Without robotisation, further sustainability in agriculture is not conceivable
16 December 2024
It may sound a bit harsh or maybe even a tad arrogant, but I think (further) sustainability is not conceivable without the use of robotisation in growing crops and fruits, says Erik Pekkeriet, programme manager Vision + Robotics at Wageningen University & Research (WUR).
Weeding robot competes with field sprayer
I often see suppliers of field robots, and in particular robots developed for weed control, taking hand weeding as the benchmark for their business case. From a sustainability point of view, but also in terms of capacity, they should instead take the field sprayer as their benchmark. Recent research by WUR’s Field Crops business unit also shows that when you move to integrated crop management, the amount of labour required increases substantially. As an example, a smart hoe with a 3-metre working width and a 48-metre field sprayer. That field sprayer takes 16 times as much in width and travels 5 to 10 times as fast. That’s a factor of 80 to 160 difference and so, for that (manned) smart hoe, you need 80 to 160 times more labour hours for the same area. Add to that the fact that during a season hoeing is more frequent than spraying and you have to factor that into the labour requirement as well. Not to mention the time it takes to plan, prepare and organise an operation.
Smarter and smaller
Vehicles and machines are ever larger and heavier because of labour shortages and capacity. We can counterbalance that with autonomy and robotisation of processes and work. Add to this emerging applications such as UV-C treatments against fungal diseases, and you can take sustainability even further, faster. Other examples include applying liquid foliar fertiliser (possibly simultaneously) and sweeping insects off leaves with a laser line. Reducing or even preventing herbicide use is technically possible. Now the business case needs to be made sufficiently attractive to end users. In my opinion, this requires a high degree of robust autonomy and robotisation. If then – as with UV-C – you have to carry out a treatment twice a week instead of once a month, it is no longer an issue.
Complex but possible
I realise that it is complex and that, in particular, the robustness and deployability of autonomous vehicles has to be super good for this to work. This is still a challenge at the moment because, as a manufacturer, you have to be able to watch and support remotely. If you do that well, you not only relieve the (end) user but also yourself by having all the necessary data available. With that data and insight, you can also constantly improve your equipment and software, and test the effects of a software update in practice the very next day.
I think a very good and great example is fruit grower Martijn Slabbekoorn of Slabbekoorn Fruit in Kapelle, in the Dutch province of Zeeland. Thanks to autonomy and software, he manages to close all data flows. So that he can indicate at cubic box level how many apples or pears are in that box, where exactly they were picked and what treatments the fruit has had. Thanks to those insights, he has confidence in the data he collects fully automatically and autonomously. This makes you as a food producer super interesting for suppliers and buyers, for retail, and also for the government. I think these kinds of companies should be given room to work and experiment, even if this is not yet regulated by existing laws and regulations. Because you know what is difficult and not sustainable? Manual administration and registration!
Solving the labour issue with foreign labour is also much less sustainable than solving it with (Dutch) autonomy and robotisation. Without robotisation, as far as I am concerned, further sustainability is simply not conceivable!
What are your thoughts? I look forward to hearing from you if you’d like to exchange ideas on the subject.
