
The rise of the robot farmer - YeGoblynQueenne
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-robots-lasers-rise-robot-farmer
======
rmason
In Michigan we've already got family farms with a man, two sons and a single
employee handling 10,000 acres. Robots driving tractors, trucks and combines
would allow that to expand 5-6X. In turn that would lead to a reduction in
farmers of up to 80%. This is a trend that has been running for close to a
hundred years. Remember at one time a quarter of America's population were
farmers and now it's under 2%.

~~~
clarkmoody
The immense productivity gains in agriculture have driven down food costs,
which improves the standard of living of everyone. It also frees up those who
would have worked farm jobs to do higher-valued labor in the economy.

~~~
knieveltech
In theory. In practice, this has lead to collapse of rural economies, rampant
poverty, and epidemic drug usage amongst rural populations. As to driving food
costs down, that's trivially disprovable. Loaf of bread in 1950: 12 cents.
Adjusted for inflation that's $1.26 currently. A cheap loaf of white bread
costs substantially more than $1.26.

Edit: of _course_ this gets downvoted, because econ gibberish is certainly
more valid than observed reality.

~~~
dexterdog
First, my local stop n shop sells a loaf of white bread for $1.29 and that's
not even a sale price. Second the average income has gone up by more than
inflation as well so you would expect the cost of staples to go up
accordingly.

~~~
8note
is that including the richest folks in the average or not?

my understanding is that other than the top 10% or so, average income is not
keeping up with inflation

~~~
WillPostForFood
Median income adjusted for inflation, has been growing, albeit very slowly,
for all groups, including the bottom quintile (+6.7%).

[https://static.businessinsider.com/image/59bc19b538d20d7f378...](https://static.businessinsider.com/image/59bc19b538d20d7f378b6429-750.jpg)

------
pwaivers
> _This is the one note of darkness that enters an otherwise optimistic
> conversation. “This technology could be used in a completely different way,”
> he says. “You could have entire states in America with no people in them.
> The potential for what we’re doing to be used in the wrong way is there.”_

What is inherently wrong or evil about this? If we could automate a state-size
farm to feed everyone, isn't that a good thing?

~~~
kevmo
Feeding everyone is, of course, a good thing.

But to have a state with no people in it implies that people would not be
_allowed_ to enter it, i.e. it would represent huge swathes of natural
resources wherein some smaller group of people would be keeping the general
public out by virtue of it being private property. Forcing people off of land
and into cities, thus forcing them to buy food with labor, is one of the
primary means by humanity has been subverted from achieving its real
potential. Empirically, the rise of more efficient machines has often been
deeply linked to human bondage.

~~~
tdb7893
How do you link machines to bondage? If you look at slavery from Sparta to the
American South it's often had a large component of agricultural labor. Even
things like serfdom where the serfs were nominally free but tied to working
the land it they were doing agricultural work.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
You're not wrong. But, human history goes back roughly 200,000 years. Slavery
can only be dated back to 1860 BCE.

One could argue that the "bondage curve" \-- if there is one -- is parabolic.
I.E. human bondage peeked sometime during the Atlantic Slave Trade and has
been going down ever since.

One could also argue that -- before modern machinery -- humans existed for
nearly 200,000 years with no documented form of bondage.

I'm assuming (I don't know) the OP is referring to what some people call
"modern slavery" \-- in that the majority of the workforce has 0 social
mobility. I think it's pretty absurd when people compare this to slavery
during the Atlantic Slave Trade, but it happens.

~~~
PeterisP
Your arguments seem misleading - the _existence_ of anatomically modern humans
goes back roughly 200,000 years, but _human history_ , i.e. the era with
documented evidence starts with widespread writing that comes much, much
later; first samples of writing is from ~5000 BC, but they're sparse enough to
not be informative about social practices.

