Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field A Proceedings (1991) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
APPENDIXES
APPENDIXES
Pages 393-427
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 393... ...
Diversified farming systems traditionally use crop rotations to control pests, conserve soil, and maintain productivity. Integrated cropping and livestock systems have been used to reduce feed costs, recycle waste, and stabilize the incomes of U.S.
|
From page 394... ...
Department of Agriculture, to integrate the concept of sustainability into farm planning and to implement farm management strategies for sustainability. The Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture Farm Decision Support System (LISA-FOSS)
|
From page 395... ...
In general, the alternative input systems will be designed to reduce water-quality and other environmental risks by moving to lower-input alternatives. In general, the alternative tillage systems will be designed to reduce soil erosion risks by moving to lower tillage levels.
|
From page 396... ...
is a microcomputer-based decision support system that allows farmers to evaluate the potential impact of using various cropping systems or RMSs on their specific farms. The WFP is a field-based system.
|
From page 397... ...
There will be relatively few alternatives for correcting the ecological vulnerability of a given field. Exceptions would be to contour till, terrace, strip crop, or ridge till a field to reduce soil loss potential.
|
From page 398... ...
The whole-farm planner program assumes that a farmer has multiple objectives that include both ecologic and economic factors. The ecologic factors are soil loss, water quality, input toxicity, and nonrenewable energy use.
|
From page 399... ...
Alternative weed, insect, and other pest control systems, including specific pesticide uses and their potential risks to humans and water quality, will be reflected directly in the environmental components of each RMS budget. The whole-farm planning process will allow farmers to synthesize profitable and sustainable farming systems by integrating relevant RMSs with their particular set of land, labor, machinery, and management resources.
|
From page 400... ...
Paul, Minnesota. Voisin Controlled Grazing Management: A Better Way to Farm William M
|
From page 401... ...
GUIDELINES FOR VOISIN CONTROLLED GRAZING MANAGEMENT IN VERMONT The essentials of the Voisin grazing method and what its use has meant to three farmers in terms of increased profitability and improved quality of life are illustrated in a 33-minute video produced as part of a low-input sustainable agriculture (LISA) project (Murphy et al., 1989~.
|
From page 402... ...
These are guidelines only; longer or shorter recovery times may be needed, depending on the local growing conditions. Recovery periods reflect the pro- and postgrazing pasture mass (total forage)
|
From page 403... ...
If, at any time, the paddocks have not fully recovered by their turn in the rotation, all of the animals should be removed from the pasture and should temporarily be fed elsewhere (e.g., they could be grazed on the hayland aftermath or fed green chop, hay, or silage harvested from the excess earlier in the season J until recovery periods are adequate before the animals are turned back into the pasture system. By strictly observing this need for adequate recovery times, permanent pastures in areas such as Vermont may be able to be grazed from mid-April to midNovember.
|
From page 404... ...
On the other hand, under less intensive management, milking cows can graze a paddock for 1 to 2 days, followed by dry cows and heifers that graze the paddock for another 1 to 2 days to eat the remaining forage, giving a total occupation period of 2 to 4 days. If the herd is kept as one group of milking cows, dry cows, and heifers, then paddocks must be small enough so that all the forage is eaten within the 0.5-, 1-, or 2-day total occupation periods, depending on how often the animals are to be moved.
|
From page 405... ...
Another benefit is that manure is kept in the paddock, where it is needed to recycle nutrients for sustained plant production. CONCLUSION The use of Voisin controlled grazing management can make farming profitable again for many financially stressed dairy farmers in the northeastern United States.
|
From page 406... ...
One way to make this information readily available is through the use of electronic decision support systems. The development of an electronic decision support system requires the combined efforts of specialists from many fields of agriculture and must be developed with the cooperation of the growers who will use them.
|
From page 407... ...
The development of diffusion strategies that consider growers' needs and capabilities relative to specific access conditions will accelerate the adoption of these new technologies. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERT SYSTEMS This discussion concentrates on defining expert systems, describing the development of an apple production expert system, and reporting some of the reactions of commercial apple growers to this new information delivery
|
From page 408... ...
Unlike many industrial applications, most expert systems for agricultural production management are still in the developmental and testing phases (Schmisseur and Doluschitz, 1987~. This chapter describes the creation of an expert system for apple production and provides the results of the first widespread field testing of expert systems by growers.
|
From page 409... ...
