Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Hi-Tech Weed-Killer 151

Posted by michael from the terminator-0.1 dept.
Makarand writes "Instead of making improvements to automatic mechanical weeders, Engineers at UC Davis have been busy developing the next generation robotic weeder which will use computerized images of crop rows to identify weeds and zap them. The system can identify weeds from the regular crop by assessing shape, color, size and other variables from the captured images of the crop row. A robotic cultivator will then blast weeds with a weedkiller using syringes mounted on a tractor. A GPS allows the system to calculate weed type densities within the field and the amounts of chemicals dispensed in the area."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hi-Tech Weed-Killer More

Hi-Tech Weed-Killer

Comments Filter:

  • Wow, what will they think of next... (Score:5, Funny)

    by fpp ( 614761 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @07:57PM (#5866490)
    ...a robot that mows the lawn?

  • Weed killer? (Score:5, Funny)

    by BortQ ( 468164 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @07:57PM (#5866493) Homepage Journal
    I'll bet the DEA is super happy about this.
    • Was thinking the same thing... this "drug war" has no scruples.

    • Re:Weed killer? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by User 956 ( 568564 )
      DEA? Hell, I'm sure Rumsfeld would like to know about it. They made a pretty big fuss about a comparable find [cbsnews.com] in Iraq.
    • A while back I heard about them spraying -- I forget if it was coca growing areas or what -- with a genetically-specific weed killer that would only kill coca (or whatever) plants.

      But that brings up something else: I live in an area where I can't just use a normal weedkiller that gets all the broadleaf weeds and undesirable annual grasses (frex, cheat grass) -- because most of my *desirable* ground covers are broadleaf plants and short-lived grasses, so they would be killed too. What I want is a gadget whe

  • Robot hall of fame? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So does it get a mention in the robot hall of fame?

  • Crop rows? (Score:5, Funny)

    by pphrdza ( 635063 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @07:58PM (#5866496)
    You've got to have your plants in rows for it to recognize them?

    Guess that eliminates my garden...

  • I nominate... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by billstr78 ( 535271 )

    The UC Davis robotic weed killer for the Robot Hall of Fame

  • can you say RUNAWAY (Score:4, Funny)

    by Archfeld ( 6757 ) * <treboreel@live.com> on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:01PM (#5866507) Journal
    how soon till someone hacks a zapper bot and subs a picture of say oh I don't KNOW a COW or Farmer Joe :)

    Where's Tom Selleck these days ?

  • weed zapper (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:01PM (#5866509)
    If it can recognize the weed, how much harder would it be to design an arm to *pull* it!?! (or roll it and smoke it :)

    • Re:weed zapper (Score:5, Interesting)

      by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @09:00PM (#5866730) Journal

      I was going to say that, but you beet me to it (groan).

      Pulling is probably not practical. Some weeds like dandelions have long tap roots. Either the weed is very hard to pull, or you break off the tap root and the weed is back up in just a few days. Sometimes I can wiggle a dandelion juuust right and get most of the tap root, but more often than not I break them. I imagine training a robot to do it would be pretty difficult. Of course, I don't try to dig 'em because that would just make the lawn even uglier. In a field you don't care about things looking pretty, but then you'd have to worry about damaging the root system of the crop plants; so digging is out.

      That said, it would be nice to have an organic farmer's version of the robot that ran more frequently and clipped the weed at the base.

  • Has got to be the Napalm launcher in Postal 2 *evil grin*

  • NOOOO!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by gik ( 256327 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:04PM (#5866525)
    Weed killer???
    how will i get my buzz???

    the ramifications of using this product are way too much for this soul to bear.

    time to "get rid" of my weed before someone else does ;)

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:06PM (#5866529)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I wonder how long until the weeds find the exploits.

      Or go back in time to kill the inventor (or his mom) and stop this from ever happening.

  • Benchmark (Score:5, Funny)

    by zaibutsu ( 211524 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:06PM (#5866536)
    I remember working for a company which was trying to sell computer hardware to an organisation developing a system like this.

    The system had a plant recognition benchmark we had to run. It was calibrated in 'cabbages per second'.

