4 ms·

I would hope that the savviest of SV or startup folks recognize that the actual planting, growing and harvesting of crops isn't the thing that they are trying t

I would hope that the savviest of SV or startup folks recognize that the actual planting, growing and harvesting of crops isn't the thing that they are trying to innovate on. Rather it's the disastrous logistics chain and resultant waste, leading to overproduction and augmentation of our food system, is the problem trying to be solved.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> actual planting, growing and harvesting of crops isn't the thing that they are trying to innovate on. There are enormous problems there, such as a heavy reliance on human labour for picking and processing. The problem with going after waste reduction is that the tab for that is picked up through subsidies. The inefficiency is in policy.
- adrianN 6y ago
  The problem with human labor in agriculture is that we've already spent a lot of effort to remove humans, the jobs that are left are really hard to automate.
protomyth 6y ago
Can you explain this "disastrous logistics chain"? I am a bit confused given all the effort that goes into logistics by farm companies.
- AndrewKemendo 6y ago
  It's the logistics chain from the farm to your plate that's the disaster. That's not for lack of trying. But having exposure to farming growing up, there's no good way to get a ripe berry from Washington State to Florida before it spoils without freezing it, genetically engineering it (which is fine, I'm pro GMO, it's just costly) or treating it. Even if you do, handling it will see large losses. So the trick is, how do you reduce how far something needs to travel from the time it's ready to harvest until it's consumed.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    Well, you can get it there, but berries aren't worth enough to make that journey by air. That is generally reserved for seafood and there is an equally amazing logistics system to do that. Calling one of the most amazing processes on the planet "disastrous logistics chain" is just disingenuous.
    - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
      30% of all food produced - approx 1 Trillion dollars worth - is lost in the supply chain, and contributes the equivalent of the third largest CO2 producer if it were a country. I'm not sure how to describe that other than a disaster. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt300e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt300e.pdf
      - protomyth 6y ago
        I call it an unavoidable cost of making sure people have food on the table. There is no way on this planet that you can design a supply chain that you produce the same amount of food that is consumed. This isn't parts that get put in some widget, people have different tastes at different times. I'm honestly surprised its only 30% given the fickle taste of people. The CO2 production will reduce as we steadily change from diesel to electric. Ocean going vessels are just environmental problems that treaties seem to ignore.
      - Skunkleton 6y ago
        There is room for improvement, and there is significant financial incentive to realize that improvement. That said, I'm not sure that measure is the whole picture. If we are losing 30% of our food to the supply chain, what is the alternative? Perhaps we could farm things more locally and shorten the supply chain? If we did that, would we still get 100% of the yield of the old approach? What I am saying is that if we try and fix the waste problem, it would very like be at the expense of reducing yield. The extreme example is the tomatoes I am growing in my back yard. None of them will be wasted, but I'm fairly certain that the yield per square acre is absolutely atrocious.
  - 6y ago

MattGaiser 6y ago

> actual planting, growing and harvesting of crops isn't the thing that they are trying to innovate on. There are enormous problems there, such as a heavy reliance on human labour for picking and processing. The problem with going after waste reduction is that the tab for that is picked up through subsidies. The inefficiency is in policy.

adrianN 6y ago
The problem with human labor in agriculture is that we've already spent a lot of effort to remove humans, the jobs that are left are really hard to automate.

protomyth 6y ago

Can you explain this "disastrous logistics chain"? I am a bit confused given all the effort that goes into logistics by farm companies.

AndrewKemendo 6y ago
It's the logistics chain from the farm to your plate that's the disaster. That's not for lack of trying. But having exposure to farming growing up, there's no good way to get a ripe berry from Washington State to Florida before it spoils without freezing it, genetically engineering it (which is fine, I'm pro GMO, it's just costly) or treating it. Even if you do, handling it will see large losses. So the trick is, how do you reduce how far something needs to travel from the time it's ready to harvest until it's consumed.
- protomyth 6y ago
  Well, you can get it there, but berries aren't worth enough to make that journey by air. That is generally reserved for seafood and there is an equally amazing logistics system to do that. Calling one of the most amazing processes on the planet "disastrous logistics chain" is just disingenuous.
  - AndrewKemendo 6y ago
    30% of all food produced - approx 1 Trillion dollars worth - is lost in the supply chain, and contributes the equivalent of the third largest CO2 producer if it were a country. I'm not sure how to describe that other than a disaster. http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt300e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt300e.pdf
    - protomyth 6y ago
      I call it an unavoidable cost of making sure people have food on the table. There is no way on this planet that you can design a supply chain that you produce the same amount of food that is consumed. This isn't parts that get put in some widget, people have different tastes at different times. I'm honestly surprised its only 30% given the fickle taste of people. The CO2 production will reduce as we steadily change from diesel to electric. Ocean going vessels are just environmental problems that treaties seem to ignore.
    - Skunkleton 6y ago
      There is room for improvement, and there is significant financial incentive to realize that improvement. That said, I'm not sure that measure is the whole picture. If we are losing 30% of our food to the supply chain, what is the alternative? Perhaps we could farm things more locally and shorten the supply chain? If we did that, would we still get 100% of the yield of the old approach? What I am saying is that if we try and fix the waste problem, it would very like be at the expense of reducing yield. The extreme example is the tomatoes I am growing in my back yard. None of them will be wasted, but I'm fairly certain that the yield per square acre is absolutely atrocious.
- 6y ago