Slashdot Mirror


AI-Enhanced Weed-Killing Robots Frighten Pesticide Industry (reuters.com)

Rick Schumann writes: A Swiss company called ecoRobotix is betting the agricultural industry will be willing to welcome their solar-powered weed-killing autonomous robot, in an effort to reduce the use of herbicides by up to a factor of 20 and perhaps even eliminate the need for herbicide-resistant GMO crops entirely.

The 'see-and-spray' robot goes from plant to plant, visually differentiating the actual crops and weeds, and squirting the weeds selectively and precisely with weed killer, as opposed to the current technique of using large quantities of weed killer like Monsantos' Roundup to spray entire crops.

Weeds are already becoming resistant to such glyphosate-based herbicides after "more than 20 years of near-ubiquitous use," reports Reuters. (The head of one pesticide company's science division concedes that "That was probably a once-in-a-lifetime product.") But AI-based precision spraying "could mean established herbicides whose effect has worn off on some weeds could be used successfully in more potent, targeted doses."

Meanwhile, another Silicon Valley startup has built a machine using on-board cameras to distinguish weeds from crops -- and was recently acquired by the John Deere tractor company. Reuters calls these companies the "new breed of AI weeders that investors say could disrupt the $100 billion pesticides and seeds industry."

The original submission asks: Should we welcome our weed-killing robotic overlords?

176 comments

  1. Why spray them? by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seems like it wouldn't take much more mechanical engineering know how to pull them out by the roots. I have yet to hear of a weed that can resist being pulled out of the ground and tossed into the compost bin.

    Some weeds break at the soil line and the roots regrow, you say? It's a robot, run it again in a month or two. Extra added bonus, this time you get all those young whippersnapper weeds that were but tis a seed last time the robot came by.

    1. Re:Why spray them? by jgordon510 · · Score: 1

      Microwave them.

    2. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a coworker that microwaves weeds. They smell terrible. She calls those weeds kale.

    3. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Add a water tank, heat the water with the sun, spray them with hot water.

      It's much easier mechanically.

    4. Re:Why spray them? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Many weeds like thistle break off and grow back from the roots. (Thistle amazingly has 3 foot long roots for a plant only a few inches above ground.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re: Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulling thistle from the ground isn't an easy task either. It took me 5 minutes of yanking to get one out of the ground. I believe it was a milk thistle. They always Grew right by our corn crops.

    6. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be like my Roomba. It's not the world's best vacuum cleaner, but it's really persistent.

    7. Re: Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now here is a great use of technology that helps the general public!

    8. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why pull them? As a teenager we earned money weeding the bean fields with a sharpened hoe or machete.

      These days though, maybe we could repurpose Uber's AI into a DeathRace2000 crossed with Green Acres?

    9. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note this isn't any serious counter to your statement, but:

      Seems like it wouldn't take much more mechanical engineering know how to pull them out by the roots. I have yet to hear of a weed that can resist being pulled out of the ground and tossed into the compost bin.

      Mulberry bushes can go straight to hell!

      Not only are they notoriously difficult to get rid of by pulling, but critters and birds that eat their berries/seeds wander off and poop the seeds out to start new plants growing elsewhere.

      Even after you rip yours out of the ground, those critters end up "making the rounds" and return having eaten the berries from their previously poop-planted bushes elsewhere, and poop them out again on your land when they come back looking for more, and the whole cycle starts again.

      I suspect nothing short of an atomic warhead detonated over a city would be capable of interrupting the life cycle of those fucking plants.

    10. Re:Why spray them? by careysub · · Score: 3, Informative

      Kale is a vegetable, a type of cabbage Brassica oleracea. The Brassica's are know for their odoriferous sulfur compounds and kale, being closer to the wild type has more than other cabbages.

      The humorous post above, indicating the person does not like kale, has nothing to do with Cannabis.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    11. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The robot is patient though, it can just keep weeding them. As long as weeds don't grow fast enough to compete with the target crop they aren't much of a problem.

      You could burn them with RF electricity too, should go down to the roots. Bit dangerous to humans though, RF burns are nasty.

    12. Re:Why spray them? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      That's an idea that should be considered seriously. It probably will be, eventually, and it sounds a lot more practical that pulling them. Pulling weeds takes considerable force, insulating a container of hot water a lot less. It also takes less delicate manipulators. Etc.

      But using weed killer first is reasonable. It could get easier market penetration. The weed steamer (boiler?) could be sold later to the organic farms at a premium price.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Why spray them? by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      "I have yet to hear of a weed that can resist being pulled out of the ground and tossed into the compost bin."

      You've never met Kudzu. Go ahead. Pull it up and come back a month later. The vine may be 30 feet long by the time you get back. It grows so fast, it's dangerous to sleep with your windows open.

    14. Re: Why spray them? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Mulberries are tasty. Why fight, when you can just pick and eat the berries.

    15. Re: Why spray them? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      We need to figure out how to produce an effective biofuel out of kudzu. It's out there, and it's not going away. Man's greatest asset is adaptability.

    16. Re:Why spray them? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      It is a stage of development. Pulling it out is far more difficult than spraying it. You cannot have the final solution in the first viable product.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Why spray them? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Cube farm gas wars: KimChi, hard boiled eggs and cheap beer. The next day was 'Czar bomba'. Called it off, after that, innocents in the crossfire.

      That office could have used some more diversity. One hot chick on the floor would have prevented the whole war from starting. But let's face facts, no office will ever have enough hot chicks.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably could use solar power to boil water (vape) and steam them. Steam does a really good job of transferring heat. All you need is to heat the budding parts of the weed to about 140-160 degrees and it'll kill the plant.

      See 'weed burners' which aren't used to actually burn weeds but to cook the shoots.

    19. Re:Why spray them? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Last year, I visited a small vineyard. They sort of did that: they had a robotic lawnmower on constant patrol.
      Of course that only works if your crop is tall enough not to be harmed by the lawnmower.

    20. Re:Why spray them? by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      Force isn't a problem. Energy is. It takes much more energy to heat up a cup of water than lifting the weed a few inches off the ground.

    21. Re:Why spray them? by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

      One of the engineers I worked with told about working on an experimental electrical weeder for cotton. A charged bar was mounted on the front of a tractor and driven through the field. The bar was adjusted to be just a little above the cotton. When weeds grow, they typically stick up above the cotton, hit the bar and are electrocuted. He said it worked great, except for the safety problem. At the farm where they were testing, the farmer's dog came running up and hit the bar. So much for testing at that farm. Seems like an electric prod would work well for this robot. 'Course, I'm don't know how you'd prevent the obvious dangers beyond trusting your software.

    22. Re:Why spray them? by vivian · · Score: 1

      I was thinking something similar - using liquid nitrogen. Hot water would definitely be cheaper and easier though.

    23. Re:Why spray them? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Some weeds break at the soil line and the roots regrow, you say? It's a robot, run it again in a month or two.

