment on
or even inside each animal, or by visually recognizing individual animals
from camera feeds. By allowing each animal to have its own tailored
nutrition and medical treatment, such gadgets can help to improve animal
welfare. Computer vision and machine learning can now detect pain in
sheep’s faces, providing early warning of diseases like foot rot and mastitis
and allowing an affected individual to be treated before the sickness spreads
to the rest of the flock.
Individual recognition is now problematic where thousands of tiny
animals are kept together, thus the entire group is inspected and treated as
a whole. Feed, vaccination, medication, drinker height, lighting, and other
factors are not adjusted for single individuals in commercially reared poultry,
but rather for the average needs of the flock. Similarly, group outcomes such
as the percent of a flock with gait problems, percent mortality, or sounds or
movements of entire flocks are used to assess welfare. Precision farming is
currently limited in this area, but it has the potential to make a significant
contribution to the well-being of group-housed animals in the future.
Precision crop agriculture refers to the assessment of soil qualities, moisture
levels, weeds, and diseases in specific portions of a field, as well as the
administration of fertilizers and herbicides only where they are truly needed,
rather than throughout the entire field. Similarly, technology that allowed
farmers to recognize injured birds and treat them individually or be alerted
to a specific section of a house where a potential problem such as smothering
or overcrowding was beginning to arise may help chicken welfare. Houses
with thousands of birds would no longer be viewed as a single unit, but as
flocks of many individuals, each with their own set of circumstances and
welfare outcomes. This would allow for a higher emphasis on individual
animal wellbeing than either farmers or machines can currently provide.
Even with today’s technology, however, monitoring the entire group without
identifying individuals can yield valuable health information. Despite the
difficulty of separating the sound of a cough from other background noises,

the sound of coughing has been utilized to automatically detect early signs
of Bovine Respiratory Disease. Coughing and sneezing sounds in pigs
and poultry have also been used to detect respiratory illnesses. Broiler
chicken flocks with significant levels of leg injuries and lameness can be
automatically detected from abnormalities in flock movement using visual
pictures, even before they are visible to the naked eye. As a result, it is
obvious that technology can already quantify at least one aspect of excellent
welfare—animal health—at both the individual and group level. New
automated methods are fast emerging, and their use is expected to skyrocket
in the near future as diagnostic technologies improve their ability to focus
on individual animals and provide early warning of impending health issues.
Computer Recognition of What Animals Want (the Animal’s

Point of View)
While indicators of illness are relatively simple for computers to detect,
there is more to excellent welfare than the absence of injury and sickness,
thus a significant question is whether computers can also deliver on the
second component of animal welfare—what animals want.
Specifying Welfare Algorithms:

The ability of a computer to distinguish between the behavior or
physiological state of animals that have what they want and the behavior
or physiological state of animals that do not have what they want will be
critical to the success of an algorithm to detect when animals have what
they want. Scientists studying animal welfare have already made significant
progress in compiling these “body language” lists for various animals, and
they are frequently employed as indicators of either positive or negative
welfare. Hormone levels, activity levels, vocalizations, skin temperature,
eye temperature, pupil size, heart rate variability, and many other things
may now be sensed automatically with sensors. There would appear to be
a good empirical background from which to construct welfare algorithms
suited for inclusion in smart agricultural systems, given the enormous
number of measurements already accessible. Unfortunately, many of these
methods are ineffective because they fail to distinguish between animals
getting what they want and animals getting what they don’t want or being
forced to stay in environments they wish to avoid or flee from. Were cows
were confined in a cattle crush to have their feet trimmed, but also when
fed very appetizing food, their ocular temperatures dropped. Animals that
have what they want (food, voluntary exercise, or a sexual partner) as well
as animals that want to escape or avoid something exhibit large rises in
glucocorticoid levels (commonly referred to as “stress” hormones). Because
many commonly employed wellbeing measures are ambiguous—that is,
they might be interpreted as indications of an enthusiastic animal getting
what it wants or an aroused animal attempting to avoid what it doesn’t
want—an additional test must be performed before they can be utilized in a
welfare algorithm. That test is empirical evidence that the measure utilized
is a true diagnostic of whether the animals perceive a specific scenario as
something they want to continue/repeat (that is, something they find good or
rewarding) or something they wish to avoid (negative or punishing). Valence
is the term for this positive/negative classification.
Determining Valence: There are currently a variety of tried-and-true
methods for determining what animals prefer, including operant conditioning,
various types of choice tests, geographical distribution, and other less direct
methods (Dawkins, 2021). Offering animals, a choice between numerous
possibilities and watching which one they choose initially or where they go
over time is the simplest of these. When broiler chicks are given the choice
between typical bar perches and platform perches, they prefer the platforms
over the bars, especially as they grow bigger and heavier, making it more
difficult to balance on bars (Baxter et al., 2020). Where people choose to
spend their time reflects their perspective of view. When animals are shown
to “work” for what they desire or pay a price to receive it, the evidence of
what they want becomes much more convincing. Dairy cows, for example,
will learn to use a switch to turn on rotating brush motors, which they
subsequently rub against to groom themselves. Furthermore, if accessing
these brushes is made more difficult for them, such as by having to push
open a large fence, they will exert enormous effort. The physical grooming
offered by the brushes is definitely desired by the cows. Studies of animal
decisions and resource utilization have traditionally relied on direct human
observation or time-consuming video analysis, which severely limits their
breadth. Long-term computer analysis of where animals spend their time, as
well as how often and how much they will work for certain resources, yields
much more quantitative information. It demonstrates how the animals’
decisions alter during the day and as they get older. It, therefore, helps to
overcome objections to the use of choice tests in welfare evaluation, such
as animals being unfamiliar with the options given, choices changing with
experience, or animals “wanting” something but not “liking” it when they

get it.
The Expression of Valence: Although determining what animals want is
an important first step in developing welfare algorithms, it is understanding
how animals express themselves when they have (or don’t have) what
they want that allows the frequently ambiguous data from sensors to be
accurately interpreted in terms of welfare. It is possible to watch animals in
the presence of both objects or surroundings they have shown they want and
circumstances they have shown they wish to avoid once it is known what
they want. These are the ones that can be employed with certainty as part of
a welfare algorithm if there are diagnostic variations between their behavior
and physiology in these two situations—that is, trustworthy indications of
valence. These could be distinct sounds, patterns of behavior, or hormone
profiles that allow a machine (or stock person) to assess the animal’s
welfare and make any necessary management adjustments. Growing
chicks, for example, make loud, high-pitched “distress” sounds when they
are cold, hungry, thirsty, or solitary (i.e., do not have what they want) and
soft, “twitter” calls when they are with the mother or other chicks, at a
comfortable temperature, and otherwise have what they want. The calls are
distinct and easy to recognize for both humans and machines. Because their
utility as diagnostic valence indicators has already been proven, monitoring
these cries can be used to determine the current welfare of chicks. With their
enormous ability to learn from vast data sets, computers could considerably
improve the accuracy of welfare detection algorithms and their ability to
discern between different valences of behavior. Pigs’ grunts, for example,
differ depending on whether they are in rewarding or punishing situations,
but there is a lot of overlap between the two types of grunts, making them
inaccurate indications of whether pigs have what they desire at the moment.
However, with the power of machine learning to comprehend them, what
we now consider unreliable indicators of what the pigs want could become
much more trustworthy, either because computers notice distinctions that we
miss or because they can integrate them with other behaviors and interpret
them in context.
Machine Learning will almost probably detect as yet unknown
correlations and insights into how to obtain higher welfare outcomes than
we presently have available, using very huge data sets for training and
testing deep learning models. The automated analysis of behavior, on the
other hand, poses unique obstacles due to its diversity. When an animal is
looking for food, it will act differently than when it is looking for a mate or
warmth. Even the desire for something specific, such as food, might take the
form of scanning a vast area, vocalizing, and sitting still to preserve energy.
Running, stalking, digging, turning over stones, and a variety of other
activities are all examples of “searching,” which might vary on different
occasions even within the same person. A further problem is that after the
animal has found food, it will flip from “wanting” to “liking” it, exhibiting
a whole new set of eating and post-prandial digestive behaviors. As a result,
the body language list for detecting when animals have received what they
desire will have to be vast for each species and encompass a wide range of
behaviors. Because there are so many various situations that animals may
desire to avoid or escape from, each resulting in distinct behavior, the list
of how animals express themselves when they do not have what they want
is likely to be even longer. An animal that does not have but can see what it
wants (is “thwarted” or “frustrated”) would act differently than one that is
“starved” or “bored” in a barren environment. Depending on the degree of
danger, an animal that wants to escape danger (is “fearful”) will display a
spectrum of behaviors ranging from vigilance to full-scale flight. Aggression
can take various forms, and serious combat might resemble play fighting in
appearance. The only thing that might bring these disparate actions together
and put them on the same bad list is that they are all indicators of something
that the animal does not desire or like. Note that these animal-centered lists
may differ from those compiled by well-intentioned humans without the
benefit of this prior knowledge. Not all “natural” actions, for example, will
make the list of what animal’s desire. Some natural activities in the wild,
such as being chased by a predator, maybe the polar opposite of what an
animal desires and be interpreted as a sign of poor welfare. However, once
these lists are produced, they may be utilized to create the proven welfare
algorithms that smart farming requires in order to be useful to farmers.
Consumers may rest certain that the welfare algorithms in use are based on
what keeps animals healthy as well as the animals’ own judgments on what
they want.
Animals can get what they want from computers. Computers may
be used more actively to not only measure what animals want but also to
supply it to them. Smart farming could lead to animal-centered ecosystems
in which animals alter their environments to their own preferences, such as
voluntary milking for cows or systems in which animals can select their own
amount of illumination. The full ramifications for public welfare have yet to
be determined.
Problems With Machine Analysis of Welfare

