A multi-faceted whole farm planning model is developed to compare conventional and autonomous machinery for grain crop production under various benefit, farm size, suitable field day risk aversion, and grain price scenarios. Results suggest that autonomous machinery can be an economically viable alternative to conventional manned machinery if the establishment of intelligent controls is cost effective. An increase in net returns of 24% over operating with conventional machinery is found when including both input savings and a yield increase due to reduced compaction. This study also identifies the break-even investment price for intelligent controls for the safe and reliable commercialization of autonomous machinery. Results indicate that the break-even investment price is highly variable depending on the financial benefits resulting from the deployment of autonomous machinery, farm size, suitable field day risk aversion, and grain prices. The maximum break-even investment price for intelligent, autonomous controls is nearly U.S. $500,000 for the median days suitable for fieldwork when including both input savings and a yield increase due to reduced compaction.

A whole farm economic analysis was conducted to provide a detailed assessment into the economic, risk, and production implications due to the adoption of auto-steer navigation. It was determined that auto-steer navigation was profitable for a grain farmer in Kentucky with net returns increasing up to 0.90% ($3.35/acre). Additionally, the technology could be used in reducing production risk. Adoption of the technology also alters production practices for optimal use.

Autonomous equipment for crop production is on the verge of technical and economic feasibility, but government regulation may slow its adoption. Key regulatory issues include requirements for on‐site human supervision, liability for autonomous machine error, and intellectual property in robotic learning. As an example of the impact of regulation on the economic benefits of autonomous crop equipment, analysis from the United Kingdom suggests that requiring 100% on‐site human supervision almost wipes out the economic benefits of autonomous crop equipment for small and medium farms and increases the economies‐of‐scale advantage of larger farms.

No abstract

No abstract