12 minute read
Electrical weed control in fruit and wine plantations
Until recently, if you wanted to control weeds in fruit plantations or vineyards, your choices were either pesticides or attacking the weeds mechanically. In 2018, AgXtend, a subsidiary of CNH Industrial, launched its Xpower to market, which uses electricity to kill weeds. The manufacturer has now developed a narrower Xpower unit for use in rows, such as in fruit plantations and vineyards.
Advertisement
Antoon Vanderstraeten Fabrikant
The electrodes ensuring the transmission of current to weeds.
This XPS unit generates the electricity for the electrodes.
A few minutes after the treatment, the plants are already discolouring.
AgXtend introduced its first Xpower machine in 2018. The basic principle of the machine is to deliver a lethal dose of electricity to the plant above-ground and in the soil using stainless spring steel applicators that drag across the soil. The electricity needed for this is generated by the tractor, which drives a generator via the PTO. The concept is based on a closed electrical circuit: the high voltage electricity is generated locally by the mechanical energy of the tractor. The electric current passes into the plants and then into the soil through the electrode. The electrical circuit is closed via a second electrode that either touches other plants or the soil. The effect on the plants is comparable to a non-selective, systemic herbicide such as glyphosate.
After a first type with a full-field effect, called the Xpower XP300, the manufacturer has now also developed a machine that can weed the strips between vines or under fruit trees. This new machine is called the Xpower XPS-R. The XPS-R has a working width of 55 cm on either side, 25 cm fixed and 30 cm on movable arms. Extensions of 20 cm and 40 cm, respectively, can be used on either side if necessary. The distance between the rows in the plantation is 1.8 to 3 metres. The AgXtend Xpower XPS is mounted on a Hexagon 729 hydraulic chassis from Clemens GmbH & Co. For front mounting on the tractor, the components of the XPS-R can be mounted on a standard SB2 frame from CLEMENS GmbH & Co. In the event that there is a lot of dense development of monocotyledons or if a higher working speed is required, two additional high-voltage units, the XPS Power Boost, are optional.
The XPS-R has a sustainable effect against chemical weed control. The system is in fact residue-free. Insects or other forms of soil life are not affected by the treatment either. As the machine is not subject to legal restrictions, it can also be used along waterways. Compared to mechanical weed control, the Xpower XPS-R has the advantage of not stirring the soil, preventing the creation of a fresh seedbed for weeds or the stimulation to germination of weed seeds. In addition, there is also no risk of erosion.
The Xpower XPS-R works best on young weeds, with dicotyledons being more impacted by the treatment than monocots. In older weeds or areas with a lot of monocotyledons, the driving speed must be adjusted for effective treatment.
A few 0-series of the machine were built early 2020 for further extensive testing. The machine should be commercially available by the end of 2020.
Automated planting with Agriplanter
The development of fully-automated transplanters for plants with a root ball is continually evolving. Belgian company Agriplant's transplanter machines are just one example. The company spent more than 10 years developing its robotic transplanter system. Today, several of their machines are already in operation all over Europe. The company recently commissioned its largest machine in the south of the Netherlands.
Antoon Vanderstraeten Antoon Vanderstraeten & Fabrikant
Agriplant started out in the seventies. At the time, a Belgian SME called Pype imported paper pots, to facilitate the transplanting of seedlings. The company reached out to a planting machine manufacturer to devise a way of planting these paper pockets. In Belgium, seedling trays are traditionally used for this, meaning the machines needed to be customised to be able to plant these paper pot seedlings as well. As such, the machine needed to be technically adapted, in addition to ensuring compliance with European standards. Unfortunately, the market was not yet ready for automated transplanting machines at the time.
In 1998, Agriplant launched its first fully-automated planting machine for seedlings in trays and transplants with root balls. Initially these machines were imported, but the manufacturer started to develop its own models in the early 2000s. Agriplant’s engineers spent more than 10 years developing their own automated transplanting system, which is built around a robot module that lifts the plants from the tray and places them on the “sensor head”. The sensor head eliminates any root balls without a plant in them, ensuring that only root balls with seedlings are planted. In addition to the robot module, the machine has also been fitted with modules
for the supply and removal of the plant trays, a module that transports the plants to the planting element and ensures the correct planting distance in the row and, finally, the planting element. The various modules on the Agriplant machines are easy to distinguish because of their green colour. Depending on the customer’s wishes, Agriplant has 8 chassis types on which the various modules can be combined to build an automated planting machine, with fixed or interchangeable row distances or different numbers of rows.
Currently, Agriplant sells machines with 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 rows. The smallest distance between rows is 31.5 cm, for distances in row of 10 to 60 cm. The seedlings can be planted directly in the soil, in ridges or in beds. The 1-row machine plants a maximum of 14,000 plants/hour, the 6-row machine can plant up to 66,000/hour.
In recent years, planting machines have been used in various European countries such as Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, and Italy, as well as in Canada. The transplanted crops are just as diverse as the countries in which they are grown. The main crops include cabbage, including broccoli, and Brussels sprouts, in addition to various types of celery,
industrial tomatoes, onions, fennel, sweet potatoes, and herbs, which were also planted without problems.
The automatic planting of vegetables saves farmers a lot of time. Compared to a manual planting machine, the speed of these machines is 4 to 5 km/hour faster. The precision in the rows also facilitates better and faster mechanical weed control. These are all decisive arguments at times when planting seasons are getting shorter and uniform crops are becoming increasingly important. Nor should the personnel costs for manual planting machines also not be underestimated for companies that must plant large areas. For one to four rows, you only need one person on the planting machine, but you’ll need two to plant six rows. The robot takes care of all the rest.
