5 ms·
As the other commenter pointed out, this competes with crop dusting, not tractors, although maybe it's possible that it could work for more targeted sprays? Som
by MostlyStable 2y ago
As the other commenter pointed out, this competes with crop dusting, not tractors, although maybe it's possible that it could work for more targeted sprays? Some weeds for example are pretty resistant to standard herbicides, so if you could, for relatively low labor costs, target just those weeds, that could potentially be worth it.
But really, I'm just looking forwards to when the current level of driving automation in tractors incorporates a little more machine vision and intelligence. I believe it is all GPS based right now and works in corn and other crops where there aren't any obstacles and there isn't really much that can go wrong.
But if there was a way to have our tractor mow our orchard for us without hitting any trees or irrigation lines, that would be fantastic
- surfingdino 2y ago> As the other commenter pointed out, this competes with crop dusting, not tractors, although maybe it's possible that it could work for more targeted sprays? Some weeds for example are pretty resistant to standard herbicides, so if you could, for relatively low labor costs, target just those weeds, that could potentially be worth it. Someone needs to do a cost comparison of using crop dusters vs. drones per square mile.
- bluGill 2y agoCost isn't important. the real question is labor. There are very few qualified crop duster pilots, and so farmers often have trouble getting a pilot when they need it. Few pilots go into this area because it doesn't pay well compared to other commercial flying and it is a lot more dangerous.
- carlosjobim 2y agoWell which way is it? If the demand is so high that pilots are difficult to come by, how can it not pay well enough to attract pilots? Sounds to me like the farmers need to open their wallets...
- nerdponx 2y agoBudget constraints. Farmers don't have the cash, so they pay in waiting times instead.
- carlosjobim 2y agoThat means crop dusting is not effective and is a net loss activity.
- nerdponx 2y agoHuh? Willingness to pay is always a function of utility and budget.
- carlosjobim 2y agoNobody orders crop dusting because they think it's fun, they do it to increase the profit from their crops. If it has utility, then it will give the farmer the budget and the willingness to pay. If crop dusting doesn't have enough utility for the farmers to pay a salary attractive enough for pilots to do the work, then it is inefficient. Alternatively the farmers or the pilots are acting irrationally.
- nerdponx 2y ago> If it has utility, then it will give the farmer the budget and the willingness to pay. That's not how it works at all. Farmers are rational and the price system is behaving efficiently here. The waiting time is part of the price. Crop dusting can still be better than not crop dusting even if the profit does not cover the "full" market price. Example: crop dusting improves farm profit by $5000/year, but costs either $8000 for a pilot in a market with abundant high quality pilots, or $4000 in a market of 10th percentile pilots with long wait times. If the actual effect of crop dusting is the same in both cases, a rational farmer will choose the latter over no crop dusting at all.
- 2y ago
- Denvercoder9 2y ago> this competes with crop dusting, not tractors Crop dusting and spraying by tractors are in the same market. Everyone but the smallest farmers makes the comparison on whether crop dusting or using tractors is cheaper (including factors like application efficiency and crop loss from tractor tracks).