6 ms·

What would this gain for you? Keep in mind that the two are going to require very different planting, cultivation and harvesting timing and technique, so havin

What would this gain for you? Keep in mind that the two are going to require very different planting, cultivation and harvesting timing and technique, so having narrow strips of one alongside the other is going to be a monumental pain in the butt for the farmer (in comparison to having a whole field of one in one year and a whole field of the other in another year). No one is going to do the "plant alongside" thing unless there are massive gains to be had.

solomonb 7y ago
The "massive gains" is avoiding ecological collapse. We need to radically rethink our system of agriculture and relationship to the soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Guilds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Guilds
- anfilt 7y ago
  As long as the two different crops are compatible yields tend to be the same or better if symbiotic. Problem is for economical harvesting you need to spread them out which also lowers density on a field. Which also lessens the symbiotic benefits as they now are further apart. Also density is important for grains/cereals since each plant produces so little. Honestly, while a nice idea I agree it wont really work at the scale we need. I think some genetic engineering would be more useful. Ideally a crop that also is not encumbered by patents like other enhanced crops.
- spritecranberry 7y ago
  This remark comes from a tremendously privileged position. Much of the world spends its day trying to find enough to eat, so creating creating a nitrogen-fixing cereal may be a better compromise in a world where the "ideal" outcome (from an ecological perspective) is not viable.
arrosenberg 7y ago
Co-planting and cover-cropping get you healthier soil both short and long term, higher yields and more diversity. Properly planted fields need very little added fertilizer or vivicides in order for life to thrive, and they make much better use of the water and soil resources available to them. The downside is you can't automate harvest, but the money is there to be made (massive gains in the form of greater yields and more crops to sell). More importantly you are acting symbiotically with the land instead of parasitically. If the US was still made up of legacy family farms, it would be a no-brainer to do this because there is a long term interest in the health of the land. Now that most agricultural land is centralized in the hands of a few corporations, they will act for short-term gain unless the government mandates that they do otherwise.
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  > The downside is you can't automate harvest So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. See: https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/CornYieldTrend_US.gif https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/Co...
  - arrosenberg 7y ago
    > So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. I find it strange how we have cell phones and solar power and other these other wonders, and yet arguments always goes straight to slavery anytime the specter of higher labor costs comes up. One would think innovation, especially on this forum. The obvious, immediate way would be to fix the immigration laws and enforcement to allow in as much guest labor as needed. If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Eventually innovation will bring the costs down. > As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. Another silly comparison to the past - agricultural science has advanced multiple times in the last 80 years. No one would argue that modern, chemistry-based farming isn't productive, simply that it's less productive (and far, FAR more detrimental to the soil) than what modern science around restorative agriculture can produce. Restorative Ag 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A For what it's worth, I also think Corn yields are probably impacted by how heavily subsidized it is. That's a policy that started with the New Deal in 1933, so it makes sense that the graphic would start to increase there.
    - bradleyjg 7y ago
      > If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Wait, what? If the farmer’s asset is getting more valuable how is that an argument for public subsidies?
ivanhoe 7y ago
One of the ideas for big farms is that you don't have 2 crops, you have a main crop and then you have other plants acting as a support for that main crop. Depending on the crop and climate/soil you pick the types of legumes that will cover the surface and provide nitrogen fixation, as well as reduce evaporation and stop deep-rooted weeds from growing (as they compete with the main crop for nutrients). Then you can plant wild flower plants around the fields in order to bring in the predatory insects who will protect your crops from aphids and other pest. You can also leave the isles of trees and hedges that will attract birds, foxes and weasels that will feed on insects and rodents. Organic farmers have been experimenting with this for decades, it's nothing new.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  The solution is not large farms but smaller farms that are mostly automated. This also means more jobs for a country that is going to churn out so many STEM educated youth. It’s time to start changing how we grow food.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Why would automation be limited to smaller farms? That is the opposite of the usual scenario where larger operations have the capital to scale up further. "Generating more jobs" is putting the cart before the horse - the point of a job is the utility gain from performing it. If it involves more jobs to keep the status quo that is a bad thing.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Because you can’t scale automation for large farms. Ag has too many variables ..soil, weather, pests etc. you can have different environments and zones in the same farm. Creating new jobs is important in ‘new Ag’ because it would be increasingly technical and need STEM expertise. Right now..basically it’s running because we can get poor people desperate enough to work on minimum wage.
- ficklepickle 7y ago