The very first documented law codes (2100–2050 BCE
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-
Nammu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu) ) already mention
slavery. We can't know how long slavery existed before that, since those are
literally prehistoric times and archeological evidence is not sufficient to
determine these relationships, however, as the current evidence shows that
slavery existed for as long as we have documented form of anything, there's
absolutely no reason to assume that for the 200,000 years slavery didn't exist
and good reason to assume that it did exist for at least part (or even all) of
that undocumented time, as in the absence of any other evidence it would be
prudent to assume that civilization at 10,000 BC had similar practices as it
did in 2000 BC instead of being significantly different for no good reason
from all other documented human history - we have no historical evidence at
all of a time in early human history without slavery.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
What part of those laws that didn't pertain to agriculture (failing to
plant/harvest) were about the penalty for raping somebody else's slave. So
many measures of grain etc.

~~~
PeterisP
That does bring the notion that we _can_ make some assumptions about slavery
in prehistoric times; it seems a core part of society in early agricultural
societies but we have not observed it so much in hunter-gatherer communities
(except sedentary hunter-gatherers with higher population density, which
generally _do_ have slavery, so it's more about the settling down rather than
food source) - purely for economic reasons; it's practical/useful to keep
slaves for farming or mining labor, but not so much for sparse, mobile
hunting/gathering parties. Raiding neighbours for "wives" i.e. sex slaves does
seem to be a thing even in those societies, though.

It could be a reasonable assumption that the prehistoric agricultural
societies had slavery just as early historical agricultural societies, but
that the earlier hunter-gatherers, i.e. a major part of those 200,000 years
did not have widespread slavery. Well, other than the "intermarriage" with
neighbours (often likely not fully voluntarily) which predates modern humans,
given the genetic evidence for the partial "assimilation" of neanderthals and
other parallel hominids.

------
pwaivers
> _“I expected farmers to be quite luddite about the adoption of new
> technology,” he [Ben Scott-Robinson] says, as he packs Rachel away._

I actually assume farmers are very welcoming of technology. They are hard
workers and good business men. Usually technology makes them more efficient
and more money.

~~~
ergothus
I joined an AgTech firm 3 years ago - this is my commentary, not the view of
my company or anyone else there.

> I actually assume farmers are very welcoming of technology.

The answer (at least in my experience) is a bit more complicated.

> Usually technology makes them more efficient and more money.

...because this sentence isn't really true.

Yes, farmers are hard workers and if they aren't adequate at business they
fail, as the industry is....weird (high capital expenses, large variability
that is outside your control). They also tend to be much older (it's not
unusual to find a 60 year old farmer that is getting excited because their
father is considering retirement and leaving them finally in charge of the
farm). And they have been targeted for new technology long before the current
data- and/or robotics- oriented trends, so they've heard plenty of grandiose
claims that weren't matched by results.

Adopting a new technology is almost always pricey - either it applies to the
field, so multiply the price by the acres and it gets quite large quite
quickly, or you apply it to equipment, which tends to run $50K-$100K and have
to last quite a few years)

Weather is the biggest variable in farm output, and it's both hard to measure
and impossible to control, so knowing if a product works reliably requires
testing in all sorts of weather conditions, which is VERY hard to arrange.

Trusting the benefits is also difficult - anything tested in Nebraska will
find that Idaho is completely different - different soil, different weather
patterns. Even if the product IS tested everywhere (and it isn't, not in
sufficient detail and over sufficient time - remember that variability?) the
farmers have been told that before - they'll want to see it, or see it from
someone they trust to know their specific conditions.

Then there's the level of output. Look at GMO seeds - leaving aside any other
controversy (for now), studies show they DO offer yield benefits, but whether
that is enough to recoup the costs is a "that depends" kind of answer. When
prices are low, the return value of yield is low, but the costs of whatever
you used to increase yield is probably fixed.

When you add in the cost of adopting a new technology plus the low level of
trustable benefits a healthy amount of skepticism is present. There's a reason
most transactions occur between people with some level of established
relationship - seed dealers, regional agronomists, etc. This means convincing
a farmer is often a matter of convincing one or more of these other people
first, THEN convincing the farmer.

