Forty years of changes in field technology

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Since returning to the farm in 1974, the author has gone from measuring fields in rods to GPS systems that can now locate equipment within inches. And now there's talk of driverless tractors and combines

by RALPH WINFIELD

When I returned to the farm in 1974, the only real facts I had to deal with about field acreage was what my father-in-law told me. He assured me that one field was 12 acres and he actually gave me the dimensions in rods. He said the one next was just over (or, in his words, a big) 10 acres. Before the year was out, the fence bottom was removed, making that area a 22-acre field, I assumed.

One of my first purchases was a new three-point hitch sprayer. I deemed that purchase essential as there were no custom sprayers available at that time. My first task was to calibrate the sprayer so that I could be sure of my application rate of herbicides. As luck would have it, I found two tall fence posts down the farm laneway that were exactly 400 feet apart. That distance was used to establish that I could spray exactly seven and one half acres at my chosen tractor speed of about five miles per hour. Life was good.

After using an old steel-wheeled grain drill, I finally purchased a new 21-run grain drill with all the attachments and it actually had an acre meter on it. By coincidence, the next year I was asked to plant peas for processing. The company was very specific about the pounds per acre that they wanted planted for any particular variety. I was able to do that very easily by counting bags of peas and using a hand calculator to establish the planting rate.

In late 1989, I bought a bigger combine and was asked to do custom combining for some neighbours who were dairy farmers. The next step was easy. I bought a new yield monitor, which would give me both acreage and yield information. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) were only useful if the unit could pick up a signal from a U. S.-based land beacon. That purchase was put off temporarily.

However, with the yield monitor, both the area parameters had to be preset by the operator. The width was easy. It was set at one foot less than the header width for grains, and by the number of rows and row width for corn. A length of travel calibration established the distance travelled because a pulse sensor was connected into the combine driveline. Those two posts worked again.   
The yield/moisture content information was intriguing to me as the combine operator but, in order to draw yield maps, I really needed that GPS unit. So it was soon added and maps were produced. As you all know by now, they pointed out some very interesting information about yield variations across or along a field. The glitch was that the beacon signal could not always be maintained along tree lines or near woodlots.

By that time, the new corn planter had also been equipped with a simple mechanical acreage meter. What a great idea! It allowed one to more accurately adjust both planting and fertilizer application rates.

The new millennium. By the year 2000, many of us had already obtained information from soil testing groups that gave us field maps of many variables such as pH, organic matter, CEC, bicarb phosphorus, bray phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, calcium and zinc. We also obtained fertilizer recommendations for sections of fields.

When yield maps were produced and laid over these fertilizer recommendation maps, many, many interesting correlations could be made. Some of them seemed reasonable. Others caused new thinking processes. For example, why should we be applying more fertilizer in field areas where the yields were the highest?

Our fertilizer experts soon provided answers. You cannot continue to take money or fertilizer out of the bank without replenishing the bank account. It really did make sense.

Updated technology. When the need for ground-based GPS correction was dropped, the rules changed dramatically. The GPS signals could now locate planters, sprayers, fertilizer spreaders and combines within inches or even centimetres. As a result, field markers for wide sprayers, planters and cultivators became redundant. A light bar in front of the operator allowed for very accurate passes across a field, minimizing skips or overlaps.

The next step was obvious. Autosteering systems became available and freed the operator from a monotonous task.

What followed autosteering was, of course, variable rate application of fertilizer and seed to match yield potentials for any part of the field. To that has been added the ability of suitably equipped planting equipment so as to not double-plant in field runout areas.

What's next. My crystal ball is hazy. Even as an engineer and farmer, I was not able to predict the progress that has been made since 1974. That is less than 40 years. Many of the younger farm operators are not that old! I learned that as an older lecturer when I asked the question "Do you remember when…?" and I got that look!

There is talk of driverless tractors and combines. The technology might be there, but the little unforeseen issues cannot always be dealt with. I vividly remember picking up a beer bottle with the floating cutter bar of the combine, thrown into the field by some uncaring motorist. Fortunately, I got the header stopped in time.

Those of us who grow or grew canning peas can appreciate the processor's request (demand) to keep the peas back from a roadway. Pea combine operators cannot see those beer bottles, especially at night. A plant shutdown takes time and costs serious money.

So what technology is next? It's anybody's guess at this time. But, trust me, those two fence posts that I used regularly are long gone. BF

Agricultural engineer Ralph Winfield farms at Belmont in Elgin County.