This document discusses three case studies comparing the costs and benefits of agricultural robots versus conventional methods. The first case examines using an autonomous vehicle for field scouting in cereals, finding it reduces costs by about 20% compared to manual scouting. The second case looks at a robotic weeding system for sugar beets, determining costs could be reduced 12-21% versus conventional weeding. The third analyzes an autonomous grass cutting robot for golf courses, calculating its total annual cost per hectare is €283, compared to using manual labor. Overall, the document finds agricultural robots can provide cost savings in various applications compared to traditional human-operated methods.

4. • The word robot was derived from the Czech word robota – forced labor or
work.
• A robot is a mechanical, artificial agent and is usually an
electromechanical system.
• The robot is able to autonomously, according to the program, or under
the control of a man running, most dangerous, difficult and laborious, and
perseveringand precisetasks.

5. Agricultural Robotics is the logical
proliferation of automation technology into
biosystems such as agriculture, forestry,
green house, horticulture etc.
In agriculture, the opportunities for robot-
enhanced productivity are immense – and
the robots are appearing on farms in
various guises and in increasing numbers.
The idea of robotic agriculture is not a new

6. •Robots can move and sense.
•They require multiple sensors and controls that allow
them to move in an unknown environment.

7. •

9. • The sensors send information, in the form of
electronic signals back to the controller.
• Sensors can give the robot controller
information about its surroundings.
• Robots can be designed and programmed to
get specific information that is beyond what our
five senses can tell us.

10. • It is also called as computer
• The controller functions as the "brain" of the robot.
• The controller also allows the robot to be networked
to other systems, so that it may work together with
other machines, processes, or robots.

12. • The drive or actuator is the “engine” of the robot.
• An actuator is defined as “a mechanical device that produces
motion.”
 Hydraulic motor
 Pneumatic motor
 Stepper motor
 Dc motor
 Servo motor

14. • Usually, a robot’s arm is like a human arm with a shoulder, elbow,
wrist, and fingers
• The arm is the part of the robot that positions the end-effectors
and sensors to do their pre- programmed business.

15.  The end effectors means the last link (or end) of the
robot.
 At this endpoint the tools are attached. In a wider sense,
end effectors can be seen as the part of a robot that
interacts with the work environment.
 Examples of end-effectors are
• Gripper
• Vacuum pump
• Tweezers
• Scalpel
• Blowtorch.

16. GRIPPERS BLOW TORCH
VACUUM PUMP

17. In the fully-automated Farm of the Future, dedicated robots
will take on the tough farming jobs that once could be done
only by people.
It is not just on the ground that technology promises to
transform farming. Unmanned Air Vehicles, or drones, are
also coming into play on farms.

19. • Sustain domestic agriculture
• Facilitates 24/7 operations
• Improves safety
• Reduces labor needs
• Reduces chemical usage

20. TYPES OF ROBOTS

21. • Demeter (used for harvesting)
• Weed control robot
• Forester robot
• Fruit picking robot
• Drones
• Agriculture robot suit

22. – Demeter has cameras on it that can detect the
difference between the crop that has been cut and crop
that hasn’t.
– Demeter can drive, steer, and control the cutter head
while the operator can focus on other tasks.
– It can follow the path with an accuracy of up to 3
centimeters.

24. • A four-wheel-drive weed-seeking robot was developed by the
Danish Farm Research Authority.
• The task of the weed-removing device is to remove or destroy
the weed.
• An intelligent hoe uses vision systems to identify the rows of
crops, and steer itself accurately between them, considerably
reducing the need for herbicides.
• Weed identification is based on color photography.

26. • This is a special type of robot used for cutting up
of wood, tending trees, and pruning of X- mass
tree.
• Used for harvesting pulp and hard wood and in
the forests.
• It employs a special jaws and axes for chopping
the branch.

27. Forester robot

28. –Pick ripe fruit without damaging the branches or leaves of
the tree.
–Mobility is a priority, and the robots must be able to
access all areas of the tree being harvested.
–The robot can distinguish between fruit and leaves by
using video image capturing.
–If a match is obtained, the fruit is picked.

29. Fruit picking robot

30. –To get a bird’s eye view of the land
–Offers a quick and easy way to check on the progress
of crops and determine where they may need to
replant or direct pesticide applications.