  • it has been sent from the future... (Score:5, Funny)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:06PM (#5866537) Homepage Journal
    to protect Sarah Conner's garden from her enemies...
  • Until this device can tell the difference between morning glory at 2 inches tall and okra at 2 inches tall, there's still a job for human beings. Those were some long summer days. On the upside, people paid well for okra.

  • I question the demographics... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by djh101010 ( 656795 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:09PM (#5866546) Homepage Journal
    Around here (midwestern USA), the farmers are reluctant to try even the most basic of new things (no-till farming, organics, etc). I'm having a hard time imagining any of the farmers that I know shelling out a couple of grand on a robot with a camera, to run up & down the fields.

    Then again, if they can show how the cost is offset by gains in yields, then it just might get some use. Another concern is battery life - just how far is this thing going to go on a charge? 1 mile? That'll cover 4 rows...then what?

    • Re:I question the demographics... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Pinball Wizard ( 161942 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:47PM (#5866686) Homepage Journal
      reluctant to try even the most basic of new things (no-till farming, organics, etc).

      Huh? Farmers are more than happy to try out the new high tech seeds, time-release fertilizers, more effective pesticides, herbicides, etc.

      I think what you meant is they are reluctant to try new things that don't increase their yield.

      • I think what you meant is they are reluctant to try new things that don't increase their yield.

        Farming is one place the US still has such a tremendous technical advantage that we can still do it cheaper than slave labor. Well, OK, if you don't count those poor Mexicans we drag in at less than minimum wage to pick strawberries, oranges and sugar cane, we still rock. So long as we don't let the larger ag-chem companies use slave labor and government subsidies to put small farmers out of business, we will

    • Farmers as a group have shown themselves to be very technology friendly. Just look at the equipment of an average farmer today vs. that of a farmer 100 years ago. Those massive combines aren't there to increase yield, per se; they're there to increase yield per input of labor. That's exactly what this robot aims to do- replace expensive hand weeding with an automated system. I'm not sure that the system will sell, but if it doesn't it's most likely to be because it doesn't work (or something else works

    • Re:I question the demographics... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Osty ( 16825 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @09:36PM (#5866849)

      Around here (midwestern USA), the farmers are reluctant to try even the most basic of new things (no-till farming, organics, etc). I'm having a hard time imagining any of the farmers that I know shelling out a couple of grand on a robot with a camera, to run up & down the fields.

      You must not be very in touch with your local farming community. Most farmers are quite willing to try new things. For example, my own father (independent Midwest family farmer, works some 2000 acres with my older brother) has been doing no-till for over a decade. He's also invested heavily in equipment and software for mapping out yields for each field, and more. However, you have to realize that farming is a business. Everything is about the bottom-line. As such, there's no more money to be made in organic farming (less money, actually), so it's not something he does. Leave that to the hippies and the yuppies that don't mind paying $5.00 for a pint of milk.


      Then again, if they can show how the cost is offset by gains in yields, then it just might get some use.

      This sounds more like a labor-saving device than a yield-increasing device. As such, I doubt you'll be able to show an increase in yield, and certainly not one significant enough to justify this technology. Instead, you should be looking at savings in wages. If the cost (purchase cost plus any ongoing maintenance costs times the expected number of units needed) is less than what it would take to pay minimum wage to some amount of local kids for a few weeks of summer work over the expected lifespan of the robot, then maybe it would be worth doing. On the other hand, it's probably a better idea to just continue hiring kids to walk the fields. Everybody wins -- the kids get money, excercise, and a nice tan, while the farmer gets cheap labor and clear fields, and the community gets something for teenagers to do during the lazy summer days rather than get in trouble. And if you do it right (ie, use hooks to cut out the weeds, rather than herbicide sprays), you won't even damage the environment by introducing herbicides to the food or the ground water. (can you tell I spent most of my summers from around age 8 to age 15 walking fields for my dad?)


      Another concern is battery life - just how far is this thing going to go on a charge? 1 mile? That'll cover 4 rows...then what?