After emphasizing the role that computers may play in recognizing and
assessing animal welfare, it’s critical to identify the issues that still need to
be addressed. When it comes to sound, it can be difficult to tell the difference
between vocalizations and background noise, or there may be a true overlap
between vocalizations signaling good and negative welfare. With machine
vision technology, there is an even broader range of technological issues to
solve. The human brain is so brilliant at detecting individuals, subtle facial
expressions, letters of the alphabet printed in various scripts, and partially
visible things that it’s surprising that we still outperform computers on many
of these visual tasks. We excel in view-invariance, or the ability to recognize
the same object despite its appearance changing dramatically based on the
angle, distance, or orientation from which we view it. When held one way, a
pen appears long and narrow, but when held the other way, it appears to be
a small round coin, but we still recognize it as a pen. Even though it is half-
buried by a wall and no longer has the conventional bus shape, a bus is still
a bus to us. Even with static objects presented in a standard manner, such
tasks are tough for computers (which is why tests of whether you are a robot
on a website work). The task gets significantly more challenging when faced
with active behavior sequences of moving animals observed from various
perspectives, distances from the camera, under various lighting conditions,
and frequently hidden by other animals. If these issues aren’t resolved
properly, computer recognition will produce false positive or false negative
findings, both of which reduce its practical utility. As a result, there is still
a long way to go before welfare algorithms can be trusted as a trustworthy
component of smart farming systems in commercial farm settings. However,
progress is being made all the time. The increased use of video surveillance
has necessitated the development of view-invariant computer recognition
of various types of human behavior that can function regardless of light
level, camera angle background, or other variables found in real life. Such
advancements are directly relevant to the difficulties of animal behavior
recognition by machines in farm settings.
PLF Benefit to Welfare

Smart or precision livestock farming offers farmers improved efficiency and
higher animal welfare standards, but it’s still unclear whether smart farming
is a “friend or adversary” for animals or a “panacea or trap” for farmers.
Despite significant development since the publication of this report, precision
livestock farming continues to trail behind plant crop production in the

application of precision technologies in many sectors (dairy farming being
an exception). Many of its most ambitious capabilities, such as automated
welfare evaluation, are still in the early stages of development and have yet
to demonstrate their worth in real-world farming scenarios. As a result, many
farmers, particularly those in the poultry industry, are still unsure whether
smart farming techniques are suited for them or whether they produce better
outcomes than those obtained without the use of costly technology. We won’t
be able to determine smart farming’s genuine outcomes until it has extensive
commercial use and evidence of its results in practice. These outcomes will
need to include whether it minimizes waste, reduces illness incidence and,
as a result, decreases or increases the usage of medication, what effects it has
on the environment and individuals who interact with animals, and whether
it allows farmers to make a livelihood. Economic considerations will be
critical. Farmers will only invest in smart farming technology if they can see
financial benefits, and it is this concentration on profit and efficiency that
generates the most concern for animal welfare. Animal welfare is thought
to be incompatible with efficient farming since its benefits are intangible
and stem from ethics and moral standards, or what the public perceives
as a “good.” Animal welfare, on the other hand, has immediate financial
benefits, and once they are recognized, animal welfare is less likely to be
considered as incompatible with efficient farming. In view of the financial
consequences, it’s worth analyzing the probable effects of smart farming
on the two aspects of animal wellbeing covered in this section. Precision
farming is anticipated to have a positive influence on the first component of
animal welfare—good health—as well as a financial benefit. Animals can be
kept in conditions that are optimal for their health because of the increased
control over environmental conditions that smart farming provides, making
them less likely to die, require medication, or be a source of disease to one
other or humans. Keeping broiler chickens within specified temperature
and humidity parameters, especially during the first week of life, decreases
mortality as well as other crucial health indicators such hock-burn, foot pad
dermatitis, and lameness. A broiler farm with ten houses might generate
up to 3 million birds per year, thus even a 1% reduction in mortality could
be vital to poultry farmers’ bottom lines. If the controlled environment
provided by precision farming also minimized downgrades owing to leg
and foot sores, breast blisters, and other indicators of illness, there could be
a financial benefit. Another problem with economic implications is ensuring
that all the birds grow at the same rate, as retailers frequently want birds of
the same weight. This is also crucial for bird wellbeing, as underweight birds
may struggle to obtain food and water. Farmers will benefit financially, and
bird welfare will improve if precision farming results in a higher percentage
of saleable, healthy birds of even weight. Precision farming can deliver
efficiency and profit alongside higher welfare by addressing the second
component of excellent welfare—animals getting what they want. There is
mounting evidence that “stress” is linked to a weakened immune system.
In humans, strong immune function is linked to subjective perceptions
of happiness and fulfillment in life, which offers a viable paradigm for
connecting immunity to non-human animals getting what they desire. This
is an area where additional research is needed, specifically to test the concept
that maintaining animals in high welfare settings (where they are both
healthy and have what they want) enhances their immune systems, increases
their illness resistance, and results in healthier, happier animals. Precision
farming will provide a clear and immediate financial benefit if it can deliver
the circumstances that animals desire and prefer based on their behavior,
while also making them healthier. If it can be demonstrated that monitoring
the animals’ behavior is valuable in identifying when conditions are less than
ideal from the animal’s perspective, the additional technology will have its
own financial basis. Aside from the obvious financial benefits of prioritizing
animal welfare, there are also indirect benefits, such as the public viewing
farmers positively and opting to buy precision farming goods because they
are perceived to be “welfare friendly.” As new trade agreements increase
competitiveness and animal welfare becomes a significant selling feature
for those who can achieve it, this is likely to become more relevant. A shop
or food outlet that can convince its customers that the farms it buys from
are constantly monitored for welfare and can explain what this entails and
how welfare is measured would have a (commercial) advantage. We don’t
yet know if these smart cattle farming promises will be realized in practice.
This will only become obvious as smart technologies become more widely
used and improved. Large data sets that can be analyzed using deep learning
techniques will be essential for analyzing the effects of smart farming and
increasing its capabilities. Animal welfare will be critical to the future of
smart farming, not just as a major element in its financial success or failure,
but also as a moral judge. The ability of smart farming to improve the lives
of animals may determine its success or failure.
CHAPTER 6
PRECISION AGRICULTURE AND
QUALITY PRACTICES
CONTENTS
Overview................................................................................................ 170
Food Safety Schemes.............................................................................. 171
PA and Gaps........................................................................................... 174
PA and Traceability................................................................................. 176
Model-Based Statistical Process Control.................................................. 185
In Summary............................................................................................ 186
OVERVIEW
Agricultural production is part of a long chain of activities that begins with
sowing (or even before that) and ends with the customer. It should live
up to consumer expectations in terms of quality, safety, and value. There
are numerous intermediary processes, which frequently include handling,
storage, and transportation across national boundaries or continents. This
chain should be used to send information. Automation, which will be a big
part of future agricultural and biological production systems, will have to deal
with various obstacles provided by system features. When we examine the
processes in agricultural production systems, we might conclude that they are
complicated. Indeed, as we get a deeper knowledge of biological processes,
we discover that they are extremely complicated, and that this complexity
is often difficult to express precisely. The term “complexity” refers to a
system’s many pieces or processes that interact and produce unpredictable
results. These interactions and activities take place in a variety of spatial
and temporal domains. Photosynthetic activity and transport processes in
the cells, leaves, and various organs of single plants are responsible for crop
growth. Solar radiation, temperature, humidity, soil texture, and nutrient or
water content all interact with the physical environment surrounding these
single plants. Within a field, there is also the influence of surrounding plants.
Many allied biotas interact with the plant, including insects, pests, and
microorganisms on or near the plant, as well as soil microbes and animals.
In a field, all of these biotic and abiotic impacts can be changeable, and they
can also change over time. There are complicated relationships at the farm
level, both within the enterprise, where many diverse activities take place,
and with communities and economic operators. At this level, all of these
interactions have an impact on decision-making. Food production is held to
a high standard in society.
Food production, on the other hand, is becoming increasingly
susceptible to international trade agreements. As a result, rivalry among
producers or regions of production plays a significant role in decision-
making. Nonetheless, this competition should not jeopardize consumer
food safety or society’s long-term food security. To ensure food safety,
the entire food chain must be transparent. Technology development is also
required to address issues such as land degradation and water efficiency.
Genetically modified crops or crops for green chemicals, for example,
require specialized planting, tending, harvesting, and handling equipment as
a result of the (bio)technological revolution. There is also a rising concern
about preserving biodiversity in order to conserve vast genetic resources
Precision Agriculture and Quality Practices 171
and provide a foundation for more effective crop production and pest
management. There are many different meanings of transparency in the
literature. That transparency, however, can only be achieved if everyone
with a stake in food production and consumption is aware of the relevant
features of products, processes, and process environments, as well as other
factors that enable them to make educated judgments. A significant change
in quality can occur when agricultural products are kept and exported over
large distances and time periods. As a result, one would be curious as to
how quality will change following harvest. This could alter harvest timing,
storage conditions required to maintain a given degree of quality, or the
amount of time between harvest and consumption.
FOOD SAFETY SCHEMES

