Crop monitoring and fieldwork management system
Agronom plans field work according to the goals of the season and the state of the crop. Surveys and work done are saved near the field so that the changes have a clear basis.
Field boundaries, lease agreements, soil surveys, crops, crop rotation, works carried out and harvests are stored in different systems, maps and tables. Planning for work and costs lacks reliably linked data for a specific field and season.
How the solution works
- The season plan is linked to the specific place of cultivation and information on its condition.
- The agronomist checks the signal and transmits a reasonable action to execution.
- The actual work and subsequent survey complement the field history and other review of the plan.
Key challenges
- History of fields, crop rotations and works fragmented
- Fertilization and plant protection plans do not match actual uses
- Soil, plant and air data are not linked to solutions
- The causes of harvest losses are indistinguishable at the field and zone level
Solution capabilities
Field and Cultural Cycle
The plan is based on the specific place of cultivation, culture and applicable working conditions while maintaining the boundaries of previous seasons.
Monitoring signals
Inspection, weather, survey and remote view are provided with time and quality constraints.
Agronomic solution
The specialist determines what to check and what action is needed. An unconfirmed assumption does not remain given as a determined cause.
Transfer of labour
The approved action is linked to the location, scope and conditions required for execution, and the technical assignment receives an actual need.
Fact and Review
The area performed, the instrument used and the quantity retained separately from the plan. The subsequent result is evaluated in the light of other circumstances that have been in place during the season.
Business context
- History of fields, crop rotations and works fragmented
- Field boundaries, lease agreements, soil surveys, crops, crop rotation, works carried out and harvests are stored in different systems, maps and tables. Planning for work and costs lacks reliably linked data for a specific field and season.
- Fertilization and plant protection plans do not match actual uses
- Recommendations, warehouse stock, technical tasks, actual operator performance, weather conditions and the amount of product consumed are not connected in a single chain. Raw material costs, non-compliance risks increase and it is difficult to assess the economic outcome of a specific measure.
- Soil, plant and air data are not linked to solutions
- Soil surveys, moisture, meteorology, satellite images, plant surveys and variety data are analysed separately. Fertilization, watering and plant protection solutions are too late or too uniform for different outdoor areas.
- The causes of harvest losses are indistinguishable at the field and zone level
- Actual yields, quality, diseases, weeds, weather, soil, technological operations and technical data are not combined. Repeated inefficient technologies and it is difficult to determine where the investment in seed, fertilizer or drainage has created value.
- Growing solutions help plan the right harvest for the buyer
- The buyer may raise specific quality or supply requirements, but the result is determined by the season conditions and works performed. Field history allows the agronomist to justify decisions and review their progress. The farm has more information to discuss the prospect of production, maintaining the uncertainty of the harvest forecast.
Core features
- Field and Cultural Cycle
- Monitoring signals
- Agronomic solution
- Transfer of labour
- Fact and Review
Key integrations
- Sources of field maps and agronomic solutions
- Boundaries, cycle and applicable recommendation.
- Technical and material registers
- Work done, actual utilization and return.
- Sources of Images, Air and Research
- Time, location, quality tags and primary observations.
- Seasonal Work Register
- The action was applied and its actual performance.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Re-introduction of the labour fact
12–36%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure minutes of work done to re-record in other registers.
Significant signal verification delay
6–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of waiting caused by missing information or unclear responsibility can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 30-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Measure hours before proper screening, grouping according to the urgency of the problem.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Fieldwork plans, actual use of the tools and observation data are stored separately.
- When a change in crop condition is observed, it is unclear who has to perform the survey and decide on further work.
Implementation requirements
Field boundaries, monitoring sources and responsibility of agronomic solutions are prepared for crop management. Signals are linked to survey, assigned work and actual area performed, preserving and reasonable conclusion not to work additionally.