      If they're serious about this technology, it won't be battery driven. It'll be driven by diesel, and probably will be expanded to cover multiple rows at a time. Also, you can't really convert miles into rows. Depending on the geometry of the field, one mile could be two rows, or it could be twenty.


      I do see one potential problem with the technology, though. Since it uses video recognition to determine what's bad and what's not, what happens when a plant is only bad in a certain scenario? For example, corn in a soybean field is considered a weed. This robot should kill it, or the robot will be worthless. However, corn in a corn field is not a weed. If the robot somehow determines that the cornfield is actually a bean field, there goes your entire yield.

  • Sounds Expensive (Score:2, Interesting)

    by bad_fx ( 493443 )
    And with advances in genetic\bio engineering, how useful do you think this'll be in the future?

    *shrug* I honestly don't know, but just a thought....
    • Ever buy a 55 gallon drum of Roundup? My apple growing brother does and it costs a fortune. Anything that reduces the cost of ag chems will probably pay for itself, providing it doesn't breakdown every 20 minutes.

  • Excellent idea but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by West Palm Beach ( 654328 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:11PM (#5866552) Homepage
    The weed-killing machine still has a few bugs. For example, overlapping weeds and crops can confound the computerized instructions that run the squirt guns.

    Nothing still beats the human eye and mind for such tasks, since there are so many variables involved in the location of weeds versus crops.

    If such equipment can be further refined, perhaps with a robotic arm to look behind and possibly separate weeds from crops, sometthing close to human accuracy can be obtained.

    At least now, the danger to humans with working with pesticides can be reduced.
  • I bet the Crop Circle nuts will love this!
  • They've gotta develop this for home use - I have 3 kids under the age of 14 months. I barely have time to go get the mail, let alone stay outside long enough to mow the lawn and take care of weeds...

    • They've gotta develop this for home use - I have 3 kids under the age of 14 months. I barely have time to go get the mail, let alone stay outside long enough to mow the lawn and take care of weeds...

      The solution is fairly easy... just let you lawn go to shit for the next couple years, but train your kids to be master weed-pickers. That way right when they start being able to move under their own power, you'll have three, free, weed-pulling 'machines'.

      :D

      neurostar

    • It would seem like a great idea until this little bugger identifies your kids, the cat, or the postman as not being one of your plants and sprays them with elaborate toxins.

  • Eliminate one problem; another will appear! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:15PM (#5866572)
    The problem is that there will be a class of weed that this thing won't be able to "see"... and that weed will thrive.

    THEN you'll have to hire a worker to go pluck them out. Or get a software upgrade. Or both.
    • Well, easily transmittable software update with some new image regognition stuff will certainly be easier to do than deal with chemical immunities weeds tend to develop to herbicides.

      Though from the article it seems this thing still is still vulnerable to that too, if bit less, as it only sprays liquids, wonder why couldn't they make it so that it tries to mechanically destroy the plants.
    • The problem is that there will be a class of weed that this thing won't be able to "see"... and that weed will thrive.

      Workaround algorithm:

      if not CASH_CROPS.match(plant_image): kill(plant)
    • THEN you'll have to hire a worker to go pluck them out. Or get a software upgrade. Or both.

      Software changes, oh siver my timbers, say the solution is a new camera or battery. Let me do anything but - gasp - reprogram my programable device. Ha! The free software version of this would have an apt-get upgrade from http://weeds.debian.us with new weeds mutations profiles soon after they appear.

      The question is if these little things can kill the weeds faster then they can grow. Have you ever tried to pick

  • Good. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:16PM (#5866575)
    Anything which can reduce the reliance on pesticides is a GOOD thing. Now we just need to do something similar for fertizilers, if a farmer could use a lower base level of fertiziler and have the machine add additional amounts only to those areas that most need it then the overall usage would probably go way down and the impact on the environment would be reduced.
    • Oh.. crap?
    • How is this good?

      Note that the post said that they used weed killer chemicals. That's a slap in the face of people wanting to use healthier and more organically grown food.

      Right now our bodies are filled with herbicides and pesticides (how well did you wash that apple you ate today?). This is just yet another way for chemicals to be leeched from the soil, into the produce, and into our vulnerable vitamin-D geek bodies.

