these look geared towards small-scale, high $/kg farming for berries, veg, and other hand-picked food. I'd imagine anything on a larger scale for high-yield grain farming would be a waste of land

You're correct that this is limited to manual harvesting but isn't that pretty common for partial shade crops?

Partial shade crops include broccoli, asparagus, kale, carrots, brussels sprouts, peas…basically all the healthy stuff. Adding a whole second revenue stream to their production would make them more competitive with the unhealthy stuff (corn, rice, wheat).

Corn is an absolute miracle. It probably took hundreds of years for native Americans to cultivate and domesticate corn to the nutrient crop we know. Those three crops feed humanity. They shouldn’t be shunned for what modern food processing practices. The US alone produces enough corn to feed well over 2 billion people per year.

Sure, but it’s just imbalanced in people’s diets, partially because of the cost differential.

It's also pretty common to use solar fields for pasturing, especially where the slopes are too steep for heavy machinery.

The racking is either spaced to allow machinery between rows, or panels are suspended using cables and a structure above the machinery max height. Not a consideration for crops that are hand harvested.

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/agrivoltaics-can-crops-and-sol...

https://d3mdtxxgfz6upn.cloudfront.net/WEBFILES/000/753/181/1...

If you're already putting structures in the field with the plant, I wonder if they could support the movement of smaller machines that do the same task.

Instead of driving a factory over the crop, imagine a variety of smaller robots zooming around on rails or something. Like https://farm.bot but huge.

I would also like to see that discussed. There may be enough space on the ground for more compact machinery to do a similar job. Each machine might be less productive, but they would cost less, so you could have more of them and the operation would be more parallelized.

Farm machinery got "big" because it enables one human to be more productive, cover more area in one unit of time. Human time is one of the most expensive resources in farming.

As we automate more farming, and move to self operated machinery, we can shrink those machines down again. We can design fleets of machines to work in tandem, and operate around other structures, such as solar. The age of the tram lines is going to come to an end.

This also provides opportunities for replacing chemicals with small robots, such as for weeding.

Or maybe use illegal cheap labour from another country. Something like feudalism, but more modern!

You joke, but there are a lot of crops that can't easily be machine picked, and probably never will be. Although I'm a proponent for legal safe immigration for sessional work with a route to permanent residency. The lack of legal routes results in unsafe working conditions and modern slavery.

Ah but now supplemented with a push to legalize child labor in the US.

Child labour is already legal (to some extent) in agriculture, unfortunately.

And even more often overlooked by those benefiting from it.

Why would I joke? People are cheaper than machines.

My mistake, I usually assume some openly proposing illegal immigration, rather than safe legal immigration, as a solution is joking.

I don't know about never. Strawberry picking robots seem to be in the piloting phase (out of the lab, not yet in mass production). Same with harvesting salad greens, and grape picking. Other fruits and vegetables look like just a matter of time and investment.

As we move down the robotics learning curve, prices will fall to the point where investment for designing blackberry pickers or cherry pickers (for example) is affordable.

> Human time is one of the most expensive resources in farming.

Not any more. A combine costs around a million bucks and has a total useful lifespan of about 10,000 hours which is $100 an hour (not counting maintenance and fuel costs which approx doubles this rate) which far exceeds the cost of a human operator. Capital costs exceed labor costs for almost all types of farming these days.

You might check your math here buddy. Sure a combine (which is called that because it does three jobs all at once, reaping, threshing and winnowing) may cost 100$/hr over it's useful lifespan, but it replaces much more than one person (more like 150-300 people), especially when you consider that harvesting is extremely time-sensitive, sometimes in a matter of hours...

Edit: after some research and calculations, my estimate is that a single modern combined harvester can replace between 350 and 700 men.

But it doesn’t matter how many people it replaces. TODAY it’s a capital heavy business.

Side note: textbooks like to talk about the "amazing" productivity growth in manufacturing, but that's only been something like 6 to 20 times, not 350 - 700 times.

The real story of productivity growth is in agriculture, and it's still going on, with autonomous vehicles and robotics. An amazing world we live in, where the process of growing food was capable of such incredible labor efficiency gains. Imagine if medicine was the same way...

Sorry if I seemed to imply a productivity gain of 350-700 times. This is a very rough estimate for only the tasks accomplished by a combined harvester, which happens in a very narrow timeline in the season. I was certainly not talking about the overall productivity of the farms.

Seems pretty straightforward to seeing appropriate machinery and use that instead of machinery designed for an entirely different setting.