My personal experiences found farmers more interested in adopting technology
than I expected, but at the same time any limits that are encountered tend to
be VERY hard limits. Until they've seen something recommended by someone they
trust that is familiar with their local conditions, they won't risk a harvest
on it, and even running a test strip of, say, 10 ft x 100ft is a non-trivial
expense. So while they are more tech-adopting than I expected, and once they
truly adopt something they tend to commit, they are not what most would
consider "technology friendly" and have a respect for tradition and local
relationships based on a history of significant financial pain when they defy
it unwisely.

~~~
dbcurtis
Spot on.

It's very simple. Farming is a business with very high capital requirements
and very thin margins. If you can move the needle on margins, it is a _huge_
win, and farmers will be all over it. All you have to do is _prove_ that you
move the needle on margins. Any person managing such a business is going to
ask for very solid proof that your new technology pencils out.

------
nathan_long
The pitch from Small Robot Company's home page
([https://www.smallrobotcompany.com/](https://www.smallrobotcompany.com/)):

> We’re an agri-tech start up commercialising a deceptively simple idea: small
> robots not big tractors.

> Because unfortunately big tractors are neither efficient nor environmentally
> friendly. Currently, 95% of energy is used ploughing. And ploughing is only
> necessary because of heavy machinery crushing soil.

> We are building robots that will seed and care for each individual plant in
> your crop. They will only feed and spray the plants that need it, giving
> them the perfect levels nutrients and support, with no waste.

> This level of detail allows you to be kinder to soil, kinder to the
> environment, more efficient, more precise and more productive. It’s the best
> of all worlds. An increased yield, as well as minimal chemical usage. So you
> can increase revenues by up to 40%, reduce costs by up to 60%.

> Our robots are being designed and built by farmers, for farmers. Because we
> have spent the last year talking to you, we know you don’t want to buy
> robots. You are worried about the cost, and what happens if they break down.
> Instead you can lease our robots through a Farming as a Service (FaaS)
> model.

Obviously it may not be as good as it sounds. But it _sounds_ amazing.

Also these quotes from the article about scale were interesting:

> The agility of agricultural robots means small farms with compact fields
> will no longer be at a disadvantage; independent shops and restaurants will
> be able to grow their produce on smallholdings efficiently tended by Rachel-
> like machines.

> ...

> “Most people think this is going to be expensive, is going to do everyone
> out of a job and is going to be good for the big farms, not the small
> farms,” he says. “It’s actually the exact opposite. The big farms are all
> about economies of scale: big fields, big tractors. We are developing small
> machines. I believe the extra production we need to feed the planet is going
> to come from small farms that can’t use those economies of scale.”

I love the idea of a farmer on 2 acres competing with Big Ag on price.

------
thruflo22
I’m co-founder of the “space bots with lasers” company.

Happy to answer any questions.

~~~
philipkglass
What precautions do you need to maintain eye safety around these bots?

Can lasers kill weeds at the root, or do you just keep them "mowed" down to
size with repeated applications?

~~~
thruflo22
A skirt around the laser.

There’s a few techniques. You can cut the meristem or you can heat the weed.
If you can explode the physiology, they don’t grow back.

------
uxhack
In Spain and in Portugal grape harvesting machines are common. They are also
used for harvesting olives. The vines have to be planted in hedges. The
machines straddle the hedges and gently shake the tree with rubber flippers.
The vines have to be ripped out when they become to brittle.

~~~
rripken
We have mechanical harvesters in California but I haven't seen any that are
gentle or use rubber flippers. Mechanical harvesters typically shake the
trees/trunks a small amount but quite quickly. For grapes the shaking might
move the top of the vine a foot or so at several hertz. The shaking is strong
enough that most grapes are plucked off the stem merely because of the weight
of the berry and the whip-like motion of the shaking. The newer style bow rod
machines use multiple UHMW rods bent into a question mark like shape. A large
number of materials were tried but UHMW is the strongest material that could
be found for the application. If adamantium or vibranium could be sourced I'm
sure it would be used.

------
zackmorris
Now for a bit of hubris: anyone else reading this feel that building a robot
that could do pest/weed control and harvesting is almost a triviality compared
to say, fixing enterprise software to maximize customer purchases and ad
revenue?

What are we all doing? Seriously, why can't each of us take a year of our
lives and automate all the most awful jobs in the world?

Asking for a friend :-P

~~~
wccrawford
See the XKCD comic about pictures in parks and kinds of birds.

~~~
zackmorris
Hah thanks for that!

[https://xkcd.com/1425/](https://xkcd.com/1425/)

Still, image recognition is effectively a solved problem at this point for AI.
Maybe there are still problems with notation and terminology that prevent
widespread adoption?

~~~
stevenwoo
Is there an update to this story or is it not true or some other possibility?

[https://www.wired.com/story/when-it-comes-to-gorillas-
google...](https://www.wired.com/story/when-it-comes-to-gorillas-google-
photos-remains-blind/)

If you prefer a story not on wired (sometimes it shows a subscription nag for
me) - [https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-
go...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-
photo-recognition-algorithm-ai)

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I don't think that's changed, no.

My hypothesis, incidentally, is that it's really hard for an AI to tell the
difference between human and ape facial features at all; they're too similar.
It seems easy to us because a big chunk of the human brain is devoted to face
processing. The AI pretty much just knew "primate face," and knew that pale
primate faces were usually human, but with a dark primate face it could only
guess.

(Which doesn't excuse Google for releasing it in that state, of course.)

------
nitwit005
I'm slightly surprised the use of the laser is killing weeds instead of
insects. There have been some prior efforts at killing mosquitos with lasers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_laser)

------
sleepychu
I've been interested in setting up setting up some sort of micro farm in my
flat (led based) for a few years. Anyone got some good resources for the
novice micro farmer? (I like robotics/automation as well so if I could blend
that in it would be cool)

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Forget LEDs and just put it in a window that faces the sun.

