3 ms·

Chemicals are maybe the smallest cost of agriculture. Used to be < $10/acre. Costs for equipment and labor >> So saving even 95% is maybe not a compelling econ

Chemicals are maybe the smallest cost of agriculture. Used to be < $10/acre. Costs for equipment and labor >> So saving even 95% is maybe not a compelling economical argument to use this.

Arn_Thor 4y ago
The environmental argument is huge, though. And there must be some monetary value in being able to sell your product as X% more environmentally friendly?
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  The private farmer is operating on thin margins. They are ecologists to be sure; their soil is their life. But no, not just to get some enviro-theatre stamp, they'll pay $0 for that. And there's a lot of FUD about ag chemicals. Check rivers - the chemical problems are downstream from cities, where an urban dweller can dump as much whatever on their lawn as they like (and they do). While ag is restricted and regulated.
  - Arn_Thor 4y ago
    No, the farmer is obviously not going to do this "just because". But if there's a market for organic produce sold to consumers at a markup, why wouldn't there be a market for something like this? Ag is regulated, for sure (and for good reason!), but it's still a huge polluter. And yes, let's regulate domestic chemical use while we're at it!
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
      Oh it's regulate (domestic). Long paragraph on every bottle of weedkiller etc. You ever read that? Farmers do. But no, residential customers just pull the trigger until the weed starts to curl or whatever, and then the sprinkler runs and it all goes down to the creek.
KaiserPro 4y ago
Well not quite. resistance is a massive problem, so you need to spray more. But that kills off the soil, so you need to put more fertiliser in. But that means you get weeds, so you need to nuke the field, which means the soil blows away, which means you need more fertiliser....
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  That's the enviro-theatre anyway. Folks in the midwest largely use no-till single-application processes. Which prevents weeds from even starting.

Chemicals are maybe the smallest cost of agriculture. Used to be < $10/acre. Costs for equipment and labor >> So saving even 95% is maybe not a compelling economical argument to use this.

Arn_Thor 4y ago

The environmental argument is huge, though. And there must be some monetary value in being able to sell your product as X% more environmentally friendly?

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
The private farmer is operating on thin margins. They are ecologists to be sure; their soil is their life. But no, not just to get some enviro-theatre stamp, they'll pay $0 for that. And there's a lot of FUD about ag chemicals. Check rivers - the chemical problems are downstream from cities, where an urban dweller can dump as much whatever on their lawn as they like (and they do). While ag is restricted and regulated.
- Arn_Thor 4y ago
  No, the farmer is obviously not going to do this "just because". But if there's a market for organic produce sold to consumers at a markup, why wouldn't there be a market for something like this? Ag is regulated, for sure (and for good reason!), but it's still a huge polluter. And yes, let's regulate domestic chemical use while we're at it!
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    Oh it's regulate (domestic). Long paragraph on every bottle of weedkiller etc. You ever read that? Farmers do. But no, residential customers just pull the trigger until the weed starts to curl or whatever, and then the sprinkler runs and it all goes down to the creek.

KaiserPro 4y ago

Well not quite. resistance is a massive problem, so you need to spray more. But that kills off the soil, so you need to put more fertiliser in. But that means you get weeds, so you need to nuke the field, which means the soil blows away, which means you need more fertiliser....

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
That's the enviro-theatre anyway. Folks in the midwest largely use no-till single-application processes. Which prevents weeds from even starting.