Automated transplanters perform well in field trials

Automated transplanters perform well in field trials
December 11, 2024

An automated Agriplanter plants three rows of processing tomatoes at a time in a Yolo County field. It requires three to
four employees, including a tractor driver.

Photo/Patricia Lazicki

A manual finger planter relies on seated workers placing transplants into cups that drop them into furrows dug by the machine. Typically, a grower runs acrew of about 10 people per machine.

Photo/Vicky Boyd
Ferrari’s Futura automated transplanter, which operates with a crew of three, was among four machines tested in a field trial this year by University of
California vegetable advisor Patricia Lazicki.

Photo/Patricia Lazicki
By Vicky Boyd
With labor costs and availability continuing to squeeze the processing tomato industry, a handful of growers and custom
operators have turned to fully automated transplanters. But at least a few producers have questioned whether the new
technology works as well as traditional planters and ultimately affects tomato yields.
To address those concerns, University of California Cooperative Extension vegetable advisor Patricia Lazicki put two
automated and two traditional planters to the test in three growers’ fields this year. She found no significant differences in
overall yield or paid tonnage among the planters.
While one automated planter produced a few more skips, or missing plants, Lazicki said it wasn’t enough to significantly
affect yields.
The trial involved a finger planter, a Ferrari (no relation to the racecar) F-MAX carousel planter, an automated Agriplanter
and an automated Ferrari Futura planter. All were tractor-pulled or tow-behind models. They also were tested in threerow
configurations planting a single line down 60-inch beds.
Participating growers’ fields were near Clarksburg, Winters and Dixon, and each involved a different processing tomato
variety, different planting date and different soil type, Lazicki said. Each field also had its own set of inherent challenges.
The Dixon field, for example, had a strong north wind during planting, while the Clarksburg site had irrigation issues that
led to some stand loss just after planting.
The 2024 results were similar to those from 2023, when Lazicki conducted a side-by-side trial in a Yolo County field with
two traditional planters and the automated Agriplanter. She said she is still deciding whether the additional information
that could be gained by a third year of trials in 2025 would justify the labor and coordination involved.
Ray Yeung, a Yolo County processing tomato grower who also does custom transplanting, was the first to acquire an
Agriplanter in the state four years ago. He encouraged Lazicki to conduct the 2023 trial because of yield reduction
concerns he’d heard from a fellow grower.
“The reason I wanted her to do the trials is the only reliable way you can get unbiased factual information is through the
university,” Yeung said.
Eric Puehler, a U.S. Agriplanter distributor in Ohio, also commended Lazicki’s work.
“The research for me is invaluable. You could never put a number on it,” he said.
The company in 2025 will offer existing customers a small upgrade designed to eliminate nearly all the planting skips
Lazicki noted in her research.
Bruce Rominger, who grows a mix of crops including processing tomatoes in Yolo County, has run an Agriplanter for two
years and was a cooperator in Lazicki’s 2024 trials.
Although he’s seen the technology’s benefits firsthand, he said her research was “absolutely important” to dispel
misconceptions surrounding it.
“I didn’t need her to do it because I knew what it could do,” said Rominger, who also chairs the California Tomato Growers
Association. “But as an industry, her work should convince people they can have confidence in automated planters. I
haven’t seen any drop-off in yields on my ranch with the Agriplanter.”

While Puehler has seen strong interest in automated planting technology, he said it didn’t necessarily translate into sales in
2024 because of a large pool of available labor. Currently, Agriplanter—manufactured by Agriplant of Belgium—has 16
automated planters operating in the state.
“The climate last year for automated planters was kind of in the back of everybody’s minds,” Puehler said. “When labor is
plentiful, you kind of forget it’s a problem.”
But he said he expected interest to pick up once Agriplanter purchase prices drop for the 2025 season.
Eighteen automated Futura planters from Italy-based Ferrari Growtech, which also offers finger and carousel planters,
were running in California processing tomato fields in 2024, said Brad Strock with MTD Transplanting in Firebaugh, who is
a U.S. dealer for Ferrari. As a custom transplanter, he has run a Futura three-row tractor-pulled unit for four seasons.
It accepts most reusable and Styrofoam transplant trays from greenhouses as long as they’re in good condition. The only
types that aren’t compatible are disposable ones.
One Futura typically replaces two semiautomated carousel planters, which require six to seven workers each, he said. The
automated machine requires only three people: one to drive the tractor pulling the transplanter, one to feed plant trays
into the machine, and one to operate a forklift and water truck.
“With the automated planters, I say you can operate them 24 hours a day,” Strock said. “In reality, you could do 20 to 21
hours because you have to have downtime for maintenance.”
Rominger parked his three finger planters two seasons ago, replacing them with one Agriplanter because of its potential
“massive labor savings.” Manual finger planters rely on seated workers placing transplants into cups that drop them into
furrows dug by the machine. Each of Rominger’s finger planters required a crew of 10, or a total of 30 workers for his three
machines during planting season. The Agriplanter requires only three workers.
Rominger said they typically work 10-hour shifts. The automated machine running at about 3 mph can plant about 30
acres per day, or 1 to 2 acres more than his three finger machines together used to do. Already, he said he believes the
automated planter has paid for itself in labor savings.
While Yeung also has benefited from the Agriplanter’s labor savings and is trying to move away from the carousel planters
he also runs, he said the transition isn’t as easy as plug and play.
“One drawback is you have to be an active participant if you use this machine,” he said.
To obtain best results, ground preparation is critical, and transplants have to be of uniform size, Yeung said. Even the
condition of the plant plugs—and whether they’re too wet and will fall apart when picked up—is important.
The Agriplanter also uses specific types of transplant trays that greenhouses may have to acquire.
“It’s not just a matter of taking care of our clients; it’s a matter of getting the greenhouses on board,” Yeung said.
Regardless of the automated planter brand, prices run from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars,
depending on configuration. The return on investment will vary based on the individual user’s situations.
Strock said producers in most cases would need at least 200 acres to make a Futura worthwhile. Puehler said a producer
or custom operator running a three-row single-line Agriplanter on 1,500 to 2,000 acres should see a payback in a year.
As part of her research, Lazicki has begun to interview growers, custom transplanters and manufacturers to develop a
cost analysis. She also plans to compile a list of tips so growers and custom operators can get the most from the
technology.

“The people who have bought them and who I’ve talked to don’t regret it,” Lazicki said. “Whether or not it takes off, I’m not
sure, but it seems so far to be successful for the people who are using it.”
Her 2024 research was funded by the California Tomato Research Institute.
(Vicky Boyd is a reporter in Modesto. She may be contacted at vlboyd@att.net.)
Reprint with credit to California Farm Bureau. For image use, email barciero@cfbf.com.