Bringing the Farmer Perspective to Agricultural Robots

Abstract

The research reported in this paper explores autonomous technologies for agricultural farming application and is focused on the development of multiple-cooperative agricultural robots (AgBots). These are highly autonomous, small, lightweight, and unmanned machines that operate cooperatively (as opposed to a traditional single heavy machine) and are suited to work on broadacre land (large-scale crop operations on land parcels greater than 4,000m2). Since this is a new, and potentially disruptive technology, little is yet known about farmer attitudes towards robots, how robots might be incorporated into current farming practice, and how best to marry the capability of the robot with the work of the farmer. This paper reports preliminary insights (with a focus on farmer-robot control) gathered from field visits and contextual interviews with farmers, and contributes knowledge that will enable further work toward the design and application of agricultural robotics.

The AgTech Startup Perspective to Farmers Ex Ante Acceptance Process of Autonomous Field Robots

“…Social majorities can generate political pressure, which can lead to legal changes in pesticide and fertilizer application and force farmers to adapt their farming practices. AFR, some of which are still at the prototype stage, can perform specific tasks without an operator, apply pesticides on a plant-by-plant basis, or control weeds mechanically, which is why AFR could become more important in the future [3]. With its autonomous operation, these machines reduce the workload of farmers and protect them from unnecessary contact with harmful chemicals.…”

“…However, the introduction of autonomous technologies in agriculture is also accompanied by some concerns. For instance, although the driving of farm machinery would be abolished, new tasks would be added, such as AFR's monitoring and programming, for which farmers may lack qualified staff [3]. In addition, Devitt [5] fears that farmers may not be able to trust unmanned robots working out of sight and that by handing over tasks to artificial intelligence (AI), they would lose agricultural knowhow in the long run and thus, suffer an even greater loss of social recognition.…”

Robot for weed species plant‐specific management

“…Redhead et al . asked farmers and agronomists to participate in contextual interviews and observational studies at farm locations in the Darling Downs and Emerald regions in Queensland, Australia (see Fig.…”

“…The relevant insights from the study are provided below; for complete results, the reader is referred to Ref. .…”

“…The following list consolidates the insights from field studies, conducted in Ref. , and the implications on the design and development of agricultural robots (AgBots): AgBots are most suited to precision work that requires accuracy, which is difficult to achieve across large machinery, such as 48 m boom sprayers. Farmers are competent at, and interested in, thinking through mechanical build problems, and participatory engagement of farmers in the design, testing, and iteration of AgBot prototypes would be beneficial to the farming community and ongoing research. The mechanical build of the system should remain open for ongoing maintenance and adaptability. Varying levels of access to the interface system are necessary, with a simple level of control available for nonskilled labor, and more complex levels of administration by farm managers or consultants. Rural communication infrastructure cannot be assumed to be adequate for reliable remote access, and should be addressed as part of the design of robots. Farmers welcome an open‐source community model for the software development of AgBots, and this should be set up early and in a way that encourages participation from farmers. The ratio of operators to AgBots needs to be manageable in terms of the workload for monitoring and maintaining these vehicles. Remote views of AgBots should give adequate and easily interpreted visual information about the state of the machine and the nature of failure modes. …”