5 ms·

This comment is spot on. There's good reason to believe that the low-hanging fruits in improving agriculture are non-tech changes in farming. For example, a pro

by sebleon 10y ago

This comment is spot on. There's good reason to believe that the low-hanging fruits in improving agriculture are non-tech changes in farming. For example, a province in India was able to improve rice yields by 45% by transplanting seedlings earlier in a grid pattern [1]. I doubt that eliminating human labor costs would move the needle, automating farms seems like a low ROI move. If you follow the money, it's easy to see why the US has focused its research on high-tech petrochemical fertilizer farming and GMOs. You can sell proprietary fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and seeds, but it's much harder to monetize new farming techniques. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/feb/16/india-rice-farmers-revolution https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/feb/16/i...

hueving 10y ago
>I doubt that eliminating human labor costs would move the needle, automating farms seems like a low ROI move If that were true, the farms in California wouldn't be filled with illegal immigrants.
- sebleon 10y ago
  Ah, looks like you're right: USDA: "Wages, salaries, and contract labor expenses represent roughly 17 percent of total variable farm costs, and as much as 40 percent of costs in labor intensive crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nursery products." [1] [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/background.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/back...
lambdadmitry 10y ago
> If you follow the money, it's easy to see why the US has focused its research on high-tech petrochemical fertilizer farming and GMOs. You can sell proprietary fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and seeds, but it's much harder to monetize new farming techniques. I believe this means that you are not aware of the work of Norman Borlaug [1] [2]. Basically the very fact that we don't have famines now in places like India, Pakistan and Mexico is due to his and his group's work on intensive agriculture, which was mostly about farming techniques, government practices and setting up local fertilizer productions. Moreover, it seems that you somehow look down to fertilizers. There is nothing wrong or inherently "non-green" in fixing nitrogen into nitrate fertilizers, you can easily do this with solar energy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
- sebleon 10y ago
  Right, I've heard the Western narrative on Norman Borlaug and the "Green Revolution". I'd highly encourage you to read through the work of Vandana Shiva. [1] She'll provide a well-researched, critical view as an actual stakeholder in India's food system. I look down upon petro-chemical fertilizers because of their disastrous effects on the environment and food security. Happy to elaborate, but Dr. Shiva work does it better. [1] http://vandanashiva.com/?p=291 http://vandanashiva.com/?p=291
  - lambdadmitry 10y ago
    You keep throwing the phrase "petro-chemical fertilizers" around but I can't see how it can make sense except for denigrating the concept and spreading FUD (which is counterproductive). Ammonia is just NH3 and there is nothing "petro" (i.e. hydrocarbons) in it, that hydrogen can be obtained anywhere and the nitrogen is literally around you. Can you please elaborate on how fixing nitrogen on industrial scale is "disastrous"? What difference do you see between bio-available nitrogen that originated in root nodules and chemical reactor?
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      I just listened to a podcast (50 things that made the modern economy http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04f77rg http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04f77rg) about the Haber-Bosch process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process According to the podcast and the wiki page, the current source of hydrogen for ammonia is natural gas. Additionally the process is energy-intensive, using high temperature and pressure. These things don't necessarily make it mandatory that it's petro-chemical, but due to the way we currently run it it is.
      - lambdadmitry 10y ago
        And the current source of electricity that runs HN is most probably fossil fuels. Does it make HN "petro-website"? It's clearly a derogatory term that serves no constructive purpose. I believe we should strive for zero-emission hydrogen production (which is clearly possible given that hydrogen can be easily used to utilize excessive production from "green" sources) instead of pushing luddite worldview.

by sebleon 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

>I doubt that eliminating human labor costs would move the needle, automating farms seems like a low ROI move If that were true, the farms in California wouldn't be filled with illegal immigrants.

sebleon 10y ago
Ah, looks like you're right: USDA: "Wages, salaries, and contract labor expenses represent roughly 17 percent of total variable farm costs, and as much as 40 percent of costs in labor intensive crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nursery products." [1] [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/background.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/back...

lambdadmitry 10y ago

> If you follow the money, it's easy to see why the US has focused its research on high-tech petrochemical fertilizer farming and GMOs. You can sell proprietary fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and seeds, but it's much harder to monetize new farming techniques. I believe this means that you are not aware of the work of Norman Borlaug [1] [2]. Basically the very fact that we don't have famines now in places like India, Pakistan and Mexico is due to his and his group's work on intensive agriculture, which was mostly about farming techniques, government practices and setting up local fertilizer productions. Moreover, it seems that you somehow look down to fertilizers. There is nothing wrong or inherently "non-green" in fixing nitrogen into nitrate fertilizers, you can easily do this with solar energy. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

sebleon 10y ago
Right, I've heard the Western narrative on Norman Borlaug and the "Green Revolution". I'd highly encourage you to read through the work of Vandana Shiva. [1] She'll provide a well-researched, critical view as an actual stakeholder in India's food system. I look down upon petro-chemical fertilizers because of their disastrous effects on the environment and food security. Happy to elaborate, but Dr. Shiva work does it better. [1] http://vandanashiva.com/?p=291 http://vandanashiva.com/?p=291
- lambdadmitry 10y ago
  You keep throwing the phrase "petro-chemical fertilizers" around but I can't see how it can make sense except for denigrating the concept and spreading FUD (which is counterproductive). Ammonia is just NH3 and there is nothing "petro" (i.e. hydrocarbons) in it, that hydrogen can be obtained anywhere and the nitrogen is literally around you. Can you please elaborate on how fixing nitrogen on industrial scale is "disastrous"? What difference do you see between bio-available nitrogen that originated in root nodules and chemical reactor?
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    I just listened to a podcast (50 things that made the modern economy http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04f77rg http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04f77rg) about the Haber-Bosch process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process According to the podcast and the wiki page, the current source of hydrogen for ammonia is natural gas. Additionally the process is energy-intensive, using high temperature and pressure. These things don't necessarily make it mandatory that it's petro-chemical, but due to the way we currently run it it is.
    - lambdadmitry 10y ago
      And the current source of electricity that runs HN is most probably fossil fuels. Does it make HN "petro-website"? It's clearly a derogatory term that serves no constructive purpose. I believe we should strive for zero-emission hydrogen production (which is clearly possible given that hydrogen can be easily used to utilize excessive production from "green" sources) instead of pushing luddite worldview.