PHOTO: JAN WILLEM SCHOUTEN


APPLICATION MAPS ▶▶▶ Software test: creating VRA maps


What software should you choose when you want to make a VRA application map? Dutch magazine TREKKER asked four growers to find out and thoroughly test five different types of software.


BY RENÉ KOERHUIS L


ate in February, both experienced and inexperienced users got the chance to test five different types of software. They were given 30 minutes to create a


VRA map for side dressing nitrogen fertiliser based on a satellite or drone imager. Each soft- ware type was then rated on ease of use, intui- tiveness, speed, features, end result and how often help was required. During the test, (Iso- bus) terminals from Amazone, Kverneland and Trimble were available to load the maps.


Five contenders TREKKER invited the providers of 10 software types. Five responded positively and took part: Trimble importer Vantage Agrometius with Taakkaart.nl, Wageningen UR with Akker- web, Dacom with Cloudfarm, Kverneland/ Kleffmann Group with My Data Plant and Van Iperen with its TT+ KORE Solution.


-concept based on


How the testers ranked the software


Each type of software was assessed by four testers, who recorded a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 on ease of use, intuitiveness, speed, features and end result (the VRA ap- plication map). This results in an average score (low (1) – high (5)) and that average is converted into a final mark (low 0-10 high). They also indicated how often help was needed (often (1) – little (5)).


Based on satellite imagery Besides TT+


, all types of software relied on


high-resolution satellite biomass imagery from the European Sentinel-2 satellites. Since their launch in 2015 and 2017, these satellites have been making high-resolution 10×10 metre multispectral images every five days. The un- edited and unfiltered images are freely availa- ble. Clouds can however limit the availability of sufficient recent biomass map data. Based on open source data, TT+


makes a so-


called soil potential map that serves as the basis for the VRA map. Taakkaart.nl and My Data Plant only use satellite images, while in


Application map test scores Taakkaart.nl


Ease of use Intuitivity


4,5 4,3


Speed 4,5 Possibilities 3 End result (the VRA map)


Average 4 Help needed


Final grade (converted) 3,9


2,8 8,1


Akkerweb and Cloudfarm you can also use other inputs.


Simplicity (and price) wins Both the valuations of the testers and the choices they made from a cost perspective show that simplicity wins. The simplest (and free) software without built-in agronomic knowledge, i.e.Taakkaart.nl, beats the software packages that have more features and are more complex and expensive. For more com- plicated applications, such as VRA soil herbi- cide applications, the testers prefered Cloud- farm and TT+


.


Akkerweb 3,5 3,3 3,5 3,3 4


3,5 1,8 7


Dacom My Data Plant 2,8 2,9 4


3,8 4


4,3 3,8 3,5 1,5 7,1


▶ FUTURE FARMING | 22 May 2020


3,8 3,8 4


3,9 1,8 7,7


TT+ 3,5 3,8 3,5 4,3 3,8 3,8 2


7,5 27


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  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68