Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Soil Test Workflow in ADAPT #148

Open
knelson-farmbeltnorth opened this issue Aug 7, 2024 · 11 comments
Open

Soil Test Workflow in ADAPT #148

knelson-farmbeltnorth opened this issue Aug 7, 2024 · 11 comments

Comments

@knelson-farmbeltnorth
Copy link
Contributor

knelson-farmbeltnorth commented Aug 7, 2024

As an initial use case for Observations, we are investigating how to model soil test data in ADAPT. This diagram illustrates (at left) how ADAPT models field operations and (at right) my own initial thoughts on how we could reuse the ADAPT document types to model the soil testing process.

ADAPT_Documents_2 drawio

@zwing99
Copy link
Collaborator

zwing99 commented Aug 7, 2024

I think this way of modeling soil test works fine.

@knelson-farmbeltnorth
Copy link
Contributor Author

We started discussion with the above in the 7 August 2024 meeting. Some participants liked the documents approach as laid out, others pointed out that the two Work Records were in common practice two parts of the same document.

@knelson-farmbeltnorth knelson-farmbeltnorth changed the title Soil Tests in ADAPT Soil Test Workflow in ADAPT Aug 13, 2024
@knelson-farmbeltnorth
Copy link
Contributor Author

Renaming this ticket to "workflow" to separate it from modeling the observation codes.

@knelson-farmbeltnorth
Copy link
Contributor Author

knelson-farmbeltnorth commented Aug 13, 2024

I've expanded on diagrams for continued discussion. In the below:

  • I've mocked up the initial request to pull with a vector file listing the defined points. To the extent there is any industry demand for such an electronic format, the points may or may not be defined at this stage.
  • The document defining the location of the samples is reclassified as a Work Order. While it is completed work in some sense, it is not unlike the work of having completed a Prescription. It is intermediate work.
  • I've included Document Correlations between the documents and PrescribingOperationIds between Operations.
  • The Work Order requests the tests to be run by referring to a defined Product that has meaning to the lab.
  • I mocked up "VariableContexts" (first discussed in Abstract Model for Observations #147) to define the top and bottom of the soil core pulled.
  • I'm using Modus2 codes as the Definition Codes. These are denormalized, each with every parameter fixed per code similar to how we've denormalized Target Seed Rate vs. Actual Seed Rate, etc.
  • Geometries are points here. For the less common composite sampling use cases, we could substitute multi-points or polygons.

0

Image

Image

@aferreyra
Copy link
Collaborator

aferreyra commented Aug 14, 2024

I like your work, Kelly. It makes me wonder how to represent the finer points of a desired observation, like the depths, any specific sampling or observation method desired, etc. Curiously enough, I wonder if, analogous to what ISO 11783-10 does, we might not be able to re-use the format of the actual observations, adding a status (1: planned / 2: running / 3: paused / 4: completed / 5: template / 6: canceled).

@aferreyra
Copy link
Collaborator

From 11783, explaining what "template" means (which is a very valuable concept in scouting),
The XML attribute TaskStatus has values 1 to 4 and 6 for specifying the lifecycle of a Task. In addition
to these 5 states, the TaskStatus can be specified as “template” (value 5). When a Task with status
“template” is started, then a new Task, which is a copy of the template Task, shall be created and started.

@crakerb-ship-it
Copy link

Per sampling discussion on 14 Aug 2024 attached is the examples and information the Modus team documented for how sample points generally work for both grid and zone methods as well as single point and composite samples complete with pictures.

WG04-Sample Collection Examples.pdf

@DarinGary
Copy link

An example list of ala carte nutrients and depths from Agvise Labs. I will find packages as well as they are commonly used.
soil-table-doc23.pdf

@knelson-farmbeltnorth
Copy link
Contributor Author

knelson-farmbeltnorth commented Aug 14, 2024

In the 14 Aug 2024 meeting we discussed my latest mockups above.

@aferreyra recommended that we need to keep the separation between Work Orders and Work Records as in my initial mockup for cases where what happened was different from what was intended. General agreement from group.