Consumers are becoming more concerned about food safety and the qualities
of the foods they consume. Food scandals and occurrences in the food supply
chain have sparked public concern about agricultural methods as well as
food handling and processing. Consumer confidence in the safety of food
systems has been eroded by reports of food poisoning episodes and deaths
caused by contamination of fresh, minimally processed, and processed fruits
and vegetables, as well as the appearance of other emerging food pathogens.
As a result, there have been significant advancements in food safety and
traceability around the world. Some of the projects are government-led to
protect citizens’ health, while others are private initiatives by growers and
retailers to meet their customers’ expectations in terms of food safety and
environmental sustainability. Everyone in the food chain believes that if
production is done in accordance with appropriate agricultural practices,
these expectations may be met (GAP). To do so, authorized authorities or
food safety departments of manufacturers or retailers demand that the origin
and destination of animal feed, materials, and food at all stages of production
and distribution be known and available as data. Food safety is now a priority
for all stakeholders in the food production chain, and food manufacturers are
increasingly being scrutinized for their production techniques. The need for
increased quality assurance, transparency, and traceability in the food supply
chain is also acknowledged at this point. It has also been demonstrated that
traceability is of minimal use to individual consumers in the absence of
quality assurance. Traceability and quality assurances can be combined to
provide extra value.
Food of high quality, as well as related services and information, should

be ensured. Consumers demand food that can be relied on completely. To
prove their trust, they demand assurances of safety and accurate information.
The following is how information integrity is described in this context: “the
information presented is in accordance with the reality it reflects.” Fit for
purpose information is information that is accurate, relevant, exact, timely,
and complete for a certain purpose. It also suggests that the data cannot be
tampered with. Retailers, in particular, are calling for information integrity,
stating that their suppliers must meet transparency requirements. Part of that
transparency is focused on implementing tracking and tracing systems as
primary goals to enable efficient recalls at the chain level, as needed, on
proactive quality monitoring along chain processes, with an objective early
warning in the event of a possible emerging problem, and/or on optimizing
the remaining processes along the supply chain downstream. There have
been significant changes in food safety rules and international trade in recent
years. The following are some of the international organizations that deal
with food safety:
• Codex Alimentarius: The Codex Alimentarius Commission
(CAC) was created in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)
to develop food standards, guidelines, and related texts such as
codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards
Program.
• Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement: was established
by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The SPS agreement
relates to the protection of human, animal, and plant health
and life. The basic aim of the SPS agreement is to maintain the
sovereign right of any government to provide the level of health
protection it deems appropriate, but to ensure that these sovereign
rights are not misused for protectionist purposes and do not result
in unnecessary barriers to international trade.
• Legislation from the European Community: The European
Food Law (European Commission, 2012; Regulation EC
No 178/2002) establishes the general principles upon which
international trade in food shall be based. Food producers have
the primary responsibility for the safety of food and the member
states have to develop codes of good practice at the national level.
A number of food safety systems with a worldwide application range

are:
• FSSC/FS 22000 (Food Safety System Certification standard) is a
certification scheme for food manufacturers.
• ISO 22000 takes a whole chain approach to food safety,
providing a standard that goes all the way from the farm to the
fork, including packaging and ingredient suppliers, caterers,
storage and distribution facilities, and chemical and machinery
manufacturers, and can be applied to primary producers such as
farms.
• BRC is one of the choices for retailers worldwide looking for
confidence from food suppliers.
• SQF is one of the world’s leading food safety and quality
management systems to assure that a supplier’s food safety and
quality management system complies with international and
domestic food safety regulations.
• HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points) is a risk
management system that identifies, evaluates, and controls
hazards related to food safety throughout the food supply chain.
• IFS (International Food Standard) is a quality and food safety
standard for retailer (and wholesaler) branded food products,
which is intended to assess suppliers’ food safety and quality
systems, with a uniform approach that harmonizes the elements
of each.
• GFSI: Under the umbrella of the Global Food Safety Initiative
(GFSI), seven major retailers have come to a common acceptance
of GFSI-benchmarked food safety schemes.
• GlobalGAP (GlobalGAP, 2012) was introduced by FoodPLUS
GmbH, but is now managed in the form of a retailer–producer
alliance to raise standards in primary agricultural production.
Certification to the standard ensures a level playing field in terms
of food safety and quality and proves that growers are prepared to
constantly improve systems to raise standards.
The GAP standards can be considered as the basis for food safety. They
are in general based on the following concepts:
• Food safety: The standard is based on food safety criteria, derived
from the application of generic HACCP principles.
• Reducing the inappropriate use of chemicals in general, and

especially the use of chemical plant protection products (PPPs),
or reducing the level of residues found on food crops.
• Environmental protection: The standard consists of environmental
protection GAP, which are designed to minimize the negative
impacts of agricultural production on the environment.
• Occupational health, safety, and welfare: The standard establishes
a global level of occupational health and safety criteria on farms,
as well as awareness and responsibility regarding socially related
issues.
• Animal welfare (where applicable): The standard establishes a
global level of animal welfare criteria on farms.
The Global-GAP (Global-GAP, 2012) scheme, for instance, includes the
entire agricultural production process of the certified product, from seed
and nursery control points to non-processed end goods (produce handling
control points). The Global-GAP organization prepared guidance notes to
help farmers and producers become fully aware of the maximum residue
levels (MRLs) in effect in the markets where the product will be sold in
response to the problems created by rapidly changing crop protection product
regulations. The framework of certification to the Global-GAP standard, as
well as the processes to achieve and maintain certification, are explained in
a general rules document. GAP certification requirements are encapsulated
in a document that includes control points and compliance criteria. Several
other GAP schemes have comparable requirements, albeit the focus varies
depending on the country where they were developed or implemented.
PA AND GAPS
Precision agriculture (PA) technologies are based on GAP principles
and might become useful tools for ensuring compliance with laws and
documenting production conditions as proof of compliance. PA can be
thought of as a condensed version of GAP.
• Correct information (soil, previous crops and treatment, etc.)
• Correct observation
• Correct analysis
• Correct genotype
• Correct dose
• Correct chemical/biological compound

