An economic evaluation of site-specific herbicide application

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine if site-specific application of postemergence herbicide was economically viable with current technologies. This objective was accomplished by: developing an algorithm that determined the economic optimal postemergence herbicide rate; creating models to determine the impact that postemergence herbicide rate has on yield; and determining whether site-specific application of postemergence herbicide has greater net returns than those from a uniform application of postemergence herbicide. Weed species identification and population counts were done on a regular grid in five fields across Kansas. A decision algorithm was developed to determine the economic optimal rate of postemergence herbicide for each grid cell. The sitespecific herbicide rate and four standard herbicide rates [0, 0.5, 0.75, and full (1·) label rate] were applied according to a split-plot design. Weed population observations made three weeks after application showed that the site-specific treatment controlled the weeds present in the fields. Production functions developed to determine whether postemergence herbicide rate had an impact on yield showed that it had a positive, yet statistically insignificant, effect on yield. The difference in estimated net returns between applications of site-specific rate and uniform full-label rate covered all of the costs associated with sitespecific application of postemergence herbicide. The margin between the estimated net returns for site-specific and uniform application of the economic optimal rate covered only a portion of the costs associated with site-specific application of postemergence herbicide.

Farmers’ Perception of Precision Farming Technology among Hungarian Farmers

“…Thanks to the zone-to-zone input rationalization and treatment, precision technology may ensure more efficient production with a lower environmental impact [15][16][17][18][19][20]. Accuracy is necessary during the correct application of precision technology, but often, this becomes a factor that obstructs its use on farms [21].…”

Economic benefits of precision weed control and why its uptake is so slow

“…Based on the literature examining the penetration of the elements of precision plant production (Jacobsen et al, 2011;McBride and Daberkow, 2003), the proportions of farms converting to precision farming were set at 15, 25, and 40 per cent using pessimistic, neutral and optimistic scenarios, respectively. The expected savings in pesticide use, 25, 35 and 50 per cent were determined from the literature (Batte and van Buren, 1999;Pecze, 2006;Rider et al, 2006;Chavas, 2008). …”

“…Precision farming could result in less agrochemical being distributed in the environment, and it also could be one of the basic pillars of effi cient agriculture while large-scale production structure, investments, organisational structures and operational mechanisms remain. Earlier studies estimated 20-60 per cent pesticide savings owing to precision plant protection and 0-30 per cent savings in fertiliser use depending on the yield homogeneity (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Swinton, 1997;Batte and van Buren, 1999;Pecze, 2006;Rider et al, 2006). Also, for the producer this method of farming can be a tool for reducing the risks associated with production.…”

Exploring Precision Farming Scenarios Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps

“…Towards these lines, Bongiovanni and Lowenberg-Deboer [5] showed that, even by cutting N rate to half of the recommended uniform rate, farm profitability is not compromised. Some other studies estimated savings of 20-60% in pesticide use, and up to 30% in fertilizer application depending on yield homogeneity [6][7][8][9].…”