PRECISION TECHNOLOGIES
for more than 100ha, reflecting the greater likelihood of a larger business adopting the technology compared with a small business. Twenty three of the 25 were using remote sensing and the same number (but not necessarily the same respondents) used EM38 soil survey. All but three of the ‘advanced users’ had implemented selective harvesting. The benefits of Precision Viticulture The response to a question about the benefits of using PV and selected component technologies (Table 2) indicates that 66% of respondents believe that PV is already delivering or will most likely deliver a benefit to their business. The respondents to this question were separated into users or non-users of PV technologies (Table 1) with a view to seeing whether those with direct experience of using PV technologies have a more positive attitude to their value than non-users, and whether there may be potential for non-users to become more positive if they hear or observe current user experience. Table 3 indicates that users of PV are more positive about the technology than non-users, with
high proportions of users either already gaining or expecting to gain a commercial benefit. However, when the proportions of respondents who expect PV to be beneficial are expressed for both users and non-users combined, more than half are seen to expect PV technologies to be beneficial. An exception is proximal sensing which, consistent with its more recent introduction to PV by comparison with the other technologies considered, has fewer users. The more negative view of this technology from non-users may simply be a reflection of lack of familiarity with it (Table 1). Conversely, more than 70% of all respondents expect selective harvesting to deliver commercial benefits (Table 3). Given the need to use at least some of the PV technologies detailed in the survey in order to delineate zones for selective harvesting, the prospects for future adoption appear promising. Indeed, of the non-adopters of PV, there was only one person who saw no benefit in remote sensing, only four people who saw no benefit in proximal sensing, only two who saw no benefit in yield mapping and only seven who saw no benefit in selective harvesting; no respondents thought that EM38 soil survey delivered no benefit.
vitic u l t u re
Yield mapping was the platform on which much of the initial PV research and adoption was based but has arguably seen a decline in use in the last few years, with anecdotal evidence suggesting that remotely sensed imagery is perceived as a cheaper means of exploring the idea of zonal vineyard management. This suggestion is borne by the fact that only 15 survey respondents (approximately 25%) are currently using yield mapping; all 15 could be identified as ‘advanced users’ of PV. Of these users, seven considered yield mapping to be delivering a commercial benefit and a further five thought that a commercial benefit was likely to accrue; only three thought that the value of yield mapping was confined to simply assisting in the identification of variability. Consistent with research that indicates selective harvesting may be useful across a wide range of winery infrastructure and production objectives (e.g. Bramley et al. 2005, 2011), the seven respondents who saw no value in selective harvesting were evenly spread amongst the wine-producing regions and range of enterprise sizes. Four of them were involved in grapegrowing only, but
Table 2. The benefits of Precision Viticulture1. Answer options
No substantial benefit
Useful in identifying/ understanding variability but unlikely to deliver a commercial benefit to my business
Likely to deliver a commercial benefit to my business
Already delivering commercial benefits to my business
Response count
PV in general
1
19
20
19
59
Remotely sensed imagery
2
22
18
18
58
EM38 soil survey
1
20
26
10
56
Proximal canopy sensing (e.g. using a CropCircle™ or Greenseeker™)
4
25
20
4
53
Yield mapping
2
24
26
7
58
Selective harvesting
7
12
25
16
58
Other (please specify)
0
3
2
0
5
answered question
61
skipped question
13
Respondents were asked the following question: ‘Assuming that there were no impediments to using Precision Viticulture, what do you think the benefits of Precision Viticulture might be?’
1
Table 3. Differences between users and non-users in attitudes to selected Precision Viticulture technologies1. Remote sensing
2
Yield mapping
Proximal sensing
Selective harvesting
Users
Non-users
Users
Non-users
Users
Non-users
Users
Non-users
Users
Non-users
No. Respondents
32
28
31
29
15
44
11
47
29
29
No. Advanced users2
23
2
23
2
15
10
11
14
22
3
11
14
12
5
21
5
39
74
41
80
48
82
Commercial benefit now
17
Commercial benefit likely
7
Total beneficial (%)
75
Total beneficial overall (%) 1
EM38 soil survey
9
58
7
58
4
56
16 15
7
32
79
41
18 62 71
This table derives from analysis of the data underpinning Tables 2 and 3 and does not derive from a specific survey question. Advanced users are defined here as those using three or more PV technologies.
V2 8N 5
W i n e & V i t i cultur e Jo ur n a l SEPTEMBER/O C TO BER 2013
www.wine biz. com . au
71