solomonb 7y ago

The "massive gains" is avoiding ecological collapse. We need to radically rethink our system of agriculture and relationship to the soil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Guilds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Guilds

anfilt 7y ago
As long as the two different crops are compatible yields tend to be the same or better if symbiotic. Problem is for economical harvesting you need to spread them out which also lowers density on a field. Which also lessens the symbiotic benefits as they now are further apart. Also density is important for grains/cereals since each plant produces so little. Honestly, while a nice idea I agree it wont really work at the scale we need. I think some genetic engineering would be more useful. Ideally a crop that also is not encumbered by patents like other enhanced crops.
spritecranberry 7y ago
This remark comes from a tremendously privileged position. Much of the world spends its day trying to find enough to eat, so creating creating a nitrogen-fixing cereal may be a better compromise in a world where the "ideal" outcome (from an ecological perspective) is not viable.

arrosenberg 7y ago

Co-planting and cover-cropping get you healthier soil both short and long term, higher yields and more diversity. Properly planted fields need very little added fertilizer or vivicides in order for life to thrive, and they make much better use of the water and soil resources available to them. The downside is you can't automate harvest, but the money is there to be made (massive gains in the form of greater yields and more crops to sell). More importantly you are acting symbiotically with the land instead of parasitically. If the US was still made up of legacy family farms, it would be a no-brainer to do this because there is a long term interest in the health of the land. Now that most agricultural land is centralized in the hands of a few corporations, they will act for short-term gain unless the government mandates that they do otherwise.

Turing_Machine 7y ago
> The downside is you can't automate harvest So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. See: https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/CornYieldTrend_US.gif https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/Co...
- arrosenberg 7y ago
  > So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. I find it strange how we have cell phones and solar power and other these other wonders, and yet arguments always goes straight to slavery anytime the specter of higher labor costs comes up. One would think innovation, especially on this forum. The obvious, immediate way would be to fix the immigration laws and enforcement to allow in as much guest labor as needed. If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Eventually innovation will bring the costs down. > As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. Another silly comparison to the past - agricultural science has advanced multiple times in the last 80 years. No one would argue that modern, chemistry-based farming isn't productive, simply that it's less productive (and far, FAR more detrimental to the soil) than what modern science around restorative agriculture can produce. Restorative Ag 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A For what it's worth, I also think Corn yields are probably impacted by how heavily subsidized it is. That's a policy that started with the New Deal in 1933, so it makes sense that the graphic would start to increase there.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    > If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Wait, what? If the farmer’s asset is getting more valuable how is that an argument for public subsidies?

ivanhoe 7y ago

One of the ideas for big farms is that you don't have 2 crops, you have a main crop and then you have other plants acting as a support for that main crop. Depending on the crop and climate/soil you pick the types of legumes that will cover the surface and provide nitrogen fixation, as well as reduce evaporation and stop deep-rooted weeds from growing (as they compete with the main crop for nutrients). Then you can plant wild flower plants around the fields in order to bring in the predatory insects who will protect your crops from aphids and other pest. You can also leave the isles of trees and hedges that will attract birds, foxes and weasels that will feed on insects and rodents. Organic farmers have been experimenting with this for decades, it's nothing new.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
The solution is not large farms but smaller farms that are mostly automated. This also means more jobs for a country that is going to churn out so many STEM educated youth. It’s time to start changing how we grow food.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Why would automation be limited to smaller farms? That is the opposite of the usual scenario where larger operations have the capital to scale up further. "Generating more jobs" is putting the cart before the horse - the point of a job is the utility gain from performing it. If it involves more jobs to keep the status quo that is a bad thing.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Because you can’t scale automation for large farms. Ag has too many variables ..soil, weather, pests etc. you can have different environments and zones in the same farm. Creating new jobs is important in ‘new Ag’ because it would be increasingly technical and need STEM expertise. Right now..basically it’s running because we can get poor people desperate enough to work on minimum wage.
ficklepickle 7y ago