      Yeah, talk to experienced gardeners about that. You have to either pull up the root, or keep cutting the new growth every week. A month is too long; as soon as the first new group of leaves start producing energy, the weeds put that energy into restoring the stored energy in the root necessary to put up another shoot. After two weeks, it hasn't just restored it's energy, it has also started to extend it's root system! If you wait a month, you don't just have another shoot to pull up; you went from one weed to a patch of weeds.

      Pulling the roots is really hard. I know this because I'm good at it, so I've often done it even when others thought it was too much work. I've cleared a whole back yard of blackberries where the roots were well established with 3' deep runners. It takes a lot of digging, not just pulling; a carefull combination of both. And one of the difficult parts is usually that there are other plants you want to keep; this requires not only just not pulling them up, it requires being careful not to compact their soil, too.

      Even just a simple weed like something from the Amaranth family is hard to pull up; in that case it likes to break off, but it also likes to grow right next to other plants. It requires a combination of digging and pulling that probably easier for a robot than blackberries; no runners connecting the different plants, just a deep tap root that you can push a "weed popper" tool down next to; but pulling that weed out without damaging other plants requires a bunch of generalized gardening skills and context awareness that a simple robot won't have.

      Spraying of course might be more harmful, depending on your goals and conditions. I'll take a simple surface-cutting bot please, and I'll run it twice a week. Frequent cutting is highly effective, but very difficult and inconvenient for human gardeners to pull off. But the robot in the story is the one that will actually reduce the health warnings on eating fish from the local river, so many kudos to the engineers!

    24. Re: Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But the sun and a black container can do it for free.

    25. Re: Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting the weed may be easier than pulling it.
      But spraying is very different when you can spray plants individually. No need for long-lasting scary poisons. Use plain sulphuric acid, or an equally strong caustic. Kills that plant for sure, and the next rainfall dilutes the stuff to something completely harmless.

      No harm to crop plants, as only weed get sprayed.

    26. Re:Why spray them? by arth1 · · Score: 2

      It would be like my Roomba. It's not the world's best vacuum cleaner, but it's really persistent.

      Sounds like my mother, may she rest in peace.

    27. Re:Why spray them? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Or Japanese honeysuckle, that stuff will strangle you given half a chance.

    28. Re:Why spray them? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Seems like it wouldn't take much more mechanical engineering know how to pull them out by the roots.

      A better strategy might be to use a tiny blade and cut the weed off just below the soil level. Some plants will regrow, but as long as they do it regularly the roots will eventually weaken and die. It’s basically the same thing as hoeing your garden regularly, which works great if you’re willing to stick to it (note to self: be more consistent about it in your own garden).

      I agree that it’s silly to keep spraying herbicide, especially since they’re visiting and identifying each plant individually anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the original funding on this came from Monsanto.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make a note of location of weed, use vision system to classify, and make sure you come back at necessary intervals for more treatment. Storing info (growth rates, exact location etc) on each of a few 10's of million plants on a big horticultural farm isn't problematic anymore.

    30. Re:Why spray them? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Or just have a cheap gearing and ground brace to crank the deep weeds slowly out.

      Grampas sitting around with weed-pullin yarns!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    31. Re:Why spray them? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Sure. But that's seventh century (BC) technology. Where's the pizzaz? The Sizzle?

      I think a tiny hoe might be easier to implement and more effective than uprooting. On top of which any patents on the process probably expired about the time Moses was leading the children of Israel out of captivity.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    32. Re:Why spray them? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Kale is a vegetable"

      So you say. I'm pretty sure Kale is actually an Indian goddess with too many arms and serious anger management issues.

      The purported vegetable that some people call kale is actually a failed US government attempt to develop a packing material so flavorless and devoid of nutiritive value that even bacteria can't (or don't want to) attack it.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    33. Re: Why spray them? by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      Vinegar (dilute Acetic Acid) works pretty well although it may take two or three applications. It's cheap, and nearby crop or decorative plants may survive one accidental spraying.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    34. Re:Why spray them? by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      Sorry you eat shitty fast food and can't cook.

      Some of us can cook kale, and it's fucking incredible. Nutritious, delicious, and cheap. Shitting on kale is the opposite spectrum of shitting on pork belly because it's too fatty.

      Yeah, if you can't cook, lots of things are terrible if you have to think about eating them raw. If you can cook, pretty much everything is delicious.

      I have a fucking smoker and smoke large hunks of fatty meat. And I eat kale, because it's delicious. Often with the smoked, greasy, fatty meat, because some crisp kale with a vinaigrette is an excellent complement.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    35. Re:Why spray them? by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      You've never met Kudzu. Go ahead. Pull it up and come back a month later. The vine may be 30 feet long by the time you get back. It grows so fast, it's dangerous to sleep with your windows open.

      If the robot needs to come back and pull the weed again the next day, it can do so. If it needs to come back every single day for the entire season to pull it again, it can do so. Robot's got nothing but time.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    36. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why heat the water? Why not freeze it to super-cold temperatures. Or even avoid use water at all and just use an air compressor to compress air until it is at high pressure, let the heat escape using a heat sink, then when it is released it will freeze solid at sub-zero temperatures and kill the weeds.

    37. Re:Why spray them? by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Or an electric needle, quick shot - and although some weeds recover from that, as the op said, just send the robot around sometime later.

    38. Re:Why spray them? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      it hasn't just restored it's energy [...] extend it's root system!

      It sounds like this stuff spreads like apostrophes in an imbecile's post.

             

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    39. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times can it do that. If I have a robot come around and chop that fucker down each once a day can it keep alive through that?

    40. Re: Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In parts of the south, Kudzu is cleared to at least 100 feet from the road every week, to ensure it doesn't block the road between clearing days.

      I've been told that during inclement weather, the clearing oricess cosists of using flamethrowers, a fire hose, and a water truck.

    41. Re:Why spray them? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Not only that you could likely genetically engineer your plants to have some proper tracer that identifies them to the robot. Then you could do away with basically all that deep learning figure out what type of plant it is nonsense. Just make a robot that cuts down all plants without that marker. Just needs to be cheap to detect, etc. Then your computing power is down to what basically amounts to nothing at all and you can just cut them off at the soil line each time they emerge without said marker.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    42. Re:Why spray them? by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      Also, if we could get these murder organisms robots working telling them to hunt down and kill all the bioinvaders of this or that variety would be nice. Murder all the first that look like this fish. Would be wildly useful for saving the environment. Or something like hunt down and murder every rabbit on this entire continent.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    43. Re:Why spray them? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I have yet to hear of a weed that can resist being pulled out of the ground and tossed into the compost bin. "

      Plenty of them growing in most compost bins that sit unturned for longer than half a week.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    44. Re:Why spray them? by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Why go to that much trouble? Have the robot carry around a magnifying lens, place between the weed and the sun, and BOOM!

      * offer not applicable in cloudy weather

      Seriously, there is a thing called a "flame weeder". It's a propane torch attached to a bottle on a trolley. You wheel it around and burn the weeds.

      https://flameengineering.com/
      (not affiliated, I don't even have one, but I'd like to)

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    45. Re:Why spray them? by jtgd · · Score: 1

      and inject the liquid nitrogen under the surface. Would it add nitrogen to the soil?