      Sure, the product has the "kewl" factor, but look away for that for a moment to see th

      • Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 ) *

        Note that the post said that they used weed killer chemicals. That's a slap in the face of people wanting to use healthier and more organically grown food.

        Read it again yourself. One of the points specifically made in the article is that the basic technology is adaptable to either conventional or organic methods. Note the following quotes from the article:

        "The real winner from this project is the environment," said Giles, a fluids expert. "We'll be able to reduce chemical use and perhaps even eliminat

        • Why does an organic grower have to use cinnamon oil or other 'it's poisonous to plants, but it doesn't come from petrochemical sources so that makes it okay' kind of weedkiller? Can't they build a robot that physically picks the weeds instead? Even if it can't uproot them it could cut the stems, and that would be good enough if done regularly.

          Or you could just genetically engineer your crop so that it recognizes surrounding weeds and reaches out pincers to destroy them itself.
      • Wanting to use healthier and more organically grown food isn't enough. Someone's got to pull the fsking weeds. Sorry, I've tried that. 8 hours in the hot sun pulling weeds and I suspect you'd be ready to pour on some Roundup.
      • I hate to break to you, but plants contain just as harmful natural pesticides.
    • "Now we just need to do something similar for fertizilers, if a farmer could use a lower base level of fertiziler and have the machine add additional amounts only to those areas that most need it then the overall usage would probably go way down and the impact on the environment would be reduced."

      The planters(corn, beans, etc.) already drop the fertilizer right where the row of seeds will go. It's been like this for decades. Also, when side-dressing crops(adding fertilizer later while cultivating) the fe
  • does it work on cube farms?

  • blast weeds with a 50-mph stream of weedkiller from about 8 inches away. The spray device is smaller than a box of doughnuts and accurate to within a centimeter.

    Hmm...somehow that doesn't seem right...in a closed enviroment maybe..., but I'm sure that wind would throw that 1cm accuracy off being sprayed from that far away. Anyone have a garden? No mater large or small, there's always bound to be weeds growing directly underneath and alongside of your plants. Even if controlled by a human driver (yea, i

  • Pee on the weeds, it's free and eco friendly :)

    • Re:Lo-tech weed killer (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How can it be "eco friendly" if it kills them? That's like saying being shot in the head improves your brain functions.

      Although I suppose you would be getting more oxygen.

  • Next generation? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by nolife ( 233813 )
    developing the next generation robotic weeder

    Where was the first one?

    I wish I had something like this. Last weekend I fired up my string trimmer (weed whacker). I took the normal precautions like long sleeve shirt, pants, socks, boots, goggles, ivy block, immediate shower afterwards etc.. It did not help at all. This week I am completely covered in poision ivy. I am ichy as hell, can't sleep and my eyes were swelling shut. I already had to get a shot and am taking various pills and creams. I even
    • you used a weed whacker on poison ivy??
      Didja learn anything?

      But seriously, I had to deal with some rampant poison ivy - the vines were the size of tree trunks. I cut through the vines and put Roundup on the cut part and every poison ivy leaf I could find. The poison ivy still came back. I think there was a network of roots throughout the yard.

    • Of course your reaction gets worse every year, that's how allergens work. Your immune system is what hurts you, and it strengthens with each exposure. About the only way I could think of to avoid poison ivy, is to wear an asbestos suit, and when you're done whacking the ivy, walk into a furnace to burn off the allergens.
  • A weed KILLER?! No, no, no... you've got it all wrong. What we need is a high tech 'weed' GROWER!! Believe me, such a thing will earn you a huge profit, especially if it'll keep the cops from finding out.

    (I mean, because planting weeds in your garden might hurt the other plants by taking away all of their soil moisture and that might be illegal under the Fair Treatment of Plants Act or some such thing that they'll invent for the purpose of arresting you.)

    OK, TO GET SERIOUS NOW: The way I see it, such a dev

    • "What we need is a high tech 'weed' GROWER!!... OK, TO GET SERIOUS NOW"

      You mean you weren't? I was thinking you can't even get rid of weeds when you're trying, and there's that neato gadget that turns bio-waste into oil and gas...