~~~
sleepychu
Hah, what sun? I live in Scotland :-(

------
elchief
As imagined in 1984 in Runaway starring Tom Selleck:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pan5Jo91e8I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pan5Jo91e8I)

~~~
stevenwoo
Or more optimistically, 1972's Silent Running.

------
beerlord
Human ingenuity is amazing when applied to labour shortages.

The Black Death, Brexit, the recent American Immigration Crackdown. All of
these events reduced the supply of labour, resulting in increased wages and
productivity.

Goes to show that arguments about needing migrants and refugees from poor
countries to fill labour shortages in the West do not hold water.

------
stevenwoo
That was a pretty inspirational tale about the startup the guy founded in
terms of purpose and possibility and application of technology. For me it's
better than anything I've heard about recently in America, though I am not an
expert in this.

------
hvass
Related: Can someone from the industry share what is the current status of
vertical farming? Is this considered the future or the verdict is not out yet?
Any good people/startups/articles to check out?

~~~
jelliclesfarm
No one is making a profit. Yet. Energy costs a lot. Even led has gone great
strides. Operational costs are expensive and lettuce won’t rake it in.
Marijuana growers are likely killing it but I am pretty sure they won’t be
tripping over to share data. But a head of lettuce is around $1.50. A lb of
marijuana is like ..what..$250 now? So.

------
winningcontinue
this doesn't sound like it's even in the technology's infancy. prototypes are
being drawn up in the labs. they don't understand any drawbacks. when they
eventually come up with something, inevitably it'd disappoint and fail. I
can't see robots making the complex decisions of harvesting individual plants
with all its variables involved, especially at the scale to not fail. This is
much more than three years ago. This is a cheer leading fluff piece.

------
otakucode
I eagerly await the introduction of fully automated farming. Not, however, on
farms. In my own garage. I see no reason I should simply let a "farmer"
purchase the automation gear and then collect profit after wasting tons of
energy in transportation. There's dirt, water, and sun at my house. There's no
reason a robotic farming situation couldn't be shrunk down and made into
something private individuals or small families could own to provide for their
own food needs.

~~~
nradov
There's nothing stopping you from planting a garden today. It's not a huge
amount of work, and any robots that become available in the next few years
will only marginally reduce that labor.

~~~
otakucode
It's not a huge amount of work, but it is a significant time investment. I'm
thinking more of a nearly-sealed box that is entirely automated, a family
could purchase for a couple thousand dollars, and then it produces food for a
few years. It's not so much robots in the sense of things which drive around
the landscape that will improve that sort of things, but the work in the
'vertical farming' market. Isolated systems which eliminate the need for
pesticides, herbicides, etc, can greatly reduce water usage, can optimize
light cycling, maybe even automatically perform selective breeding to a
degree, etc.

~~~
nradov
Vertical farming is not an economical method of producing useful quantities of
food. The people pursuing it appear to be motivated by utopian idealism and
inaccurate cost estimates.

Any future "farm in a box" is going to require about as much labor as a garden
does today. Someone has to clean the filters, wipe off the mold, plug the
leaks, replace the corroded parts, etc. Those activities won't be practical to
automate in our lifetimes.

~~~
abecedarius
A lifetime is a long time. I have no trouble believing enclosed agriculture is
uneconomical now, but look at the trends: robots and AI are set for a long run
of improvement, daytime electricity is likely to get much cheaper with the
progress in solar power (when prices have been roughly level since 1970),
people increasingly want local and fresh food without pesticides, harm to the
ecosystem is an increasingly big deal, and so is variability from climate
change. A couple of more speculative possibilities: median income might start
going up again (it roughly doubled in 1950-1970) and nuclear power could make
a comeback with the new startups tackling it, for even more abundant cheap
electricity.

So how far is the tipping point for some crops, and then most?

------
Invictus0
Potentially relevant article that came to mind:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-
use/](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/)

The point about entire states being used for agriculture is interesting, and I
guess whether you see this as utopic or dystopic really depends on the nature
of the owner of the land. If the government owned the machines, land, and
produce, and socialized the gains, this seems like a utopic solution, although
obviously there is potential for abuse and bureaucrazy. On the other hand, if
a corporation owned it, it would seem very bizarre and symbolic of income
inequality.

I wonder if Marx was simply too early. Let the machines be the proletariat and
let all of society be the bourgeoisie, and maybe communism can work in some
industries.

------
jelliclesfarm
I am encouraged by what they are doing across the pond. Not so much stateside.

I have been trying to form a framework for a few years now. Small acreage
farmers growing organically need automation.

Large corporate farms are already mechanized. As are most commodity crops.
Speciality crops that need a lot of human labour and expertise..especially in
organic operations need help from automation and robotics tech.

The trend I am seeing in the US is mostly data collecting intelligence.
Everyone is doing something in AI or ML or blockchain. But small acreage
farmers like me need more automation.

I have noticed that the trend in the states seems to be data collection
technology which needs massive datasets. There isn’t a lot of care or use from
small acreage farms. This is the biggest stumbling block for small farms(less
than 100 acres) to be included in the big boys game.

We need small cheap robots that does a diverse set of tasks. At this point,
for small farms, human intelligence trumps AI. But data is king. More money is
made off data harvested from farmers than the actual produce itself. Because
farmers sell wholesale but we pay retail for the tech.

We are lagging behind in the United States compared to endevours in the EU or
down under. Not everyone can be a unicorn. Not everything has to be big.

In a way..we don’t have to try because we have super cheap migrant labour. For
now. I will bet my bottom dollar that it will be gone in a few years time.
What then? We are also spoilt for choice by the produce bounty from Mexico.
But for how long?

As a small farmer who is interested in automation, a few thoughts : 1. I would
like a robotic platform that can be modular depending on my operation. Diff
farmers use diff methods. We live in diff zones and have diff pests and diff
soil and diff water. One size won’t fit all. 2. There is more to farm labour
than just weeding bots. 3. I need to own my farm’s data and be able to
commodify it. 4. We need to be partners. Because bots are not farmers and the
industry needs us to train them. Include us. I am the domain expert. Not the
roboticist or the engineer. 5. I would pay upto 20-25k for a robotic platform
with a certain set of features. It’s worth it for me. That’s because I have a
smattering of interest about robotics and automation to know what’s possible
and how much it would cost. I also know how valuable data is and I want to
make money off my data. A seemingly expensive platform is still worth that to
me..however, I find it very difficult to convince my fellow farmers. Why?
Distrust. 6. Farmers distrust technology because we deal with perishables and
tech we can’t control is our work rotting in the field. 7. Farmers don’t get
enough respect. Not the farming concerns with 10s of thousands of acres or
corporate farms that have lobbies and trade memberships. Not commodity
farmers..but regular farmers who sell at the farmers markets or to
restaurants. 8. Nobody works with us. They ask us questions and once funding
comes through, they are being nudged towards larger farms. They won’t grow
bitter melon or fenugreek. Those huge farms won’t grow the eggplant from Laos
or India. Or that specific spicy hot pepper from some place in South America.
Without small farmers, we will all be eating the same kinds of foods. Same
variety of tomato or the same kind of sweet pepper bred for machine harvest
and mass production.

I started out naive. I am not under any illusion anymore that I can design a
small acreage robotic platform. But now I know what’s out there and how I can
make it work for smaller operations. And how to integrate the many things we
do seamlessly as a new kind of Ag for us. Afterall, in other countries..the
average farm size is 2-3 hectares. And they feed local population. So my
platform will be useful elsewhere even if it doesn’t gain traction in the
states.

I also have realistic expectations of technology now. And people. I am excited
every time I read about innovations across the pond. Maybe we will get it for
small acreage specialty crop organic farmers here. Or maybe not. But when we
consider global momentum, some really exciting things are happening. And it’s
happening fast!

------
ihuman
OP's link goes to a comment. Here is a fixed link:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-
ro...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/20/space-robots-
lasers-rise-robot-farmer)

~~~
uxhack
I think op wanted to point out the comment that was saying how impossible
picking grapes would be by ai.

~~~
the-pigeon
Bah. Difficult is the word. When someone says something is impossible is just
means they don't know how to solve the problem.

~~~
dbcurtis
Or maybe the guy that "knows how to solve the problem" is solving some other
problem, not the actual problem.

I count three wine makers among my friends. None of them machine harvest their
own grapes, nor will source machine harvested grapes from other growers. It
would be very bad for their respective brand images.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Does that mean they're convinced the results would be unsatisfactory, or just
that their rustic image is more valuable than increased efficiency?

~~~
dbcurtis
Some of both. Machine harvested grapes have a lot of field run, leaves and
twigs, etc, and also the grapes are not as gently handled. So you at least
have to keep the larger pieces of cruft out of the fermentation vats. But
marketing image is also a big part of it, rightly or wrongly, which is all
top-line dollars, less cost of harvesting crew, of course, but it pencils out.
We are talking premium wines here, not two-buck-Chuck.

