Two Ag
UNIVERSITY PARK - Two
agricultural engineers from The
Pennsylvania State University
have been honored by the
American Society of Agricultural
Engineers. "
Albert R. Jarrett, associate
professor of agricultural
engineering, is the winner of the
1965 A.W. Farrall Young Educator
Award for teaching excellence,
and Dennis Murphy, associate
professor of agricultural
engineering extension, is the
winner of the 1985 Packer
Engineering Safety Award. Both
awards were presented at the
society’s annual winter meeting in
Chicago.
The Farrall Award was given to
Jarrett for outstanding con
tributions to the advancement of
teaching and professional
achievement in education. Jarrett
was cited for “constantly offering
improved instruction for his
students, and structuring courses
to meet student needs at various
levels of development,” the ASAE
judges reported. “He motivates his
students to high levels erf per
formance, and they in turn are
V A. -rv- —"
jtle - 'tr^’‘'« , « l :jiV7' “« "J- .<’ ‘
«■,#'—',"««<■ S*£' 'Sf'"*' Vl*"*'’'*"' •'*"•■' * <*.-» ' <*• '_ K *'.l iZj" a T-S*
Engineers Honored
complimentary of his teaching.”
Jarrett is vice chairman of the
ASAE’s Pennsylvania section. He
is also a member of the Ag
Progress Day committee and
college of engineering’s academic
and planning committees. He’s a
registered professional engineer
and surveyor, and his research is
concentrated on runoff and soil
erosion.
Murphy is the first recipient of
the Packer Engineering Safety
Award, developed to “recognize
outstanding contributions to the
advancement of agricultural
safety engineering in research,
design, education or promotion,”
the ASAE judges reported.
“Murphy has been an energetic,
enthusiastic, creative and in
novative farm safety educator. He
has developed 12 instructor guides,
12 video tape programs and 57
other publications on a variety of
engineering safety topics.”
Besides being an ASAE member,
Murphy is president of the
National Institute for Farm Safety
and a member of the executive
committee on the National Safety
Council.
LORSBAN4E
insecticide.
The proven toxaphene
replacement
for no-ti!l corn.
The results are in. Aad lfae good news H there ii an insKafckfc ftiatyo<fa as '
well as toxaphene to control some of your wor*t com petta:
LORSBAN*4E. . .
Performance Comparison l '
LORSBAN* 4E w. UiTaphmc
LORSBAN4E frfffwwri^pwr
rni| 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 '
MMjilMf miH
As good as
toxapiene ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Poorer than . n <*
toxaphene
■Ma J* ta i«Vk«H>n4Ma>*n*. ,
Controls cutworms ud army'
" insecticide delivers
' cutworm* sad
Dennis Murphy
Mjfrjggm
im
Albert R. Jarret
tocuphene. Yon
JM*Me or.:
ing 01 crop
effective, ecow*ni«r.
’n. And it's not a Restricted -
, “Cor* Security.” Add
pert control program. N«b
contra) of com insects is mHjll
dwroiciit dwiW or curtoon
LORSBAN 4E. And for * fi«e
'•rochure call TOLL FREE
cfcxwe, ALWAYS REAI>THE
J CAMPULLY FOLLOW ALL
&*«***. -
Futuristic tools may help
farmers cope with future
COLLEGE PARK, MD -
Technology gives Maryland far
mers a better chance to keep their
financial balance during a
troublesome period for American
agriculture.
Dick Levins, farm management
specialist for the Cooperative
Extension Service, says computers
and robots are futuristic tools that
are becoming more practical.
Levins says using computers as
troubleshooters lets farmers
improve their efficiency and save
labor. Adding machinery to a
computer system takes efficiency
a step further. The result-robots
that can reduce labor and
hazardous conditions in
agriculture.
“Robots are becoming more
popular in industry and we can
apply the same technology to
agriculture,’’ says Dr. All Farsaie,
agricultural engineer at The
University of Maryland. The most
likely use is harvesting crops that
normally require lots of man
power, he says.
f S-
i
7 ‘ > "Vt" '
-> wf ***
% X
-JSTlfe ** '-' Xr ''*T i ' v*>' ~£ !**
lr p^S^ / ' pfe*
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, January 18,1986-El
< r~
'►''•A
S*'!'*' ’C-'
- f
v / '
"1
~*■ *<•
*>
*
t V
-*r *
“A study done by one of the
(agricultural equipment) com
panies identified certain crops that
have the feasibility of using
robotics in agriculture,” Farsaie
says. Labor intensive crops like
tobacco, fruit, citrus and
strawberries are at the top of the
list, he says.
Farsaie and others believe the
day is coining when fanners will
be able to program their equip
ment to harvest, spray or plant
without constant human super
vision.
With cameras and a computer on
board to act as the “eyes and
brain,” a mechanical fruit picker
can spot its target and take it off
the tree without the aid of human
hands. And a computerized spray
rig can send out its chemical mist
without having humans close
enough to be affected by the
pesticide, Farsaie says.
Researchers in several states
are applying robotic techniques to
agriculture, Farsaie says.
Borrowing techniques from other
industries, agricultural engineers
are using computer technology to
improve mechanical efficiency.
Computers are the key to the
changes in agriculture, say the
Maryland specialists. Programs
that are a form of “artificial in
telligence” make it possible to
reduce labor and give expert
management help to individual
farmers. This means the program
can make decisions based on the
information fed into the computer.
Dairy farmers, for example, are
taking a special interest in
technology. Dr. Mark A. Varner,
an Extension dairy specialist, and
Levin have completed a computer
program that analyzes
reproductive problems in dairy
herds.
“Basically, we’ve taken the
steps I normally take and the
things I consider when I go out to a
dairy farm, and put that logic into
a computer program,” Varner
says.
By questioning the farmer ahead
of time about an individual cow or
the whole herd, Varner can reduce
trips to the farm, suggest
management changes and
recommend veterinary services.
The key to the process is asking
the right questions, Varner says.
The farmer may already know
there is a reproductive problem,
but the computer helps find how
much it is costing the farm, the
source of the problem, where more
data need to be collected, and what
solutions are available, he says.
About 100 Maryland farms also
use computers to feed dairy cows
individually, says Extension dairy
specialist Dr. E. Kim Cassel. The
idea is for each cow to get the
amount of feed it needs to most
efficiently produce milk, she says.
When the cow walks up to the
feeder, a metal tag around its neck
is read by the computer system
and a portion of the feed that cow
needs is dumped into the trough.
This way, farmers with large
herds can make sure the individual
needs of their cows are met. And
warnings show up on the daily
printout if the cow did not eat
enough feed. This helps detect sick
or injured cows, Cassel says.
“We feel we should look out for
the long term interest of both the
consumer and farmer,” Varner
says of computerizing dairy farms.
“It’s good for the consumer
because it keeps the price down,
and it’s good for the producers
because it gives them an ad
vantage over other states.”
Agricultural economists say the
long term effect of computers and
robots in agriculture is increased
efficiency. When used properly,
technology helps farmers decrease
the cost of production, Levins says.