"Electrical Conductivity" is in the news.
From the Potash and Phosphate Institute to University Research, to farm magazine
articles, and even USDA projects, soil conductivity is the new holy grail of
discovery, opening minds in precision agriculture. To hear it told today,
you would think that it has always been that way, but it was not that way for
pioneers of "electrical measurements" in soil.
In 1983, using even simple electrical conductivity to
assist in the management of nitrogen fertilizer was considered technical fraud
by the National Fertilizer Development Center. Today, the University of
Missouri has a project entitled: "An Economic Analysis of EC and Weather
Data on Variable-Rate Nitrogen Applications". Dr. John Hummel, now of
that organization, wrote as early as 1995 of his "Variable rate applicator
for side-dressing liquid N fertilizer."
Never mind that in 1983, the USDA would not contribute
one dime to soil conductivity research for the American heartland. Now
suddenly everyone wants to do everything with any manner of "Electrical
Conductivity" measurement you could possibly think of. And, damn
the science, bounce an electromagnetic conductivity sensor over the soil and
expect its readings to correlate with lab samples. Drive Veris coulter
carts in Germany, where coulters did not even penetrate the soil and expect
readings to correlate.
Never mind the inaccuracy. Something good is
in the information, somewhere. It is better than what we are doing now.
But since 1987, when the U.S. Department of Energy
wanted to usurp CTI's technology and give it to anyone they chose, and demanded
a test proving "accuracy", CTI's Soil Doctor technology has delivered.
Look into Specificity?
and Learn about Sensing Science
So, when is "simple' EC good enough to go? Anytime it
is not performed by the Soil Doctor system might be the answer given by
many from the Fertilizer Industry, some academic circles, and even some
hold-outs in the
USDA today. Those uppity folks at CTI have the gall to dare to be
first! They caught us sitting on our thumbs. Let's show them
up. We were first to
explore this concept in California, but, Hey, that's all its good for.
What do you mean it is useful in the heartland? You mean you can do this
"on-the-go" rather than sitting still. There is nothing to
measure that is important in nitrogen management. What a novel idea that we
should try to copy. Shhh!, don't tell anyone that we prefer to copy, rather than
discover things on our own.
Why? It really is simple. They asked
us to teach them everything we know so they could "evaluate" us and
we refused to serve as a free public education service.. Paul Fixen of
the Postash and Phosphate Institute stated to one of our first customers "It
doesn't exist if they don't tell us how it works". In 1990, Gary
Colliver of Farmland Industries stated "The signals change too fast, go
with Soil Teq instead." Even Dave Mengel of Purdue (who had been
given a unit to test) stated to farmers "Even though it works, we
can't favor it because they haven't told us everything about how it works".
And, of the first units out in 1990, Ted Teach of Spectra-Physics said:
"It wasn't pretty, but it flew." This was Ted's (a pilot) reference
to the Wright brothers first flight. But the Soil Doctor system didn't
have to catch the prevailing wind at Kitty-Hawk to work, it worked right in
the heartland from the git-go.
So, if perfection to an impossible standard is the
position of those objecting to "Soil Doctor technology", why hasn't
CTI simply broken down and told everyone how it works? Well, we have told
some under confidentiality agreements and ALL now by published
patents. As is often the case, the facts can be right under a scientist''s
nose, and he can't understand them. So, it has become necessary to explain things,
very, very clearly. For 2003, a "Soildata" page has been added to this website. Hopefully, this will really
clear things up for those who have to be hit with a 2 x 4.
You can read all of the material, but rest assured
you still may not understand how it works if you buy into the theory that the way
things have been done in the past is the right way. If you think that more
"grid" samples taken to a lab has to be better than running a
"sensor" through the soil, don't bother. If you think you can
just acquire yield monitor data and wait the "five years' that long-line
manufacturers tell you that you should wait, don't bother. If you think that a
better computer program is what you are missing to make sense out of every scrap of
information you can find, then don't bother. If you think that a cropping
system is so complex that a CRAY computer is required to simulate crop growth
for insight. Don't bother.
But, if you want a system that flies well today, uses
EC and damn well more in its sensing technology, and also is the only
legally authorized system under the patent laws of the United States, then read
on. Get the truth, because some can't handle the truth and resort to arm
waving to sell their products or services. Find out why CTI has been
close-mouthed about "trade secrets" and why we staunchly defend our
legal rights against competitors be they industrial, academic, or federal.
Government and the fertilizer industry, not by their words, but
certainly by their many deeds.
have "come around" to a new way of thinking. When grid sampling
alone finally didn't work, and yield monitoring alone didn't revolutionize
precision agriculture, these folks went elsewhere to find new science that was
already patented and in their backyard. They got the assistance of
government who only had "conductivity experience" to bring to bear on
precision agriculture. They began to tap the surface of a technology that they had ignored and openly
disparaged for years. This page leads you through government and the
fertilizer industry's learning process of what they needed to know, and how they
now claim to be the best of the best.
But remember, all of the others are just measuring
the surface of CTI technology. They confine themselves to
"Simple" conductivity. They have not even begun to understand
that they are confining themselves to "simple" resistivity (the
reciprocal of conductivity) while ignoring the other components of electrical
transmission in soils. They simply choose to ignore the true
reality: "Complex resistivity", which takes you well beyond the
limitations of simple EC. Read CTIs patents and learn more.
Soil Doctor® Soil Sensing Technology is a major advancement
to the exploratory, basic research conducted over the last fifty years by
the United States Deparment of Agriculture (USDA) for irrigated western states production.
After CTI introduced
its technology to domestic midwest agriculture in 1987, USDA and the Energy Department (DoE) initiated several programs
in Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, Texas and Idaho
(listed below) whose individual research has produced findings validating
the scientific principles underlying CTI's patented technology.
CTI technology is disclosed and protected by patents issued
and pending, both domestic and foreign, including U.S. Patents 5,033,397; 5,673,637; 6,138,590
and 6,484,652. CTI patents cover
on-the-go soil sensing technology, incorporating electrochemistry, complex resistivity,
and even simple conductivity. These measurements serve
for immediate application and enable post traverse GIS analyses for assaying
additional soil properties, soil fertility, and chemical levels as well as the
only legal way to combine soil data (obtained by ground-engaging sensors) with
yield data to produce prescription maps.
Years ago, agricultural research was dominated
by the USDA. As research budgets declined, USDA research moved away from
an emphasis on the practical needs of farmers --on the farm. By the 1980's,
the USDA was so far out of involvement with technology that they did not
participate at all in such research. In 1982, the DoE, which had always
been liberally funded by Congress, issued a search for technology which
could reduce of energy consumption/dependency in U.S. agriculture.
CTI's founders responded to the DoE's interests with the
"Soil Doctor concept" (then termed a "Smart" Spreader)
and thereby pioneered Precision Agriculture. But the DoE only wanted to
provide modest funding, as explained to CTI's founders, because it didn't
want to step on the toes of the USDA. Repeatedly, USDA was asked to involve
itself in the project over a 5 year period, but sensors were ostensibly
--not then-- important enough to USDA to compel its contribution.
When additional private companies began to show interest
in Precision Agriculture, however; without requesting funds from Congress,
both Departments began considerable investments in research to avoid appearing
"left behind" or "unknowledgeable".
Since then, expenditures each year by DoE and USDA have
far exceeded the combined R&D expenditures of all Precision Farming
technology companies combined.
In April 1991, Dr. John Hummel (ARS) called CTI, on the
expressed premise of wanting to "evaluate" the CTI nitrogen application
technology. The "USDA Remarks" were obtained
at this time. He represented that ARS's Mr. Antonini was skeptical of CTI
technology, but had to know if the technology worked because government
did not want to "duplicate the effort", if it did.
During that lengthy conversation, Dr. Hummel carefully
concealed the following ongoing (1991), concerted Conflicts of Interest,
the
first three of which Endorse, by their long-time investment and by their recently announced
positive findings, CTI soil sensing technology:
ARS development of "Dr. Hummel's"
on-the-go soil nitrate sensor (Illinois)
ARS development of a conductivity-based nitrogen applicator (Missouri)
ARS validation of conductivity merit
in midwest agriculture (Soil Tilth laboratory, Iowa)
ARS soil sensor development through a
CRADA (Illinois) with industry competitor AgMed
ARS complicity (Illinois), less than
a month later, with the Department of Energy's suppression of CTI predecessor.
DoE's defense boiled down to its alleged "sovereignty" from review
by its own review board, allegedly granted DoE-Idaho by England's "Magna
Carta"
In more recent years, DoE has added:
Development of a conductivity-based Soil
Sensor (Idaho)
Development of a conductivity-based Soil
Sensor (Texas)
And ARS has added:
Positive assessment of direct nitrogen sensing via a conductivity sensor at its Clay Center, Nebraska research center.
During the two hour "persuasion", Dr.
Hummel urged blind compliance from CTI for his "objective" inquiry.
More importantly, however, he repeatedly rejected all CTI offers to "work
with ARS" through its own CRADA, the only legal device which could
have protected CTI's legal rights (to its technology and those under development)
from the many ARS Conflicts of Interests, which he chose to conceal. Dr.
Hummel did mention his optical Organic Matter soil sensor, a collaboration
under a CRADA, but avoided disclosure of the AgMed partner and his
personal financial interests
in the potentially competitive technology.
Surprisingly, as ARS cherished its CRADA with AgMed and
their now-failed optical soil sensor, a CRADA with CTI and its successful
soil sensor was out of the question. ARS made no effort to look into the
possibility of collaboration with CTI, in any way, shape, or form. Offers
by CTI (the lawful owners of the subject technology) to "work with
ARS" then and until recently, were rejected by ARS, for reasons which
had nothing to do with technical merit or the Best Interests of the Nation.
--as ARS and DoE continued to add to the body of government
work, listed above, which pointedly validates CTI technology.
Dr. Hummel assured Deere (1992) that CTI technology "did
not work", based on his undisclosed "evaluation" requirements
to:
1) Resurrect from the dead, plants completely
killed or devastated by water damage and
2) Resurrect to the corn stalk, corn
cobs fallen to the ground by corn-borer damage.
Dr. Hummel's comparison results, from only 15% of the test
acreage, were an amazing 30 bushels per acre less than the positive results
recorded by the growers on the remaining 85% bulk acreage. He further assured
Deere that our concern with ARS's obsession (see list above) over CTI technology
and its underlying science proved "a paranoia," rather
than "a wisdom,": an intelligence to recognize an aspiring
and cunning, but failed, government competitor. when faced with one.
Subsequent to Dr. Hummel's advisement to Deere, Dr. Hummel
has repeatedly advised others: Don't buy a Soil Doctor, wait until "ours"
is ready.
Despite USDA's considerable investment and confidence in
the science underlying CTI technology, despite the large number of growers
corroborating CTI technology, and despite the none corroborating USDA efforts;
certain USDA employees continue to undermine public confidence in CTI technology
as they encourage public confidence in "their endeavor", providing
CTI with a growing list of independent testimony to an indefensible defamation,
as USDA (CLINTON ADMINISTRATION) Headquarters maintained: USDA
has never disparaged CTI technology..
To those of you who have personally heard USDA employees
discourage others from purchasing the Soil Doctor® System or who have
heard others quote USDA employees to similarly dissuade growers, here is
The Official position of Dan Glickman, the
previous Secretary of Agriculture:
The USDA would Never
do Anything
To Compete Against
CTI
Nor in any way Interfere
With CTI's Progress
Amazingly, not only is ARS (Columbia, MO and Clay Center,
Nebraska) employing the same scientific principles --to manage Nitrogen fertilizer-- which others within USDA have sharply disparaged to growers for
many, many years; but the Soil Tilth laboratory (Ames, IA) is also building
a body of research to validate principles they too, with Iowa State University's
Dr. Alfred Blackmer, often disparaged. Although published ARS papers specify
many companies with on-the-go soil sensing (via conductivity methods) with
no track-record whatsoever of providing growers with measurable economic
benefits; ARS papers never mention
the fourteen year old, pioneering technology/company with numerous satisfied
customers, customers who have documented their own increased net profits,
-----not a word. Pointing out
deception by federal employees creates a policy of the agency ignoring the
evidence and stone-walling the issue.
Ironically, the steady
stream of disparagement by some university and government employees only bolsters the validity
and strength of CTI patents by testifying that the science behind Soil Doctor®
technology is anything but obvious. (You cannot be granted a patent if something
is obvious on its face.) As such, everyone's claim to this technique
become weaker and weaker, with every additional derision.
On the brighter side, IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST
FORM OF FLATTERY. Accordingly, the USDA and the DoE have both "flattered"
the heck out of CTI's Soil Doctor® System technology, and there are many
more university researchers, learning they have been mislead into spending time
with the wrong equipment.
.
have "come around" to a new way of thinking. When grid sampling
alone finally didn't work, and yield monitoring alone didn't revolutionize
precision agriculture, these folks went elsewhere to find new science that was
already patented and in their backyard. They got the assistance of
government who only had "conductivity experience" to bring to bear on
precision agriculture. They began to tap the surface of a technology that they had ignored and openly
disparaged for years. This page leads you through government and the
fertilizer industry's learning process of what they needed to know, and how they
now claim to be the best of the best.