      --
      J
    46. Re:Why spray them? by jtgd · · Score: 1

      If you doused it with water first, letting it soak down to the roots, would it come out easier?

      --
      J
    47. Re: Why spray them? by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Compost for other plants?

      --
      J
    48. Re:Why spray them? by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they use a timer so it only powered on for an hour in the middle of the night? I would think a couple seconds would be enough.

      --
      J
    49. Re:Why spray them? by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Solar is good just use a magnifying glass on the weeds... kids have been doing it to ants for years. If fire is an issue just spray some water down after. No heating or cooling needed.

    50. Re:Why spray them? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Many weeds like thistle break off and grow back from the roots. (Thistle amazingly has 3 foot long roots for a plant only a few inches above ground.)

      As he said, run it again. It's a robot. What's it going to do, strike?

    51. Re:Why spray them? by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      "Kale is a vegetable"

      So you say. I'm pretty sure Kale is actually an Indian goddess with too many arms and serious anger management issues.

      The purported vegetable that some people call kale is actually a failed US government attempt to develop a packing material so flavorless and devoid of nutiritive value that even bacteria can't (or don't want to) attack it.

      You're thinking of Kali -- next time, RTFM - i.e. do a bit of basic research, see https://www.ancient.eu/Kali/

    52. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it does it often enough it doesn't have to pull it by the roots. You just need to stunt its growth long enough for your crop.

    53. Re:Why spray them? by ras · · Score: 1

      A better strategy might be to use a tiny blade and cut the weed off just below the soil level.

      This isn't exactly a new idea. Attach the blade to a stick, and it's called a hoe. Here is a picture of one used 2000 years ago. The idea was used prior to that with wooden blades.

      A few 100 years ago we automated hoe by dragging a blade through the soil behind a cow or horse. The blade changed it's name to a "plough". In modern times we've changed to using a tractor instead of a horse.

      The technique of cutting a weed's root system below the ground has been used for 1000's of years because it is a remarkably effective way of killing weeds. Even Kudzu, mention above, is killed instantly if you cut sever it's root system an a inch or so below the soil.

      TFA is mostly click bait. There is nothing new using image recognition to selectively weeds. Here is one that's been around for a while: Weedseeker. But an automated selective hoe that works - that would be new. It would solve the issues associated with ploughing - soil compaction, erosion and a big fuel bill.

    54. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Laser anyone?

    55. Re:Why spray them? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Many weeds like thistle break off and grow back from the roots. (Thistle amazingly has 3 foot long roots for a plant only a few inches above ground.)

      The thing is, weeding is extremely hard. If you can get a robot to do it even on a weekly basis, even weeds that evolved anti-pulling measures will have hard pressed to survive. It takes a lot of resources to pop a plant above the surface, and if it keeps getting chopped off every few days, eventually even the long roots will run out of stored energy (food) and it'll die off.

      If the plant could live entirely underground, it would. The fact it grows a bit on top means it's getting some resources (air, sunlight) from it. The exercise is to regenerate the resources used growing the top pullable part faster than when it'll get pulled.

      And we should encourage this, if nothing more than to help reduce the reliance on Montsanto and RoundUp.

    56. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many weeds spread seeds also but for some mechanically harvested crops this has already been solved.

    57. Re:Why spray them? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate how fast weeds grow, after a month, weeds could be huge. Some weeds can also have roots up to 10 feet deep.

    58. Re:Why spray them? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      You would probably cause alot of erosion digging up weeds constantly.

    59. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like it wouldn't take much more mechanical engineering know how to pull them out by the roots.

      Clearly you've never pulled a weed in your life.

      Most weeds break off at ground level when you try to pull them out. Add to that most weeds have tap roots that are larger than the part above ground level (e.g.: 10cm diameter red clover would have a 30cm long tap root) and are able to regrow if you can't extract the whole tap root. To pull them out successfully you need to be able to grip the tap root below ground level and the soil needs to be soft enough to allow whole-root extraction (such as after rain or irrigation).

      Then you have tricky weeds like nutgrass that establish a network of roots 30-60cm below ground level where you can't pull them up. The only two ways to elliminate nutgrass are to (1) till the soil down to 60-90cm and sieve it to extract the roots and nuts, or (2) to use glycophosphate-like compounds that are transmissive and can spread throughout the whole nutgrass colony to poison it.

    60. Re:Why spray them? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      I'll bet your used tennis shoe souffles are great also. In any case, you are in luck. The vast majority of humanity finds kale to be as "you would put it" Fucking inedible. The more for you.

      BTW, have you ever considered growing some manners?

      I will give kale that it is a decent cold climate decorative plant. Just don't try to eat the stuff.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    61. Re:Why spray them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like it wouldn't take much more mechanical engineering know how to pull them out by the roots.

      "Seems" being the operative word there. A robot that pulls weeds out by the root needs significantly more advanced artificial vision, motor control, and a degree of tactile feedback. This thing only needs to determine what kind of plant it's pointed at and to point a sprayer in vaguely the right direction.

      When you're tempted to play armchair roboticist, just remember the adage "if it were easy to do X, someone would have done it already.

    62. Re:Why spray them? by akayani · · Score: 1

      I like that idea. Why not microwave the weeds in the ground. I think you are on to something here, mind if I ask Trumbull for a research grant? I bet someone has a patent on it already.

    63. Re:Why spray them? by akayani · · Score: 1

      F U C K...

      Researchers hope the adaptation of a humble household item could be a new weapon for battling weeds that cost Australia $4 billion each year.

      Microwaves mounted on a trailer have proven to reduce weed emergence and improve grain yields.

      The technology has been 11 years in the making for Melbourne University senior lecturer Graham Brodie.

      "We are using microwave heating to cook plants and seeds that are in the soil, and that gives us an edge over some of the herbicide-resistant weeds emerging nowadays," Dr Brodie said.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-02-28/microwave-a-new-weapon-in-war-on-weeds/8310084

    64. Re:Why spray them? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you ever find a dictionary, look up imbecile. You might be surprised.

    65. Re:Why spray them? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Anything solar powered is going to have trouble outside the tropics and near-tropics. That 1kW per square metre that people love to quote is only valid when the sun is directly overhead at midday and outside of that atmospheric attentuation means that it drops off with the cosine of the sun's angle to the ground (effectively this means that you only get viable power in the 2-3 hours each side of local solar noon)

      Unless it has a stupidly large solar panel, a robot trundling down fields is going to spend a large chunk of its time simply sitting and recharging after each weed blast and generally proceed at a pace on par with the mars rovers.

    66. Re:Why spray them? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the difference between a 'weed' and a 'vegetable' or a 'decorative plant' is, really, purely subjective to us humans.

  2. We just call them insects and birds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what's wrong with just using their natural enemies? If necessary, help them along a bit. Nature likes balancing anyway.

    Oh wait, it's about making money for money's sake. Not anything with an actual point to it.

    1. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Again, the point of the robots is that they are selective in what they kill.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by MiniMike · · Score: 2

      Insects that like to eat plants often like to eat the same plants we do. They do not prefer weeds. Asking them nicely to stay off our crops is ineffective. Beneficial insects and birds may reduce pests but won't affect weeds.

    3. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Again, the point of the robots is that they are selective in what they kill.

      So are T-800 and T-1000.
      Humans are their weeds.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well...are you recommending spreading custom tailored diseases or what? I'm not sure we really want to push technology ahead in that direction.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by HiThere · · Score: 2

      That's not strictly true. Many insects have quite specific desires for a host plant. But how do you get rid of the ones that prefer your crop without getting rid of the others?

      Back in the day people growing cherries used to kill birds because they would eat the cherries, even though the birds also ate enough of the insects that also ate the cherries that this was a bad move. But they could *see* the birds eating the cherries.

      Ecologic systems are complex, and not constructed primarily to benefit humans. Feedback loops don't get any more complicated.

      I really don't like the idea of using even targeted weed-killer, because *something* has had really disastrous effects on the nation's ecology with changes easily visible during my lifetime, but targeted is probably better than widespread. And as suggested above the same robots, only slightly improved and modified, could deliver live steam or microwaves in a targeted manner...but that's probably better saved for a later improved model.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You cannot control that. "Nature" is inefficient, slow and fails often. That is not compatible with industrial food production. And, lets not sugarcoat it, unless we do industrial food production, a lot of people are going to starve.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And, lets not sugarcoat it, unless we do industrial food production, a lot of people are going to starve.

      Backwards. If we keep doing industrial food production, a lot of people are going to starve. The absolute highest yields are seen with guilds of plants produced using organic fertilizers and zero-tilth soil management methods where weeds are simply cut down and left in place to provide soil cover, before they produce seeds so as not to simply spread them. Industrial farming using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides destroys soil diversity, turning topsoil into an inert hydroponic growing medium — and the use of heavy machinery to till soil both destroys the complex crumb structure of the soil that permits it to hold water, and also creates hardpan. Hardpan prevents drainage and leads to anaerobic soil conditions which cause a broad variety of maladies, not least that glyphosphate persists in such conditions instead of breaking down like Monsanto claims it does. That's why there's now glyphosphate in everything; there is essentially no such thing as pure organic farming, because the entire world is polluted.

      TL;DR: Factory farming is actually harmful to both short-term and long-term food production, and is the least efficient means possible if you consider all of the costs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:We just call them insects and birds. by jtgd · · Score: 1

      Genetically selected rabbits that just eat the weeds and not the crops?

      --
      J
  3. What??!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A legitimately useful application of algorithms? ;) Naturally it's not in America where we only consider agorithms to be tools for personal profit or power or to enable laziness or sci-fi delusions. Big agriculture in America would never go for this if it means the end of GMOs. Screw our health or the planet if profit is at stake.

  4. Best news I've seen in some time by Botched · · Score: 0

    I live in a suburban area, and overuse of weed-killer is rampant. I used to see bugs when I was growing up... now it's a rare thing. These pesticides are getting in our food, our water, disrupting the food chain... Targeted weed killers (possibly the next step could be targeted radiation?) could cut way back on this, I'm hopeful.

  5. Resoundingly YES by Kobun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an awesome job for AI robots. Either:

    1. It replaces hard-on-the-body manual labor (long hours bent over, sun & sunburn & skin cancer, etc) by using a robot to pull weeds.
    2. It delivers targeted doses of herbicides, hopefully reducing the enormous amount of Glyphosate(*) currently used AND reducing Monstanto's ridiculous amount of control over the farm industry.

    * - Over 90% of all glyphosate produced and used EVER has been in the past 20 years. 70% in just the last 10. Food today is NOT the same as it was in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. Do you trust Monsanto to proactively limit the amount of Roundup you consume?

    https://www.ecowatch.com/monsa...

    1. Re: Resoundingly YES by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Over 90% of all glyphosate produced and used EVER has been in the past 20 years. 70% in just the last 10.

      Duh. Couldn't very well spray it on crops until we developed roundup resistant crops.

      Do you trust Monsanto to proactively limit the amount of Roundup you consume?

      No, I trust my faucet.

    2. Re:Resoundingly YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, an outanding use of AI / robots. Herbicide contamination of food is a health issue that could be dramatically improved here. -pete

    3. Re:Resoundingly YES by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I fully agree. This is a very good idea. Eventually, it may be completely poison-free, but obviously that is a future stage of development.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Resoundingly YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe we get those bees and some of our ability to reproduce back as a bonus?

    5. Re:Resoundingly YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The herbicide companies are terrified of robots because if mechanical weeding is practical countries will start banning herbicides.

      Consider Europe, of yeah ban. Sorry can't use, illegal.

    6. Re: Resoundingly YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why be afraid? They can sell weed-killing robots too. And they have the advantage of already having the farmers as customers.

    7. Re:Resoundingly YES by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I believe you're 100% right about food not being like it was in the 70's/80's/90's. Monsanto changed basic foods like wheat because of Roundup (glyphosate). I developed an intolerance for modern wheat, I believe, because of it. I can eat spelt, which is a very old type of wheat, but more importantly because it's always raised 'organically', which means no Roundup ever touches it during growth or just before harvest, either. I still need to do an experiment where I eat modern wheat regularly that has been raised 'organic' to test my theory, by the way.

  6. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    The point is the robots are smart enough to differentiate between the plants you want growing there and the plants you don't. Goats, on the other hand, like a lot of variety in their diet, although amazingly they can take out Himalayan Blackberry plants that weed wackers won't even dent.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  7. one weird trick by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    have a headline like "see the new gadget that terrifies the pesticide industry", mention magnets maybe and the investment opportunity. click bait on slashdot

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:one weird trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nahh.. it's missing a blockchain to have that effect here.

    2. Re:one weird trick by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      If you want to be truly terrified, just wait till the weeds develop AI, and then watch!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:one weird trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd fuck off this planet pretty quick given what we're doing it

      Or they'd start calling us the weeds...

    4. Re:one weird trick by Tatarize · · Score: 1

      You see, once once of the bots detects the weed. It adds it to the drone swarms' blockchain so that if something is seen in that exact location again, it can be determined to be a return of the stem before requiring it to leaf. Just gotta make the glorified roomba plant cutters use a blockchain for data sharing rather than something more practical. From here on out, for the sake of our stock prices, all of our databases should be blockchains.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    5. Re: one weird trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the movie âoeThe Day of the Triffidsâ.

  8. Re: Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or some refugees.

  9. Fertilizer? by cirby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just apply very concentrated doses of fertilizer and other "good" soil chemicals - enough to poison the weeds when applied directly, but good for the crop when diluted by irrigation or rain.

    1. Re:Fertilizer? by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Just apply very concentrated doses of fertilizer and other "good" soil chemicals - enough to poison the weeds when applied directly, but good for the crop when diluted by irrigation or rain.

      concentrated fertilizers will also kill your seedlings you're trying to grow

    2. Re:Fertilizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just apply very concentrated doses of fertilizer and other "good" soil chemicals - enough to poison the weeds when applied directly, but good for the crop when diluted by irrigation or rain.

      concentrated fertilizers will also kill your seedlings you're trying to grow

      Also breathing in dry fertilizer dust isn't great for your longevity

    3. Re:Fertilizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      concentrated fertilizers will also kill your seedlings you're trying to grow

      You apply the concentrated plant-killing fertilizer directly to the weeds. That way the weeds die, but when crops are watered the fertilizer dilutes into the soil. So instead of spreading small doses of herbicides to all your seedlings, you're spreading fertilizer goodness no longer in plant-killing concentrations.

      It seems like a much better way to do things than poisoning the soil with glyphosates, but it requires pinpoint precision. Such as, you know, the robot featured in TFA.

    4. Re:Fertilizer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you know what diluted means, you thick shit?

    5. Re:Fertilizer? by theCoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where I live in Florida, fertilizer is considered a pollutant. This is because when it rains it collects in the waterways. There, it does its job by getting plant material to grow in the form of algae. These algae blooms can get so thick that they end up killing the animal life. Sometimes, the blooms are toxic to humans and create really bad smells.

      The point is that fertilizer is not always good and concentrations from run-off can have unintended consequences.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
  10. weed killer != pesticide by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1, Informative

    weed killer != pesticide. Weed killer is designed to kill plants with a preference hopefully for weeds. Pesticide is designed to kill bugs. The dominant weed killers in the city are concrete and asphalt.

    At one point we had the delusion that weed killers don't have an effect on humans. We've since found that our bodies do often have responses. For example, those based on plant estrogens have caused early puberty in some females - as early as toddler ages in cases where they got really stupid and put plant estrogens in a shampoo.

    1. Re:weed killer != pesticide by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative

      weed killer != pesticide. Weed killer is designed to kill plants with a preference hopefully for weeds. Pesticide is designed to kill bugs.

      Sorry, you're wrong. From dictionary.com:

      pesticide
      noun

      a chemical preparation for destroying plant, fungal, or animal pests.

      The word you wanted was insecticide.

    2. Re: weed killer != pesticide by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Original guy was even more wrong, suggesting that weed killers somehow led to a huge reduction in bugs.

    3. Re:weed killer != pesticide by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but look at the words. A weed killer is a specific variety of pesticide. Unfortunately, probably, it isn't as targeted as would be most desirable. But it's important to remember that they aren't all the same. Salt can be a weed killer...but for some weeds it can benefit them by killing off the competition. (At one point a neighbor got mad at my mother's pampas grass, and poured salt on it. The pampas grass flourished.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:weed killer != pesticide by AJWM · · Score: 3, Funny

      The dominant weed killers in the city are concrete and asphalt.

      You've got that backwards. The dominant concrete and asphalt killers in my driveway and sidewalk are weeds.

      --
      -- Alastair
  11. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can sell off your silver and pay off your credit card debt. Remember you only have a year left on your shitty bodyshop contract job. Many people are saying we're less than a year away from at least a small recession. The signs are there.
    Have fun paying off your credit card debt while being in between jobs in a bad market.

    https://www.usa.gov/debt

  12. Nature will find its way out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder when will weeds starts imitating the look of crops or maybe grew some patches/patterns that triggers the false positive of the image recognition algorithm and avoid being picked up by the robot... Sounds scary.

    1. Re:Nature will find its way out by careysub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is called Vavilovian mimicry and is very, very well known. There are many weed species that have been selected to match the growth period, habit, and appearance of crop plants, and are thus propagated inadvertently by farming. They only need to mimic during the part of the their life cycle where they are subject to weeding, but some are near replicas are of the crop plant despite belonging to different genera.

      I think robotic farming may make this a lot harder for the weed. If you have robot planter that exactly space the seeds, and robotic sprayers that can both recognize crops based on their appearance, but can also use their planting pattern for recognition, it could become a lot harder. Also the optical sensors could out perform the human eye. Narrow band filters might be very useful for recognizing the crop plant. In fact this might offer another genetic engineering tool. Add an unusual pigment or pigments that reflect specific wavelengths which the robot can detect with filters, but won't be found in any of the weed species. Essentially adding optical tagging.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    2. Re:Nature will find its way out by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Too late. There are weeds in India (at least) that have started imitating the look of rice plants to prevent people from pulling them out.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Nature will find its way out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1000 informative. Mind blown. Awesome. Also you're tagging idea is fucking brilliant and I think wouldn't be much of a pain in the ass to implement.

    4. Re:Nature will find its way out by ras · · Score: 1

      +1, excellent post.

      Mind was even more blow when I look it up on Wikipedia, and discovered Rye was once a weed that did Vavilovian of wheat, and imitated it so well it became a food crop itself. And that isn't the only food crop that came about like that. Amazing.

    5. Re:Nature will find its way out by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Narrow band filters might be very useful for recognizing the crop plant. In fact this might offer another genetic engineering tool. Add an unusual pigment or pigments that reflect specific wavelengths which the robot can detect with filters, but won't be found in any of the weed species. Essentially adding optical tagging.

      Not to ride on the coattails of your eventual Nobel or anything, but this is the best idea I've heard in a long time, and I spent five years at a crop-science company. Put together a robust trait stack to express three or four distinct narrowband fluorescent emissions, and good luck horizontal-transferring that entire stack into a neighboring weed by accident. If the robots see something that only fluoresces in one or two of the bands, it'll be as easy to pick out as a purple or cyan blot in a field of white.

  13. alt -uses .. by tibbar · · Score: 2

    can we train it to weed out politicians ?

  14. Exterminate Exterminate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weed detected. Kill squishy human. Exterminate. Robots can be reprogrammed to kill you and your family by the Illuminati.

  15. Agriculture economics by hibiki_r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Robotics can make sense in agriculture, but as every farmer will tell you, farming is really about economics: Getting good returns of investment on a weeding robot, given how relatively cheap pesticides are, is going to be tricky given regular year's crop prices.

    The last time we had a boom in agricultural tech had nothing to do with the tech getting better, and a lot with a terrible drought in the midwest that made prices skyrocket. When corn pays $8 per bushel, instead of $3, suddenly everyone was willing to buy tech. Then prices drop again, nobody wants to keep buying, and many people that bought into the tech when they expected $8 forever just went bankrupt.

    Eventually we'll have cheap enough robots that will also handle pests, and might even isolate or destroy diseased plants, lowering our chemical uses while still having great yields, but in agriculture, it's the economics that is stopping a tech boom, as aiming for the top of the technology chain, including the best seeds, is quite the gamble given what weather can do to your operation.

    1. Re: Agriculture economics by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah, but that's the whole benefit; if you use robots then that $3 bushel of corn which used to sell for $8 during the price spike can now be sold for $12 to gullible rubes because you can stick the word "Organic" on it.

      Of course if everyone starts using robots instead of pesticides then the price difference drops and the farmers are no better off than they were when they started ... but, in the meantime, why not take advantage?

