adapt-data-type-definitions.json: Add Biochar as a CropNutrientIngredient

[dubnemo]

Are we limited to elements on the Periodic Table?

I'd like to suggest a set of organic fertilizers, such as biochar and the classic manure.

[kelly-nelson]

@dubnemo We brought in that list from what was in the ADAPT Framework. I can't say what it's history is, but I always understood it to be a list of discrete active ingredients in chemical fertilizers. We can revise that list just as we are doing with OperationType.

My concern would be that it represent a list of separate nutrients one would find on a chemical analysis of either organic or synthetic fertilizer. If it is a higher level concept, representing a category of fertilizer vs. chemical composition, perhaps we need a new attribute on the object.

[crakerb-ship-it]

I suggest we could use the Modus Manure Methods list of analytes as a good starting point of crop nutrients. It does not include biochar and likely has a few that would not be as relevant for this purpose but might at least be a starting point.

Modus Manure Analytes and Codes.csv

[crakerb-ship-it]

Alternatively, if what we need is not the chemical elements, the ManureDB may be a good source of manure types if more specificity is needed than just manure.

[kelly-nelson]

For today our Crop Nutrition Ingredient is comprised of one of the below codes, an IsManure flag, and we'll be adding an amount following #161.

NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
SULPHUR
BORON
CHLORINE
COPPER
IRON
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
ZINC
FULVIC_ACID
HUMIC_ACID

This arbitrary model is a carryover from the ADAPT framework. There is a lot of room for improvement. Perhaps we need to make room for multiple codes that together form a definition of a fertilizer and allow for cross referencing Modus Manure vs. making a single long list of codes.

@dubnemo are you aware of other standard fertilizer models in agriculture? If you could do it from scratch, how would you model it?

[dubnemo]

In response, I must first ask what has been the goal here? Are we trying to capture field operations data, as in what was applied? Or the composition of what was applied? Clearly, these are two separate things and have two separate value propositions. For sustainability programs, we are looking at the product level and fertilizer categories of commercial vs organic matter. At the level of granularity where we can reward farmers who state "yep, we are performing this farming practice and there was a manure application on this date for this field". Ideally, tracking the manure to which lagoon. Even the *date* granularity is questionable. Yes, there are random tests performed on the manure, but that is often a sidecar file type approach (database) and referenced when needed, either before or after the field operation, not during. Bottomline, listing the composition of what was applied isn't cutting the ask. That level of granularity is GREAT for precision ag agronomists, and researchers looking at variety responsiveness to these elements, but the 'context' is not the same as sustainability program rewards. And how can these test operations be linked together when ADAPT is (should be) focused on field operations? As I was working on the shipped item instance plugin, I was asking myself "I sure HOPE that COPPER does not have to be declared as a product, as we don't want that showing up in a display".

…

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 12:05 PM Kelly Nelson ***@***.***> wrote: For today our Crop Nutrition Ingredient is comprised of one of the below codes, an IsManure flag, and we'll be adding an amount following #161 <#161>. NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM CALCIUM MAGNESIUM SULPHUR BORON CHLORINE COPPER IRON MANGANESE MOLYBDENUM ZINC FULVIC_ACID HUMIC_ACID This arbitrary model is a carryover from the ADAPT framework. There is a lot of room for improvement. Perhaps we need to make room for multiple codes that together form a definition of a fertilizer and allow for cross referencing Modus Manure vs. making a single long list of codes. @dubnemo <https://github.com/dubnemo> are you aware of other standard fertilizer models in agriculture? If you could do it from scratch, how would you model it? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#157 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHXOQO7OQPRUHGUHJNT3SNT2KVGXTAVCNFSM6AAAAABTDGND62VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDKOJQG42DSMZYGU> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[kelly-nelson]

@dubnemo The concept of what context we are reading the data in is a recurring theme in ADAPT these days. Point well taken about agronomy vs. sustainability.

Take a look at my latest proposal in #161 and let me know your thoughts. I'm grouping 3 related issues together there. The upshot is that I don't think we should keep our fixed list of fertilizer ingredients and need to open it up to free text entry. We can later expand into more explicit fertilizer modeling as there is appetite and expertise available.

[kelly-nelson]

Folding this into #161 where most of the discussion and changes are documented.