Slashdot Mirror
Bringing Affordable Robotics To Big Agriculture
kkleiner writes "Boston-based Harvest Automation has made good on its mission to bring robots into the world of agriculture by introducing Harvey, a bot tasked with the rather modest job of moving plants around in nurseries and greenhouses because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work. At a price point of $30k each, two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury. Harvey's job may not be flashy, but considering the potted plant industry is valued at $50 billion, the bot's little impact could translate into significant money."
Living in the middle of Illinois there's a lot of farming news and farm shows around here, and you see an awful ot of impressive tech, and even science. They have self-driving combines and harvesters that use GPS, cell phone apps very useful to them (some control machinery), chemical testing of the spoil and plants available... you have to know a lot to farm these days.
I know someone's going to complain "BUT JOBS!!!" but the jobs the tech in TFA are jobs are jobs only the most desperate want. Agriculture has been constantly replacing jobs with technology for centuries. It takes fewer and fewr to feed more and more.
Someone's going to bring up GM, GM isn't used much around here, most seed is hybrid -- but the biochemists and agronomists have DNA study of the plants they breed.
There's a TV show that comes on here on Sunday morning at 5:30 AM and it's the only OTA show that's not an infomercial, and It's pretty interesting. Here's their website. I'm not a farmer but it is pretty interesting.
I wouldn't consider potted plants "Big Agriculture." That's soybeans, corn, and wheat.
Free Martian Whores!
...two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury.
That depends on the "unskilled" labor you're talking about.
People legally able to work will get $7.25 per hour (minimum wage) only when they are scheduled to work. In other words, they will work when needed and it'll be seasonal. So, said worker will be really lucky to make $7,000 for the year at that job. AND the hours will be sporadic - he won't know what days he's working or even he's going to work that week. And some of these jobs, you show up at 5AM to get in line and wait until 7AM to see if you work that day - ALL UNPAID.
I know because I had to do it to pay bills. And no, if HURTS your resume if you are a white collar worker. All those employers who say that they want you doing "something - anything" when looking for a "real" job are full of shit. If you work as a laborer, they think that you aren't good enough to work in your profession.
It's better to be unemployed than "taking anything to work."
Now illegal workers, that's a whole different ball of wax.
What are the two unskilled laborers to do then? At the very least you need to add their wages to the real cost. If they turn to crime, this would even be much more expensive. Not that I am against using robots for unattractive jobs, but the cost-calculation is exceedingly naive.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
there has been talk of urban farming. putting greenhouses onto roofs of buildings to grow veggies. since you can't survive on $20k in NYC, these would be perfect for the job
This is another move toward producing what humanity needs without human working. How many persons we need to feed the USA today?
At some point we will have to admit that there must be an universal income regardless of work done, Otherwise the end of the story will be robots producing goods that nobody can afford except the robot owners.
Now I'm waiting for big robots in affordable agriculture, I'm trying to work out what that means or looks like but it sure sounds cool and promising.
shoveling shit?
because that is literally where we are. you dont work, you die in the street or in prison.
I was recently picking blueberries at a u-pick. This is easily the best year I have ever seen. Literally the bushes were breaking under the weight of the blueberries. You could eat the berries off the bushes like corn on the cob. The problem is that most berry areas are having a similar banner year along with there being a huge amount of berries planted. All this has resulted in a price crash. This crash has made it borderline uneconomic to harvest the berries. But if you had a robotic harvester this changes the pricing quite a bit. Once you have purchased the machine the price to run it should be very low and the amortized costs are there regardless if you run the machine or not. Thus you can harvest the berries even in banner years. Another option is to also plant excessive crops of different types and then focus your harvesting on the most profitable crops in any given year.
It is my firm belief that robotic agriculture will change the entirety of how we produce food. A few simple examples of changes that few people discuss would be the terrain that is used for harvesting. Two of the key advantages of flat land for grains is that the crop will develop consistently across large areas and thus when harvested be of a predictable quality when turned into bread and whatnot. The other is that it is far easier to build the massive harvesting machines if they don't have to contend with any variations in the terrain. The goal of the massive machines is to vastly increase the ability of a single human to do a huge amount of work.
But with robotic planting, tending, and harvesting you don't need to "multiply" the work of a single human. Thus the robots can be fairly small. Also the robots can adjust the feeding of the plants so to grow a fairly consistent crop in inconsistent terrain. Then in the end when it comes time to harvest. The robot can methodically harvest at the perfect moment for any given plant (repeatedly bypassing those not ready) plus it can methodically sort even down the single grain.
Another advantage is where the cost of the entire cycle of agriculture can be so low that you could robotically convert marginal land into low producing land and still produce food at a very low cost. The return on quality land would be higher but by being able to cheaply bring marginal land into production it will form a scenario of relentless competition thus holding down prices. Plus once again due to the nature of robot economics once marginal land was in production the cost of continued production would be very low. This could also be carefully factored into the logistics calculations where a less efficient production is competitive where it might reduce some other cost such as shipping.
This last factor might result in it being cheaper to produce greenhouses and then produce goods year-round much closer to the point of consumption rather than shipping them half way around the world.
Also robotics can be used inefficient ways such as massively processing marginal land making it quite productive. Normally this is a time eating process that is not worth it. But if you can leave some robots cooking away in a forest for a few years and come back to find nutrient rich terra pretta then again the economics change.
What I can't foresee is which direction agriculture will take. I have a feeling it will be mega massive monster farming companies with very few employees that depopulate the rural farm communities. But at the same time the low barriers to entry might mean that many people will jump in the moment a competitive opportunity is perceived. Personally where food is such a fundamental part of living (right there after clean water) that I don't believe that any small group of companies should be allowed to concentrate ownership of any nation's food production. If they get it wrong, or play evil games, massive numbers of people could suffer.
One prediction that I will solidly make is that there will be very very very very few people employed in agriculture in 20-50 years.
and a member of the upper class is pontificating on their brilliant theory that makes everyone feel good.
Is it just me, or were we all hoping to see Huey, Dewey, and Loie from the movie "Silent Running". That what I think of when I think of agricultural robots.
They could get rid of half those robots in the video if that guy walking around with his hands in his pockets was doing some actual work.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Those 3 laborers can also dead-head, apply fertilizer, identify disease, fix the sprinkler system, and harvest without damaging the product.
Among other things.
How much would a robot, that does all those things, cost now?
--
BMO
There are already robots that automate your unskilled work as well. And in the interim there are billions of humans entering the workforce who would literally die for your standard of living.
You Have Thirty Seconds To Comply.
And as long as we in the States maintain at least some attempt to enforce our borders (just like every other country/economic union in the world), those billions won't be competing with my local burger flipper. Some jobs just are not outsourceable.
But.... this is just racing faster towards the breaking point at which petro-based, energy-intensive agriculture ultimately proves itself unsustainable. (You know, the point where topsoil erosion and petro-based fertilizers and aquifier depletion and the ability of oil / energy supplies to meet critical demand proves itself to be an inability.)
...am awaiting the reply "Capitalism. Love it or leave it," which will utterly destroy my argument, as it destroys every single other argument one could make against new innovations which capitalism fanboys call "advances". (I call them "the biggest, short-sighted, continuous waste and misallocation of natural resources history has ever or will ever have seen.")
I don't understand why this is news. Automation has been used in agriculture for a long time in applications much more advanced than this. Why should we get excited about a simplistic robot which moves pots around according to explicit user instructions and pre-placed guidance tape? Show me a robot that, based on the type of plant, moves it to a suitable area where it will receive just the right amount of sun, or perhaps a robot that will ensure each plant gets exactly the right amount of water/nutrients given varying weather conditions, or a robot that monitors each plant for signs of disease, or really just a robot that does something that robots haven't been doing since, you know, the beginning of robots.
we also need to stop the big over time mindset that can drive 60-80+ work weeks. Why should some people being pulling them when others are not working.
that counts industry experience and hands on learning. Computer Science is not system administrator work and at some schools it's not even programmer work.
> because people aren't keen on doing the laborious work.
Or...
