4 ms·

What is the purpose exactly? Everything I can find about it is just hand wavey "its good for the environment because reasons".

zeckalpha 8y ago
No need to till, better drought tolerance.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  There's no need to till with any other grain either, the majority of grain is farmed no-till already. Is there any actual evidence of better drought tolerance, or is that just assumed based on the misconception that perennials are more drought tolerant than annuals?
cwkoss 8y ago
Growing grains requires: Prep soil -> Plant -> Wait -> Harvest Perennial grains would allow you to do the prep and plant once, and then repeat the last two steps multiple times. Prep, Planting, and Harvest are all similar orders of magnitude of labor, so if you can get ~ 5 years from a single planting, you could work an area of land with less than half the total labor. Less soil prep and planting (with heavy machinery) means less soil erosion, less microbiome destruction, healthier soil.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >Prep soil That's not required at all. Most grain is grown no-till, you seed directly through the residue of the previous crop. This is the typical problem, people researching solutions to problems that don't actually exist. Why are agricultural researchers completely unfamiliar with basic farming practices? >you could work an area of land with less than half the total labor. And get less food from it because the grain has such a low yield. You're burning fewer gallons of diesel per calorie of food produced to grow normal wheat than any of the perennial grains they have come up with so far. >Less soil prep and planting (with heavy machinery) means less soil erosion, less microbiome destruction, healthier soil But we solved that problem decades ago, solving it again but worse isn't very useful.
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    It seems like you've already made up your mind, so not sure why I'm bothering, but... >Most grain is grown no-till I don't think this is accurate for wheat. > food produced to grow normal wheat than any of the perennial grains they have come up with so far A brand new innovation is less efficient that an existing tech that has existed for centuries? Crazy. > But we solved that problem decades ago We've solved soil destruction? What?
    - agsdfgsd 8y ago
      >I don't think this is accurate for wheat. Why are you making claims if you don't know anything about the subject of discussion? >A brand new innovation is less efficient that an existing tech that has existed for centuries? What are you talking about? It is not tech, it is plants. You can't argue we need a perennial grain because it is more efficient, and then say its ok for it to be less efficient because it is new. >We've solved soil destruction? Yes. This is not 1934, no-till has been the norm for decades. If your ideas about modern farming are 100 years old, you might want to stop telling modern farmers what problems they have.

zeckalpha 8y ago

No need to till, better drought tolerance.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
There's no need to till with any other grain either, the majority of grain is farmed no-till already. Is there any actual evidence of better drought tolerance, or is that just assumed based on the misconception that perennials are more drought tolerant than annuals?

cwkoss 8y ago

Growing grains requires: Prep soil -> Plant -> Wait -> Harvest Perennial grains would allow you to do the prep and plant once, and then repeat the last two steps multiple times. Prep, Planting, and Harvest are all similar orders of magnitude of labor, so if you can get ~ 5 years from a single planting, you could work an area of land with less than half the total labor. Less soil prep and planting (with heavy machinery) means less soil erosion, less microbiome destruction, healthier soil.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Prep soil That's not required at all. Most grain is grown no-till, you seed directly through the residue of the previous crop. This is the typical problem, people researching solutions to problems that don't actually exist. Why are agricultural researchers completely unfamiliar with basic farming practices? >you could work an area of land with less than half the total labor. And get less food from it because the grain has such a low yield. You're burning fewer gallons of diesel per calorie of food produced to grow normal wheat than any of the perennial grains they have come up with so far. >Less soil prep and planting (with heavy machinery) means less soil erosion, less microbiome destruction, healthier soil But we solved that problem decades ago, solving it again but worse isn't very useful.
- cwkoss 8y ago
  It seems like you've already made up your mind, so not sure why I'm bothering, but... >Most grain is grown no-till I don't think this is accurate for wheat. > food produced to grow normal wheat than any of the perennial grains they have come up with so far A brand new innovation is less efficient that an existing tech that has existed for centuries? Crazy. > But we solved that problem decades ago We've solved soil destruction? What?
  - agsdfgsd 8y ago
    >I don't think this is accurate for wheat. Why are you making claims if you don't know anything about the subject of discussion? >A brand new innovation is less efficient that an existing tech that has existed for centuries? What are you talking about? It is not tech, it is plants. You can't argue we need a perennial grain because it is more efficient, and then say its ok for it to be less efficient because it is new. >We've solved soil destruction? Yes. This is not 1934, no-till has been the norm for decades. If your ideas about modern farming are 100 years old, you might want to stop telling modern farmers what problems they have.