    2. Re: Agriculture economics by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work if you're having the robot spray weed killer. Your fields then don't qualify as "organic". (Steam or microwaves would work, though.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re: Agriculture economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a discussion going on in Switzerland about strongly reducing the allowed quantity of herbicides and pesticides. It's not a coincidence that the mentioned robot is also from Swiss efforts.
      perhaps efforts to support the idea that restricting the herbicides and pesticides can be done without penalty, contrary to what local farmers are claiming...?

    4. Re: Agriculture economics by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I like your SIG, LOL!

  16. No need to use the same herbicides by HuskyDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article seems to suggest that the plan is to use current herbicides in greater concentrations to overcome resistance. But, surely the entire point of the current herbicides is that they fiendishly designed to be poisonous to weeds but not to crops. Once you have a gadget which only sprays the weeds, you can use a less specific chemical which just kills any plant it is sprayed on and which presumably the weeds haven't yet had a need to develop resistance to. It also seems to me that a weedkiller which kills any plant can attack much more fundamental aspects of plant biochemistry and therefore be harder to develop resistance to.

    I already have weedkillers in my shed which basically say on the label "Kills all plants, only spray this on your weeds" and what they seem to be proposing is essentially the huge automated equivalent of me roaming my garden and carefully spraying any weeds I find.

    1. Re:No need to use the same herbicides by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The article seems to suggest that the plan is to use current herbicides in greater concentrations to overcome resistance. But, surely the entire point of the current herbicides is that they fiendishly designed to be poisonous to weeds but not to crops.

      It doesn't work that way. They are only MORE harmful to the weeds than the crops, and even then, only when you re-engineer the crops to be resistant, and even then, only until the weeds become resistant (which apparently only takes twenty years.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:No need to use the same herbicides by HuskyDog · · Score: 1

      They are only MORE harmful to the weeds than the crops, and even then, only when you re-engineer the crops to be resistant,

      Amazing. I had no idea that was the case. Should I deduce that until it became possible to engineer crops there weren't any herbicides?

      The thing is that in my shed I have big bags of stuff which every year I spread on my lawn. It kills the weeds and not the grass and indeed it makes the grass grow faster (which is a bit odd if it is in fact just less toxic to grass than weeds). Presumably, my grass has been engineered in some way and I just thought that it was ordinary lawn grass! Perhaps grass is a special case, but then aren't a lot of crops just basically types of grass?

  17. Resistance to glyphosate by Solandri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Weeds are already becoming resistant to such glyphosate-based herbicides after "more than 20 years of near-ubiquitous use," reports Reuters.

    Note that this invalidates most of the early court rulings in favor of Monsanto, which were made under Monsanto's assurance that plants could not develop resistance. And thus any crop which could survive spraying with Round-Up must be from stolen Monsanto seed. This shifted the burden of proof in Monsanto's favor. The farmer had to prove they were innocent and the seed got on their land accidentally, instead of Monsanto proving they were guilty because the farmer planted it deliberately.

    1. Re: Resistance to glyphosate by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You think that plants in the fields of different farmers around the world all evolved the exact same gene sequence independently? And the farmers just accidentally discovered this and then started spraying them with roundup?

      That's adorable.

    2. Re:Resistance to glyphosate by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't think logic works for legal precedents.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Resistance to glyphosate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which sane person would want to eat a plant that is resistant to some toxic stuff? The good thing eating a plant that looks healthy is that said plant probably has not been exposed to toxic matter. As such its probably safe for consumption.

      Now there's artificially resistant plants. The standard procedure bread generically into humans an other animals to judge whether or not its healthy to consume no longer works. It may look edible, at the same time being full of toxic substances, making it dangerous to consume.

  18. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We went from weed-eating goats to economic goats. Didn't see that coming.

  19. Vinegar + YOLOv3 = Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vinegar in a small sprayer does fine. No pesticides required.

    Automating stoop labor is good.

    Image recognition is getting cheaper: see 'YOLOv3' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPU2HistivI) for what I mean.

    ~childo

    1. Re: Vinegar + YOLOv3 = Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vinegar would be a pesticide in this application.

  20. Fine print by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fine print from thier website âoeWe recommend using the machine after an initial standard application of herbicide, in order to replace subsequent applications and thus save an important amount of herbicide. â

  21. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since you enjoy chatting with Chris so much, I am sure that you will enjoy the following story:

    Here is the story of creimy the mountain and his royalties!

    This story was inspired by cdreimer, the parent poster. The story was written by a visionary on cdreimer birth date.

    The story of creimy the mountain explained:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Creimy is a typical mountain who poses for postcards, living with his wife Ethel, a tree, between the cities of Rosamund and Gorman, California. The main features on his mountainous face are two large caves, resembling eyes, and a cliff for a jaw, which moves up and down when he talks, puffing up dust and boulders.
    click above link to read more, he even destroyed Edwards Air Force Base just by passing by...

    Listen to the audio version here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    "Creimy The Mountain"

    includes quotes from Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1 in D major (Edward Elgar), Johnny's Theme (Paul Anka), Off We Go Into The Wild Blue Yonder (Crawford), O Mein Papa (Paul Burkhard), Over The Rainbow (Harburg/Arlen), Star-Spangled Banner (Smith/Key), Suite: Judy Blue Eyes (Stephen Stills)

    One, two, three

    CREIMY the Mountain
    CREIMY the Mountain
    A regular picturesque
    Postcardy mountain
    Residing between lovely
    Rosamond and Gorman
    With his stunning wife ETHELL, A tree! A tree!

    CREIMY was a mountain ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder

    CREIMY was a mountain
    (CREIMY was a mountain!)
    ETHELL was a tree Growing off of his shoulder
    (ETHELL was a tree growing off of his shoulder)
    (hey, hey hey!)

    Creimy had two big
    Caves for eyes,
    With a cliff for a jaw
    That would go up 'n down,
    And whenever it did,
    He'd puff out some dust,
    And hack up a boulder (HACK!) Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK!)
    Hack up a boulder (HACK! HACK! HACK!) Up a boulder

    Now, one day, now I believe it was on a Tuesday, a man in a checkered double-knit suit drove up in a large El Dorado Cadillac, leased from BOB SPREEN

    ("Where the freeways meet in Downey!")

    And he laid a HUGE, BULGING ENVELOPE right at the corner of CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, that was right where his 'foot' was supposed to be.

    Now, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN, he couldn't believe it! All those postcards he'd posed for, for ALL OF THOSE YEARS, and finally, now, AT LAST, his Royalties!

    Royalties! Royalties Royalties! Royalty check is in, honey!

    Yes, CREIMY THE MOUNTAIN was RICH! Yes, and his eyeball-caves, they widened in amazement, and his jaw (which was a cliff), well it dropped thirty feet!

    A bunch of dust puffed out! Rocks and boulders hacked up, (hack! hack!) crushing 'The LINCOLN'!

    I gave him the money He acted real funny He hocked up a rock and It TOTALLED my car!

    Oh, do you Know any trucks Might be bound for THE VALLEY?
    I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (Dear Lord)

    I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar (No shit!)

    I don't wanna stand here All night in this bar!