31. Agriculture robot suit
• The robot suit is designed specifically to help out with
tough agricultural work like pulling radishes.
• The suit has eight motors fitted over the shoulders,
elbows, back and knees to provide a power boost to the
wearer.
• The current model weighs 55 pounds and uses 16
sensors to function.

32. APPLICATIONS

33. –Knowing the position and severity of the weeds
robot can kill the weeds.
–Non-contact methods are being developed such
as laser treatments (Heisel 2001) and micro-
spraying.
Robotic weeding

34. –Collect timely and accurate information.
–Data collection would be less expensive and
timelier
Cropscouting

35. –One method of killing weeds close to the crop plants.
–Delivers very small amounts directly on to the weedleaf
–Machine vision can be used to identify the position of an
individual weed plant
Micro spraying

36. – A robotic irrigator in the form of a mechatronic
sprinkler (to simulate a travelling rain gun)
– Developed to apply variable rates of water and
chemigation to predefined areas.
– This system could not only apply the required water in
the right place but could irrigate into field corners.
irrigation

37. – Involves the concept of only harvesting those parts of
the crop that meet certain quality thresholds.
– Considered to be a type of pre sorting based on sensory
perception.
Selective harvesting

39. Advantages of Robots
• Robots can work 24 hours a day, every day with no breaks.
• Robots don’t need to be paid wage (so money is saved).
• Robots are extremely accurate compared to humans, so
product quality is high.
• Robots can perform tasks more quickly than humans, so
more products can be made.
• Robots can work in very dangerous conditions.

40. Disadvantages of Robots
• Robots cannot easily adapt to unusual conditions like a
human being can (e.g. if an item on the line is not in correct
place, a human worker would notice and correct it).
• People are made unemployed because robots are doing their
job.
• Robots are very expensive and it can take several years to
pay for them.

41. Agricultural robots—system analysis and economic feasibility
S. M. Pedersen S. Fountas H. Have B. S. Blackmore
Published online: 27 July 2006 _ Springer Science + Business Media,
LLC 2006

42. • Study focuses on the economic feasibility of
applying autonomous robotic vehicles compared to
conventional systems in three different
applications: robotic weeding in high value crops
(particularly sugar beet), crop scouting in cereals
and grass cutting on golf courses.
OBJECTIVE

43. METHODOLOGY
• In all three scenarios, we compared the costs and
potential benefits of the potential commercial use
of autonomous vehicles with conventional
operations and management practices.

44. Case 1 : Fieldscouting
• In the field scouting scenario, we compared autonomous field scouting for
weeds in cereals with the manual detection of weeds.
• The autonomous system requires an API vehicle and cameras for weed
detection and mapping.
• The vehicle has a height clearance of 0.6 m and track width of 1 m.
• It is equipped with a Real Time Kinematics-Global Positioning System (RTK-
GPS) and, on the top of the frame, there is an operating console and an
implement for the agricultural operation, e.g. spraying or weeding tools.
• The vehicle communicates with the farm management PC for navigation,
according to the computed route plan, as well as collision avoidance .

45. • An aluminium frame,
• Four wheel-drive,
• Four-wheel steering with two motors per wheel, one
providing propulsion and the other steering to achieve
higher resistance to slippery terrains and more mobility

46. • For field scouting, the robotic system was
compared with manual detection of weeds.
Manual weed scouting is assumed to require
about 0.72 man h/year/ha.
• For autonomous field scouting using the API
platform
– Speed 3.6 km/h
– Width 12m
– Capacity 4.32 ha/h

47. Technical assumptions
Platform API SYSTEM
GPS system RTK – GPS
TOTAL AREA , ha 500
Speed , km/h 3.6
Width, m 12
Operation hours, h/day 16
Days for operation, days 7
Operation hours, h/year 116
Season for operation April – July

48. INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTS EUROS € RUPEES ₹
API – system
(whole)
15,142 10,72,448.46
RTK – GPS 20,188 14,,29,931.28
Testing 2,692 1,90,676.39
Total investment 38,022 26,93,126.96
1 € = 70.83₹

