[Luis Dias]

Ahhh now I see the equivocation.

No, I don't see "widespread" deployment in 10 years. I see "initial" deployment in ten years. Widespread? 20.

[Thaeris]

I see your deployment of that sort of system... as never being a viable one with resepct to cost or benefit. The concept robots act in a manner similar to that of a primitive group of farmers, each tending to each individual seed at planting and harvest (and for many crops, the farmers would scatter seeds rather than plant them regardless). The method is slow and time-inefficient, and to make up for the time, you'd need more working units.

And then the problem becomes power and propulsion. Conventional batteries tend to be fairly heavy and not terribly efficient. Exotic batteries contradict their "green" proponents, who like to ignore the wasteful, lossy, and environmentally unfriendly processes of refining rare-earth metals...

So ultimately, this may work for... I'm not sure what, but small-scale, high value crops. But the cost of the system will have an impossibly hard time paying for itself. You'd be better off hiring farm laborers and giving them a reasonable wage; with an expanding population, you'd also be more ethical in giving people work as well. My conclusion remains this: this is an interesting study in networking and programming, but the viability of the system in this form is limited at best. If you were going to use robotic farmers, you might as well jump right ahead to hydroponics, which would be an even better long-term research project.

[Luis Dias]

I think what's really ethical is putting robots doing all of the work and leave us all playing Freespace.

[z64555]

Your endurance and speed with those robots will never work for large-scale farming, ever. An autonomous tractor might be expensive, but it would get the job done. You can also use the tractor for field maintenence, etc. Those concept robots, however, would only work for planting, maybe. I see that as a novel concept in networking and autonomous systems, but that's about it. For any large field operation, your conentional machinery, manned or unmanned, will remain the dominant working vehicle(s).

The bots where designed with one thing specifically in mind: to reduce the compaction of soil by replacing larger heavier machinery with smaller lighter machinery. The theory is that this will reduce the need of tilling and plowing the soil while at the same time reducing the amount of runoff wastewater - a major contribution to water pollution.

Fertilizer is applied at the time of sowing, or before hand. But, it can also be mixed into the water used for irrigation. There are already irrigation systems in place that pivot around a water main, and do not significantly contribute to soil compaction (vs. the harvesters and tractors). Plowing and tilling will still need to be done due to the weight of the harvesters, but it would still be reduced by removing the sowing tractor from the equation. We'll see how well this theory holds out as the agriculture universities run it through their testing fields.

Regarding power: the robots can have solar panels strapped or painted onto them, which will extend the life of the needed battery. Yes, lithium polymer batteries are highly toxic to the ecosystem. That's why we recharge them, and reuse them as much as we can.

Regarding ethics: It's up to the farm owner to decide how he or she runs their farm, and NOT the engineers. Just because the technology exists does not mean that it should be the preferred solution.

[Ghostavo]

People tend to underestimate the amount of work autonomous processes do when they are not limited by work schedules (sleep, rest, etc.).

[Polpolion]

'king amazing.

When fully autonomous systems take to the field, they will look nothing like tractors. With their enormous size and weight, today's farm machines have significant downsides: they compact the soil, reducing porosity and killing beneficial life, meaning crops don't grow so well. Compaction also increases erosion by rainwater run-off. "Why do we plough? Mainly to repair the damage that we have caused with big tractors," says Blackmore. "Up to 80 per cent of the energy going into cultivation is there to repair this damage. Surely there is an opportunity to do things in different ways." Fleets of lightweight autonomous robots have the potential to solve this problem, Blackmore believes. Replacing brute force with precision is key, he says. "A seed only needs one cubic centimetre of soil to grow - if we cultivate just that we only put tiny amounts of energy in and the plants still grow nicely." These lightweight robots could remove the need for ploughing altogether, significantly reducing the amount of energy, and thus carbon dioxide emissions, coming from farming. And with less compaction, the soil keeps its structure and beneficial organisms, and is able to absorb more water and stay fertile for longer.

Link for the article in New Scientist is paywalled.

