1

I am working on a project developing an application for livestock farmers where they can monitor their feed using satellite data.

The main aim is to calculate the biomass of a field of grass. The spectral resolution can be 10m but we are also considering better resolutions. The temporal resolution should be high enough to account for cloud cover in the UK. Where do you suggest starting?

The project is still in proposal stage so I need to consider all potential budgets. We would ideally like to use only satellite data for commercial reasons.

I am new to satellite imaging and GIS so a bit of extra explanation might be necessary!

|improve this question

closed as too broad by PolyGeo♦ Jul 25 '18 at 20:40

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Biomass can be estimated with the relation between NDVI / ETc accumulated / WUE with great results... But is necessary to use satellite images of 50cm resolution? Seems to be too high for grasslands – aldo_tapia Jul 25 '18 at 13:01
  • As per the Tour there should be only one question asked per question. – PolyGeo♦ Jul 25 '18 at 20:42
  • 50cm was an optimistic number, farmers sometimes have different grasses growing on a field so the resolution has to be high enough to distinguish them. That way we could get a more accurate calculation of biomass. – Humzah Qazilbash Jul 29 '18 at 15:09
4

I don't think this is the answer you're looking for but with the specifications you describe, unless there is a subscription through which the farmers need to finance imagery purchase, it would probably be cheaper to buy mapping drones equipped with sensors like a rededge-m.

I have no knowledge of new satellite taskings for 0.5m resolution multispectral (like Pleiades 1A/B) under 2000-2500$, so buying a few cameras becomes actually more cost-effective. Consider also that there is no way to guarantee a certain area won't be covered by clouds. One farmer having his weekly service skipped would not be a happy customer. With drones, you entirely discard that problem and the only true issue becomes reflectance calibration.

Furthermore, if you compare the Rededge-M and Pleiades sensors, you get better resolution and an additional red edge band. Agriculture is probably the field where multispectral drone mapping is the most relevant and cost-effective. A farmer could even purchase his own drone and camera and operate it himself. The processing and NDVI generation then becomes trivial if done through an app.

|improve this answer
  • Thank-you Gabriel for your answer. We are considering drone usage but we would prefer satellite data as it makes the application marketable to a wider audience. Would it be possible to make a trade off between image cost and spectral resolution to find something affordable for a farmer? – Humzah Qazilbash Jul 30 '18 at 10:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.