More information about Agriplant: www.agriplanter.com Video 6 ROWS AT ONCE
At the beginning of this year, Sluis-based Iltom BV (the Netherlands), started using an Agriplant 6SP-A 6-row planting machine. Iltom specialises in the cultivation of celeriac. The first plants are planted in March under protective foil, so the first tubers can be harvested around mid-July. In 2005, the company switched to automated transplanting. In recent years, it had been searching for a more efficient machine, which is how it ended up meeting with Agriplant. Agriplant engineers incorporated Iltom's experiences into their design to further refine their machine.
Among other things, the machine was fitted with furrow closure to be able to separately close the furrows. Besides this, the machine has a steered rear axle for better manoeuvrability on the headlands. The rear axle is fitted with Soucy tracks for minimal soil compaction between the planting beds. The planting robots are mounted stacked in pairs. The middle planting elements are staggered to the rear opposite the outer ones. The machine‘s width is thus limited to 3.5 metres. A row of tires under the drawbar evenly presses the plant bed between the tractor wheels.
The machine can plant up to 66,000 celeriac plants/hour.
More information about Iltom: www.iltom.nl
When the EU itself starts to engage in goldplating, aren’t we making matters needlessly complicated?
The European Commission recently presented its Farmto-Fork and biodiversity strategies for 2030. To ordinary people, these two strategies may seem like they have much less of an impact on the agricultural and horticultural sector than the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), but anyone who is employed in this sector knows better. The ambition to reduce the use of pesticides by 50%, curbing the use of antibiotics for livestock by 50% and new food labelling rules: the incoming legislation hits farmers where it hurts, in their stables or on their land. There is nothing wrong with this per se. We are all keenly aware of the health and sustainability challenges that we face. We know all too well that action is necessary. The European Commission has now decided to move forward. But it doesn’t make matters any easier.
Because these strategies are already being launched now - even before the CAP reform has been finalised and the final subsidies are granted -, the overall impression is that farmers must implement all these new measures before they actually know which resources they can rely on for this. We already know that the new CAP will impose more conditions for subsidies and goes much further than the current CAP where greening measures are concerned.
The biggest challenge, however, is the EU’s position on a global market and how this will affect our competitive position on the world stage. This reminds me of the gold-plating the agricultural sector in Flanders when it comes to implementing European measures. This term describes the phenomenon whereby individual member states or regions over-regulate compared with European legislation. This reflects their desire to be the best or most pioneering in class. There is nothing wrong with this either, as long as your own competitive position is not undermined as a result.
But that is the risk we are running if you look at the long list of measures that will be imposed on European farmers: the CAP, the Farm-to-Fork and the biodiversity strategies combined create a hugely innovative framework for food production in Europe. At the same time it also poses several challenges, whereas the rest of the world will be able to continue producing in keeping with vastly different standards and at other prices. Can we not impose our measures on others, you ask? At the very most, this can solely apply to food that is imported into the EU but this is far from evident, however. In times of America First, it is wishful thinking to hope that other continents will follow suit, enabling us to impose our standards on the world quickly. In that sense, Europe is at risk of engaging in gold-plating, compared with the rest of the world. And as such, we are making matters needlessly complicated when it comes to trade, at a time when our economies are already languishing.
Tom Vandenkendelaere Former Member of the European Parliament (2014-2019)
European green deal, it’s the economy stupid!
While it seems appropriate these days to dispense with any sense of nuance in order to make a point, I would like to strike a balance between the different views on the green deal and its different strategies. On the one hand environmental organisations look at the green deal and its objectives convinced that it offers opportunities for farmers and will, without a doubt, bring prosperity to the sector and the environment. On the other hand farmers’ organisations tend to focus on the threats these strategies pose, the uncertainty about land use and investments, the loss of entrepreneurial freedom and that farmers ultimately will end up footing the bill.
As young farmers we have the chance, and responsibility, to both discover the opportunities and outline the risks. Let it be clear that the main objective of creating a more sustainable world in which nobody is left behind is not up for debate. The premise that sustainability has 3 pillars (People, Planet, Profit) which are equally important and crucial is also not up for discussion. What is relevant, however, is how we define and achieve sustainability.
I would argue that “sustainability” describes a process rather than a destination. It should not just be about envisioning the world in 30 years’ time. Sustainability starts tomorrow and this process won’t have ended by 2050. This implies that the road of sustainability must focus on both the short and the long term. Boosting short-term profits by ignoring the environment in the long term is not sustainable, just like destroying the short-term financial perspective in order to save the environment in the long term is not sustainable. A catch-22, you might say. This clearly shows the need for balanced policies and an evolutionary process rather than a sudden revolution.
Because of this, the European green deal, and the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies in particular for agriculture, should not only reflect on the Union’s environmental ambitions. If these strategies are truly designed to create sustainability, they must take into account the path to stronger economic resilience. How will the added value of “greener” food increase the economic return (as much as possible out of market, through public policy where necessary) for farmers, while still remaining affordable for consumers?
As young farmers, across Europe, let’s take action and show how we think it is possible to reconcile these elements. Individually to prepare our farms for a new future, within our organisations by sharing these experiences and ensuring the right policy instruments are available. Jannes Maes is President of CEJA, the European Council of Young Farmers. Prior to becoming President of CEJA, he served as the CEJA Vice President and as the international representative of Groene Kring, the Flemish young farmers’ organisation. When not engaged in politics and representation, Jannes can be found working on the family farm, alongside his father and brother.
