2/20/20072/20/2007

On-The-Go Grain On-The-Go Grain Protein MonitorsProtein Monitors

Dan LongDan LongUSDA-ARS Pendleton, ORUSDA-ARS Pendleton, OR

2/20/20072/20/2007

QuestionsQuestions

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 What can I do with the information?information?

2/20/20072/20/2007

Near Infrared AnalysisNear Infrared Analysis

Typical molecules include CH, OH Typical molecules include CH, OH and NH and their related and NH and their related chemistries regarding constituents chemistries regarding constituents (protein, fat, oil, glycerin, water, (protein, fat, oil, glycerin, water, methanol).methanol).

2/20/20072/20/2007

Principle of OperationPrinciple of OperationTransmittanceTransmittance

Detector

Sample Cell

NIR Radiation

Light Source

2/20/20072/20/2007

Principle of OperationPrinciple of OperationReflectanceReflectance

Detector

Grain Stream

NIR Radiation

Light Source

2/20/20072/20/2007

Mode of OperationMode of OperationOn-LineOn-Line

sensor

grain stream

2/20/20072/20/2007

Mode of OperationMode of OperationIn-LineIn-Line

sensor

grain stream

2/20/20072/20/2007

Zeltex AccuHarvestZeltex AccuHarvest

Handheld Computer

Inlet

Outlet

Sampling

Device

2/20/20072/20/2007

Zeltex AccuHarvestZeltex AccuHarvest

2/20/20072/20/2007

NIR Technology Cropscan NIR Technology Cropscan 2000G2000G

spectrometerfiber optic

cable

2/20/20072/20/2007

outlet

inlet

fiber opticcable

sampling device

2/20/20072/20/2007

outlet

inlet

fiber opticcable

sampling device

2/20/20072/20/2007

Dsquared Development Dsquared Development ProSpectra™ProSpectra™

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

AccuHarvest Field TestsAccuHarvest Field Tests

2/20/20072/20/2007

AccuHarvest Vs. Reference AccuHarvest Vs. Reference ProteinProtein

SEP=0.49%

2/20/20072/20/2007

Map ComparisonMap Comparison

2/20/20072/20/2007

Cropscan 2000GCropscan 2000G

2/20/20072/20/2007

Cropscan Vs. Reference Cropscan Vs. Reference ProteinProtein

y = 0.8317x + 4.7154

R2 = 0.5534

y = x

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Reference HRSW Protein (%)

Cro

psca

n Pr

otei

n (%

)

R2 = 0.99SEP = 0.19%

SEP=0.66%

2/20/20072/20/2007

Map ComparisonMap Comparison

2/20/20072/20/2007

Overall PrecisionOverall Precision

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Reference SWW Protein (%)

Cro

ps

ca

n P

rote

in (

%)

y = 1.07x - 1.25R2 = 0.71

SEP=0.9%

R2 = 0.9SEP=0.9

2/20/20072/20/2007

ProSpectraProSpectra™™

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

VolunteerWheat

Pea-Wheat-FallowNo-Till

Continuous WheatNo-Till

Wheat-FallowWheat-Fallow

2/20/20072/20/2007

2/20/20072/20/2007

Verify protein response to applied NVerify protein response to applied N Identify N management zonesIdentify N management zones Evaluate N sufficiency for yieldEvaluate N sufficiency for yield Estimate N removed in grainEstimate N removed in grain Estimate N required to reach protein levelEstimate N required to reach protein level Estimate straw yieldEstimate straw yield

Nutrient Management Nutrient Management OpportunitiesOpportunities

2/20/20072/20/2007

Verify Protein ResponseVerify Protein Response

2/20/20072/20/2007

Identify Management ZonesIdentify Management Zones1999

H MH M ML L

ZONE

2/20/20072/20/2007

Ave. Protein (1997) & Soil N Ave. Protein (1997) & Soil N (1999)(1999)

ZONE PROTEIN (1997) SOIL N (1999)

% lb/ac

Low 11.4 37

M. Low 12.6 43

Mod. 13.6 76

M. High 14.3 53

High 15.2 116

2/20/20072/20/2007

1997

1999

Map Comparison of Map Comparison of Differing YearsDiffering Years

2/20/20072/20/2007

Evaluate N Sufficiency For Evaluate N Sufficiency For YieldYield

Critical Critical ProteinProtein

Wheat Wheat ClassClass

LocationLocation StudyStudy

11.511.5 HWHW ColoradoColorado Goos et al. 1984Goos et al. 1984

13.213.2 HRSHRS MontanaMontana Engel et al. 1999Engel et al. 1999

12.512.5 HRWHRW MontanaMontana Engel et al. 2005Engel et al. 2005

12.812.8 HRSHRS Sask.Sask. Seles & Zentner Seles & Zentner 20012001

8.88.8 SWWSWW OregonOregon Glenn et al. 1988Glenn et al. 1988

2/20/20072/20/2007

Where Was N Deficient for Where Was N Deficient for Yield?Yield?