• Correct place
• Correct time
• Correct (climatic) conditions
• Correct equipment
It is obvious that if such principles are followed, the Global-GAP
standards can be met. A GAP plan, for example, mandates that fertilizer
application dosages be based on soil analysis and delivered at a pace that the
crop can absorb. The application equipment must be in good working order
for the operator to be confident in the dose. Pesticides should only be used
as part of a pest control strategy, such as integrated pest management (IPM),
that is based on the observation or risk of a pest or disease, with beneficial
organisms preserved to the greatest extent practicable. The application shall
not be made within the preharvest time span specified by the government’s
requirements for usage. Of course, only insecticides and herbicides that have
been licensed for usage can be utilized. To avoid contamination of surface
waterways, keep a sufficient distance from water sources while applying
chemical protection. To guarantee that all of these principles have been
followed, a record of all steps and treatments performed during production
must be kept.
The products with the largest environmental impact have been
recognized in a report on the environmental impacts of products (EIPRO)
(Tukker et al., 2006). The findings are based on a life cycle analysis of
consumer goods in the European Union. They discovered that housing, food
and drink, and private transportation have the largest environmental impact
in Europe. There is no apparent ranking because the products in each of the
three categories are almost equal in importance. They are responsible for
70–80 percent of the environmental impact of consuming, and they account
for roughly 60% of consumption expenditure. Life cycle analyses help to
understand the environmental impacts of individual products on carbon,
water, eutrophication, and other factors across all stages of the value chain:
from the production of agricultural inputs, farming, processing, transport,
and storage on the production side, to shopping, cleaning, cooking, home
storage, and recycling behavior on the consumer side (European Food SCP
Round Table Working Group 2 on “Environmental Information Tools,”
European Food SCP Rapporteur, European Food SCP Rapporteur, European
Food SCP The concepts of PA can be used to communicate across the food
chain, including to consumers, about farming actions that have a negative
impact on the environment. Technology allows us to do so in a scientifically

sound, consistent, intelligible, and non-misleading manner. Agricultural
practices will be increasingly questioned in the future as society and
consumer views change. This will indicate that communities will only
provide a “license to operate” if severe production requirements are satisfied
and documented, in addition to “say what you do” and “do what you say.”
Not only do global customers demand GAP when purchasing items, but local
consumer advocacy organizations will only allow production if particular
requirements are met and verified.
PA AND TRACEABILITY
All treatments are located and timed thanks to precision farming and the use
of global positioning systems (GPS) on agricultural machines. Of course,
this is critical for automation, such as navigation during various treatments
or data collecting on crop status, illnesses, and yields.
Site history and management: Planting a suitable crop (and variety) in
the appropriate location assumes that the farm manager or decision support
tool be aware of the soil condition, as well as the previous seasons’ crops and
treatments. Because of environmental conditions that were less conducive
to their destruction or breakdown, residues from fertilizers, herbicides, or
pesticides used in prior seasons may still be considerable in some cases.
The farmer or decision support system must then be able to obtain the data
(dosage, timing, and location) from these prior treatments in order to make
informed judgments. Chemical leaching risk varies by location and soil type,
and can be taken into account when making crop production decisions. In
other circumstances, crop rotations should be followed in a certain order to
prevent the spread of soil-borne illnesses. This necessitates the development
of a traceability system that is tied to a field rather than merely a grown and
marketable crop.
Fertilizer application: GAP refers to the application of the correct
fertilizer dose at the correct time and in the correct manner. The use of
automation and control in fertilizer application can help meet this GAP
criterion. For efficient agricultural production, including site-specific crop
management (SSCM), where fertilizer nutrient application rates are modified
spatially depending on local requirements, accurate measurements of soil
macronutrients (i.e. nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium) are required.
The potential for quick, nondestructive assessment of soil parameters,
including nutrient levels, has been demonstrated using optical diffuse

reflectance sensing. Because of their simplicity, portability, rapid response,
and ability to directly detect the analyte with a wide range of sensitivity,
electrochemical sensing based on ion-selective electrodes or ion-selective
field-effect transistors has been acknowledged as valuable in real-time
analysis. They also show how optical and electrochemical sensors are used
in soil analysis and explore the benefits and drawbacks of using them.
Weed Control: To achieve the GAP weed control standards, core
technologies (guidance, detection and identification, precision in-row weed
control, and mapping) are required. Detecting and identifying weeds in
a wide range of conditions found in agricultural fields remains the most
difficult task. Weed detection technologies have been developed in a variety
of ways. They’re all somewhere in between research and commercialization.
To distinguish between weeds and the crop, most use spectral features and/
or image-based shape recognition. If population dynamics models are well-
developed, they can assist in deciding whether or not to treat weeds that do
not constitute a direct threat to crop yield or quality. After each observation,
these models may get more accurate. A mechanical or thermal action, as well
as herbicide application, can be used as a follow-up treatment. Herbicide
treatment on the most susceptible sections of the plant with micro-dosing
nozzles decreases chemical use even further. When detection and application
equipment are equipped with a GPS receiver, the location and time of
weed populations, as well as the treatments provided, can be automatically
recorded in the GAP and field databases (in a field passport).
Pest and Disease Management: GAP reduces pest and disease incidence
and intensity, as well as the usage of chemical control measures. This also
means that observation and monitoring procedures have been established,
as well as the consideration of nonchemical alternatives. Biological
management and the employment of natural predators should be preferred
whenever possible. Specific chemical control should only be considered
if the crop’s economic value would be harmed if it wasn’t. The European
Community Directive 128/2009 on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides defines
a plan for the use of PPPs in the European Community in order to eliminate
health and environmental concerns. This strategy’s primary component is
Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which will become required in 2014.
IPM is built on dynamic processes and necessitates strategic, tactical, and
operational decision-making. Decision-makers in IPM systems demand
more expertise and must cope with higher complexity than decision-makers
in traditional agricultural systems. Warning services, on-site gadgets, and

decision support systems (DSSs) are some of the instruments that have been
developed to aid decision-making in plant disease control. These decision-
making aids work at various spatial and temporal scales, are offered to
private sources, focus on various communication modes, and can support
a variety of information delivery methods to farmers. There are signs that
automatic disease detection may be possible at an early stage, but for the
time being, a good visual and instrumental method must be employed to
scan the crop for disease beginning, and if possible, population dynamics
models should be utilized to make a treatment decision. The following are
some of the issues that these strategies face:
• the effect of background data in the resulting profile or data,
• optimization of the technique for a specific plant/tree and disease,
and
• automation of the technique for continuous automated monitoring
of plant diseases under real-world field conditions.
According to reviews, these disease detection approaches have a lot
of potential for reliably detecting plant illnesses. To achieve superior plant
disease control and management, spectroscopic and imaging technology
could be coupled with an autonomous agricultural vehicle for dependable
and real-time plant disease identification. Some examples include the use
of spectroscopic technologies to identify illnesses in wheat, which might
be extended further into airborne hyperspectral detection systems. For the
diagnosis of leaf diseases with distinct, roundish symptoms, high spatial
resolution is especially important. Pixel size should be 2–5 times smaller than
the object of interest, depending on the shape of the symptoms. The (early)
detection of plant diseases is still limited to proximal sensing technologies
due to this remote sensing restriction. Diseases, disease stages, and the
impact of disease severity on plant spectral features are all complicated.
Hyperspectral imaging can assist identify disease or stress affecting crops
at the tissue and canopy levels by recording the evolution of patterns in
time and space. Because diseases are plant stresses, they frequently alter the
production and emission of volatile chemical molecules. These may be used
as a basis for decision-making if they could be recognized in the field at an
early stage and with adequate spatial resolution.
Because of their distinctiveness in type or sensitivity, as well as the
volume of information gathered and processed, sensing systems of insects,
animals, and even plants can be a source of inspiration for new discoveries.
Insects, for example, may detect volatiles emitted by damaged plants in