49. COST STRUCTURE for robotic system
Cost structure € / YEAR RUPEES/YEAR
Capital costs 951 67,360.05
Depreciation 3,802 2,69,298.53
Maintenance 1,141 80,817.89
GPS- RTK signal yearly fee 1615 1,14,391.67
GPS- RTK signal costs,
variable costs
156 1,1049.60
Additional cost for fuel
loading
135 9,562.15
Total costs 7,799 5,52,409.06
Total cost €/ha/year – 15.6 (1,104.96 rs/ha/year)

50. Cost structure for conventional system
• Labour costs for manual weed detection
0.72h/ha/year (Pedersen 2003) at 27€/h – 19.4
(1374.12 rs)
• Total costs, €/ha/year - 19.4 (1374.12 rs/ha/year)

51. The autonomous field scouting system in
cereals reduces the costs by about 20%.
Sensitivity analysis
• Since the costs of the autonomous platform are based on estimated
costs of producing the platform, it might be the case that a
commercial selling price will be significantly higher.
• An increase of the price of the API-platform from 15,141 to 30,281
€ implies that the overall costs of the autonomous field scouting
system will increase to 20.3 €/ha/year, which is slightly above the
costs for manual weed scouting.

52. Case 2 : Roboticweeding
• As most horticultural crops are grown in widely
spaced rows, inter-row mechanical weeding
(weeding between the rows) has been popular since
mechanization started.
• The only problem has been in assessing the relative
distance between the crop and the weeding tool.
• Recent developments have led to the use of
machine vision to recognize contextual
information of the crop rows and steer the tool to
within a few centimeters of the plants.

53. • In the robotic weeding scenario, we compared an
autonomous vehicle equipped with a micro spraying system
with a conventional sprayer for sugar beet
• The micro spraying system would be mounted on the same
API platform as the one described above for field scouting.
• The micro system has been developed at University of
California at Davis and has been tested at both UC Davis
and at DIAS.

54. Technical assumptions
Platform API SYSTEM
GPS system RTK – GPS
TOTAL AREA , ha 80
Speed , km/h 1.8
Width, m 2 (4 rows)
Operation hours, h/day 16
Days for operation, days 42
Operation hours, h/year 667
Season for operation April – July

55. INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTS EUROS € RUPEES ₹
API – system (whole) 15,141 10,72,437.03
RTK – GPS 20,188 14,29,916.04
Micro-spraying
system
26,918 19,06,601.94
Testing 2,692 1,90,674.36
Total investment 64,939 45,99,629.37

56. COST STRUCTURE for robotic system
Cost structure € / YEAR RUPEES ₹/YEAR
Capital costs 1624 1,15,027.92
Depreciation 6494 4,59,970.02
Maintenance 1984 1,40,526.72
GPS- RTK signal yearly fee 1615 1,14,390.45
GPS- RTK signal costs, variable costs 897 63,534.51
Data processing for seed map 150 10,624.5
Herbicide cost 1731 1,22,606.73
Inter-row hoeing 5599 3,96,577.17
Additional cost for fuel loading 776 54,964.08
Total costs 20,834 14,75,672.22
Total cost €/ha/year – 260.4 (18,445.90 ₹)

57. Cost structure for conventional system
• Herbicides €/ha/year – 216.4 (15,327.612 ₹)
• Inter-row hoeing €/ha/year – 35.0 (2479.05 ₹)
• Spraying €/ha/year – 45.2 (3,201.516 ₹)
• Total costs €/ha/year – 296.6 (21,008.17 ₹)
All costs are based on average costs for contracting

58. Sensitivity analysis
• It is possible to reduce the overall cost of autonomous
weeding by 12–21% compared with conventional weeding.
• On the other hand, a reduction of the period of
depreciation to less than 6 years would imply that
conventional weeding will become more economically viable
than autonomous weeding .

59. Autonomous weeding, cost reduction with change in depreciation

60. Case 3 : Grasscutting
• Grass cutting is a major operation for
municipalities, parks, estates, sports terrains and
golf courses.
• The operation is tedious and it has to be repeated
on a regular basis, depending on the climatic
conditions and the usage.
• For the grass cutter, the driver is replaced with a
robotic system equipped with an RTK--GPS.
• The grass cutter used is a 5200-D from TORO.
• Usually, a TORO 455 with rotor cutters is used
for the semi-rough area.