We debated representing the lab package as a product or something else. Wherever we model that data, we agreed that we need flexibility to model a group of requested tests by a package name, or individual tests down to the specific test methods.

Re the final Work Record above, we agreed that I should not have used the same UUIDs from the work order to map back to the depth, rather that the depth should be explicit in the report. @DarinGary pointed out that common industry practice is one column per test per depth.

We will continue to discuss and refine in the next meeting. Please continue to add comments, feedback and any corrections to the above.

@DarinGary
Copy link

Zone Soil Testing in MN, ND, SD Our System

Not going to say this is right, but it is what is done in our workflow.
I can see this being useful for managing the workflow and storing results.

Work Order for Soil Sampling

A customer requests zone, or grid sampling for a field, a zone map is then developed.
It would look something like this for a 3 Zone field.
image

Our soil testing lab has an API, and workorders for sampling are generated with that API. The Return from that API is a PDF to print for the sampler to tag bags with while sampling. In this case this was for a 2-zone field with 2 depths TopSoil and Sub Soil. The field could have more zones, and/or a DeepSubSoil Tag
From top to bottom, this field sticker sheet has enough information for the sampler to do his/her job.

Lab ReferenceID
Grower ID and Grower
Field Name
Zone Name
County
Portion of Section and Section and Township

The field could have more zones, and/or a DeepSubSoil Tag

This printed Label sheet is taken, and the field ID is already available as a TIF or SHP Points in a cloud folder accessible by the sampler. Multiple cores in the DK Green are placed together in one bag per depth and labeled with TopSoil or SubSoil Tags.
Then multiple cores are taken and bagged separately per depth in the Red Zones.

Tags for labeling bags:
image

The bags are then sent in for analysis.

Soil Test Results

Once the results are available, through an API we retrieve the results, and they are returned as a CSV. W would request by field ID and the API would group all of the zone in the field into the CSV with depths identified in the columns Like below.

<style> </style>
Ref No GrowerID(25) Fld ID(1st 8) Sample ID County Twp Qtr(11) Sect No Acres pH BpH OM N1 lb N2 lb N3 lb N-(N1+N2) P-O ppm P-B1 ppm K ppm Ca ppm Mg ppm S1 lb S2 lb Zn ppm Salt1 Salt2 Cl-1 lb Cl-2 lb Cl (Tot) Cu ppm B ppm Fe ppm Mn ppm Na ppm CEC meq CCE% D1 CCE% D2
20520441 REDACTED SOUTH OF RED DIVIDE DEWITT S 24 10 8   2.2 9 12   21 6   258 5240 1035 120 360 0.27 2.13 2.19     172 0.9 0.65 10.44 1 470 37.53 5  
20520442 REDACTED SOUTH OF YELLOW DIVIDE DEWITT S 24 40 7.8   2.4 20 36   56 6   311 5404 1224 120 360 0.33 2.08 1.99     180 0.98 0.92 13.49 1.33 288 39.27 3.4  
20520443 REDACTED SOUTH OF DARK GREEN DIVIDE DEWITT S 24 27 7.7   2.7 15 36   51 8   356 4294 782 120 360 0.4 0.93 1.06     120 0.95 0.77 14.85 1.88 171 29.64 0.3  

In zone or composite sampling, the sample locations are in another dataset in the navigation software that the sampler used.
One row in the table describes all nutrients and depths for that zone. If it was a grid field the sample ids would be merged with the point ids from the navigation software, but for zones or composites they would just be stored, and used to navigate to those points the next time that field was sampled.

These sample results are then mapped, and nutrient prescriptions created from the zone map and the soil test results.
One row in the table describes all nutrients and depths for that zone.

@knelson-farmbeltnorth
Copy link
Contributor Author

knelson-farmbeltnorth commented Aug 26, 2024

I've created 3 new issues to continue specific points of the discussion above:

#152 Types of Workflows
#150 for identifying requested tests
#151 for identifying completed tests

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants