Shutterstock

Opinions Bert Rich

Is agricultural research still necessary?

7 January 2019 - Bert Rijk - 15 comments

Wageningen University was built over 100 years on the basis of traditional agricultural research, but the advent of sensors and big data could shake the traditional institutes. Will every farmer soon have his own experimental farm?

The university recently celebrated its 100th anniversary and thus 100 years of high-quality agricultural research. In the 50s to the 80s, CT de Wit laid the foundations for the relationship between photosynthesis and crop production, but also for the application of fertilizers and the mixing of different crops that positively influence each other.

This kind of scientific research was built up in the second half of the last century through an enormous amount of measurements, theoretical models and ultimately the development of advice that agriculture still uses today.

Sensor as data source
The data required for this research is often collected on experimental fields with different soil types, varieties, doses of fertilizers or crop protection products and often on experimental farms. However, in recent decades we have seen that digitization is taking over part of this data collection and knowledge development. Sensors make it possible to collect data on a large scale and to develop insights that we as humans cannot foresee.

Automatic control of planters and seeders, fertilizer spreaders and sprayers via task cards makes it possible to effortlessly set up field trials. The yield sensors can automatically record the results of these tests. For example, every grower is a researcher on his own farm and the costs of research are drastically reduced. In addition, the results become much more relevant, because everyone has research results from their own company, instead of those from an experimental farm. There are also more and more possibilities to use self-learning algorithms for data analysis.

American practice
An example comes from the American Climate Corporation, part of Bayer. This company recently launched a digital seed adviser launched. By using smart algorithms on a database of soil maps, data from seeders and yield maps from combines, they provide automated advice per soil type for the best maize variety. No agricultural experiment has been carried out here. This was developed on the basis of data collected from 200 growers on 40.000 hectares, with data that was often already available. Self-learning algorithms have determined a strategy that yields the highest profit for each type of soil.

At Droneworkers we are also continuously creating new insights based on data (in collaboration with chain partners and advisors). We take soil samples for the season based on soil and elevation maps. Subsequently, the emergence of each plant is mapped and we can follow the growth pattern during the season, supplemented with soil samples. We use thermal imaging cameras to visualize the moisture balance and predict the yield towards harvest. We use new insights from this big data to build up new knowledge and improve existing advice.

Colored advice
For you as a grower, this means that new insights become available at a faster pace about the best strategies. Current cultivation advice is often very general. Depending on the situation, a dose is too low or causes damage. Advice can also be colored by the seller or advisor, but also by the way of testing on which the advice is based. Tests often have limited relevance for practice, while data from practice overcomes this problem.

Farmer wisdom will always be necessary to run the business properly, but business operations will more often be supported by new forms of guidance based on data. Not only for cultivation, but also from the accountant, the government and together with colleagues.

Traditional research
If we can visualize so many new aspects of cultivation and develop new knowledge with the data, at much lower costs and with a shorter development time, is there still a role for traditional agricultural research? Or does the new generation of researchers know how to seize this as an opportunity to develop new knowledge together with the sector?

Bert Rich

Bert Rijk is co-owner of Aurea Imaging. That company has been flying drones since 2010, some of which are designed and built by itself. According to him, drones offer the solution for flexible deployment and better images.
Comments
15 comments
peta 7 January 2019
This is in response to it Boerenbusiness article:
[url=http://www.boerenbusiness.nl/column/10880970/is-landbouwkundig-onderzoek-nog-nieuwe]Is agricultural research still necessary?[/url]
Well, dear Mr. Rijk, you are already off to a good start with the Bayer advice in Maisrassen! Surely there won't be a variety from a colleague breeder that doesn't transfer income to Bayer!
So independence of advice becomes even more questionable.
Furthermore, you can't do anything with data as long as they can't distinguish cause and effect with regard to observations! Then it remains the chicken and egg question! So you just continue to need traditional scientific research that always works with a limited number of variables and then connects a hopefully conclusive statistically reliable conclusion! Those stories with drones are, in my view, gimmicky to sell as much as possible to the farmer and further undermine his margin, even more blackheads at a very scanty table! As I understand from enthusiasts of the first hour, liming advice via soil scans to straighten plots in terms of pH is not very reliable to say the least. According to their experience, these appear to have had the opposite effect, 2 years after careful implementation and renewed scans. So why progress? Unfortunately, there are fewer and fewer agricultural leaders in this country who still have sober in-depth agricultural knowledge and who dare to take a stand. The government will probably become your biggest customer in order to be able to monitor the sector even more intensively for the implementation of the increasingly nonsensical regulations that have nothing to do with both environmental and agricultural practice.
HV Geerligs 7 January 2019
Anyone involved in precision farming would do well to delve into the theory of the "flat payoff function". This theory was developed by Prof. David Pannell of the University of Western Australia. The core of his story is that many control variables (eg planting distances or fertilizer application) have hardly any influence on the financial yield over a wide range. The consequences of this for many forms of precision agriculture are major: they yield hardly anything.

