kubigjay

kubigjay t1_itjfgdf wrote

I am interested in the tech but costs are never shown. Only they say it is cheaper. I want to see studies from independent review.

Solar is low energy density. I can't cover my fields with solar arrays and grow crops. Battery tech has a long way to go for letting me recharge 50 batteries each night.

You ask which is better, rent or spray. I don't know. Without numbers we are arguing about phantoms. The tech could be amazing or it could be vaporware like Theranos.

4

kubigjay t1_itj86tc wrote

So 50 robots or one sprayer?

And co-op equipment doesn't work because we all want it at the same time.

Over my life we have completely changed methods. No-till was a big thing that takes 10 years to pay off. Genetically modified crops have doubled yields. Self driving equipment that reduce fatigue and reduce seed/fertizer/chemical use by targeting what we need.

I think the lazers have a future but I worry about fuel use. Chemical arose because the cost of fuel was more than chemicals. I can't believe lazers that can kill plants with short bursts are low energy consumers.

Honestly, self driving grain trucks would be a better investment. I can't find a CDL driver when I need them. I could hire it out of season for normal logistics.

3

kubigjay t1_itj3sad wrote

You do realize that weeds need to be killed in a short time frame so they don't dominate the crops. Also, farms are not contiguous. You may have 80 acres here, then drive two miles, then another 8 miles.

We need to cover 2,000 acres in three weeks. So speed needs to increase.

I think we are getting there but the focus is on stopping chemicals, not efficiency or economics.

1