5 ms·

> The key thing here is the possibility to monitor each individual plant and react to changes in its development or environment (in contrast to modern industria

> The key thing here is the possibility to monitor each individual plant and react to changes in its development or environment (in contrast to modern industrial agriculture, were things are done with huge monster tractors). It's called precision farming, and it's done today, with "huge monster tractors". Seriously folks, modern agriculture is an advanced multibillion dollar business which left the 19th century 200 years ago.

hutzlibu 10y ago
Erm, the "precision farming" use HUGE fields of monoculture crops and pesticides. Can't see much precision there. With precision you could do small fields with trees and bushes (with fruits) in between and need no pesticides ... all in all, a farm could then be also a nice place just to walk around and enjoy nature. Like some bio-farms are allready today, the problem is just, that the human labour needed to do it is huge - with robots it might be possible to go all bio - and still feed everyone!
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Yes, but production and throughput capacity, along with logistics of moving crops from the farm to a storage elevator are things that still need to be considered. Today's most advanced combines can harvest 10,000 bushels of corn per hour...you would need hundreds of robots in a field to even come close to that level of efficiency. One combine also needs about five semi-trailers driving around the clock to get all of the grain out of the field and into a storage elevator without slowing down the whole operation. Letting harvesting robots unload themselves into a truck one at a time would take weeks. There are some big changes that would need to take place to achieve what you are talking about.
  - chongli 10y ago
    Just use a thousand quadcopter drones, each one capable of harvesting a single ear of corn at a time and dropping it off on the elevator. It'd operate like a swarm of giant bees! :)
    - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
      And this is somehow better/cheaper/more efficient than a single large tractor?
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    > There are some big changes that would need to take place to achieve what you are talking about. No doubt about that. And I am not so naive to believe they will happen soon on a big scale ... but I hope to live long enough to see them come (while having my part in it)
  - neuromancer2701 10y ago
    Most of the grain and corn is used to feed livestock. So if you just turned those corn/grain fields into grazing land you wouldn't need the combine(as cool as it is.)
    - tomp 10y ago
      Are you're sure you'd get the same energy per land output with grass as with corn?
      - green7ea 10y ago
        I think a big reason for using corn are the very generous corn growing subsidies. I'm not sure it's more efficient technically.
    - MustardTiger 10y ago
      No, corn and beans are far more energy dense than grasses. You need way more grazing land than you do crop land to create the same amount of beef.
  - brianobush 10y ago
    think decentralized. you don't need to produce that amount of corn in one area. if you have 10k households, you could produce the same level of food without the same environmental impact and less costs (subsidies aren't free) while having better food quality and diversity.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  It's precision because each part of the field is uniquely targeted with just exactly what it needs. This greatly mitigates over fertilization, and all the other agricultural runoff, which is not only more economical, but also more ecologically friendly. Microfarms are unsustainable. They don't grow nearly enough food, nor the variety of foods needed (we can't live on just kale), nor do they do this economically. Basically they're cute ideas from suburbanites that have no experience beyond growing anything beyond a chia pet herb garden in a window sill. Large fields exist of a reason. And yes, GMOs and "Big Ag" is wildly successful and safe for the same reasons. Robots don't need to solve the planting or watering problem. That's already a solved problem. The most labor intensive task is in vegetable and fruit harvesting. A two-axis vertical plotter doesn't even begin to solve that problem. It's a vision and dexterity problem. Once you solve that problem, there's no reason not to truck-mount the arms and simply scale up. The fly-over states know a thing or two about this.
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    But it is a unsolved problem to produce enough food, without contaminating the soil and water. So I don't see much precision with the use of pesticides on large scale and never heard of a way to prevent them from going into the groundwater. (oh and I know a little bit about the ways how it gets decided, what chemicals get labeled as "harmless") Oh and explain this: > Microfarms are unsustainable. They don't grow nearly enough food Why should lots of microfarms produce less food, than one "macrofarm" of the same size? Doing those things on a big scale only reduces required labour -> that's why I want robots. But it is true, that bio, if you meant that, can't produce as much per field, as a monoculture field, no matter the size - but with a monoculture, poisened field, you only get food and destroyed everything else - with a bio field, you get food and intact nature with diversity, clean water and soil ... all in all a place where you want to be. So all in all you get much more from the land if you grow Bio.
    - snikeris 10y ago
      > Why should lots of microfarms produce less food, than one "macrofarm" of the same size? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
- mrfusion 10y ago
  You could also open up a lot of new farm land in rocky and mountainous areas.