61. 5200-D GRASS CUTTER
• Width – 2.41m
• Cutting units – 5 units
• Tank capacity – 38 lit (diesel)
• Cost - 60,565 €

62. • In this comparison, we assume that the
same grass cutter is used for manual grass
cutting.
• The labor time spent on the conventional
system includes grass cutting and additional
relaxation breaks which is based on an
average Danish salary (27 €/h) (1912.41 ₹).
• It is assumed that the yearly fee for a
reference GPS signal is 1,615 €/ year
(1,14,390.45 ₹). In addition, it is necessary
to pay 1.3 €/h (92.079 ₹)for using a RTK

63. • Time for cutting the grass – 784 h/year
•Semi rough area – 426 h/year
•Fairway area – 358 h/year
• In addition, we include an additional 20% for
breaks etc which adds up to a total of 940.8
h/year for manual grass cutting.

64. Technical assumptions
Platform TORO 5200-D
GPS system RTK – GPS
TOTAL AREA , ha 36
Speed , km/h 10
Width, m 2.4 with 5 cutting units
Operation hours, h/day 8-16
Days for operation, days 24
Operation hours, h/year 784 (358 –F , 426 -S)
Season for operation April – October
F- Fairway lawn area S- Semi rough area

65. INVESTMENTS
INVESTMENTSC EUROS € RUPEES ₹
RTK – GPS 20,188 14,29,916.04
Electronic system 20,188 14,29,916.04
Testing 2,692 1,90,674.36
Total investment 43,069 30,50,577.27

66. COST STRUCTURE for robotic system
Cost structure € / YEAR RUPEES ₹
Capital costs 1077 76,283.91
Depreciation 4307 3,05,064.81
Maintenance 1292 91,512.36
GPS- RTK signal
yearly fee
1615 1,14,390.45
GPS- RTK signal
costs, variable costs
1055 74,725.65
Additional cost for
fuel loading
844 59,780.52
Total costs 10,190 7,21,757.7

67. • Therefore , the total cost of autonomous/ robotic
system is 10,190 €/year for 36 ha.
• Total cost €/ha/year - 283

68. Cost structureforconventionalsystem
• Labour costs for manual grass cutting on 36 ha golf
course – 27€/h.(1912.41 ₹)
• Total hours – 940.8 h
• Total costs, €/ha/year -586.3 (41,527.629 ₹)

69. • It should be possible to reduce field scouting costs by nearly 20%
in cereals.
• For the autonomous weeding in sugar beet, it might be possible to
reduce costs by 12%.
• The costs of using autonomous systems for grass cutting will
reduce costs by nearly 52%.
• In addition, at this stage of development, the initial investments
and annual costs for expensive GPS systems are still relatively high
but it seems possible to design economically viable robotic systems
for grass cutting, crop scouting and autonomous weeding.

70. • There are many advantages to robotics as well as controlling
the high cost of labor.
• The jobs in agriculture are a drag, dangerous, require
intelligence and quick, though highly repetitive decisions hence
robots can be rightly substituted with human operator.
• The higher quality products can be sensed by machines (color,
firmness, weight, density, ripeness, size, shape) accurately.

71. • One of the key advantages in agriculture is that robots
can work 24 hours a day – often when there’s no light,
which can be a big factor with certain factors.
• Altogether, we can conclude that an agricultural robot
can make a tremendous change in the field of
agriculture and can increase the quality and productivity
to a greater extend.

72. REFERENCES
• Blackmore, B. S., Stout, W., Wang, M., and Renovo, B. 2005. Robotic
agriculture – the future of agricultural mechanization. (ed.) J.
Stafford, V. The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers,
pp.621-628.
• Gholap Dipak Dattatraya, More Vaibhav Mhatardev, Lokhande
Manojkumar, Prof. Joshi S.G. Robotic Agriculture Machine.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering
and Technology Volume 3, Special Issue 4, April 2014
• Pederson S.M., Fountas S.,Have H., Blackmore B.S. Agricultural robots
– system analysis and economic feasibility._Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC 2006
• Koteswara P., Karthik & Ravi Chandra P. An Overview of
Agricultural Robots. www.yuvaengineers.com/an-overview-of-
agricultural-robots-p-koteswara-karthik-p-ravi-chandra/
• Slideshare – various presentations