Precision farming is actually a kind of icing on the cake, while the cake is still far from in order for most arable farmers. Better to spend your money on "the cake" than on "the icing". It simply works better there.

We need the independent agricultural research in my opinion more than ever to help us take this "pie" to the next level.
Narcos 7 January 2019
Mr. Rijk is one of the many who likes to rake from the large subsidy rack with the drone.
In 2018, a large paid study was conducted together with agrifirm and all data contradicted their ideas.
Nice and beautiful, green, interesting, doing important and meanwhile trying to teach others.
Subscriber
Skirt 7 January 2019
HV Geerligs wrote:
Anyone involved in precision farming would do well to delve into the theory of the "flat payoff function". This theory was developed by Prof. David Pannell of the University of Western Australia. The core of his story is that many control variables (eg planting distances or fertilizer application) have hardly any influence on the financial yield over a wide range. The consequences of this for many forms of precision agriculture are major: they yield hardly anything.

Precision farming is actually a kind of icing on the cake, while the cake is still far from in order for most arable farmers. Better to spend your money on "the cake" than on "the icing". It simply works better there.

We need the independent agricultural research in my opinion more than ever to help us take this "pie" to the next level.
Totally agree!
Rob 8 January 2019
All 3 above are spot on. Traditional research costs time and money, but can be used for many generations and does not cost that much per hectare of cultivation. Certainly not compared to all modern tools.
Bert Rich 8 January 2019
Thanks for all the comments, everyone. It's good to see you've put some thought into this. To clarify: I am not saying that agricultural research is too expensive or unnecessary, but I do dare to say that methods will change, which will give a significant acceleration.

About Bayer, I certainly agree that it is a risk that you are only advised Bayer maize varieties (in this case). The question is who will get to grips with these new methods best and fastest, and will thus acquire a good position for themselves. Perhaps an opportunity for growers to do this as a cooperative?

Interesting literature on the flat pay-off function, although a lot of research shows that at least 10% more yield with 10% less costs can be achieved, with peaks (such as weed control) of up to 80 - 90% savings. Given that agriculture is a capital intensive sector with high inputs and low margins, this increased yield and cost savings will have a significant effect on the net profit per hectare.

Also, I don't understand the comment about the subsidy project. Last year we received mainly positive reactions from practice, a big factor was that Mother Nature had quite a predominant influence, so that some precision farming came out badly. I don't know anything about a large paid Agrifirm project myself, but I am curious. I would like to hear where the frustration originated, perhaps by email. We also use the subsidy we receive to finance new resources and demonstrations for the agricultural sector. We always try to be very selective with public money. Sorry you see this differently.
kalf 8 January 2019
Independent honest investigation is necessary. Not influenced by companies, ministries or all kinds of movements, but that is apparently not possible.
hans 8 January 2019
Stop with "agricultural" research.
Any surplus yield will only pay for the higher costs, but in return will bring down the yield price for the farmer through even more supply.
In addition, they are not looking for real solutions, but for profit practices for multinationals.
See how homeopathy has been denounced in health science, and is now widely replaced by expensive drugs, drugs that do not bring recovery, but a long and expensive treatment of the ailment.
Rob 8 January 2019
Someone who preaches homeopathy by definition does not understand what thorough and honest research is.
peta 8 January 2019
Rob wrote:
Someone who preaches homeopathy by definition does not understand what thorough and honest research is.
Sorry Rob, I think Hans is somewhat right. Due to the rise of chemistry, we have forgotten all kinds of old home remedies that do work. In my youth we would pick a stalk of celandine and drip a little of the juice on a wart and that for several days and the wart was gone! Or if you have a toothache, just pick chamomile and drink it into tea! The doctors in training no longer learn that, and the pharmacy cannot earn anything from it either. Refugees from Armenia live near here and they can tell you the medicinal power of every weed on the roadside, all knowledge that was probably also here, but disappears! The same threatens for things like nettle vulture against lice or simply putting a crate of rejected apples between your potatoes as a natural source of ethylene as a sprout inhibitor. Sometimes very simple, effective, but not commercially interesting and therefore never really researched, but applied massively in the past and not without reason.
hans 8 January 2019
drs. Rob, tell me who or where worldwide
"thorough and honest investigation"
does or is done, and a result thereof?
Bert Rich 9 January 2019
Many responses mention agricultural research. Bayer is of course not independent, but what if you could easily set up your own research? A few different sowing times, planting distances or different fertilizer applications. You can see the result immediately on the revenue card. Discuss the data with an adviser or researcher if necessary. You can't get more independent than your own research! That too becomes possible with technology!
Subscriber
Rob 9 January 2019
petatje,