    • If you're going to be spending all that effort on the things, you might as well irradiate the soil, fliter the air, and separate the unwanted seeds from crop seeds. You wouldn't even need little crawly robots; rail mounted (or even enough stationary) cameras and ceiling mounted feed systems would work just as well and have fewer things that could go wrong. Basically, what you're talking about is a fully automated greenhouse. We don't need that: we're already producing enough food to feed everyone in the wo

  • crop weeder (Score:4, Interesting)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:31PM (#5866629) Homepage Journal
    These guys must have read Marvin Minsky's fiction account of robots and AI. This (crop care/maintenance) was one of the first commercial applications of the robotic AI in the book after the prototype was snatched. I think he used bugs instead of weeds, though. Maybe both. Been a while since I read it.

    GF.
  • This is a pretty neat idea. Assuming, of course, that the weed-recognition and pesticide-aiming devices actually work as advertised. But why not take it to the next level: hook up a robotic hoe! Or a robotic weed-pulling arm. You get the idea. Removes the need for any pesticides. After all, the article seemed to imply that this was a replacement for humans armed with hoes...

    Of course, this sort of technology only stands a chance of adoption if it's cheaper to buy than it is to hire migrant workers.
    • "pesticide-aiming devices actually work as advertised. But why not take it to the next level: hook up a robotic hoe! Or a robotic weed-pulling arm. You get the idea. Removes the need for any pesticides."

      Pesticides kill bugs. Herbicides kill weeds.

  • "High Tech Killer Weed" (Score:4, Funny)

    by NineNine ( 235196 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:43PM (#5866665)
    I thought it said "High Tech Killer Weed" at first. I got excited. Finally, a /. topic that's REALLY interesting. I'm so sad. Disappointed, not stoned, and sad.
    • I thought the same thing, and God knows after reading the mind-numbingly stupid comments in the ProTools article(see earlier today), I could use some.

  • Best Use (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sophrosyne ( 630428 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:43PM (#5866666) Homepage
    Program it to rip up all your neighbors flowers and blame it on a 'power surge'.

  • Killer weed? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Yebyen ( 59663 )
    I can't be the only dyslexic stoner that read the headline as "High-tech Killer Weed"... I got a bit excited for a bit, HEH.

  • weeds aren't the problem, weed killer is. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aethera ( 248722 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:45PM (#5866679)
    This gives factory farming a new name!
    Why do we get weeds? As they say, Nature abhors a vacuum. So, any tilled space between plantings and rows is enrgy going to waste. Weeds sprout up in this empty space to capture that energy.
    So if you want to control weeds in a manner that doesn't cost (hundreds) of thousands, pollute rivers, stream and groundwater, just keep it simple stupid:
    Plant cover crops in-between and among your primary crop. It could be a harvestable plant, such as pole beans on corn or basil with tomatoes, though this makes harvesting a job for people and not machines. Or plant a companion crop which adds nutrients to the soil. Legumes add nitrates, buckwheat grass makes great compost, just till it under with your next planting. Even better plant flowers and other hebs that attract colonies of beneficial insects that will help control insect populations in your primary crop.
    We got by for a long time without these chemicals. Organic farmers in the US and Bio-dynamic farmers in Europe and harvesting yields that dwarf factory farms, with better flavor and nutrients than conventional produce, and no toxic chemicals.
    • Even better plant flowers and other
      hebs that attract colonies of beneficial insects
      Hmm, is this [google.com] what you had in mind? ;)
    • Plant cover crops in-between and among your primary crop. It could be a harvestable plant, such as pole beans on corn or basil with tomatoes, though this makes harvesting a job for people and not machines.
      Or harvesting jobs for robots!

    • Re:weeds aren't the problem, weed killer is. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Bunk...

      Until people demand and are willing to *pay* for 100% organic
      food, pesticide use will continue unabated. Currently converting to
      organic farming methods, except in *very* narrow and specific markets,
      is an excellent way to become an ex-farmer.

      Time to climb down from the tree and check the balance sheet.