order to locate food or mating partners. To employ insects’ highly developed
olfactory sense for analytical applications, their biological nose must be
connected with an electronic equipment via a bioelectronic interface to
produce a bioelectronic nose. A bioelectronic sensor system like this is
extremely sensitive to volatiles emitted by damaged plant parts or the onset
of fungal illness. This could lead to some interesting uses for Phytophthora
detection in potatoes. The same is true for pest management, where traps
are regularly employed, but readout takes time and necessitates a lot of field
trips because the traps must be spread out over a big area. However, there
are hints that using optical detection of wing beat characteristics, it may be
feasible to identify insects and their population density.
Application Equipment: Any chemical treatment must clearly
be registered, and proper application can only be accomplished if the
equipment is in good operating order. In the future, application systems may
be designed so that the use of a specific chemical compound is restricted
to the conditions specified on the label: the site or crop, pest stage or crop
stage, application rate based on pest or soil type, season-specific timing,
application method and equipment, and number of applications allowed
per season. In addition, in order to avoid exceeding the MRLs, which can
vary by nation, a preharvest interval must be followed. All crop information
would already be up to current in the farm database at the time of pesticide
application. Before the active component is injected into the sprayer, the
label information for a certain compound is also available or might be
scanned. If an incorrect treatment is scheduled, an alarm could be issued,
or the device could be locked into a safe mode. To be effective, such a
system must be made reliable and error-free. By monitoring wind speeds
and estimating spray drift, precautions should be taken to prevent some
pesticides from contaminating adjoining crops. The creation and application
of such technologies should be integrated into a management and decision-
making framework. One component of the decision is the dose level and
disease threats; the other is the harvest plan and decision. Furthermore, these
characteristics must be fine-tuned and can be space and time-dependent.
Another option is to utilize smartphones in the field to capture images of
suspected diseases or pests and upload them to the cloud along with the
GPS coordinates of the spot where the picture was taken. The system could
deliver information on the type of ailment and the feasible or preferred
treatment after certain cloud computations. This treatment recommendation
would then be based on the cloud-stored crop information (kind of crop,
planting date, and projected harvest date). The appropriate dose can also
be determined based on biomass density or even microclimate differences
in the field. Based on local meteorological conditions, the risk of spray
drift and required distances to rivers can be calculated. The operator will
then be able to tell if the treatment is approved by scanning the barcode
on the pesticide package. Following that, as part of the traceability system,
the applied dose and dose variation, as well as other pertinent information,
would be entered into the field and crop database. This type of traceability
technology is projected to improve disease and pesticide management, as
well as consumer confidence in the safety of agricultural crops.
Microbial Safety: Microbial contamination can occur in the field, as
well as during harvest and afterward. Worker hygiene is critical in this
situation, and mechanisms to ensure worker hygiene and routine cleaning
of harvesting and transportation equipment could be considered. Early
detection and removal of an infected item, even before it reaches the
major elements of the harvesting machine or grading line, can aid in the
prevention of complications. As a result, design engineers must now place a
considerable emphasis on food safety design. One method to reduce dangers
is to employ a modular design with appropriate cleaning procedures and
noncontact sensing equipment. Additional microbial detecting technologies
should be incorporated in the future to alert the user if a concerned item is
present. This could have an impact on future harvesting, handling, sorting,
and packing equipment approaches. As part of the traceability system, all
detections, as well as subsequent removal and cleaning operations, should be
recorded. The core of this improvement would allow farmers to incorporate
either climate forecasts or the most recent measurable site-specific field
condition data into their resource management decision-making process
by maximizing the use of historic yield data under similar conditions to
adjust the input(s) responsively to the situation. Variable-rate nitrogen side-
dress administration throughout the mid- to late-vegetative growth stage is
a nice example of responsive control. N-deficient crop plants will respond
to supplemental nitrogen fertilizer applied as a side-dress based on data
collected from in-season canopy reflectance sensing or late spring soil nitrate
tests. If the amount of side-dressed fertilizer could be accurately calculated,
it might potentially achieve higher yield efficiency with a smaller amount of
total nitrogen fertilizer applied.
PA and Condition Sensing

The crop condition must be understood and the crop reaction to a treatment
regimen must be observed for all treatments, such as fertilizer use, irrigation,
or harvest timing, so that this can be taken into account for following
operations. It’s intriguing because rather than using statistical correlation
models, the gathered data can yield information on physiological processes
when underlying physiological models are used. Control actions can be
based on a greater understanding of physical and physiological processes
in this way. The most ideal method for observing crop conditions is optical
measuring, which will be briefly covered here. Because photons are ultrafast,
incredibly focusable, and operate without contact, photonics opens up a world
of possibilities. For agricultural diagnostics, this opens up a lot of options.
Plant responses at various spatial and temporal scales can be observed using
photonics as the foundation for measurement devices. Indeed, growers can
see when a problem emerges or when there is a significant difference in
crop condition in the field. The majority of human observation can only be
interpreted qualitatively. Numerous studies and reviews on optical features
of crops and image analysis in relation to fertilizer use, crop stress, disease or
weed identification, and product quality have been published in the hunt for
a more quantitative method. In the majority of these examples, correlations
between a spectrum or a picture and the crop characteristic being evaluated
have been found.
There is an increasing need to link observable visual qualities to physical
and physiological processes in the crop in order to better understand what is
going on and pinpoint relevant responses. The employment of biophysics-
based mathematical models that link physiological processes to measured
radiation, followed by model inversion, is one method. The sensitivity of
this model inversion to the various physiological components that can affect
radiative transmission may not always be sufficient. Models at various spatial
scales are employed, and they are occasionally combined, which adds to the
computational complexity. Radiative transfer models based on biophysical
theory have aided in the understanding of light interception by plant canopies
and the interpretation of vegetation reflectance in terms of biophysical
features since the inception of optical remote sensing. The canopy radiative
transfer models aim to capture the two primary physical processes involved,
absorption and scattering, and are important in generating vegetation indices,
sensitivity studies, and inversion procedures to reliably obtain vegetation
attributes from remotely sensed data. The procedures and mathematical
equations utilized to replicate sensing signals vary according to the system’s
scale. Most models, in general, either simulate leaf-scale or canopy-scale

signals. Model inversions at the canopy level often involve inputs of several
canopy parameters that are difficult to estimate from remote sensing data.
The reflection, absorption, and transmission of electromagnetic waves are
determined by four main crop characteristics:
• The diffusion or internal scattering of incident irradiance is partly
caused by internal structure or the histological organization
of tissues and cells. The mean optical path length of incident
radiation thus has a significant impact on spectral absorbance,
reflectance, and transmittance.
• The absorption of UV, visible, and infrared radiation is controlled
by the pigment composition, concentration(s), and distribution(s).
In food matrices, light absorption is molecule-specific and
theoretically defined by Beer’s law.
• The absorption of photons in the NIR and IR regions of the
spectrum is determined by the concentration and distribution of
leaf water.
• The spectral reflectance from this surface is determined by the
surface roughness features and the refractive index of the cuticular
wax of the top epidermis.
It’s worth noting that a lot of crop characteristics or processes of interest
are intertwined and highly correlated, and that inverse modeling based on
optical data makes it difficult to estimate these qualities separately. Plant
growth and development entail a number of processes that take place on
distinct geographical and temporal scales. Disease signs on a leaf, growth, or
the vegetative biomass in a field or a wider area are examples of these varied
scales. Information is required at those many scales in order to correctly
identify or classify quality features, illnesses, or plants or harvests. In many
circumstances, this identification can be based on optical data with a high
spatial resolution, but it’s also possible that this identification can only be
made using data with a high temporal frequency. In other circumstances, fast
scans with low spatial resolution may reveal uneven changes in the canopy
or field, which can then be studied by inspecting regions of interest with high
spatial resolution. Furthermore, high temporal frequency data is essential if
the information is to be used for statistical process control in order to detect
anomalous deviations. Because high spatial and temporal resolution may be
unattainable, there is usually a trade-off that must be made between fine (or
coarse) spatial resolution and low (or high) temporal frequency information.
It’s difficult to mix data from diverse temporal and spatial scales in a way
that yields relevant information. Crop traits might change over time as a
result of normal development or emergent stress circumstances. Again,
the scales at which these changes occur may differ. Time-lapse acquisition
can be used to observe patterns in spectra or hyperspectral image changes.
Advanced image processing may be required to extract information from
small changes. The method, called Eulerian video magnification, takes a
typical video sequence and performs spatial decomposition and temporal
filtering to the frames. The resulting signal is then amplified to reveal the
information that was previously buried.
Combining PA Processes with Traceability