knoll

bottom

60 bu/a60 bu/a11% protein11% protein

30 bu/a30 bu/a14% protein14% protein

2/20/20072/20/2007

Yield Map InterpretationYield Map Interpretation

sufficientdeficient

2/20/20072/20/2007

N Management StrategyN Management Strategy

N Removed = N Removed = (Yield(YieldProtein)Protein)(100(1005.7)5.7)

N Deficit = (Target Level - Current N Deficit = (Target Level - Current Level) Level) N Unit Equivalent N Unit Equivalent

Site Specific Management GuidelineSite Specific Management Guideline #24 (http://www.ppi-far.org/ssmg)#24 (http://www.ppi-far.org/ssmg)

2/20/20072/20/2007

Precision N ManagementPrecision N Management

2/20/20072/20/2007

No active Legend.

9090

55303050507070

Spatially Variable Vs. Spatially Variable Vs. UniformUniform

2/20/20072/20/2007

Uniform Variable

Fertility Area N rate Applied Protein N rate Applied Protein

Low 6.5 30 195 13.31.5 90 585 15.60.6

M. low 21 30 630 13.41.7 70 1470 16.60.7

Mod. 48 30 1440 15.21.3 50 2400 16.41.1

M. high 98 30 2940 15.71.5 30 2940 16.01.4

High 89 30 2670 16.71.1 5 445 15.81.5

Totals 263 7875 7840

Grain Protein ResponseGrain Protein Response

2/20/20072/20/2007

Water-N-Genotype GradientWater-N-Genotype Gradient3 years – HR Spring Wheat

7.3”

18 bu/ac

11.5”

39 bu/ac

16.6”

65 bu/ac

2/20/20072/20/2007

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

10 12 14 16 18 20

Grain protein, %

Re

lati

ve

yie

ld, %

critical level

2/20/20072/20/2007Applied N (kg ha

-1)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220

Grain

Pro

tein (%

)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Low Moisture (7.3 in)Normal Moisture (11.5 in)High Moisture (16.5 in)

15% Protein Level

Y = 0.081 + 12.98(X)

Fertilizer N EquivalentFertilizer N Equivalent

Applied N (lb ac-1)

12-22 lb N

Gra

in P

rote

in (

%)

2/20/20072/20/2007

Straw Yield PredictionStraw Yield Prediction

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Observed straw yield, lb/ac

Pre

dic

ted

str

aw y

ield

, lb

/ac

Model factors

grain yield

grain protein

Y = 0.783 X + 776

Std error pred = 364

2/20/20072/20/2007

Limitations of TechnologyLimitations of Technology

Precision and biasPrecision and bias– VibrationVibration– Foreign materialForeign material– Wear and build upWear and build up– Field to field differences in grainField to field differences in grain

Transfer of calibrationTransfer of calibration– Each instrument is slightly differentEach instrument is slightly different– Thermal stabilityThermal stability– Harvested grain differs from that used Harvested grain differs from that used

for calibrationfor calibration

2/20/20072/20/2007

Protein Indices are Protein Indices are ImperfectImperfect

Climate: may not be suited for rainfall Climate: may not be suited for rainfall regimes where yield potential exceeds 60 regimes where yield potential exceeds 60 bu/acbu/ac

Genotype: some cultivars do not experience Genotype: some cultivars do not experience yield loss when protein is below the critical yield loss when protein is below the critical level (Fowler, 2003)level (Fowler, 2003)

Weather-soil interactions:Weather-soil interactions:– Influences mineralizable N and plant N uptakeInfluences mineralizable N and plant N uptake– Excess N leads to yield reductions under severe Excess N leads to yield reductions under severe

droughtdrought– Protein is abnormally elevated under severe Protein is abnormally elevated under severe

drought (Seles and Zentner, 2001)drought (Seles and Zentner, 2001)

2/20/20072/20/2007

Towards Improved PNMTowards Improved PNM

Previous seasonPrevious season– Grain yield and protein sensingGrain yield and protein sensing– Assess N sufficiencyAssess N sufficiency– Identify management zonesIdentify management zones– Retrospective assessmentRetrospective assessment

2/20/20072/20/2007

Towards Improved PNMTowards Improved PNM

Pre-seasonPre-season– Soil testing/soil sensing approachesSoil testing/soil sensing approaches– Model potentially mineralizable NModel potentially mineralizable N– Proactive assessmentProactive assessment

In-season In-season – Proximal/remote crop sensingProximal/remote crop sensing– SPAD chlorophyll/tissue testingSPAD chlorophyll/tissue testing– Real-time assessmentReal-time assessment

2/20/20072/20/2007