Robot technology is quickly evolving and making its way across the farming industry today, with many growers now using drones and a myriad of others tools to help them monitor their land, plant, spray, and more.
In both Canada and Australia, they've been embracing small start-ups that have been exploring the potential of fully autonomous farm equipment.
They've already got weed-killing robots that are able to spread and mow, and plans for tractors that will drive without the need of a farmer, a robot soil sampler, and more.
Above is the driverless tractor design that's being offered by SwarmFarm in Australia, and those who've tried out the technology so far admit that it's been able to save them at least 80 percent or more on chemical costs.
There are alternative and creative ways to grow crops, some that might be better farming systems, and increasingly growers have been looking to see how they can improve their overall efficiency and profitability with those new or reemerging methods.
"Farmers have a demand for productivity, and they'll take it in whatever way we can give it, and technology is the new way," - B. McClelland, product manager of autonomous vehicles at CNH Industrial.
A growing number of farmers today are already using drones to help them keep track of their crops, to spray chemicals, assess the health of plants, and more. As the technology has gotten cheaper, it's meant that more farmers could afford to embrace these potential solutions into their approach.
The next wave of agricultural technology is coming, where we still start to see more commercial-scale autonomous farming solutions arrive in the next few years.
The same is said for farming.
“Automation is not going to run the farm,... It won’t replace good judgement. A farmer will always be an accountant, agronomist, mechanic, and marketer. Automation won’t tell him exactly how to farm, but it is a huge help, and that’s right [these sort of] technologies..fit in.”- Colin Hurd, founder and CEO of Smart Ag
The autonomous farm equipment market is expected to reach at least $180 billion by 2024.
Pics:
Pic1
Pic2
Pic3
i view this article with mixed feelings. i love tech and its great we can do so much with it, yet at the same time this does not address the human economic factor.
how many migrant farmers, farmhands, and manual laborers will this displace?
who monitors the equipment to make sure the chemical sprayers dont malfunction?
will automation make farmers more likely to use chemicals?
wouldn't it be better for more people to know how to provide for themselves instead of competing with automated farms which sell to corporations, thus insuring a healthy markup of food that could otherwise be grown cheaper and healthier by the individual?
is this really advancement, since it makes people more dependent on robotics, and keeps us unaware of the basics for survival?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
the farmers would need to monitor their own equipment to make sure it is working properly. As far as what jobs might be around.....Well, do you ever use an ATM? because if you do you are taking jobs away from bank tellers.. have you ever used an online vacation website to book a vacation? If you have then you are taking jobs away from travel advisors..technology comes in and might replace some jobs but perhaps new ones will be created? Is it right for anyone to force an employer to keep someone hired that they don't want? that sounds very immoral to me.
The automation won't make them more likely to use chemicals if they already operate a farm that doesn't use chemicals? If it is an organic farm for example then it is designated as such and they wouldn't be able to start spraying chemicals that degrade that qualification of organic.
In the post you will see that farmers admit the technology will be helping them, not replacing everything and everyone. If we didn't have the automation that we have today for farming, then all of us would still be working full time in the field just trying to grow food to survive....it has drastically improved our standard of living and I look forward to see how further innovation might do the same.
it is great when people know how to provide for themselves but not everyone has the land to grow their food, not everyone has the time or money, not everyone knows how etc??If tomorrow we were all forced to be 100% self sufficient it's likely many people would suffer greatly and even die.
What if there is a guy who runs a farm and loves what he does by offering quality food to his community, should we not embrace and support him and his business because we believe that everyone themselves should be growing their own? .... Any move that anyone makes toward self-sufficiency is wonderful, but I think it's unrealistic to expect that billions will grow and create every little towel, tomato, bandaid, jar of pickles, toilet paper roll, etc that they are ever going to need in life.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am not saying we should expect people to grow their own food, and I am very supportive of small farmers. but i do think we should first question whether it's logical to wholeheartedly adopt a new technology before considering the strings attached to this technology and the consequences.
you mentioned spraying crops and commercial scale, and that is why i questioned this tech. why that is even needed in farming when chemicals are so dangerous to consumers and alternative means are available. will this tech be good for a few corporate farmers yet drive small organic farmers out because they wont be able to replicate the crop numbers?
should we not plan for misplaced workers? bank tellers and travel advisers can find jobs in a city a lot more easily because of transferable skills and retraining programs. migrant farm workers and small farm owners in the country, not so much. but not many people consider that.
as for drastically improving our standards of living, i disagree. it may seem like we have "better" because we have more food choice and better access. but our food prices, food quality and our general understanding of nutrition is worse due to our lifestyle - we are no longer connected to producing food, and take it for granted. in a dystopian scenario, we would be screwed. is that wise?
automated farming might be good on a small scale IF its affordable and diversified, but any large scale farming would require an investment small farmers might not be able to compete with. unless they had the resources or programs to compete. commercial farmers, the people selling this new tech, support the adoption of GMOs. their objective is fair: feed the burgeoning world population with as little effort as possible. but its their methods I question.
if we shift the manufacturing process out of the hands of the many into the few, who does it help? if a box of brand name prepared grain mix is $3 in the store but only 50c raw, but i cant buy any bulk grain to cook myself because its not offered for sale because it doesn't make enough profit, how is that better?
i don't consider it an advantage when people have to pay a markup because food goes through three middlemen to get to market.
...not everyone has the land to grow their food, not everyone has the time or money, not everyone knows how...
i consider this part of the problem. why dont we have the land, why dont we have the money if our lives are so much improved? perception is a funny thing, polls and news tell us what to think. and we accept and accept because we dont know how to fight what is pushed onto us without having time to consider how this will change our lives.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great post I know you have made a huge effort to participate thank you for every thing
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit