Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable(news.mongabay.com)
news.mongabay.com
Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/07/investors-find-agroforestry-isnt-just-climate-friendly-it-can-also-be-profitable/
169 comments
Wouldn’t it be easier to just plant something else every other year?
I thought this was solved literally 1000 years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system
I thought this was solved literally 1000 years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system
I was always confused by this as well. Then I spoke to a person working in agriculture, apparently chemical fertilizers are cheap enough to make crop rotation redundant.
Unfortunately we do not have an inexhaustible supply of fertilizer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
As a layman I assumed that was the case. But I understand the bigger issue now is that both soil and crop nutrients are dropping in farms due to soil depletion[0].
0: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...
0: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...
Yeah. And not only that, the "regenerative agriculture" mentioned in the article isn't just about sustainable practices, where we put back into the soilwhat we take out. Regenerative practices includes practices where soil fertility is built up year after year as a result of the agricultural practices. In other words, you can take a depleted land and bring it back up into productive land, and potentially, become more productive than non-regenerative practices.
You can grow more than a single plant together, and depending on the combination, they can synergize in a way that helps both of them grow. Some of that is due to pest management (where one plant species deters pests that raid the other). Some add nutrients (nitrogen fixers and other dynamic accumulators). Some can grow at different canopy layers (such as growing ground cover to help retain moisture while taller plants are used as trellises for vining plants).
Some plants have deep tap roots that break up compacted soil and help draw out nutrients to make them bioavailable. Many of them are pioneer plants and are considered weeds or considered invasive.
You can grow more than a single plant together, and depending on the combination, they can synergize in a way that helps both of them grow. Some of that is due to pest management (where one plant species deters pests that raid the other). Some add nutrients (nitrogen fixers and other dynamic accumulators). Some can grow at different canopy layers (such as growing ground cover to help retain moisture while taller plants are used as trellises for vining plants).
Some plants have deep tap roots that break up compacted soil and help draw out nutrients to make them bioavailable. Many of them are pioneer plants and are considered weeds or considered invasive.
Much of big Ag is an effort to shortcut all this. Use a chisel plow to break up compacted soil. Add ammonia. Use earth movers to create more flat land with useful soils. Etc.
The advantages are clear: you can decide when to do these things, and do them on a short schedule. Its hard to argue waiting 5 years for some remediation project to maybe work, when I have a chisel plow right over there in the shed.
The advantages are clear: you can decide when to do these things, and do them on a short schedule. Its hard to argue waiting 5 years for some remediation project to maybe work, when I have a chisel plow right over there in the shed.
Yeah. Big Ag is not incentivized to be sustainable, let alone be regenerative. Big Ag is certainly not resilient. Its very reward system (like modern commerce in general) is based on the extraction of resources (whether that be in the earth, or people resources), and then controlling access to them. Overharvesting always happen, because we're culturally conditioned to define wealth and status in terms of how much one has hoarded more than other people.
I think the main path out of this is to have decentralized food systems, and this is where regenerative and resilient design patterns really shine. I think it starts with a shift in the mindset, where instead of seeing wealth as coming from extraction and hoarding, to seeing wealth in terms of being stewards of regenerative processes.
We have pseudo-regenerative processes in the financial sector with compounding interest, but you can't directly eat money. I can eat the stuff from my backyard.
The beautiful thing about participating in building a decentralized food system is that I don't have to convince you, or anyone else on HN to affect collective action. I can start doing these things in my home, and trade things with other like-minded people. I can offer up the excess abundance to my friends, family, and neighbors. Some of them may want to take up the practices themselves.
Just to be clear, I used shortcuts too. I am using raised beds and importing compost and manure (buying them from big box stores). But I'm also taking the time to plant edible perennials. I only found out later, there are many ways to get even quicker turn around time -- sprouts, fast growing annuals, succession planting. I'm learning. Next year's growing season will incorporate more.
I think the main path out of this is to have decentralized food systems, and this is where regenerative and resilient design patterns really shine. I think it starts with a shift in the mindset, where instead of seeing wealth as coming from extraction and hoarding, to seeing wealth in terms of being stewards of regenerative processes.
We have pseudo-regenerative processes in the financial sector with compounding interest, but you can't directly eat money. I can eat the stuff from my backyard.
The beautiful thing about participating in building a decentralized food system is that I don't have to convince you, or anyone else on HN to affect collective action. I can start doing these things in my home, and trade things with other like-minded people. I can offer up the excess abundance to my friends, family, and neighbors. Some of them may want to take up the practices themselves.
Just to be clear, I used shortcuts too. I am using raised beds and importing compost and manure (buying them from big box stores). But I'm also taking the time to plant edible perennials. I only found out later, there are many ways to get even quicker turn around time -- sprouts, fast growing annuals, succession planting. I'm learning. Next year's growing season will incorporate more.
