From Mechanization to Autonomy: The Agrocycle as a Framework for Sustainable Robotic Farming

This study examines the transition from conventional agricultural mechanization to autonomous robotic farming through the conceptual lens of the agrocycle, a holistic framework that integrates all agricultural operations across the full production year into a continuous, data-driven system. Rather than evaluating isolated field tasks, the agrocycle treats soil preparation, crop management, plant protection, pruning, and harvesting as interdependent components of a single adaptive operational loop. Within this framework, the performance of the PeK Automotive autonomous robotic platform (Slopehelper agrosystem) is empirically compared with a conventional tractor–implement system under comparable field conditions. Field experiments were conducted in temperate Central European vineyard and orchard systems, combining quantitative indicators—such as energy consumption, operational time, positional precision, soil compaction, and CO₂ emissions—with system-level indices including Operational Efficiency, Continuity, and System Resilience. Results demonstrate that the autonomous system achieved up to a 96% reduction in energy consumption per hectare, a 72% decrease in soil compaction, and the complete elimination of local CO₂ emissions. Despite slightly longer task durations in some operations, overall agrocycle feasibility and cost efficiency improved by more than threefold due to the absence of labor costs, optimized energy use, and uninterrupted autonomous operation. Beyond performance gains, the findings highlight a fundamental shift in agricultural systems logic. Autonomy, when embedded within the agrocycle framework, transforms farming from task-based mechanization toward a cyber-physical, self-optimizing production system aligned with the principles of Agriculture 5.0. The study concludes that the agrocycle represents both a practical and conceptual pathway toward resilient, subsidy-independent, and climate-resilient agricultural production, demonstrating that the move from mechanization to autonomy is not merely a technological substitution but a systemic transformation of modern agriculture. Keywords: Autonomous agriculture, Agrocycle, Agricultural robotics, Agriculture 5.0, Digital twin farming, Sustainable farming systems, Precision agriculture, Soil compaction, Energy efficiency, Robotic field operations REFERENCES Al-Amin, A. K. M. A., et al. (2024). Economics of strip cropping with autonomous machines. Agronomy Journal, 116(3), e21536. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21536 Al-Amin, A. K. M. A., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., et al. (2023). Economics of field size and shape for autonomous crop machines. Precision Agriculture, 24, 1798–1821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-023-10016-w Bai, Z., Caspari, T., Gonzalez, M. R., Batjes, N. H., Mäder, P., Bünemann, E. K., de Goede, R., Brussaard, L., Xu, M., Ferreira, C. S. S., Reintam, E., Fan, H., Mihelič, R., Glavan, M., & Tóth, Z. (2018). Soil information is essential to addressing the sustainable development goals. Geoderma Regional, 13, e00175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2018.e00175 Bongiovanni, R., & Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2004). Precision agriculture and sustainability. Precision Agriculture, 5(4), 359–387. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PRAG.0000040806.39604.aa Calleja-Huerta, A., et al. (2024). Evolution of topsoil structure after compaction with a lightweight autonomous field robot. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 88(5), e20719. https://doi.org/10.1002/saj2.20719 European Commission. (2020). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Brussels: European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0381 ISO. (2018). ISO 18497:2018 Agricultural machinery and tractors—Safety of highly automated agricultural machines—Principles for design. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization. (See also ISO 18497-1:2024 update.) Lagnelöv, O., et al. (2023). Impact of lowered vehicle weight of electric autonomous tractors in a systems perspective. Smart Agricultural Technology, 3, 100187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100187 Liakos, K. G., Busato, P., Moshou, D., Pearson, S., & Bochtis, D. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082674 Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., et al. (2022). Lessons to be learned in adoption of autonomous equipment for field crops. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44(2), 848–864. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13177 Pek Automotive. (2024). Slopehelper: Complete agricultural cycle solution (product pages). Retrieved from Slopehelper/Pek websites. Pek Automotive. (2024). Slopehelper: Fesibility calculator. Retrieved from Slopehelper/Pek websites. Popp, J., Kovács, S., Oláh, J., Divéki, Z., & Balázs, E. (2021). Bioeconomy: Biomass and biomass-based energy supply and demand. New Biotechnology, 60, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2020.09.004 Verdouw, C., Tekinerdogan, B., Beulens, A., & Wolfert, S. (2021). Digital twins in smart farming. Agricultural Systems, 189, 103046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103046 Verdouw, C., Wolfert, S., Tekinerdogan, B., Beulens, A., & van der Heijden, R. (2021). Digital twins in smart farming. Agricultural Systems, 189, 103046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103046 Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C., & Bogaardt, M. J. (2017). Big data in smart farming – A review. Agricultural Systems, 153, 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.009 Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, S., & Xu, P. (2021). Agriculture 5.0: Artificial intelligence, robotics, and digital farming. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 190, 106410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106410