Field evidence for rubber tapping machines: what has been verified, and under what conditions

Figures only help if you know where they come from. This page sorts the available material into four categories and shows each result with its test conditions and limits.

Short answer

What has actually been verified?

Short answer

Customer projects are published only with customer authorization. The verified numbers on this page come from independent published studies, each with its source, and they are research results, not product guarantees.

Four categories

What kinds of evidence are separated here?

Category	What it covers	Status
Delivered projects	Authorized deployment and acceptance records	Published only after customer authorization; this page lists independent evidence until then.
Manufacturer-partner applications	Applications by partner manufacturers	Names are not listed here. Scope of authorization and certifying body are stated per product and per project.
Independent field research	Papers and official documents listed below	Published; see the table and cards
In development or planned pilots	Mobile robot: timed autonomous start, return-to-charge, year-round continuous operation	Project validation required; not yet verified

Independent research

What do independent studies report?

Study	Key result	Limitation
Mobile robot vs manual tapping (2026)^[1]	2 robots vs 2 tappers, 1 Jun–15 Aug, every third day from 2 a.m.; 1,258 vs 1,227 trees. Dry rubber output 85.92% of manual; cut-depth qualification 34.8% vs 80%; 37.04 s vs 40.14 s per tree including moving; better panel smoothness, bark-consumption control and wound condition than manual	Small trial; tapping postponed in case of rain
Rubber-forest navigation algorithm (2026)^[2]	LIO-SAM absolute/relative pose RMSE 24.80 / 22.73 cm; along- and cross-track stopping RMSE below 11.00 cm; average stopping error about 5.00–6.00 cm	Chassis data, not cutter precision
LoRa relay network for fixed machines, Danzhou (2026)^[3]	Hybrid mesh-star network; average communication failure rate 0.6% in normal and rainy weather	Fixed machines only; not mobile-robot evidence
Fixed machine with profiling depth control (2025)^[4]	Cut-depth qualification rate 91.77%, 12.51 percentage points higher	A specific test, not a product commitment
Official notice on leaf-fall and panel canker (2026)^[5]	Install rain guards with a tight seal before the rainy season; suspend tapping on heavily affected stands; apply the "one shallow, four no-tap" rule	Policy guidance, not a trial result
Multi-sensor fusion positioning (2026)^[6]	Field experiment in a Danzhou rubber forest with heavy tree occlusion and unstable GNSS; the team reports high-precision positioning maintained	News report; figures not restated here
Raindrop-sensor bowl cover^[7]	Closure success rate about 95%	Collection bowl only; not the cutting
Appraisal outline "Tapping Machine" DG/T 315-2024^[8]	Reference evaluation method for tapping machines	Method document; no performance result

Test sites and conditions differ between studies; figures are the authors' results for the machines tested.

Evidence cards

What do the key numbers mean, with their conditions?

Dry rubber output ratio

Metric	Dry rubber output ratio, robot vs manual
Result	Robot group output was 85.92% of the manual group
Test conditions	2 robots vs 2 tappers; 1 Jun–15 Aug; every third day from 2 a.m.; 1,258 vs 1,227 trees
Scope	Machines and plantation tested in the study
Limitations	Trial of 2 robots over about 2.5 months; tapping postponed in case of rain; not a product guarantee
Source	^[1]

Tapping Depth Compliance Rate

Metric	Tapping depth compliance rate
Result	34.8% for the robots vs 80% for manual tapping
Test conditions	Same trial as above
Scope	Machines tested in the study
Limitations	Lower than manual; the paper reports better panel smoothness, bark-consumption control and wound condition than manual
Source	^[1]

LoRa communication failure rate

Metric	Average communication failure rate
Result	0.6% in normal and rainy weather
Test conditions	Hybrid mesh-star LoRa network of fixed machines and relay nodes, Baodao Xincun, Danzhou
Scope	Fixed (tree-mounted) machines only
Limitations	Not evidence for mobile robots; one network and site; not a product guarantee
Source	^[3]

Videos

Where can I see the equipment working?

Agri-Service project measurements of 93.58% / 86.93% / 93.75%: measured in an Agri-Service project; machine type and test conditions to be confirmed. They are not attributed to any machine here.

Case template

How will project cases be published?

Location, year, tree conditions, equipment model, number of trees
Operating time and work quality
Faults and manual intervention, rain days without tapping, communication interruptions
Control group of manual tapping, who collected and verified the data
Source and customer authorization status

Each case will be published in this format. Fields not disclosed are marked "not disclosed" or "not yet verified"; figures from other projects are never used to fill the gap.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Are there published customer cases?

This page does not list customer projects: project material is published only after customer authorization. Until then it provides independent evidence with its conditions and limits.

Is 85.92% the performance of the supplied equipment?

No. It comes from an independent field study of the machines tested there. It is not a product guarantee. ^[1]

Why are some fields marked "not yet verified"?

Because we do not fill gaps with numbers from other projects.

Sources

Independent publications are cited for context only. They are research or official results, not specifications or guarantees for any particular product.

Tell us your plantation conditions and we will recommend a configuration.

Request a recommendation