    By two o'clock, when the bars are already closed down, CREIMY had broken 'THE BIG NEWS' to ETHELL. And with dust and boulders everywhere, CREIMY, choked with excitement, announced

    "ETHELL, we're going on a VACATION!"

    Yes, and they WERE going on a vacation! (Oh, and ETHELL, ETHELL, ETHELL, like every little woman, she of course was very excited! She creaked a little bit, and some old birds flew off of her.) CREIMY told ETHELL they were going to Yes! They were going to NEW YORK!

    "ETHELL, we're going to New York!"

    But first they were gonna stop in LAS VEGAS

    It's off to LAS VEGAS to check out the lounges Pull a few handles,
    And drink a few beers, (Oh, ETHELL!)

    ETHELL, my darling, you know that I love you!
    I'm glad we could have a Vacation this year! (Oh, NEET-O!)

    Gla

  22. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Goats are useful for clearing underbrush out of a woods. Geese are useful for clearing weeds out of cotton. But those are both special cases.

    And goats will eat the seedling trees, so you've got to be careful there. If you know your Bible, you'll remember the famous cedars of Lebanon. They aren't there anymore, because the next generation was eaten by goats.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  23. Subsidize by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    This is the kind of research that should be subsidized because of the potential health benefits of reducing herbicides in our food.

    Market forces alone will not entirely "care" because they are weighing costs and profits, not long term consumer health.

    True, it may make things easier for organic farmers, but if weed bots get cheap enough for regular crops, then either they are cheaper than herbicides, or herbicides can be banned because weed-pulling robots would a sufficient alternative.

  24. Lol. Actually organic produce has more pesticide by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's funny. What's worse is that the "organic" label in no way means "no pesticides". It means they used what they call "organic pesticides", which are pesticides that are chemically similar to some of nature's more potent toxins. What's not allowed on organic produce are the newer, more targeted pesticides which designed to be effective against insects but harmless to people. Instead, organic pesticides are based on the chemistry of toxic plants.

    It's like using belladonna (deadly nightshade) to treat ulcers. It works if you happen to get a belladonna plant with just the right concentration of hyoscyamine, and you take just the right amount, but it's a hell of a lot safer and more effective to use modern compounds like amoxicillin or Prilosec.

    In one recent USDA study, lettuce marketed as organic contained, on average, ten times the amount of pesticide as lettuce not marked organic. That's because "regular" lettuce can use trace amounts of modern, much more effective, compounds, rather than drowning the lettuce in a toxin that's naturally produced by a bacterium.

  25. Also known as Precision Agriculture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The concept of sensor-driven selective application isn't new and there are implements out there that perform selective application of herbicides and fertilisers already. Have been for years.

    My cousin runs a decent-sized mixed cropping/grazing operation and invested into precision ag. It's impressive stuff - his paddocks have had their soil mapped down to a granularity of every square metre and his airseeder uses that data to dynamically alter the seeding rate and application of fertiliser.

    The tractor is semi-autonomous with GPS-guided auto steering so it always drives in the same tracks to avoid compacting the soil (it's a no-till farm) His spraying boom has sensors on each nozzle so that it only sprays weeds.

    He's put a few million into all that equipment - it's very expensive stuff as it is built to a very high quality and to last years, but it is paying for itself by slashing inputs and helping to boost yields.

  26. AI-Enhanced Headline Robots Frighten Slashdot by Poisonous+Drool · · Score: 1

    AI-Enhanced Headline Writing Robots Frighten Tech-Blog Editors

    A Swiss company called headRobotix is betting the tech-blog industry will be willing to welcome their solar-powered headline-writing autonomous robot, in an effort to reduce the use of lame editors by up to a factor of 20 and perhaps even eliminate the need for clickbait-enhanced headlines entirely.

    The 'see-and-write' robot goes from story to story, visually differentiating the actual information and FUD, and writing the headlines selectively and precisely with clickbait killing AI, as opposed to the current technique of using large quantities of snot nosed nitwits to clickbait entire stories.

  27. what about a laser by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    and instead of pulling the weed it just burns them to the dirt, it might be quicker and the dead weed can just sit there and decompose back in to the soil

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:what about a laser by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Now all that’s left is to develop an on-land survival and mobility suit for the sharks who’ll be wearing those lasers...

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:what about a laser by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work. I tried to make a laser grass cutter once. I failed dismally, and still have the retinal damage*. I did learn that plants are surprisingly hard to cut with lasers, due to their high water content - all the laser does is burn the very surface and start boiling off the water, thus keeping the plant from getting hot enough for the burn to penetrate.

      *I was manning the camera and inadvertently caught the reflection.

    3. Re:what about a laser by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and instead of pulling the weed it just burns them to the dirt, it might be quicker and the dead weed can just sit there and decompose back in to the soil

      Doesn't kill the roots. Many weeds are notoriously hard to kill.

  28. Couldn't happen to a mode deserving bunch.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 2

    This disruption couldn't happen to a mode deserving bunch than the likes of Monsanto. The real agri-revolution will happen when everything from in the agricultural production cycle (plow/seed/weed/pick/sort/transport/etc..) is automated. In that world, what will farmers be transformed into?

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  29. I already Have Weeder Robots... by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I already have weeder robots on our farm. They eliminate the need to use herbicides and pesticides because not only do they pull the weeds but they also kill rodents and insects that are problems for our crops. I have the versions called D.U.C.K.S. and C.H.I.C.K.E.N.S, - They work great.

    Seriously. Properly timed rotations of ducks and chickens through corn, brassicas, tomatoes, peppers, pumpkins, sunflowers and other crops do wonders to remove the weeds prior to planting and after the crops have grown to about 12" to 18" in height.

    Prior to all of this we use the biorobotic tilling machines called P.I.G.S..

    As an added benefit all of these robots excrete organic fertilizers that are specially formulated to make our crops thrive. It's called S.H.I.T.

    Finally, at the end of the biorobot's service life rather than repairing them we disassemble them and pack up the drive components to sell as high quality organic meat. What a win-win situation for farmers, consumers and the environment! Of course, pesticide producers are rather P.I.S.S.E.D. but that can be used for fertilizer too as it is high in beneficial nitrogen need by crops.

    1. Re:I already Have Weeder Robots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goats supposedly work pretty well too as weeders.

  30. 20 times less? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means the robot produces 19 times as much herbicide was was used before?

  31. Robounfillers by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soon cities will profit selling off the right to rip open landfills with robots and recycle it all.

    You read it here first!

    Actually, if you had been paying attention you read it here 15 years ago here first. I usually got downmodded saying it was silly to worry about landfills.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  32. Free hardware and software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just imagine what the world could be if these great inventions were made Free. But now the DRM tractor company bought it.

  33. Just bury the weeds by snadrus · · Score: 1

    Sure they'll come back up, but if there's a pass of this machine every 3 days, it'll eventually kill it.

    --
    Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
  34. 1984's "Runaway" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opening scene (which I can't find!) from the 1984's "Runaway" with Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons (!) shows tiny robots rolling around a farm picking insects off plants and grinding them up. Very cute. Very Michael Criton.