After harvest, the harvest location’s GPS coordinates may be included in the
shipping documentation so that the product’s origin (region, farmer, field,
and location in the field) can be traced and the consumer can be confident in
the origin claims. It is also feasible to state where the various components
of a mixed final product came from in mixed final goods. It allows shops or
businesses that claim to sell locally produced food, as well as their customers,
to trace the goods and verify claims, as long as the method is flawless.
From the farm to the client, a crop goes through a series of procedures,
transactions, and shipments. When feed and animal production are involved,
the situation becomes much more difficult. There should be a way to track
the crop either upstream or downstream at each phase. Because the chain can
be quite extensive, it has been suggested that instead of centralizing all data,
it be implemented as a distributed system in which only one step in either
direction is traced at each level. This necessitates a reliable communication
network between potential storage sites for traceability data, as well as access
control. Cloud computing could be a viable option here. One advantage of
data accessibility is that, in the long run, field variability due to weather
and soil conditions may be derived from such a database, allowing farmers
and their advisors to improve production techniques. It’s also a means to
improve expert knowledge or models for predicting what the outcome of a
treatment system would be this year, given identical production conditions
in the past. In this approach, historical traceability data is useful not only for
customers, but also for producers and other chain participants.
PA Variability Modeling and Traceability

The benefits of having a nondestructive sensor extend far beyond its non-
destructive nature. Indeed, they enable the tracking of individual items
during the testing period, allowing for the modeling of changes in quality
attributes or other features. The understanding of postharvest behavior is
further improved by a method based on mechanistic models. Such a model
will, by definition, be based on a simplification of the food product and, as
a result, will never be “real,” because the only genuine model is the product
itself. However, the goal of modeling food quality features is to create valid
models rather than true models. These are models that are consistent with
existing knowledge and do not have any known or visible logic faults.
Models should also be comprehensive enough for the desired function while
remaining simple enough to make them manageable. The main technique for
developing an appropriate model is to use a systematic issue decomposition
procedure, which involves dissecting the problem into its basic building
parts and then reassembling them while eliminating extraneous information.
What is necessary and what is redundant is primarily determined by the
model’s intended application. Finally, the models will be used to assess the
quality of the logistic handling chain and to convert this into the impact of
logistic conditions on product quality parameters. The most difficult task
is to create prediction models that measure the degree of uncertainty in the
projected outcome. This problem lowers the propagation of errors from
the simulation input to the simulated result given a simulation model. It
becomes nearly hard to determine the correct model response as the number
of random components grows. Identifying the most essential (combinations
of) input parameters that represent the majority of the variability is usually
required for some reduction. With the advent of nondestructive technology, it
is now possible to track the quality of individual product items through time,
fully describing biological variance within a batch. Biological variance must
be explicitly incorporated in the (statistical) data analysis to appropriately
assess such data. A unique statistical approach (“mixed models”) was
developed to simulate such recurring quality assessments, and it was proved
in practice using the firmness change of different tomato cultivars.
Both forms of data analysis enable the quantification of many sources of
variance, such as variance within a tomato cultivar and within a tomato, as
well as how those sources of variance evolve over time. These methods pave
the way for better postharvest batch behavior monitoring, interpretation,
and prediction. As a result, these methods allow postharvest management to
optimize logistics while accounting for the full range of product variations
that will be experienced. When all relevant elements impacting postharvest

fruit behavior are taken into account and biological variance is included in
(statistical) models explaining post-harvest quality change, propagation of
the initial biological variance at harvest throughout the full postharvest chain
can be predicted. Fruit handling is complicated by the need to estimate shelf
life. As previously stated, not only must the average quality trajectory of a
batch be calculated, but also how much the quality is spread around the batch
average, because we are primarily interested in estimating the time at which,
say, 5% of the fruits hit a predetermined lower bound for their quality. A
tomato traceability system was used to test the installation and validation of
a stochastic quality change model. The results of the experiments revealed
the potential benefits of combining quality change models with traceability
systems in order to meet consumer expectations. Given the low influence of
temperature changes within the palletized fruit, using a single RFID label
per pallet appears to be a viable alternative to using temperature tracking
radio-frequency identification (RFID) labels on individual boxes. Poor
temperature control or temperature abuse at a specific point in the logistic
chain can subsequently be identified as the source of substandard quality at
the receiving point, thanks to model-based traceability systems that monitor
product quality throughout the chain. In addition, such monitoring and
modeling can aid in identifying areas in a field or orchard where there is a
significant difference in quality or shelf life. It can also be used to distinguish
between harvest times within a field or between fields. These methods allow
postharvest logistics to be optimized while accounting for the full range of
product variation that will be experienced.
MODEL-BASED STATISTICAL PROCESS CONTROL

Nowadays, agricultural output performance is typically evaluated and
monitored by comparing mean values from a recent measurement period
(e.g., week or month) to previous results or predetermined performance
standards. This is normally done without statistical analysis interfering.
Excess biological variation, on the other hand, makes performance
evaluation difficult. The performance outcome is unpredictable and difficult
to understand due to the high variability. As a result, the diagnostic key to
increasing process performance is knowing variability. Engineering process
control (EPC) and statistical process control are two concepts that are
particularly intriguing for doing process optimization through monitoring
(SPC). SPC is a collection of techniques that aims to distinguish between

normal and pathological process variation. EPC is a set of activities that
focuses on the mathematical modeling of (production) systems. The quality
control chart is a commonly used SPC tool for detecting abnormal variability.
Control charts are becoming increasingly used in agricultural production,
particularly in cattle production. The control chart’s signal can be utilized
to discover problems early on. Only lately has this synergistic concept been
applied to agricultural productivity. Because the data of many agricultural
production processes is nonstationary and subsequent measurements are
correlated (dependent), control charts cannot be used to monitor them. The
concept of synergistic control was introduced to circumvent these restrictions.
The concepts of EPC and SPC are merged in a synergistic approach for early
problem detection. It was demonstrated that by utilizing EPC adjusted data
as the input to the statistical control chart (SPC) and a recursively estimated
trend and ARMA model as the output, it was feasible to spot registrations
that result from an out-of-control scenario as a result of an emergent illness
or sickness. This concept’s use has already been proved in the monitoring
of laying hens and dairy cows. This approach could serve as the foundation
for the creation of an intelligent management support tool for agricultural
production systems such as dairy, pig, and crop production. The synergistic
idea is most commonly used to describe processes that change over time,
but it can also be used to evaluate spatial variability or the susceptibility
of varieties or treatments to spatially varied soil conditions. It should be
highlighted, however, that this strategy will only work provided trustworthy
sensor data is available.
IN SUMMARY
Many measurements are taken in PA and automation at various spatial
scales (from single plants to entire fields) and at various periods during crop
production. Precision farming, as well as the use of GPS on agricultural
gear, may offer information on the position and timing of all treatments.
It started with yield sensors, but now there are tools for measuring the
type and dose of treatments on-the-go, as well as identifying crop status
and suspected pest or disease infestation. Field data can be transferred to
record-keeping software using wireless transmission. The control points
and compliance criteria of certification systems for GAP, such as Global-
GAP or other GAP schemes, can now be addressed to a significant extent
automatically using PA technology for automatic record keeping, thanks
to these technological advancements. PA technology can be made smart,

allowing for real-time implementation of environmental and sustainable
production criteria in crop treatment and fertilizer equipment. This also
entails identifying and registering surgeries or treatments performed on
the crop while it is in the growing stage. Depending on where in the field
the crop was cultivated, technology can assist in the identification and, if
possible, assessment of quality characteristics during harvest. Labels that
link to all of the information can be used to create different batches. As
a result, PA technology has the potential to become excellent tools for
food safety and quality assurance. Novel crop sensing systems provide
information on crop stress, quality, diseases, pests, and weeds during growth
or after harvest. Information about the diversity of crop or product qualities
is now available. Repeated nondestructive measurements enable modeling
of process evolution or quality evolution over time (or possibly also in
space), isolating inherent biological variability from differences produced
by external process circumstances. SPC and informed intervention decision-
making are based on these models and observations. The subject of the
economic benefits of PA is frequently questioned, as is the question of the
economic effects of food safety and safety risks throughout the supply chain.
They also emphasize the importance of gaining additional insight into cost-
effective strategies to improve food safety along the whole supply chain, as
well as the urgent need to value producers’ benefits along the supply chain
and distribute them. At this time, the combined economic benefits of PA and
GAP for food safety and customer confidence may be undervalued.
REFERENCES
1. A. R. S., Nowatzki, J., Andres, R., & Kyllo, K. (2017). Agricultural

Remote Sensing Basics.
2. Adamchuk, V. I., & Jasa, P. J. (2002). EC02-178 Precision Agriculture:
On-the-Go Vehicle-Based Soil Sensors. Historical Materials from
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension, 706.
3. Ahrends, O. (2003). Das Serviceformular—Ganzheitliche Umsetzung
im Unternehmen. Eine gesamtheitliche Teleservice-Lösung für die
Landmaschinenbranche, Kapitel, 4, 39-53.
4. Auernhammer, H., & Demmel, M. (2015). 10 State of the Art and
Future Requirements. Precision Agriculture Technology for Crop
Farming, 299.
5. Auernhammer, H., Demmel, M., & Pirro, P. (1995). Yield Measurement
on Self Propelled Forage Harvesters.
6. Berckmans, D. (2017). General introduction to precision livestock
farming. Animal Frontiers, 7(1), 6-11.
7. Cai, C., & Gao, Y. (2009). A combined GPS/GLONASS navigation
algorithm for use with limited satellite visibility. The Journal of
Navigation, 62(4), 671-685.
8. Chattha, H. S., Zaman, Q. U., Chang, Y. K., Read, S., Schumann, A.
W., Brewster, G. R., & Farooque, A. A. (2014). Variable rate spreader
for real-time spot-application of granular fertilizer in wild blueberry.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 100, 70-78.
9. Clay, D. E., Robinson, C., DeSutter, T. M., Clay, S. A., & Bruggeman, S.
(2017). Soil testing and understanding soil testing results for precision
farming. Practical mathematics for precision farming.
10. da Costa Lima, A., & Mendes, K. F. (2020). Variable rate application
of herbicides for weed management in pre-and postemergence. In
Pests, weeds and diseases in agricultural crop and animal husbandry
production. IntechOpen.
11. Daniel, R., & Paulus, T. (2018). Lock gates and other closures in
hydraulic projects. Butterworth-Heinemann.
12. Dawkins, M. S. (2021). The science of animal welfare: Understanding
what animals want. Oxford University Press, USA.
13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
(2013), Facing the challenges of climate change and food security,
ISBN 978-92-5-107737-5.
14. Franks, B. (2019). What do animals want. Anim. Welf, 28(1), 1-10.
15. Geiger, F., Bengtsson, J., Berendse, F., Weisser, W. W., Emmerson, M.,
Morales, M. B., ... & Inchausti, P. (2010). Persistent negative effects of
pesticides on biodiversity and biological control potential on European
farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11(2), 97-105.
16. Gerbbers, R., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Precision agriculture and
food security. Science, 327(5967), 828-831.
17. Gerbbers, R., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Precision agriculture and
food security. Science, 327(5967), 828-831.
18. Gibbons, G. (2000). Turning a farm art into science-an overview of
precision farming. URL: http://www. precisionfarming. com.
19. Griffin, T. W., Lambert, D., & Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2005). Economics
of lightbar and auto-guidance GPS navigation technologies. Precision
agriculture, 5, 581-587.
20. Grisso, R. D., Alley, M. M., Thomason, W. E., Holshouser, D. L.,
& Roberson, G. T. (2011). Precision farming tools: variable-rate
application.
21. Haque, Abu Ahmed Mokammel. (2003). SPECIAL STUDY REPORT:
Use of Precision Agriculture Tools and Technologies for Rice Based
Cropping Systems in Small Farm Level. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1611.6967.
22. Horning, N. (2008). Remote Sensing. In S. E. Jørgensen & B. D. Fath
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ecology (pp. 2986-2994). Academic Press.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045405-4.00237-8
References 191
23. Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H. G., & Tscharntke,
T. (2011). Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the
biodiversity decline? Trends in ecology & evolution, 26(9), 474-481.
24. Lamb, J. A. (2001). Fertilizing sugar beet in Minnesota and North
Dakota. University of Minnesota, Extension Service.
25. Lambert, D., & Lowenberg-De Boer, J. (2000). Precision agriculture
profitability review (pp. 1-154). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univ.
26. Lee, S., Clay, D. E., & Clay, S. A. (2014). Impact of herbicide tolerant
crops on soil health and sustainable agriculture crop production.
In Convergence of food security, energy security and sustainable
agriculture (pp. 211-236). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
27. Longley, P. A., Goodchild, M. F., Maguire, D. J., & Rhind, D. W.
(2005). Geographic information systems and science. John Wiley &
Sons.
28. Mandal, D., & Ghosh, S. K. (2000). Precision farming–The emerging
concept of agriculture for today and tomorrow. Current Science,
79(12), 1644-1647.
29. Miles, L. T. (2018). Developing general procedure to quantitatively
analyze boom height control performance on self-propelled agricultural
sprayers (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University).
30. Pfost, D. L., Casady, W. W., & Shannon, K. (1998). Precision
Agriculture: Global Positioning System (GPS)(1998).
31. Phiri, D., & Morgenroth, J. (2017). Developments in Landsat land
cover classification methods: A review. Remote Sensing, 9(9), 967.
32. Pierce, F. J., & Nowak, P. (1999). Aspects of precision agriculture.
Advances in agronomy, 67, 1-85.
33. Pierce, F. J., & Nowak, P. (1999). Aspects of precision agriculture.
Advances in agronomy, 67, 1-85.
34. Saleem, S. K., Wicks, B., & Dassanayake, K. B. (2010). Broadband
and the sustainable use of water resources.
35. Shannon, D. K., Clay, D. E., & Kitchen, N. R. (2020). Precision
agriculture basics (Vol. 176). John Wiley & Sons.
36. Shanwad, U. K., Patil, V. C., & Gowda, H. H. (2004). Precision
farming: dreams and realities for Indian agriculture. Map India.
37. Sommer, C., & Voßhenrich, H. H. (2004). Soil cultivation and sowing.
KTBL (Ed.), Managementsystem für den ortsspezifischen Pflanzenbau.
Verbundprojekt pre agro, Darmstadt, Germany, 121-150.
38. Swamidason, I. T. J., Pandiyarajan, S., Velswamy, K., & Jancy, P.

L. (2022). Futuristic IoT based Smart Precision Agriculture: Brief
Analysis. J. Mob. Multimedia, 18, 935-956.
39. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food
demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings
of the national academy of sciences, 108(50), 20260-20264.
40. Trey C., John F., Dewey M. and Kaylee P., (2018). Proper Spinner-Disc
Spreader Operation, Terms and Definitions. Spinner-Disc Spreader
Field Execution Manual-Part 3. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/
fabe-563.
41. Vellidis, G., Perry, C., Rains, G., Thomas, D., Hill, R., & Dales, D.
(2002). Simultaneous assessment of cotton yield monitors. In 2002
ASAE Annual Meeting (p. 1). American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers.
42. Welfare Quality R (2018). Available online at: http://www.
EUwelfarequality.net/ en-us/home/ (accessed June 22).
43. Zhang, C., & Noguchi, N. (2015). Development of leader-follower
system for field work. 2015 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on
System Integration (SII), 364-368.
44. Zhang, N., Wang, M., & Wang, N. (2002). Precision agriculture—a
worldwide overview. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 36(2-
3), 113-132.
45. Zhang, Q. (2015). Control of Precision Agriculture Production.
Precision Agriculture Technology for Crop Farming; Washington State
University Prosser: Prosser, WA, USA, 103-132.
INDEX
A body condition score (BCS) 150

bookkeeping 108
Agricultural machinery 2
boom control 94
agricultural management 22, 65
boost production 2
agricultural policy 2
broadcast signals 24, 27
Agricultural production 170
almanac 23 C
and potassium (K) 11
Canada Geographic Information
antenna 25, 27, 32
System (CGIS) 33
automated hardware 4
cartography 38
automatic estrus detection monitors
cells 170, 182
149
cellular phones 26
automatic temperature recording de-
chemical injection 89, 90
vices 149
Chicken production 153
Automation 170
Circular Error Probable (CEP) 25
automobile electrical equipment 26
Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) 4
autonomous boom management 94
Codex Alimentarius Commission
autonomous vehicles 4
(CAC) 172
B complexity 170, 177, 181
computerized information systems
balanced farming 117
152
Behavioral disorders 153
Contour mapping 110
best management practice (BMP)
cost reduction 13
94
Crop farming 111
beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) 149
crop growth 170
biodiversity 170
crop management 3, 4, 11, 15, 106,
biological production systems 170
111, 114
cropping system 82 flow rate 87, 89, 91

