3 ms·
The linked article suggests that their system will yield "competitive" yields and higher profits. I interpret that as "yes, just stop paying for fertiliser, do
by Lazare 6y ago
The linked article suggests that their system will yield "competitive" yields and higher profits. I interpret that as "yes, just stop paying for fertiliser, do something else that's much cheaper than fertiliser, and get the same yields!"
Which would be amazing if true, since it basically means "hey, free money". But as you say, it feels a little over simple.
I'd be curious to know what the catch is.
- kickout 6y agoThe catch is this is like LeBron James saying, 'see it is easy to win championships in the NBA' because he's a .00001% outlier. The system like the ones in the linked article are complicated, and the stated yields and profits likely represent an idealized top 1% percentile.
- tastyfreeze 6y agoThe catch is teaching people to farm this way. It requires many more farmers but there is money to be made. My hope is that some of the unemployed millions will see the dollar signs in the soil and start a new generation of farmers. Most people outside farm country dont even consider farming to be a viable career. Just look at the comments here. High cost of entry to compete on an industrial scale and razor thin margins. Who would want to even try. But a small farm run like the article can be very profitable.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoStill takes a lot of startup capital to get the first plot of land though...
- HeyLaughingBoy 6y agoYes, it does. That's a reason that a lot of people in farm country don't consider farming to be a viable career.
- ac29 6y agoOrganic farming uses fertilizer, and this experiment is no different. They use manure, so unless one's farm is also a dairy and/or ranching operation, the farmer would still be buying fertilizer. It'd just be manure instead of synthetic fertilizer.