Agricultural Robots

I found this post by Amanda Little at Bloomberg on the use of robots in farming very interesting:

A robot army is beginning its march across rural America, promising to transform the future of food. Twenty-five intelligent machines were dispatched last month to the Midwest and the Mississippi Delta, where they will advance over newly planted fields at 12 miles an hour, annihilating baby weeds.

Produced by John Deere and created by the startup Blue River Technology, these robotic weeders look much like standard industrial sprayers at first glance, but each is rigged with an intricate system of 36 cameras and a mass of tiny hoses. They use computer vision to distinguish between crops and weeds and then deploy with sniper-like precision tiny jets of herbicide onto the weeds — sparing the crop and ending the common practice of broadcast-spraying chemicals across billions of acres.

The “See and Spray Ultimate” robots are expensive, enormous, wildly complex machines currently accessible only to industrial-scale farmers, but within a few years their impact on the environment and human health could be nothing short of spectacular. They are in the vanguard of a wave of reimagined agricultural equipment that will help farmers produce more food on less land with radically reduced chemical applications.

The benefits of these agricultural robots are many including they make it possible to use fewer chemicals in the fields not limited to herbicides, fungicides, and other pesticides but also fertilizers. They have the potential of changing the economics of farming considerably.

At the turn of the 20th century large combine harvesters came into use in the Midwest of the United States, initially horsedrawn but later powered by gasoline engines. These devices enabled the efficient harvesting of large fields of various grains. They were expensive—too expensive for most individual farms. Various forms of cooperatives were formed to purchase and, in effect, rent them to farmers at harvest time. I expect something similar will happen with this development. It’s interesting to see companies like John Deere which produced the revolution in farming technology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries staking their futures on this new technology.

5 comments… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    A number of years ago, the Columbus Dispatch published a story on Amish farms. In general, they are more profitable than conventional farms, despite having significantly lower yields.

    The reason is the Amish farms have much lower input costs: no pesticide; no fertilizer (other than manure); no powered machinery (horse drawn only); consequently, no fuel; unpaid family labor (lots of kids); no debt and no interest payments, cash only. There is also a great deal of shared communal labor: barn raising, etc.

    While the rest of the white population in America (and the world) is declining numerically (morally? intellectually?), the numbers of Amish, Mennonite and related believers are rapidly growing. Better learn “the Deutsch.”

    If asked politely and privately, some Amish will confess that they pity the English. I suspect they pray for us.

    From a Darwinian viewpoint, below replacement level birthrates, which are the norm everywhere except Africa (and among the Amish) are a sign, if not actual proof, of maladaptive behavior. The modern world is literally killing us off. Robotics in factories and farms is a step towards extinction.

    My wife’s family has a Land Trust farm in northwestern Illinois. In the 50’s and 60’s, that farm supported her parents and four siblings, and put all four siblings through college, mostly private, like St. Mary’s in South Bend. Today it is shared cropped, but crop prices have fallen so low that the farm barely pays taxes. The share cropper actually works several farms to support his family. You can’t really make money on a grain farm using “modern” techniques unless you work a couple of thousand acres: one family, 2,000 ac.

    Around 1900 farms were much more profitable than now, and my wife’s grandfather was able to invest in pasture in Texas, actually several thousand acres of pasture near Odessa. That is now divide among 128 relatives. And yes there was oil, now largely played out.

    Deere makes pretty good money, but the farmers don’t.

  • Life expectancy for men among Old Order Amish is about the same as the general population but life expectancy for women is significantly lower and has been for 50 years. steve will probably have some comments about this—he lives relatively near to most of the Amish.

  • Grey Shambler Link

    Can’t argue with the points Bob mentioned.
    My thoughts ran towards costs though. Deere is making a large investment in equipment to combat weeds which are omnipresent in the soil.
    At some point it may make more sense to remove the crop from the soil and go to hydroponics.
    Problem is like “clean energy “,
    plants are solar powered and require space. Lots of it.

  • steve Link

    The Amish are a bit south of us for the most part. I have heard the mortality issue discussed a couple of times but never looked into it. The linked study suggests it is because their men live longer rather than a change among their women.

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051560

    Steve

  • Unfortunately, there’s no way to determine the counter-factural: what would the lifespan of the OOA be without recourse to modern medicine? Therefore the issue is entirely moot. They avail themselves of benefits of modernity they have no part in creating.

Leave a Comment