hutzlibu 10y ago

Erm, the "precision farming" use HUGE fields of monoculture crops and pesticides. Can't see much precision there. With precision you could do small fields with trees and bushes (with fruits) in between and need no pesticides ... all in all, a farm could then be also a nice place just to walk around and enjoy nature. Like some bio-farms are allready today, the problem is just, that the human labour needed to do it is huge - with robots it might be possible to go all bio - and still feed everyone!

bsbechtel 10y ago
Yes, but production and throughput capacity, along with logistics of moving crops from the farm to a storage elevator are things that still need to be considered. Today's most advanced combines can harvest 10,000 bushels of corn per hour...you would need hundreds of robots in a field to even come close to that level of efficiency. One combine also needs about five semi-trailers driving around the clock to get all of the grain out of the field and into a storage elevator without slowing down the whole operation. Letting harvesting robots unload themselves into a truck one at a time would take weeks. There are some big changes that would need to take place to achieve what you are talking about.
- chongli 10y ago
  Just use a thousand quadcopter drones, each one capable of harvesting a single ear of corn at a time and dropping it off on the elevator. It'd operate like a swarm of giant bees! :)
  - HeyLaughingBoy 10y ago
    And this is somehow better/cheaper/more efficient than a single large tractor?
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  > There are some big changes that would need to take place to achieve what you are talking about. No doubt about that. And I am not so naive to believe they will happen soon on a big scale ... but I hope to live long enough to see them come (while having my part in it)
- neuromancer2701 10y ago
  Most of the grain and corn is used to feed livestock. So if you just turned those corn/grain fields into grazing land you wouldn't need the combine(as cool as it is.)
  - tomp 10y ago
    Are you're sure you'd get the same energy per land output with grass as with corn?
    - green7ea 10y ago
      I think a big reason for using corn are the very generous corn growing subsidies. I'm not sure it's more efficient technically.
  - MustardTiger 10y ago
    No, corn and beans are far more energy dense than grasses. You need way more grazing land than you do crop land to create the same amount of beef.
- brianobush 10y ago
  think decentralized. you don't need to produce that amount of corn in one area. if you have 10k households, you could produce the same level of food without the same environmental impact and less costs (subsidies aren't free) while having better food quality and diversity.
jonathankoren 10y ago
It's precision because each part of the field is uniquely targeted with just exactly what it needs. This greatly mitigates over fertilization, and all the other agricultural runoff, which is not only more economical, but also more ecologically friendly. Microfarms are unsustainable. They don't grow nearly enough food, nor the variety of foods needed (we can't live on just kale), nor do they do this economically. Basically they're cute ideas from suburbanites that have no experience beyond growing anything beyond a chia pet herb garden in a window sill. Large fields exist of a reason. And yes, GMOs and "Big Ag" is wildly successful and safe for the same reasons. Robots don't need to solve the planting or watering problem. That's already a solved problem. The most labor intensive task is in vegetable and fruit harvesting. A two-axis vertical plotter doesn't even begin to solve that problem. It's a vision and dexterity problem. Once you solve that problem, there's no reason not to truck-mount the arms and simply scale up. The fly-over states know a thing or two about this.
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  But it is a unsolved problem to produce enough food, without contaminating the soil and water. So I don't see much precision with the use of pesticides on large scale and never heard of a way to prevent them from going into the groundwater. (oh and I know a little bit about the ways how it gets decided, what chemicals get labeled as "harmless") Oh and explain this: > Microfarms are unsustainable. They don't grow nearly enough food Why should lots of microfarms produce less food, than one "macrofarm" of the same size? Doing those things on a big scale only reduces required labour -> that's why I want robots. But it is true, that bio, if you meant that, can't produce as much per field, as a monoculture field, no matter the size - but with a monoculture, poisened field, you only get food and destroyed everything else - with a bio field, you get food and intact nature with diversity, clean water and soil ... all in all a place where you want to be. So all in all you get much more from the land if you grow Bio.
  - snikeris 10y ago
    > Why should lots of microfarms produce less food, than one "macrofarm" of the same size? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
mrfusion 10y ago
You could also open up a lot of new farm land in rocky and mountainous areas.