Australian farmer Tom Coggan has been using 2 SwarmFarm SwarmBot 5 robots for 5 years on his 26,300-hectare mixed farming operation. Each machine has clocked up around 7,500 hours, mainly spraying with WEED-IT technology. Coggan rates the robots on 9 practical criteria and estimates total operating cost savings of around 70% compared with conventional spraying. But keeping the robots working efficiently also requires careful field preparation and planning.

5 years of autonomous spraying

At Coggan Farms in Australia, autonomous spraying has become part of everyday farm operations. The two SwarmBot 5 machines carry out fallow and in-crop spraying, allowing staff to focus on other tasks. After 5 years of experience, Coggan is convinced of their value. The biggest benefits are consistent performance on repetitive tasks, reduced chemical use and the ability to redeploy labour.

However, autonomy does not eliminate human involvement. Field conditions, seasonal changes and maintenance still require attention.

The SwarmBot 5 is fitted with an 18-metre Hayes spray boom, WEED-IT optical spot-spray cameras and a 3,000-litre spray tank. Coggan reports a working capacity of around 13 hectares per hour.

Tom Coggan’s SwarmBot 5 user ratings

Rating scale: ★ very poor – ★★★★★ excellent

These ratings reflect the grower’s experience after five years of operating two SwarmBot 5 robots. They are based on practical use rather than standardised laboratory measurements. Scores cover nine aspects of operation, from ease of use and reliability to costs and overall value. A lower score does not necessarily mean poor performance, but may reflect limitations or areas requiring improvement.

1. Ease of Use & Interface — ★★★★☆

“The system is very simple and intuitive to learn and operate.”

The interface offers approximately 26 settings pages, all clearly labelled and easy to navigate. Operators can create a favourites menu containing their most frequently used functions.

2. Commissioning & Setup — ★★★☆☆

The robots required only minor adjustments to fit into existing farm operations. However, all fields first had to be mapped and prepared for autonomous operation.

Each spraying task must be created and scheduled. Coggan says the changes to planning have also helped improve the efficiency of conventional machinery.

3. Autonomy & Operational Reliability — ★★★★☆

Under normal conditions, the SwarmBots operate independently with little intervention. However, difficult field conditions can reduce their capacity.

4. Build Quality & Hardware Robustness — ★★★★☆

Both robots have accumulated approximately 7,500 operating hours and remain in reasonable condition, showing normal wear and tear.

5. Integration into Existing Farm Machinery — ★★★☆☆

The robots fit well into the farm’s operations. The biggest challenge is preparing them for work at the beginning of each season, particularly when field layouts have changed or adverse weather has affected paddock conditions. The robots were supplied by SwarmFarm Robotics, with attachments provided by a partner company. Spraying remains their primary task, although Coggan sees potential for future tillage and seeding applications.

6. Capacity & Performance — ★★★☆☆

The SwarmBots currently operate with 18-metre spray booms, although widths of up to 27 metres are possible. At a working speed of 9.5 km/h, Coggan reports a capacity of around 13 ha/hour and a daily output of 100–200 hectares. “Performance is reasonable. It could be better, but for the task it is conducting, it is the perfect speed.”

Coggan’s SwarmBot 5 operates at around 9.5 km/h. Seasonal changes in paddock conditions and field layouts remain amongst the biggest challenges for autonomous operation.

7. Operating Costs — ★★★☆☆

Coggan reports the following operating figures per robot:

Servicing: approximately A$1,000 per service
Software subscription: A$12,500 per year
Labour requirement: approximately one hour per day
Fuel consumption: 4–7 litres per hour

Based on five years of experience, Coggan estimates that total operating costs are approximately 70% lower than with conventional spraying equipment. This is his own assessment rather than a verified cost comparison.

8. Maintenance & Service Support — ★★★★☆

Service intervals are 500 operating hours, with daily greasing required at approximately 14 points.

Coggan is particularly satisfied with the manufacturer’s support, rating it 10 out of 10.

9. Overall Value for the Farm — ★★★★☆

Coggan estimates total operating cost savings of around 70% compared with conventional spraying, although he says calculating the exact financial benefit remains difficult.

Beyond the savings, the robots have improved work planning and helped the farm complete spraying tasks at the right time.

Future Farming user reviews are based on practical experiences reported by farmers and operators. Star ratings represent their assessments and should not be interpreted as independently verified performance measurements.

Future Farming

Message History

Delivery option(s)