An apple production expert system can provide an improved level of decision support in a timely and integrated fashion whenever and wherever growers require It. THE PENN STATE APPLE ORCHARD CONSULTANT An expert system known as the Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant (PSAOC)
|
From page 410... ...
With these baseline data in the system, growers may query PSAOC about specific problems of pest management, soil fertility, and orchard planting. They may also request in-depth supplementary information (including pictures)
|
From page 411... ...
and various decision modules that utilize recent orchard observations. Profiles The apple producer's orchard management program is based on orchard blocks.
|
From page 412... ...
Rates for the chosen pesticides are displayed on the computer screen. The program generally recommends a tank mix of a fungicide to control diseases, a miticide to control mites, a primary insecticide to control the most damaging insects, and a secondary insecticide to control any insects that are over threshold but that are not controlled by the primary insecticide.
|
From page 413... ...
It remains to be seen whether apple producers will successfully adopt this new agricultural innovation on a widespread basis. To address this question, a field test and evaluation of the expert system was conducted during 8 months of the 1988 and 1989 growing seasons.
|
From page 414... ...
Table B-1 displays two measures of the TABLE B-1 Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant Expert System Use Characteristics of Growers System Use Characteristics Percentage of Growers (n = 26) Total no.
|
From page 415... ...
Lo CD z 111 LL] 20 10 60 so 40 o ~, ~,= ~r r ~r~~ ;= Aug 1988 Oct 1988 Nov 1988 Apr 1989 May 1989 Jun 1989 Jul 1989Aug 1989 FIGURE B-1 Percentage of growers who accessed the Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant expert system each month.
|
From page 416... ...
The spring is traditionally an intensive period of pest management because of favorable conditions for fungal and bacterial diseases caused by wet conditions. In addition, insect and mite populations begin to increase in the spring and are therefore more vulnerable to management actions.
|
From page 417... ...
As the majority of pest monitoring occurs during April, May, and June, these numbers take on more significance when viewed as a subset of the eight monthly observations. Weekly Time Monitoring and Basic Economic Questionnaires During the field test and evaluation process in the 1989 season, the eco nomic impact of the apple expert system on cooperators' operations and net
|
From page 418... ...
Many growers already maintain pesticide logs that contain most of the data needed for development of an apple enterprise budget. A basic economic survey questionnaire was developed from the pesticide record and crop history logsheet of a major commercial apple processor to collect orchard characteristics, apple yields, and prices received.
|
From page 419... ...
by users and nonusers of the Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant expert system.
|
From page 420... ...
Further analysis of this information may indicate whether or not the expert system is changing growers' practices regarding pesticide use and will provide the basis for partial budget analysis. Further Mechanisms to Obtain Grower Evaluation, Feedback, and Training Cooperators' Planning and Review Meetings The experiences with the PSAOC expert system during the 1988 and 1989 growing seasons were summarized during facilitated meetings of cooperating growers, researchers, and extension personnel in February 1989 and March 1990, respectively.
|
From page 421... ...
Electronic Mail Network Among Growers and Researchers Also in response to feedback from growers, an electronic mail users group was formed to improve communications between cooperating growers, researchers, and extension personnel. Using The Pennsylvania State University's PenMail system, the growers are able to communicate with each other, with county extension agents, and with specialists on campus via electronic mail.
|
From page 422... ...
In addition to consulting on the structure and content of the survey process, agents were primarily responsible for the selection of cooperating growers for the project County Extension Agents Survey on Expert Systems for Fruit Growers A survey was distributed by electronic mail in January 1989 to measure the familiarity of county extension agents with fruit expert systems and to solicit feedback on the overall expert systems program. The survey was necessary for two reasons: (1)
|
From page 423... ...
In particular, two characteristics seem noteworthy based on the results of this study. First, the Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant expert system is primarily an information delivery technology.
|
From page 424... ...
This technology is inherently computer based, and a farming operation must have access to a computer and a person who can operate it before the technology will be adopted. By substituting information for some chemical inputs, the Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant expert system has the potential to contribute to the generation of more sustainable apple production systems in the northeastern United States.
|
From page 425... ...
In the long run this may be the greatest contribution of agricultural expert systems development toward a more sustainable system of global agriculture. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Penn State Apple Orchard Consultant expert system described here was developed by J
|
From page 426... ...
Partial support for this work was provided by LISA project LNE88-8, "Implementation of Electronic Decision Support System for Apple Production." REFERENCES Audirac, I., and L
|
From page 427... ...
1990. Penn State Orchard Consultant.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.