> two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually not to mention medical bills due to injury.
My money is on door #2.
At this rate, adults and robots will take all the jobs young adults used to have, making them even more useless by the time they graduate college.
Socialism is of the devil. What makes you or anyone else honestly believe that the wealthy are going to play along with your idea? Wouldn't they just float the notion that it's better to reduce population than provide handouts?
Do you have something against democracy? If the vast majority wants some profits to be shared so that people can live, the rich minority has to comply, or to install a dictatorship.
Beside, redistributing wealth is not socialism. I did not talked about seizing machines and move them to public ownership.
Infinitely+1?
If the vast majority wants some profits to be shared so that people can live, the rich minority has to comply.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -Benjamin Franklin
Besides, the rich minority doesn't have to comply. They can leave the country. They have the resources to do that. Try voting your hand into their pocket, and Atlas will shrug so fast it'll make your head spin.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
Wrong. Jobs still go overseas or go away, just that you don't see them leave.
Look at the plumbing industry. Drilling holes in a wall and sticking copper tubing through them seems like something that has to remain solidly on shore, right? Let's say it's 120 hours of work to plumb an average house. So you show up to work some day and your boss says "we're switching to PEX." Because you don't have elbows or joints, there is no soldering, and because those holes don't have to line up perfectly, plumbing a house with PEX now takes only about 40 hours. Where did the extra labor go? Some went overseas to the PEX factory, but the rest got laid off.
At the burger place? Where do you think those patties were manufactured? Do you see a McButcher shop in the back of the store? No, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered and packed in rural Brasil, or some other country with cheaper labor and farmland.
It's a global economy now. Parts and materials come from everywhere. Protectionism means little at the borders when it's only keeping out the $7.25/hour illegal immigrants. The total cost to the US economy of illegal immigrants is less than $30 billion. (Compare that to the Wall Street bailout of $750 billion, or to the Iraq / Afghanistan wars with their costs of over $2 trillion.) The real losses to the U.S. job market have come from increased efficiencies, more automation, and overseas manufacturing and labor, where $trillions of dollars have left our payrolls. But hey, let's get Fox banging the illegal immigrant drum and blame them for taking our jobs, because Mexicans are visible and the TV cop shows prove they're all criminals and drug lords. It takes our easily distracted minds off the facts of where the real losses are coming from.
John
Moving Planted Pots? Thats not Agriculture robots! A useful robot would be removing weeds and pests from plant rows, or other tasks that currently require extensive manual labor.
Why would someone buy unmanned machines that have to be manned?
Think commercial aviation. Commercial aircraft fly around on autopilot a lot, they can even land themselves. Similarly the combines/tractors/etc are on autopilot. Precisely navigating the fields, precisely dispensing varied levels of fertilizer or pesticide as testing indicated. Such automation increases yields/profits.
Government agencies have little power to regulate what private individuals do on their own land, and even less when it involves agriculture.
That is so untrue. Do not confuse a lack of power with a decision to give a group with lobbyists a break.
I was shown a pretty impressive set up in a huge greenhouse set up in south lincolnshire which produced pots of herbs.
The sowing of pots was largely automated and there were rails running down the length of the greenhouse with metal trays across the rails.
Essentially the rails were loaded at one end and robots would lift the trays and move them along the rails as the herbs grew. watering was automated so it was long production lines the length of the green house and the robots took care of the plants and the far end of the line the pots were taken off and shipped to supermarkets using minimal manual labour.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Globalization is one of those strange games. You know, the ones where the only winning move is to not play. In the short run (historically short - it's still measured in a lifetime or two) it seems like a good trade-off to the average Joe Consumer, who sees lower prices at the local Wal-Mart and nothing else. (Nevermind how Wal-Mart's business plan has become the broken window fallacy writ large, making a tremendous segment of low income earners dependent on shoddy goods sold at a massive markup which also need to be frequently replaced.) In the long run it simply funnels all of the money out of the middle and lower classes, until their purchasing power and standard of living reaches that of the countries from which the companies producing their consumer goods source their labor.