It's here however: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628882.200-farmerbots-a-new-industrial-revolution.html?


A short concept video:
http://bcove.me/ejqkqb5v

Looks intriguing. I can see a single unit costing upwards of several thousand dollars if built from off-the-shelf components but the cost will drop dramatically if it's designed to be built in any numbers that would be useful. Maintenance seems like it would be an obvious concern if you have hundreds of these running around your fields. Ruggedization is probably less of a concern than you would all think, I'm willing to bet that will be a comparatively simple step in future iterations. What would worry me about it is how well it would handle mud. The concept video doesn't show much but it definitely seems like they can have a production model ready in 10 years, assuming they don't hit any weird snags.

How fast we can see deployment is something else. Honestly I find MP-Ryan's assertion that all farmers are stubborn traditionalists quite laughable, but if it turns out he's right and all farmers just hate change that would be a big snag that could easily kill the project before it finishes. Even the ones that are willing to change won't be able to change over night just by virtue of there being a lot of overhead work that needs to be done. Completely changing how a farm works (or any large system, for that matter) just isn't something that can be done quickly.

EDIT:
Quick reference: Looking at wikipedia just the switch from steam tractors to gasoline tractors took 30 years and two real tries. Not entirely analogous to what we're talking about here, but it's something to think about.

EDIT2:
these are just pictures I thought were neat when reading the wiki page on tractors: 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Wheat_Planting_Rig_May_2007.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Modern_John_Deere_Tractor_IMG_0401.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Tractor_fanguejant.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Trackmobile.jpg

[MP-Ryan]

Maintenance seems like it would be an obvious concern if you have hundreds of these running around your fields. Ruggedization is probably less of a concern than you would all think, I'm willing to bet that will be a comparatively simple step in future iterations. What would worry me about it is how well it would handle mud.

And this is what I'm getting at with farmer's being traditionalists.  All the farmers I know or have met prefer things that are easy to use, easy to maintain, reliable, and cost-efficient.

My experience with rugged-ized electronics (and I have a fair bit now with the amount of field sampling and other work I do) is that they cost twice as much, are twice as hard to maintain or repair, and last half as long as the non-rugged alternatives.  And the elements (weather) are a ***** on anything with a battery.  So I see some pretty hefty technical/pricing hurdles here.

[Polpolion]

My experience with rugged-ized electronics (and I have a fair bit now with the amount of field sampling and other work I do) is that they cost twice as much, are twice as hard to maintain or repair, and last half as long as the non-rugged alternatives.  And the elements (weather) are a ***** on anything with a battery.  So I see some pretty hefty technical/pricing hurdles here.

This is all obviously true and I wouldn't really expect it to be any different. But there's no reference point for this particular system other than the non-ruggedized prototypes, so any technical or price comparison would be near meaningless. If people define good requirements for unit lifetime and maintainability and stick to those requirements when they get to that stage the only thing they'll need to worry about is cost. I didn't see anything in there about cost per unit, but yes, that could be an issue. I'm no farmer and I don't work for the people that are on this project so I don't know how much alternatives cost at all, but I'm assuming they did these trade studies before they started work on the project, it would be silly not to. Freshman/sophomore undergrad silly. (unless of course they're not serious about taking this to the market, in which case this discussion is moot anyway )

[Nuke]

why are we still growing things in dirt? why hasnt hydroponics gone mass-scale yet? those kinds of facilities would be prime targets for robotization. most of them are more or less use automated environmental systems, you just need to automate things like planting and harvesting.

[Mongoose]

Because dirt is (I'm sorry for this) dirt cheap?

[An4ximandros]

But that would make sense Nuke!

[Nuke]

i guess its an art only known by people who grow dope.

[z64555]

why are we still growing things in dirt? why hasnt hydroponics gone mass-scale yet? those kinds of facilities would be prime targets for robotization. most of them are more or less use automated environmental systems, you just need to automate things like planting and harvesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics

Looks like not all plants like being in just a water solution. There's also the issue of wet-rot and diseases.