2022-01-19 Closed Loop Spray Meet Up

Owned by Dan Berne (Unlicensed)
Last updated: 2022-02-21 by Conny Graumans
5 min read

Participants

PresentNameCompany
X

Conny Graumans

AgGateway
XJeremy W WilsonAgGateway
XDan Berne (Unlicensed)AgGateway
XDoug ApplegatePraxydin
XJoe TevisVIS Consulting
X

Patricia Perez

Agrobase-Logigram
X

Mike Altman

Syngenta
XJames WisnerBASF
XUdo KaempfBASF
XIvor BosloperDacom Farm Intelligence
XFelix HellwigIsagri
X

Fritz Schuster

Agrobase-Logigram
XAndres FerreyraSyngenta
XStuart Rhea (Unlicensed)Syngenta
XHimanshu TyagiBASF
XStu Gorefrontier ag
X

Jacob Van Bergeijik

AGCO
XElisabeth MagilCrop Data Management Systems
X

Evan Wallace

NIST
XKlaus-Herbert Rolf365FarmNet
XRonen GolanAdama
XRobert Schachter ADAMA
XMartin CuypersIsagri

Terms:

MSA = Moved, Seconded & Approved

Meeting Information

 Date
19 January 2022
 Time

9:00 am Chicago, 4 pm CET

 Web
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/992969325
 Phone

United Kingdom: +44 20 3713 5011

Germany: +49 692 5736 7300

United States: +1 (571) 317-3116

Access Code: 992-969-325

 Access Code
 992-969-325

Purpose of meeting:

The purpose of this meeting is to review .

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: Welcome the group - review Antitrust statement

In all of AgGateway's operations and activities, it must avoid discussions or conduct that might violate applicable antitrust laws, or even appear to do so. To that end, AgGateway has established Antitrust Guidelines, which it has provided to each participant in this meeting. While it is your ultimate responsibility to ensure that your actions comply with applicable antitrust laws, your participation in this meeting is affirmation that you will abide by AgGateway's guidelines.

Conny welcomed the group and read the AGW Guidelines. He reviewed where the group was in the process. This was the final Meet Up before a charter completion.


2Minutes Taker 0 min.A meeting taker has been selected.

Dan Berne (Unlicensed)

3Review of last minutes (Conny Graumans (Unlicensed))Bring group up to speed

Conny reviewed the key results from the Oct 27 meeting.  No questions or comments. 

4

Background (Conny Graumans (Unlicensed))

Review input to date on intent of this initiative, proposed goals, etc. 

Notes from Oct 27 Meet Up can be found here:

2021-10-27 Closed Loop Spray Meet Up - AgGateway Wiki - Confluence (atlassian.net)


Conny reviewed the notes from the Oct 27 meeting.
The idea behind closed loop spraying is to create a system/protocol that ensures compliance and minimizes mistakes – by creating a way for the spraying equipment, the farm management information system (FMIS) and the input product to 'talk to each other'.

This includes:

  • Product Discovery – Say when an input is loaded on the machine, that the machine discovers which product has just been loaded – either through an RFID or a GS1 QR code or something similar. 
  • Label Data Compliant Work Order – The machine and the FMIS are able to query a catalog data source for this product to find the agronomic constraints (wind speed, buffer zone, crop, etc.). The FMIS is able to generate work orders, taking the constraints into consideration, and the machine is able to enforce these constraints.
  • Verifiable Work Record – The spray as carried out is recorded in a verifiable way that can be used for regulatory compliance, or traceability purposes. 
5

Review Modified proposed Charter Conny Graumans/ All

2022-01-99 Closed Loop Spray Charter - AgGateway Wiki - Confluence (atlassian.net)


FEEDBACK ON CHARTER:

Goals & Objectives: No comments.

SCOPE:

Andres: Challenges: Should not specify a solution (e.g., ...machine discovers...), needs to be more abstract. In this example, controlling the machine is not part of this effort.
Decision: agreed.

"Immutable work record" should be a separate effort. It is more of a stock IT problem. 
Decision: Not use the term 'tamper-proof'. Rename it as 'Verifiable Work Record' – The spray as carried out is recorded in a verifiable way that can be used for regulatory compliance, or traceability purposes.

Andres: We probably need a definition in there of what we mean by "Closed loop spraying"; like we said last time, there are possible different scales in which someone could interpret the term: we mean "end-to-end documentation and resource identification" more than we mean "real-time feedback-driven control". 

And "closed-loop" tends to imply the latter rather than the former, hence my suggestion. 

I would suggest "that the system enable unambiguous product identification" rather than "the machine discovers", which is a little too close to solutioning.
Decision: Dan and Conny will take the final decision on this. Altering the name of the initiative might confuse the companies / people involved in preparing this charter. It might be better to sharpen the definition of the project instead of renaming the project.

Is weather an element we want to consider? Label restrictions (OK to Spray) as instructions. Includes weather variables at times. Leverage current work on observations and measurements. Focus on making use of weather forecast standards? Structure should be open to include other variables that are available (e.g., slope, nearness to water). Be able to add new variables over time. "open" = making it "data-driven"; i.e., using controlled vocabularies for features like schools, beehives, etc. 
Decision: Weather conditions and forecasts are for sure important information sources to link to when checking the spraying conditions short before execution the spraying operation. Weather condition are important restrictions for spraying. It is up tot the working group to take a final decision about to what level checking weather conditions should be part of this project.

Furthermore

  • Product Discovery: No comments
  • Label Data Compliant Work Order: No comments
  • Capture Work Record: No comments
  • Alignment with CropLife: No comments
  • Critical Success Factors: No comments
  • Step Wise Approach and Sprints: No comments

Work Packages

  • WP1: Identification
    • What type of identifier is to be used? A GTIN code for Europe? What type of identifier is used in the US?
    • What type of data carriers are in use and recommended: QR, 2D-matrix code, RFID?
  • WP2: Reference data
    • Once the identifier of the product is read, a reference data store can be queried for information / constraints concerning the application of the product.
    • What data stores are available in Europe and the US to provide this information?
      In Europe Lexagri's Homologa database is leading.
  • WP3: Generate work orders
    • Get manufactures of tractors, spray equipment and FMIS' engaged to implement generating work orders and to transfer these work orders to the spray machine.
  • WP4: Execute the work orders
    • Make the spray equipment execute the work order in the field and generate an as-applied map and transfer the as-applied map.
  • WP5: Process the as applied maps
    • Receive and process the as-applied maps. Generate a digital report message about the application of the crop protection product.

Final remarks

Elisabeth: Just want to clarify: the decision to adhere to the presented restrictions (buffer zone etc.) is up to the applicator and not "stopped" by the equipment based on the rule.  Correct?
Conclusion: It is always up to the operator of the machinery to take the final go - no-go decision about the execution of the spraying operation. 

Andres: Rename WP4 to "Field-testing (or "verification") work order execution and data generation".
Dan: Rename WP4 since we are not sending data to the sprayer itself.
Decision: Modify the name for WP4.

Fritz: Buffer zones have become very important.
Decision: Handling buffer zones are in scope. This might be a separate work package.

Stuart: In addition to label compliance, there are regional requirements that go beyond the label. We need to survey what these regional buffer requirements are. Need to have an awareness of GIS layers that mark exclusion zones. Does this require an additional work package?
Patricia: We need to work with these variables.
Fritz: Options seem endless (supporting use of variables). 
Conny: One of the deliverables of AgGateway's Farm-Inputs - Reference Data charter is a class model about all relevant data concerning the authorized use of crop protection product in different (European) regions. The model is based on the Homologa data model and a crop protection data model publish by an EU committee.
Decision: Linking to data bases with region specific data about the authorized use of crop protection products (label restrictions, label constraints) is in scope.

6Issues to Be Resolved

None

7Next StepsGroup identifies specific actions that will follow this meet-up.
  1. Edit charter to include comments/changes from above. (Conny)
  2. Approval by AGW CIO/CEO. (Dan, Conny)
  3. Execute a Call for Participation. (Member Services, Dan, Conny)
8

Other items 

Discuss any additional items that came up during the meeting that need to be addressed in another meet-upDan reminded everyone that their companies must become members of AgGateway in order to join the new working group.
9Adjournment AdjournMeeting adjourned at 9:58 am Chicago time

Tasks/Action Items

WhoWhen AssignedWhatDeadline Status
Conny Graumans, Dan Berne27 Oct 2021Process the results of this first meet-up (dd 27oct21); draft a charter. Prepare a second, follow-up, meetup.15 Dec 2021Completed
Conny Graumans, Dan Berne (Unlicensed)19 Jan 2022

Incorporate comments into charter

Send out to attendees for final review

28 Jan 2022Pending