Participants

Present	Name	Company
X	Jim Wilson	AgGateway
X	Conny Graumans (Unlicensed)	AgGateway
X	Dan Berne (Unlicensed)	AgGateway
X	Kristi Block	AgGateway
X	Joe Tevis	VIS Consulting
X	Ben Craker (Unlicensed)	Ag Data Coalition
X	Pablo Cid	Agrobase Logigram
X	Robert Schachter	Adama
X	Udo Kaempf	BASF
X	Ivor Bosloper	Dacom Farm Intelligence
X	Martin Cuypers	Isagri
X	Gaëlle CHERUY (Unlicensed)Cheruy	AdDatahub
X	Andres Ferreyra	Syngenta
X	Denis Khomich
X	Himanshu Tyagi	BASF
X	Doug Farrington (Unlicensed)	BASF
X	Fritz Schuster	Agrobase
X	Scott Nieman	Land O'Lakes
X	Elisabeth Magil	CDMS
X	Annika Goudswaard Blankert	Adama
X	Moers Herbert
X	Scott Leavitt	BASF

Terms:

MSA = Moved, Seconded & Approved

Meeting Information

Date	27 October 2021
Time	9:00 am Chicago, 4 pm CET
Web	https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992969325
Phone	+1 (571) 317-3116
Access Code	992-969-325

Purpose of meeting:

The purpose of this meeting is to review the business case for initiating a working group on closed loop spray. We are looking for feedback from participants. Outcomes from the meeting would be to align on a primary use case, goals, scope and objectives, and to identify next steps.

Documents:

AgGateway Antitrust Guidelines

PowerPoint presentation, results included.

Agenda/Minutes

	Topic (Leader)	Desired Outcome Sub-topics, supporting documentation, additional resources	Meeting Minutes
1	Welcome, and Meeting Purpose (Conny Graumans (Unlicensed)) 5 min.	Welcome the group and AgGateway's Antitrust Guidelines:
2	Minutes Taker 0 min.	A meeting taker has been selected.
3	Introductions (Conny Graumans (Unlicensed))	The group has the opportunity to introduce themselves to each other	Introductions were made.
4	Background (Conny Graumans (Unlicensed))	Review input to date on intent of this initiative, proposed goals, etc. The modified slides are enclosed; including the main results of the meeting.	Conny reviewed his slides on the project background.
5	Feedback/All	Discuss key points and identify alignment points, concerns, issues, etc.	Robert Schachter: I would also include the ability to make it easier for the farmer to prepare the report is required to report further. Scott Niemann: The immutable work record could be challenging if the work record includes a large dataset of logged data. Perhaps this is really about the Dataset Metadata about the dataset. Product Catalog is being enriched with agronomic info. Himanshu: Should the second step that is checking for wind speed, buffer zone happen earlier in the process that is when application map is being generated. Once product is loaded in sprayer, these checks coulds serve as audit but not for decision making. Rober Schachter: Closed Transfer System is another project going on with Crop Life Europe. Fritz Schuster: We have a barcode that can identify reference data. Joe Tavis: Does the scope include integration with the sprayer control system? If so there are several AEF and ASABE projects that may be of interest. A project called PAM updated the buffer zone in real time in the control system (ISO Parts 6 and 10). My biggest concern is getting the cooperation of crop protection companies to put some sort of AIDC label on their products. (Andres: Good news: I think member companies are doing some of this buffer zone work operationally. This is better understood now than when PAM tackled it.) Start with a Work Plan for the spray, considering the conditions. Andres Ferreyra: Back in the days of the SPADE2 project, we defined a convenient concept called "OK to Spray", which was a true/false evaluation that could be made at the planning, preparation and execution steps of a spraying application, during operation. Project Phases: Planning, Execution, Reporting. We can take advantage of the Product Reference work done. Weather data: Leverage PAIL project Observations and Management work. Scott Niemann: GTINs not commonly used on crop protection products in the US. Robert Schachter: QR codes and bar codes are used in India. 2D data matrix with GTIN used in Europe. In Europe Crop Life members are using GTIN for most of the countries. No official requirements in most of Europe. There is in France. Will most of the countries follow France and Crop Life recommendations? Andres Ferreyra: Does it matter if there isn't a single standard for identification, as long as we can have clear rules for how to go from a certain id to one or both of a) the product, and b) a packaged product? I think the answer should be "both": a) from an agronomic perspective, you are adding a certain amount of Product X that has certain active ingredients at specific concentrations. b) getting the SKU allows you to pat to the product and know what amount is involved, possibly supporting the quantitative aspects of the operation. Joe Tevis: Three years ago when conducted a POC in seed reading the GS128 barcode on seed packaging with a mobile phone. This data was then set to "the cloud". Although this was technically feasible the general impression was that the extra time to scan the seed package would not be acceptable to the grower. Rather a "touchless" technology is required. Scott Niemann: It's where supply chain meets operations. The product the farmer ordered. Fritz Schuster: Lexagri offers as well a solution in France with the App Phytoscan that reads the EAN number (GTIN barcode). The allows to see the product details and export the use data in a standard format. Can the GTIN code be used to access the reference database? Fritz: Yes, this is possible. Scott Niemann: GS1-128 also includes batch identifiers and the GTIN. For crop protection, this allows us to relate back to the manufacturing process and the certificate of analysis related to the inspection of the finished goods item. Gaelle Cheruy: GS1-128 also includes batch identifiers and the GTIN. For crop protection, this allows us to relate back to the manufacturing process and the certificate of analysis related to the inspection of the finished goods item. 2D data matrix code contains GTIN, the batch number and the production date. Elisabeth Magil: The label gets to the product level. Is this initiative on the scan looking to capture product level data or get to the SKU? Andres: I think it is both: a) from an agronomic perspective, you are adding a certain amount of Product X that has certain active ingredients at specific concentrations. b) getting the SKU allows you to pat to the product and know what amount is involved, possibly supporting the quantitative aspects of the operation. Doug Farrington: Product Catalog is not a data store. Scott Niemann: Product Catalog helps farmers know about the products. It feeds the E-Retail and Order systems. Working on extensions to include environmental information. We have a shipped item instance in ADAPT. Really want to re-emphasize, this should be shipped product instances, not just reference data. The instances have lot number and batch identifiers. Supply Chain meets Field Operations should be the theme. Joe Tevis: To further Scott's comments WG01 uses a different method to identify products in the field which does not require any scanning or RFID reading as the product is transferred to the applicator. It does however require that the operator select the correct product from the curated list of products. Elisabeth Magil: There are some other databases that exist (e.g. Homologa). There are different adoptions on GTINs. Manufacturers do not always keep these up to date. Hard to get pkg info in North America. Andres Ferreyra: A major challenge in automated label-checking is that the usage restrictions on the labels restrictions are sometimes quite convoluted. Trying to standardize them would be a great win. Andres Ferreyra: I agree with Scott that trying to do this with the field ops data can be a massive challenge; spraying datasets can be on the order of a gigabyte now. Immutable Work Record: Start at the polygon level at the field level? Start with metadata record (ala Dublin Core) and put that link. Many are ambivalent on the use of block-chain. Scott: Our metadata work can be consider a 'profile' of the Dublin core. Jim Wilson: NIST had white paper on block-chain and traceability. This document is in a draft form.
6	Goals and scope	Do we have alignment?	Not ready to answer. Will need a second Meet Up.
7	Next Steps	Group identifies specific actions that will follow this meet-up.	Next Meeting: to be determined. Next Steps/Action Items (see below).
8	Other items	Discuss any additional items that came up during the meeting that need to be addressed in another meet-up
9	Adjournment	Adjourn	Meeting adjourned at am Chicago time

Tasks/Action Items

Who	When Assigned	What	Deadline	Status
Conny Graumans, Dan Berne	27Oct21	Process the results of this first meet-up (dd 27oct21); draft a charter. Prepare a second, follow-up, meetup.	15Dec21	pending

Browser not supported