Of course, none of this will matter when robots eventually replace most labor anyway, and I'm personally of the belief that when the elite do not need us anymore, they will not feed us anymore. Think of how dependent the typical person is on global industry and finance and just how little self-determination they actually have. Now consider the implications for their freedom and survival when they're rendered landless and penniless in a world where their labor is worthless. The 'jobs issue' is a much bigger deal than most people think in the long term. This is going to be a very interesting century.
Just talked with one of the developers of this,
says they are clusterbots with insect like simple evolutionary learning ability. There are apparently agro areas of 100 square kilometers and the amount of human labor is prohibitive and removing greenhouse plants is extremely laborious as all plants have to be moved several times to different locations in a life cycle, as well as watering pruning, harvesting. It is the hardest type of stoop labor and apparently there are not enough people who want to do that.
>> No, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered and packed in rural Brasil
I doubt that burger is actually meat, but I see your point.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Okay, its cool, but can we slap a sombrero on it? Rename it the MexiBot? Is it, like Bender B. Rodriguez, powered by cervezas?
What I believe is immaterial. The fact is that the wealthy and by extension their companies, are not currently providing adequate support for the world's homeless, hungry and poor - either via charity or employment. The attitudes of most wealth individuals are best understood with the writings and beliefs of Ayn Rand and perhaps Anton LaVey minus the spiritual crap. The obvious trend is continued streamlining to further increase productivity and profits. No thought is being given to what happens to the bulk of the world's population, because they don't matter.
Since its built with off the self parts, the cost to produce a remote controlled car (which it basically is) must be fairly cheap (I'll naively say a couple grand). I know there some other hardware, computers, custom software....in my mind that might be another ~13K a pop. so I'm thinking 50% margins. nice :)
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
> At a price point of $30k each, two bots would cost the same as three unskilled human laborers who earn about $20k annually
Human workers cost far more than their salary due to employment taxes.
I bet you don't pay employment taxes on robots, any more than you do other machinary.
Governments are helping price human workers out of the market.
Socialism is of the devil. What makes you or anyone else honestly believe that the wealthy are going to play along with your idea? Wouldn't they just float the notion that it's better to reduce population than provide handouts?
If they wealthy amass too much wealth and are too stingy with it, then the poor will rise up and take it. It's happened many times before and will happen again. Sometimes the wealthy are smart enough to avoid revolution, sometimes not. The nice thing is, with a democracy, that revolution can be bloodless.
You will still have compete will the young adult, it most likely be young libertarian types who will take your jobs.
When looking at the price of diamond engagement rings, I read that 4/5 of the markup of price of diamonds was in their processing. I wonder if there is any money to be made by designing robotic diamond cutting machinery. I would think that something like this could be designed since it is a well defined process with limited parameters (4 C )? Does anyone know of anyone doing this?
This is another move toward producing what humanity needs without human working.
Humans need to engage in constructive and physical activity for a variety of psychological and physical reasons. I am all for a universal income, but channeling human energy towards the many physical tasks that our civilization depends on seems like a good idea anyway.
To be sure, there are many tedious, physically taxing or otherwise unpleasant tasks that nobody will enjoy doing for long periods. Especially given the perverse way that we tend to reward the least pleasant jobs with the lowest pay, longest hours and least respect.
However, these are cultural problems, not practical issues. Robots can not solve these problems. They only exacerbate social and economic imbalances that undermine society in general. Does anybody doubt that rich people will eventually collapse the social and economic foundation that their wealth is built upon with the very same toys that they hope will insulate themselves from the rest of the world?
Do you think they could carry bowls of hot grits?
Making Ag MORE petroleum dependent while at the same time unemployment is so high is utterly stupid!!
An interesting article on advancing industrial/agricultural automation. If they reprogram this plant mover it could easily replace highly-paid government workers by moving stacks of paper from one desk to another. Government office buildings would no longer need to be heated or air-conditioned nor would they need lighting, break rooms, cafeterias or restrooms.
The post office would simply dump the daily incoming mail into a deposit chute at the appropriate government office building each morning. Then the robots inside would pick up the mail, open it, and move it from desktop to desktop for all eternity.