Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of the robot farmer

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 187 posts

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#131

Post by thatcat »

mr_overalls wrote: post #64
bluGill wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike what you would expect, small robots do more damage to the soil not less. Damage to soil is not linear with mass, A massive robot will do twice as much damage where it touches the ground (wheel tracks most likely, but there are other choices), but it will touch 10 times less ground to do the same work so the total averaged over all the land is much better. For the same reason, tracks generally end up doing more…

This. . . doesn't sound convincing to me. Soil displacement is a function of machine weight AND surface area of tires/treads. Additionally, I'd expect the sharp edges of steel treads to disturb soil much worse than a similarly-weighted tractor with rubber tires. Without doing extensive calculations, my anecdotal evidence is that I've seen bulldozer track "scars" from a single path that are decades old, while the dama…

The damage to the soil occurs mostly when turning, especially 180 degrees at the row end. The extent of damage depends on the wheels ability to articulate to the proper angles. The tracked vehicle can't change angles and pushes everything around. A bicycle is a cycle and has none of the turning drag encountered in 4 wheel vehicles or skid steers.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#132

Post by [deleted] »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #114
anigbrowl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But pure capital allocation efficiency isn't a good indicator of social well being, just as infinite sugar sounds momentarily delightful until you think about diabetes.

That's kind of irrelevant to my comment, unless you consider workers part of the "capital" that is being allocated efficiently. Even if you do, allocating capital (and workers) efficiently usually eventually leads to better social well being than allocating it inefficiently. (Perhaps reversing the inequality makes the historical examples more obvious: allocating capital and workers inefficiently leads to worse outcom…

[deleted]

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#133

Post by thatcat »

deialtrous wrote: post #107
bluGill wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike what you would expect, small robots do more damage to the soil not less. Damage to soil is not linear with mass, A massive robot will do twice as much damage where it touches the ground (wheel tracks most likely, but there are other choices), but it will touch 10 times less ground to do the same work so the total averaged over all the land is much better. For the same reason, tracks generally end up doing more…

That's simply not true. Low axle weight and low pressure both reduce soil compaction tremendously, to the point where it no longer causes any at all when you get small enough. This is easily measured. A garden tractor is 1000 pounds, even with normal turf tires you get no measurable compaction unless you are in mud. I can drive around my garden all day long and a penetrometer confirms absolutely no difference.

Exactly, compaction is the result of pressure. If you're at <~ 1000 psi and there won't be compaction on any soil type in dry conditions.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#134

Post by WillPostForFood »

8note wrote: post #74
dexterdog wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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...

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#135

Post by neuromantik8086 »

billylindeman wrote: post #75
neuromantik8086 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I'd be in favor of making vertical farming more prevalent- by making farmers physically closer to the coastal cities they serve the rural areas will be starved economically. At this point in time, it's my conviction that retribution for the present tyranny of the minority will best come through technological means rather than warfare or politics.

I think your attitude is pretty shitty, and exactly the sentiment that people in those rural areas point at when supporting people like trump. They're not evil people. They're humans just like you and me and feel overlooked and forgotten. Your attitude proves them right

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I was one of those people living in a rural area at one point, and that's exactly why I have the attitude I have? I moved to one of the coastal cities in large part because I got tired of fighting with people in my hometown who insisted on shooting themselves in the foot with their resistance to change, and I'm not talking about the sort of pie-in-the-sky fantasies of the Y Combinator crowd. I'm talking about simple changes to roads to make traffic flow more bearable and building a new hospital to replace old, antiquated facilities that were literally falling apart.

> They're not evil people.

Don't put words in my mouth- I never said that. They're not necessarily evil, but they're definitely inept, and the only way they'll wise up is if they're forced to by circumstance, which is precisely what I'd like to see. The rural areas of our country are more like crack addicts who need an intervention. How far would you be willing to go to martyr your own life for an addict? At some point they need to hit rock bottom and learn how to sober up.

> Your attitude proves them right

My attitude has no bearing on how these people act or feel- the bulk of them don't care how I feel and have had the same convictions well before either a) the Trump presidency became a possibility and b) I even developed my beliefs on the matter.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#136

Post by deialtrous »

jpatokal wrote: post #126
deialtrous wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but it is a significant time investment No, it really isn't. Place organic matter on the ground in fall or early spring. When the last frost has passed, plant seeds through it onto the ground. To do grow enough for a family of four is not even one day of work for one person. During the summer and fall, pick food and eat it. That's it. A robot isn't going to save enough time to be worth it. Using your palm-top to tel…

> To do grow enough for a family of four is not even one day of work for one person. Citation needed. What crop would this be?

Citation of what? That seeds grow if you plant them? It isn't a crop, it is vegetables. You would hopefully plant things you want to eat, but I do potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips (rutabagas if you are american), celeriac, broccoli, cabbage, tomatoes, peppers, beans, peas, corn, cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, melons, onions, garlic, leeks, beets, and some salad stuff. I'm sure I'm forgetting something but you get the idea. Plus there's the perennials which obviously you don't have to plant every year like asparagus and most berries and herbs. I spend precisely two days per year on all non-harvesting activities but that's because I start everything from seed instead of buying started plants so one day to plant the seeds and one day to transplant them 2 months later. It is cheaper and lets you get a lot of heirloom varieties your local nursery probably won't carry, but it is more work. I use only four simple non-powered tools assuming you count a popsicle stick as a tool. If you are going to grow your mulch because you don't have trees or neighbors doing it for you then you'll have to have something to cut your mulch crop with too.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#137

Post by 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.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#138

Post by beerlord »

pwaivers wrote: post #6

> 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 thin…

This is the general trend that pervades tech. Using algorithms to automate business tasks is good, but using the same technology to reduce demand for unskilled, backbreaking labour is somehow bad.

I think its because it leads to uncomfortable future scenarios, like how the economy of the future will be completely dominated by skilled and educated workers, and there will be much less requirement for unskilled labourers.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#139

Post by neuromantik8086 »

nradov wrote: post #51
neuromantik8086 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I'd be in favor of making vertical farming more prevalent- by making farmers physically closer to the coastal cities they serve the rural areas will be starved economically. At this point in time, it's my conviction that retribution for the present tyranny of the minority will best come through technological means rather than warfare or politics.

Vertical farming is a pipe dream for everything but specialized high-margin produce. There's just not enough space to grow staple crops in coastal cities. Those volume crops will always be grown in large open areas and then hauled in to population centers. And no, improvements in solar cell efficiency or whatever won't change that equation.

> in coastal cities

I've never heard this being proposed- most vertical farming startups with any true prospects tend to be just outside the cities, but substantially closer than other farms. The chief advantage in vertical farming has nothing to do with actually farming within a city and everything to do with shortening supply lines. Likewise, I've never seen any company propose that they could completely replace conventional farms, but it's worth noting that every crop that can be grown with vertical farms allows another crop to be grown on arable land.

Re: The rise of the robot farmer

#140

Post by dbcurtis »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #87
dbcurtis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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.
Post reply on HN