2 ms·

Yes, that’s how it’s done now, but it’s a matter of the precision vs cost tradeoff. Right now it costs about $750-$3000 to set up each monitoring site, so grow

Yes, that’s how it’s done now, but it’s a matter of the precision vs cost tradeoff. Right now it costs about $750-$3000 to set up each monitoring site, so growers can only afford to install a low number of devices per acre [1], thus a high number of plants per device. In that case you’re not optimizing to anywhere the specific requirements of each plant, you’re assuming (often falsely) that all the plants in that area have the same needs as the one you’re monitoring. The lower the cost per device, the higher your resolution and precision of monitoring can be, and the more you can accurately provide for the specific needs of each plant. [1] Very often that number is zero.

tardy 2y ago
It seems very wasteful to me to have a lot of small devices sitting out in the elements, how resilient are they going to be? Wouldn't a device that travels like a snail along a cable or something, while less glamorous than a self propelled (and navigating) device, deliver a reading for a whole line of plants every day without all of the eroding parts per plant?
- tomhoward 2y ago
  It’s pretty normal to have devices out in the elements now, it’s just a matter of how many. Yes having a device on literally every plant will probably always be overkill, unless they are so cheap and easy to replace that it doesn’t matter when one gets damaged. More likely it’d be optimal to have a device every x-number of plants - which is what’s done now but the number of devices per number of plants needs to be higher than is currently conventional to increase precision. Having machines moving around taking readings “each day” is insufficient, as during hot conditions the soil/plant moisture changes too rapidly. You need to take readings at least once every hour or even every 30 or 15 minutes in order to be able to start irrigating immediately when the moisture level starts dropping rapidly.
  - tardy_one 2y ago
    For farming on a forest floor, I would expect overly complex variance.. For farming in a field, why isn't the deviance you calculate between the needs of plant location 1 & 2 on a frequent basis not a reasonable estimate to update the predicted needs of one plant every time you pass over the other? I can imagine that a lot of small devices becomes economically viable.. I find that unfortunate since I think it will be a lot of permanent ewaste lost in fields relative to very temporary water optimization benefits.

tardy 2y ago

It seems very wasteful to me to have a lot of small devices sitting out in the elements, how resilient are they going to be? Wouldn't a device that travels like a snail along a cable or something, while less glamorous than a self propelled (and navigating) device, deliver a reading for a whole line of plants every day without all of the eroding parts per plant?

tomhoward 2y ago
It’s pretty normal to have devices out in the elements now, it’s just a matter of how many. Yes having a device on literally every plant will probably always be overkill, unless they are so cheap and easy to replace that it doesn’t matter when one gets damaged. More likely it’d be optimal to have a device every x-number of plants - which is what’s done now but the number of devices per number of plants needs to be higher than is currently conventional to increase precision. Having machines moving around taking readings “each day” is insufficient, as during hot conditions the soil/plant moisture changes too rapidly. You need to take readings at least once every hour or even every 30 or 15 minutes in order to be able to start irrigating immediately when the moisture level starts dropping rapidly.
- tardy_one 2y ago
  For farming on a forest floor, I would expect overly complex variance.. For farming in a field, why isn't the deviance you calculate between the needs of plant location 1 & 2 on a frequent basis not a reasonable estimate to update the predicted needs of one plant every time you pass over the other? I can imagine that a lot of small devices becomes economically viable.. I find that unfortunate since I think it will be a lot of permanent ewaste lost in fields relative to very temporary water optimization benefits.