crop quality sensors 3 Food and Agriculture Organization
crop reflectance imaging 3 (FAO) 172
Crop yield 3 Food production 170
Food safety 171, 173
D
Food security 2
daily body weight measures 149 food systems 171
Daily milk yield recording 149 future agricultural 170
data acquisition systems 108
G
Data collection 109
data harmonization 111 Genetically modified crops 170
Data storage 107, 108 geocoding 37
decision support systems (DSS) 6 geographic information system
Density estimation 35, 40 (GIS) 30
Digital imaging technology 161 Geographic variation 35
documentation 107, 112, 113, 143 georeferencing 36, 37
drones 4 Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI)
173
E
global livestock population 148
Earth’s surface 33, 34, 36, 42, 44, Global Navigation Satellite System
45, 48, 49, 50, 54 (GNSS) 2, 3
electric motors 26 Global Positioning System (GPS) 3
electroconductivity sensors 109 Global Positioning System satellites
electromagnetic 109 23
electronic system 87 global positioning systems (GPS)
emerging food pathogens 171 176
Engineering process control (EPC) GPS-based soil sampling 4
185 greenhouse gas emissions 2
environmental conventions 107 groundspeed sensor 85, 87
Environmental protection 174
H
European Food Law 172
HACCP (hazard analysis and critical
F
control points) 173
Farm management 106, 112, 142 herbicide 82, 85, 88, 94, 95, 96
farm management system (FMS) High-quality receivers 28
109 horticulture 106, 125, 136
fertilizer 25, 30, 62, 63, 65, 71, 72, humidity 170
74, 76, 79, 80 hydraulic drive unit 85
field scouting data 83 hydraulic motor 85
Index 195
I nitrogen (N) 11
nonoverlapping triangles 35
IFS (International Food Standard)
nutrient 170, 176
173
Nutrient requirements 156
information technology 4, 5, 9, 19
infrared thermography (IRT) 150 O
insecticide 85
organs 170
insects 170, 178
Outdoor farming 106
integrated pest management (IPM)
175 P
irrigation 112, 113, 114, 125, 126
pedometers 149
L pest management 112, 113, 117,
120, 171, 175, 179
labor management 106, 141
phosphorus (P) 11
lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) 149
Photosynthetic activity 170
leaves 170
physiology 164
Life Worth Living (LWL) 160
pig farming 152
livestock production systems 156
plant protection products (PPPs)
Low-cost positioning systems 2
174
M plants 170, 178, 180, 182, 186
Polygons 35
Machine Learning 159, 160, 164
polylines 35, 37
machinery management 106, 133
population density 35
management system 148, 154
Position errors 24
maximum residue levels (MRLs)
power lines 26, 41
174
Precise Positioning Service (PPS)
Microbial contamination 180
24
microorganisms 170
Precision Agriculture (PA) 2, 6
microwave towers 26
Precision crop agriculture 161
milk component monitoring 149
Precision dairy farming 149
milk conductivity indicators 149
precision farming 4, 6, 10, 11, 14
modulated spraying-nozzle control
precision farming management sys-
(MSNC) systems 91
tem 6
Moisture sensors 109
Precision feeding 156
N Precision livestock farming (PLF)
systems 148
natural environment 2
Precision nutrition 156
near-infrared (NIR) 96
processor 85
neighboring radio transmitters 26
public goods and services 2
nitrogen fertilization 109, 119, 121
R State Plane Coordinates (SPC) 30

statistical control chart 186
radio-frequency identification
statistical process control 182, 185
(RFID) 185
Storms 26
remotely sensed images 83
remote sensing (RS) platforms 19 T
retinal image 149
tank mix control 87
robots 4
Technology development 170
Rumination 150
telematics 4
S temperature 170, 185
timed artificial insemination (TAI)
satellite-based signals 28
150
satellite farming 4
topography 83
satellites 23, 24, 26, 28, 42, 43, 44,
47, 51, 56, 71 U
Seeding 113, 116, 135, 140, 141
Universal Transverse Mercator
Seeding rates 85
(UTM) 30, 36
selective availability (SA) 24, 32
site-specific crop management V
(SSCM) 82, 176
variable-rate application (VRA) 2
smart agricultural systems 162
variable rate technologies 4
social sciences 33, 34, 42
vegetation 117
software 4
veterinary medicine 150
software systems 108, 114
viticulture 106
soil color and texture 83
soil microbes 170 W
soil nutrient 3
soil nutrient data 109 water content 170
soil organic matter sensors 95 water pollution 2
soil organic matter (SOM) 86 Weed Seeker system 96
soil properties 83 World Health Organization (WHO)
Soil stress 114 172
soil texture 170 World Trade Organization (WTO)
soil type 83, 101 172
Solar radiation 170 Y
spray drift control 91
spraying 25, 30, 79 Yield mapping 6
standard deviation (SD) 25 yield monitoring 25, 30

Nekesah T. Wafullah - Precision Agriculture - Enabling Technologies-Delve Publishing (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nekesah T. Wafullah - Precision Agriculture - Enabling Technologies-Delve Publishing (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Precision Agriculture: Enabling

e-book Edition 2023

© 2023 Delve Publishing

Nekesah T. Wafullah is a skilled agriculture expert with extensive knowledge in

Chapter 1 Introduction to Precision Agriculture......................................................... 1

Chapter 2 Technologies in Precision Agriculture...................................................... 21

Chapter 4 Application of Technology in PA............................................................ 105

Chapter 5 Precision Livestock Farming (PLF).......................................................... 147

Chapter 6 Precision Agriculture and Quality Practices........................................... 169

Figure 1: Issues affecting the adoption of PA management

Table 1: Some examples of PA technologies

GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System

Agriculture has undergone significant transformations as a result of growing changes

the current idea of Precision Agriculture in cropping systems in the late

DEFINING PRECISION AGRICULTURE

2013). It is widely believed that better agricultural decision-making should

VARIABILITY AND THE PRODUCTION SYSTEM

NEED FOR PRECISION FARMING

Native Americans in North America, for example, used inter-seeding beans

to utilize technology that senses and responds to variability in “real-time”

Agronomic Input Rationale

SOME DRIVERS FOR PA

PA Drivers of Adoption – Ex-Post:

Figure 1: Issues affecting the adoption of PA management.

Source: Shannon et al., (2020).

Steps in Precision Farming

widely available and have been used in precision agriculture extensively.

• High-resolution sensing: Precision agriculture is a data-driven

Figure 2: Steps in PA.

Source: Swamidason et al., (2022).

OPPORTUNITIES IN PRECISION FARMING

ISSUES CONFRONTING PRECISION FARMING

Table 1: Some examples of PA technologies

Technology Example and Benefit Description

Automatic Section Control Turns application equipment OFF in areas that

Crop Sensors/Remote Sensing Sensor technology refers to on-the-go optical

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) RECEIVERS

Department of Defense regularly monitors the satellites and modifies the

Range Determination Factors

Average satellite STDGG error East (m) North (m) Up (m)

Source: Cai & Gao, (2009).

delay of several seconds is common. Example: If the antenna on a 10-mph

to calculate position appropriately. Signals that bounce off other objects

Figure 3: Illustration of good vs poor satellite geometry.

Source: Haque, (2003).

Figure 4: A stationary receiver (base station).

Source: Deere and Company

Cost vs. Accuracy

Figure 5: Illustration of real-time DGPS.

Source: Deere and company

The Global Positioning System and GPS receivers work together

Table 3: Comparison of Coast Guard and satellite differential correction sourc-

Feature Coast Guard beacon Satellite Differential

Source: Pfost ET AL., (1998).

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

the development of specialist peripherals, such as pen plotters and map

Figure 6: Use of GIS in Agriculture.

GIS has changed dramatically because of new applications that go well

moving or persistent objects, such as individuals or cars. Depending on their

Figure 7: Six representations of a field used in GIS.

Source: Longley et al., (2005).

Both discrete object and field conceptualizations are likely to be used by

based on digital representation, because nothing in a digital computer