You talk about ancient wisdom, Hans about homeopathy.
Collect 100 people with a wart. Apply your waist to 50 warts and a placebo to 50 warts. Make sure that the patient and nurse do not know what is being used. Review this after a few days and see if it makes a statistical difference. That is reliable research.
In homeopathy people are looking for a remedy that also causes a wart. Dissolve this in water and dilute it so often that the original molecules can hardly or not be found in the solution. The memory of the water must keep the remedy active! This works great until you run an investigation like the one above. Then there appears to be no difference. Homeopathy for me is in the corner with earth rays and astrology, quackery and fraud.

Thanks to thorough agricultural research, we know that ethylene does indeed have a positive effect on the number of tubers. You can't see that from the air or on a yield map. Just get on your knees and pick up. However, the differences between varieties, soil type and annual influence are large. That's why a test field in which all variables are the same except for the things you want to investigate. It is then up to the grower to determine whether he wants to spend money on it.

With yield maps you can of course find differences between treatment in gross kilos, but I thought we got rid of the pure cultivation of kilos a bit.
You can then see the yield differences in sugar beet, but what is the sugar percentage and extractability?
You can measure the yield of the onions, but how is the storability, hardness and skin resistance?
How you want to automatically record the yield and quality of carrots is also a mystery to me.


The subject is getting very broad now. My view is that good agricultural research remains important. It costs a bit, but the results are permanent. If you arrange this thanks to collective financing, the costs per ha will be higher.

Smart farming can help, but is certainly not a replacement. The title of the article is meant to excite, but it's just nonsense.
Mike 9 January 2019
Gosh, what a lot of negativity in response to a somewhat stimulating blog (luckily not all comments!). And why actually? Bert indicates that the large amounts of data that are now becoming available are accelerating research. I don't think there's much to argue with. That data is no longer only produced by research institutions, but by the end users of the technology. This means that the knowledge monopoly is no longer in the hands of the research institutions. Everyone can do their own research, based on machine data, (IoT) sensors, spectrometers, etc. And not only in the field, but also in the shed. And yes, not all technology works enough. And yes, the practice is complex with many variables that influence each other. But current technology allows us to really measure and model more of these variables. This data analysis is complex, but technology companies can help with that too. The danger lies in the consultants/companies that make precision farming and data analysis seem simple. Who draw wrong conclusions with too little data from too few parameters, so that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. Think, for example, of advice that is made purely on the basis of an NDVI picture.

In addition, I can confirm that applying precision farming principles does not immediately squeeze out those few percent extra yield. But what it does do is reveal a lot of basic cultivation errors. If you are open to looking at the data from the sensors and image analysis, you can learn a lot as a grower.

Entrepreneurs who are not yet fully aware of the above digitization should take a look at the results of the autonomous greenhouse challenge (organized by WUR and Tencent). Teams participated in an international competition to grow cucumbers based on data and algorithms. Of the top 5, there was one team with cultivation knowledge. They came third. Microsoft has won this competition gloriously. Their production and yield was not only better than the other teams, but also better than the reference group consisting of professional growers. And what does Microsoft say during the prize giving; 2 years ago we had never heard of WUR… This is the future you and I must prepare for.

Let's be happy with young entrepreneurs who, together with the research centers, try to maintain the agricultural knowledge advantage that we (still?!) have.
jpk 11 January 2019
What really helps is higher selling prices on the farmyard. At least 25% higher. The acm will have to disappear from the picture for the sector where sales can be better regulated .by removing too much product from the market naturally .see potato prices 2017 o o3 € .2018 030&
You can no longer respond.

What are the current quotations?

View and compare prices and rates yourself

Call our customer service +0320 - 269 528

or mail to supportboerenbusiness. Nl

do you want to follow us?

Receive our free Newsletter

Current market information in your inbox every day

Login/Register