    • you need to go work on a farm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sickmtbnutcase ( 608308 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @09:48PM (#5866911)
      Good idea, but what you are missing is the fact that the ground only holds so much in amount of nutients, water, etc, and even if some plants give back some nutrients to the soil while growing, the secondary plants will just be competition to the primary crop, resulting in stunted yields. Also, with the height that corn grows, it would be virtually impossible to grow anything in between the rows, since the corn would block all the sunlight to the shorter plants. The secondary crop would grow well until the corn grew taller than it, but in the end this hurts the very important early growth of the corn. This would also result in leaching of the soil, since there would be so much growing in such a small place, with neither growing to its full capability.
      Or...farmers can just continue rotating crops every year like they do and adding only as much fertilizer as needed, keeping their yields as high as possible.

  • already been done (Score:5, Funny)

    by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:50PM (#5866699) Homepage
    This idea was implemented ages ago, using a device called a "gardener".

    No story here.

  • "a GPS allows the system to calculate weed type densities within the field and the amounts of chemicals dispensed in the area"

    Sheesh. Seems like a lot of effort. I'm all about "go with the flow". Would we have to genetically modify ourselves to enjoy weeds instead of arugola, or would it just involve boiling and salt?

  • As long as the accuracy for weed detection / differentiation is high, this should cut down on the amount of herbacides that are needlessly introduced into our environment. The next generation of farm-bot after this one: the Bug-Killer. It locates specific insects, based on visual, aural, maybe even olfactry observation, isolates the area that the bug(s) were detected in (say, with mosqito netting), applies small amounts of pestecide until the insect is no longer detected (or a specific amount, or whatever
  • Maybe UC's money would be better-spent researching improved organic
    methods to control weeds, rather than contributing to the very real
    problem of synthetic chemical pollutants in the environment.

    I am not impressed with this irresponsible use of
    technology.

  • chemical weed killer? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jpnews ( 647965 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @09:09PM (#5866764)
    Seems to me that a technology like this should be designed to be attractive to organic growers, since they're far more likely to be interested in a robotic weed killer. But it better have a fuel cell or enviromentally friendly battery, too.

    And why kill weeds in place when you can just yank 'em and dump the whole thing in the compost pile? I was expecting a big bot with a couple of graspers on either end and a huge solar energy collecting mast on top.

    But really, I just disagree with the premise that agriculture needs to be fully mechanized and automated to help the economy, or whatever tbe argument supporting things like this might actually be.

  • Still using poison (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tacocat ( 527354 ) <`tallison1' `at' `twmi.rr.com'> on Friday May 02, 2003 @09:29PM (#5866827)

    It sounds cute, but they are still using toxins to do the job.

    They could burn the plants using pinpoint fire, or a really large magnifying glass, or concentrated syringes of ammonia -- short toxicity with a biologically friendly byproduct.

    Non-toxic and the plants will not build up a resistance

  • organic! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xeno ( 2667 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @09:31PM (#5866834)
    What a waste of technology! Think about it: They're going to go to the effort of doing a brute-force identification of weeds (i.e. looking at every plant in every row, instead of using a broadly-targeted agent). But then they fall back on an old-school method of killing the weed -- by poisoning. Yeah, targeted poisoning, but it's a refinement of an undesirable technology.

    Now, it seems to me that if you're going to the effort of imaging the leaves of virtually every stalk coming out of the ground, you ought to take the opportunity to do something very selective and low-impact to the surrounding plants. Like pull the damn thing out, roots and all. No expense of chemical agents, no breeding of resistant weed species, and it produces a product that people are willing to pay a premium for. [rutgers.edu] I'm pretty sure that having weeds pulled robotically would not impact the qualification of a product as "organic." :)

    Just my $0.02US, but I'd sooner feed my kids methodically/robotically well-managed organic food than feed them foodstuffs protected by well-targeted herbicides and pesticides. Why play that lottery if you have the technological means to avoid it?
    • pull the damn thing out, roots and all

      What happens when the root systems are intertwined? If you are so lucky as to have a weed you can pull, you pull up your damn crops, roots and all.

      I once saw a film where this bunch of hippies were sitting around in a field trying to smash bugs with rocks. The bugs were winning.

