Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

2/20/2007 On-The-Go Grain Protein Monitors Dan Long USDA-ARS Pendleton, OR.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "2/20/2007 On-The-Go Grain Protein Monitors Dan Long USDA-ARS Pendleton, OR."— Presentation transcript:

1 2/20/2007 On-The-Go Grain Protein Monitors Dan Long USDA-ARS Pendleton, OR

2 2/20/2007 Questions What kinds of sensors are there? What kinds of sensors are there? How do they work? How do they work? How well do they work? How well do they work? What can I do with the information? What can I do with the information?

3 2/20/2007 Near Infrared Analysis Typical molecules include CH, OH and NH and their related chemistries regarding constituents (protein, fat, oil, glycerin, water, methanol). Typical molecules include CH, OH and NH and their related chemistries regarding constituents (protein, fat, oil, glycerin, water, methanol).

4 2/20/2007 Principle of Operation Transmittance Detector Sample Cell NIR Radiation Light Source

5 2/20/2007 Principle of Operation Reflectance Detector Grain Stream NIR Radiation Light Source

6 2/20/2007 Mode of Operation On-Line sensor grain stream

7 2/20/2007 Mode of Operation In-Line sensor grain stream

8 2/20/2007 Zeltex AccuHarvest Handheld Computer Inlet Outlet Sampling Device

9 2/20/2007 Zeltex AccuHarvest

10 2/20/2007 NIR Technology Cropscan 2000G spectrometer fiber optic cable

11 2/20/2007 outlet inlet fiber optic cable sampling device

12 2/20/2007 outlet inlet fiber optic cable sampling device

13 2/20/2007 Dsquared Development ProSpectra™

14 2/20/2007

15 AccuHarvest Field Tests

16 2/20/2007 AccuHarvest Vs. Reference Protein SEP=0.49%

17 2/20/2007 Map Comparison

18 2/20/2007 Cropscan 2000G

19 2/20/2007 Cropscan Vs. Reference Protein R 2 = 0.99 SEP = 0.19% SEP=0.66%

20 2/20/2007 Map Comparison

21 2/20/2007 Overall Precision y = 1.07x R 2 = 0.71 SEP=0.9% R2 = 0.9 SEP=0.9

22 2/20/2007 ProSpectra™

23 2/20/2007

24

25

26

27

28

29

30 Volunteer Wheat Pea-Wheat-Fallow No-Till Continuous Wheat No-Till Wheat-Fallow

31 2/20/2007

32 Verify protein response to applied N Verify protein response to applied N Identify N management zones Identify N management zones Evaluate N sufficiency for yield Evaluate N sufficiency for yield Estimate N removed in grain Estimate N removed in grain Estimate N required to reach protein level Estimate N required to reach protein level Estimate straw yield Estimate straw yield Nutrient Management Opportunities

33 2/20/2007 Verify Protein Response

34 2/20/2007 Identify Management Zones 1999 H MH M ML L ZONE

35 2/20/2007 Ave. Protein (1997) & Soil N (1999)

36 2/20/ Map Comparison of Differing Years

37 2/20/2007 Evaluate N Sufficiency For Yield Critical Protein Wheat Class LocationStudy 11.5HWColorado Goos et al HRSMontana Engel et al HRWMontana Engel et al HRSSask. Seles & Zentner SWWOregon Glenn et al. 1988

38 2/20/2007 Where Was N Deficient for Yield? knoll bottom 60 bu/a 11% protein 30 bu/a 14% protein

39 2/20/2007 Yield Map Interpretation sufficientdeficient

40 2/20/2007 N Management Strategy N Removed = (Yield  Protein)  (100  5.7) N Removed = (Yield  Protein)  (100  5.7) N Deficit = (Target Level - Current Level)  N Unit Equivalent N Deficit = (Target Level - Current Level)  N Unit Equivalent Site Specific Management Guideline #24 (http://www.ppi-far.org/ssmg) Site Specific Management Guideline #24 (http://www.ppi-far.org/ssmg)

41 2/20/2007 Precision N Management

42 2/20/ Spatially Variable Vs. Uniform

43 2/20/2007 Grain Protein Response

44 2/20/2007 Water-N-Genotype Gradient 3 years – HR Spring Wheat 7.3” 18 bu/ac 11.5” 39 bu/ac 16.6” 65 bu/ac

45 2/20/2007

46 Fertilizer N Equivalent Applied N (lb ac -1 ) lb N Grain Protein (%)

47 2/20/2007 Straw Yield Prediction

48 2/20/2007 Limitations of Technology Precision and bias Precision and bias –Vibration –Foreign material –Wear and build up –Field to field differences in grain Transfer of calibration Transfer of calibration –Each instrument is slightly different –Thermal stability –Harvested grain differs from that used for calibration

49 2/20/2007 Protein Indices are Imperfect Climate: may not be suited for rainfall regimes where yield potential exceeds 60 bu/ac Climate: may not be suited for rainfall regimes where yield potential exceeds 60 bu/ac Genotype: some cultivars do not experience yield loss when protein is below the critical level (Fowler, 2003) Genotype: some cultivars do not experience yield loss when protein is below the critical level (Fowler, 2003) Weather-soil interactions: Weather-soil interactions: –Influences mineralizable N and plant N uptake –Excess N leads to yield reductions under severe drought –Protein is abnormally elevated under severe drought (Seles and Zentner, 2001)

50 2/20/2007 Towards Improved PNM Previous season Previous season –Grain yield and protein sensing –Assess N sufficiency –Identify management zones –Retrospective assessment

51 2/20/2007 Towards Improved PNM Pre-season Pre-season –Soil testing/soil sensing approaches –Model potentially mineralizable N –Proactive assessment In-season In-season –Proximal/remote crop sensing –SPAD chlorophyll/tissue testing –Real-time assessment

52 2/20/2007


Download ppt "2/20/2007 On-The-Go Grain Protein Monitors Dan Long USDA-ARS Pendleton, OR."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google