    1. Re:1984's "Runaway" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found it:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pan5Jo91e8I

  35. They'll do just fine by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    The pesticide industry will do just fine even with weed killing robots being deployed. There are plenty of other chemicals to make and plenty of other facets of agribusiness they can profit from. Even if sales of roundup permanently went to zero this afternoon the company that makes it would be just fine.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  36. Evolution by Tim+Locke · · Score: 1

    How long will it take the weeds to evolve to look like the crops?

    --
    *** On the Internet, no one knows you're using a VIC-20
    1. Re:Evolution by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How long will it take the weeds to evolve to look like the crops?

      Hell of a lot longer than it takes 'em to become resistant to roundup. Also, the robots will 'evolve' as well... laser spectroscopy, or even chromatography (this stuff gets cheaper all the time) could be used to identify species.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  37. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a 450 pound virgin idiot, put him in a 475 square foot studio, and he will shit digital feces on YouTube not just for one day, but every day!

    He'll even shit all over Russian video sites!

    https://ua-video.com/c/UC8oH0o...

    For a digital pest busy "re-inventing" himself, you simply just got more annoying!

  38. Re:Lol. Actually organic produce has more pesticid by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    That's funny. What's worse is that the "organic" label in no way means "no pesticides". It means they used what they call "organic pesticides", which are pesticides that are chemically similar to some of nature's more potent toxins. What's not allowed on organic produce are the newer, more targeted pesticides which designed to be effective against insects but harmless to people. Instead, organic pesticides are based on the chemistry of toxic plants.

    Yeah, toxic to bugs. Did you know that mint oil is a neurotoxin to wasps? You're ignoring half of the argument in order to demonize organics.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Get some goats, penned them in an area for a day"

    It's fascinating that a 30 year old girl on the other side of the country has the EXACT same crammar as Christard.

  40. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and as bonus, your next video/ebook/post comes out the other end of the goat!

  41. Re: Lol. Actually organic produce has more pestici by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Yeah, toxic to bugs. Did you know that mint oil is a neurotoxin to wasps? You're ignoring half of the argument in order to demonize organics.

    No, he's not. Some stuff - like mint oil - is mostly just toxic to bugs. Other approved "organic" pesticides - like copper sulphate - are toxic to pretty much every type of animal life. Some approved pesticides, like pyrethrin, are known neurotoxins. While pyrethrin tends to break down relatively quickly some residue still remains on produce, and it certainly poses a far greater risk to farmers themselves than roundup ever could.

  42. Oh No! Imagine what the plants will do next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Extreme poisons resulted in super plants evolving to beat the poisons... Chemicals pushed insects to evolve...
    Robots killing weeds and insects? Imagine how dangerous a plant which can defeat a robot will be? Imagine the robot killing insects!
    Perhaps we can get some B-Movie Sci-Fi out of this?

  43. Re: Lol. Actually organic produce has more pestici by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    No, he's not. Some stuff - like mint oil - is mostly just toxic to bugs. Other approved "organic" pesticides - like copper sulphate - are toxic to pretty much every type of animal life.

    Yes, he is, because he's conflating them all. Which ones are used in which percentages, and which ones are easiest to wash off are both relevant.

    When I've done organic gardening, I've used literally nothing which was harmful to humans. Castile soap, neem oil, and baking soda cover the majority of problems. Sometimes I had to bring in some insect predators, but they turned out fine. Not using pesticides which harm beneficial insects means that there are insect predators, and also more birds around to eat bugs. And yields are higher when you don't plant monocultures, and you don't till soil. Finally, most big ag companies require that farmland not be surrounded by wilderness for fear that a deer might shit on some lettuce. Of course, we know that the real problem is when people shit in the fields because they don't have time for a bathroom break, which is what happens on factory farms. It's perfectly safe to use humanure once it's been composted; in a year or less, it becomes perfectly benign soil that is not only safe, but also utterly unrecognizable as feces.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Say goodbye to farmers as a type of citizen :-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very good news because, tomatoes which ripe all summer long used to be tasty and sweet as compared to current breeds having no sugar but ripe at the same day, but very convenient for harvesting them.

    Robotization of agriculture will create 100% autonomous farms, working without human supervision all year long, unfortunately it will eliminate farmers as a class of citizens once and forever, since the owner of that technology will have no need in human hands and it will rely only on patches of land and standard set of equipment eliminating any humans in work cycle.

  45. Re: Say goodbye to farmers as a type of citizen :- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is called FarmBot and the software to run it is on GitHub.

  46. Re:Low-tech weed killers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  47. Re: Lol. Actually organic produce has more pestici by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I've done organic gardening

    Yes, and all people who do organic gardening do it with your universal perspective in mind. Who would dare violate your universal experience?

  48. 100% irrelevant because wasps aren't a crop pest by raymorris · · Score: 1

    >Did you know that mint oil is a neurotoxin to wasps?

    That would be interesting, and relevant if wasps were a pest to important crops, and therefore mint oil could be used to protect the crops from wasps. As you may know, that's not the case.

    Well, I suppose it's indirectly relevant if you consider that wasps primarily feed in insects, some of which are crop pests. Therefore using the organic mint oil kills the wasps, which then can't kill the pest insects. In that way, organic mint oil increases the number of pest insects. That doesn't support your narrative, though, so we'll ignore the actual effect and just say it's not relevant.

  49. Your garden isn't in the grocery stores by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > When I've done organic gardening ...

    When I build electronic circuits, I sometimes use wire wrapped. You'll never find wire-wrapped circuits in any store, so the fact that I use it is completely irrelevant to any discussion about which electronics people buy. When I build model planes at home, I use Dollar Tree foam board, gift cards, and popsicle sticks. You won't find any stores selling planes made of DT foam board, gift cards, and popsicle sticks, so that construction method is irrelevant to what people choose to purchase in stores.

    Your garden isn't in the grocery store, so it's completely irrelevant to the discussion of what consumers buy. Commercially produced organic produce uses significantly more toxic chemicals than that not marked organic.

    Anything you say about your home garden or wasps is just trying to distract from that simple fact.

  50. Little squirt is all it takes at the fire's origin by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    Now do the same thing for fire fighting. Have a solar robot stationed and patrolling a given area. When a fire ignition is detected, it sprays water to extinguish the flame at the source.

  51. Buy Marijuana Online I Buy Weed online I Buy Canna by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We offer legal marijuana in bud form, hash, cookies, brownies, tinctures or butter we will exceed your expectations with our amazing selection and quality of food products that are baked with the finest ingredients and set at a cost you can afford.

    Call/Text us at +1 (802) 378-4106
    Visit our website at http://www.megabudshop.com

  52. Haha, "Roundup" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, Roundup (mentioned in TFA) is not typically sprayed in "large quantities", since it's a killer of all vegetation. The only time it's used as a "weed killer" is on specific crops, such as Monsanto's patented "Roundup-ready" soybeans.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Pedantic

  53. Let's be honest by JThundley · · Score: 1

    These robots are being developed because farming has made plants resistant to pesticides. What are we going to do when plants start evolving to be resistant to robots?