      When it comes to farming, trust the farmer.


    • The main problem with modern agriculture is not the use of herbacides or, in some cases, pestacides. It is their OVERUSE due to MONO CULTURE, so called organic or otherwise. You can bet the herbacide industry, because of falling revenues, modern intense (organic) cultivation, and rotation techniques is just trying to sell more new expensive targeted patent poisons.

      Problems caused by mono culture could, at least in part, be solved by robotics. The advancement of crop interplanting with targeted symbiotic a

  • Ortho kills weeds dead.

    And your children.

    And any pets.

    And your neighbor's children.

    And your neighbor's pets.

    But darnit, the weeds sure are dead!

    Roundup, same shit, just more blatant "will kill all" warnings.

    Also works to kill ants, roaches, small hives of alien invaders, large hives of alien invaders, and anybody who you just don't like.

    I love my bottle of roundup.

    Robotic my ass, I got weeds growing through my freaking CONCRETE. Let me restate that

    THE WEEDS HAVE PUNCHED HOLES THROUGH THE DAMNED
  • There's good technology being developed for what's now called "precision farming". [precisionfarming.org] Laser levelling has been around for years. Tractor autopilots are available. Almost everything that can usefully do so now interfaces with GPS.

    The general objective is to grow crops with the minimal inputs needed to get good results. It's basic factory quality control. Measure, compute, apply.

    Robots for agriculture have been around for a decade or so, but only as prototypes. That's beginning to change. Computers, ca

  • Oh no! Not my WEED!!! ..need it to make joints..
  • I'm not really worried about the high tech weeds - if someone could find somehting to take care of run of the mill "garden variety" weeds, i'd be happy - I'll concern myself with high tech weeds after that.

    ha.
  • Here, check this out:

    http://www.sho.com/ptbs/topics.cfm?topic=et

    That's probably the best show on TV right now!! (At least 'till the Sopranos returns....)

    --DM
  • Hah and everyone thought crop circles were created with simple mathematics, people stomping around in snow shoes, or by UFOs.

    My theory is It's these weed picking robots run amuck.
  • I was surprised to see this on here. I have done most of the programming for these projects and have worked closely with each person mentioned. You can check out our outdated website for some of our previous projects at the BAESIL website [ucdavis.edu].

    You can also direct questions to me and I'll try and help.

    Also We have looked at other methods of killing plants, such as knifes and even flame throwers. Saving on herbicide has it's obvious benefits.

    And if anyone is looking for a machine vision programmer, hire m
  • If the robot is accurate enough to squirt a weed with weedkiller, why not go that extra step, do away with the pesticide and get the robot to pull the weed out?
  • Yeah, THAT doesn't sound like something out of a techno-nightmare. Tall skinny people beware, if this thing works!

    I mean, when I picture post-apocalyptic matrix-machines-have-taken-over hell, I picture machines running around with SYRINGES and robot vision. Whatever happened to weed killer pesticides or illegal mexican imigrants? (that isn't some kind of racial slur! I swear!)
  • When I read the part about identify the weeds "and zap them", I assumed they really meant it would zap them, either with flame, hot air, or an electric arc. How disappointing to learn that "zap" to some people means "spray with toxins".
  • The California Tomato Research Institute also has spent $236,000 on the experiment but backed off recently, deeming the technology not advanced enough for immediate use. This excuse on its face doesnt make any sense at all to pull funding. Does anyone know more?
  • ... and build some kind of mechanical weeding system in the robot. That way, reliance on pesticide could be almost eliminated.

    Still a step in the right direction.
  • Has no one seen Runaway [imdb.com]?! Do you want robot spiders directed by Gene Simmons to come for you and your son? I thought not.

  • I love these advances. Farmers can now use this technology to grow crops more cheaply, which means distributors will offer them less for their crops, forcing all farmers to get more loans to buy this technology to stay in business. Meanwhile the distributors, retailers, bankers and consumers will be unaffected.

    What would really impress me is some technological innovation that eliminates the recording-industry-like agribusiness system. Something that lets farmers get their produce from the field to the stor

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close