PHOTO: CHRIS HELLYAR
PHOTO: PETER ROEK
selecting the proper field for a specific action, or processing more than one field at a time, quickly leads to a mash of data. These data need to be separated manually before they can be traced back to a specific field. The gains are not big enough to justify hiring a fulltimer to do this job. It is becoming clear that precision farming is not ‘plug & play’ yet. However, the good news is that it is taking root. With help of Wagenin- gen University obstacles are cleared and preci- sion spraying systems are made operational. This way, the farmers can take steps towards applying precision techniques, so we can see if and how much these will help to improve yield and lower costs and environmental impact.
So far working with data generated by not so compatible precision farming systems take up too much of Daniël Cerfontaine’s time.
Burning issue in New Zealand BY ANDREW SWALLOW E
very year in late summer the newspa- pers in Canterbury, the main arable region of New Zealand, run a flurry of letters from readers complaining
about smoke and smuts from farmers’ burn- offs of straw and stubble. Occasionally, a farm- er’s response is run in reply, but rarely does the issue get the airing it deserves. Conse- quently, the reasons why judicious burning is better for farm, economy and environment, are rarely heard. Without this balance, public opinion is gradually sliding from acceptance to intolerance. Sooner or later a politician, local or national, will make a populist pitch to get burn-offs banned. If suc- cessful, it will cost cropping farmers billions of dollars, as a compensation claim by one local farmer this year highlights. He says a region- wide burning ban imposed last summer cost him NZ$446,000 (US$312,000) in lost yield due to delayed sowing of wheat, barley, oilseed rape and turf grass for seed across 340 ha of his farm. He estimates extra tractor hours and slug control costs another NZ$80,000 (US$55,000), taking the total to NZ$526,000 (US$372,000).
Wildfire prompted temporary ban The ban was imposed due to a wildfire which razed 2,000 ha of Christchurch’s Port Hills.
Without a balanced discussion on pro’s and con’s of agricultural practices, public opinion is gradually sliding from acceptance to intolerance.
It didn’t start from a burn-off, but with most rural fire-fighting resources from Canterbury commandeered to fight it, a ban stretching over 200km north and south was deemed a wise precaution. Few farmers argued with that. However, the wildfire was out and most fire-fighting resources repatriated within a week, yet restrictions remained in place for a month. To the south of the region in par- ticular there had been plenty of rain and fire
risk was low, hence this farmer’s argument the restrictions were unreasonable and his call for compensation. It does highlight the value of burning as an agronomic tool, and that’s just one year on 340 ha. Multiplied nationwide the bill would run into billions, not to mention the likely long-term consequences of increased pesti- cide use and associated resistance and water contamination risks.
▶ FUTURE FARMING | 25 May 2018 47
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