>Yeah. Big Ag is not incentivized to be sustainable, let alone be regenerative.
Can you expand on this point some? I'm trying to understand but I don't really see the problem. Whether the nutrition comes from the soil or the fertilizer doesn't really seem that important. I get what other posters have said about vegetables in the past being more nutritious but it's not clear to me that this matters terribly much compared to the accessibility gains from produce being cheaper and still nutritious (ableit less so).
Can you expand on this point some? I'm trying to understand but I don't really see the problem. Whether the nutrition comes from the soil or the fertilizer doesn't really seem that important. I get what other posters have said about vegetables in the past being more nutritious but it's not clear to me that this matters terribly much compared to the accessibility gains from produce being cheaper and still nutritious (ableit less so).
...where does the fertiliser come from?
Currently, there's a lot of fossil fuels involved.
Currently, there's a lot of fossil fuels involved.
Ammonia created from fossil fuels accounts for 2% of carbon emmisions, but it seems likely that ammonia created from air and water with renewable energy will replace it in the future. Theres some pilot plants in existance.
It isn’t as if regenerative agriculture is not putting nutrients back in the soil either. They are, usually in the form of compost or animal manure.
However, soil fertility is not just about the chemical makeup of the soil. There are soil bacteria and mycellium that symbiotically live at the roots to help plants make use of those nutrients. Root systems of plants grow together, and plants biochemically communicate with each other. Roots also need oxygen, so aerated soil matters. Plants that die back in the soil leave their roots in place, slowly decomposing and releasing other nutrients for use of other plants, and other organisms such as earthworms. Those same roots — both larger tap roots, and fine branches of the root system, changes the absorptive qualities of the soil so that it can hold water and release them.
In other words, healthy, fertile soil is very much alive, and helps store and regulate water and nutrients for the plants that live and die on the soil.
Healthy, fertile soil can support life directly in a way in a much tighter feedback loop. Using amendments requires more intervening steps. If the top soil gets eroded away, that top soil has to get imported, creating a longer supply chain. The longer the supply chain, the more fragile it becomes. It becomes less adaptive, more sensitive to volatility.
Another is that the optimization toward short term yield is often at the cost of long-term fertility. We build these fragile systems that are optimized for scale and yield as if that fertility will not run out. If the soil is depleted somewhere, importing soil amendments, or even top soil, has to come from somewhere. Even if the supply chain is not cut, at some point, the resources to maintain that longer supply chain will run out.
This setup also conditions people into a situation where they now have to rely on currency to supply basic needs. That, in and of itself, drives the growing wealth inequality of today.
To address that wealth inequality, we are now seriously considering universal basic income. But if you looked at universal basic income as just one type of energy and nutrient flow, it is ridiculous that an easier method for obtaining those basic needs can be had by allowing each household, or neighborhood to supply some of those needs locally.
There is a small town in Canada where the community got together to convert one of their public spaces into a food forest. Volunteers came in to dig and plant. Local businesses stepped up to provide transportation to bring in the compost, the perennials, shrubs, and trees. The food forest was designed in a way so that the natural rainfalls can sustain the growth. The perennials all create a long-term supply of food. Once the initial capital was invested, there is little ongoing maintenance.
People in the community can then go into food forest and get free food. There are probably some education on identifying what is edible (and there are plenty of it). Food grows on trees and on the land. A food forest doesn’t require currency to feed people, and as such, is resilient to a deflationary contraction of the economy.
And that is just one regenerative system. Individuals who have access to multiple, local, regenerative food systems have a greater food security than those that do not.
And that is just food, one out of a handful of the foundational survival needs. There is also shelter, warmth, clothing, water.
Permaculture design looks at the whole system, such that all of the basic needs can be partially, if not wholly, met with regenerative systems. A individual within a community that has access to multiple regenerative processes that can meet all of the basic needs do not require universal basic income. When something like the pandemic happens, they are in a far better place than individuals who do not have access to any regenerative processes.
Such an individual can build the higher needs (I am referring to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) on a foundation of resilient and regenerative processes. With such a solid foundation of abundance, there is less reason to hold others in contempt. Or to cast out and alienate another group out of fear and anxiety over survival needs.
That fertility of the land extends into creativity of the people. The permaculturists I encounter tend to generate many new ideas. There is a liveliness and exuberance that is a contrast to the general malaise and loneliness of many urban and rural residents.
It isn’t as if building this is not for free either. This does require a significant shift in the mindset, in how one views and experiences the world. There is hard work required. Your hands get dirty. But I would say, it is also more fulfilling — not just nourishing the body, but also more intangible needs for people to have meaningful and purposeful lives.
However, soil fertility is not just about the chemical makeup of the soil. There are soil bacteria and mycellium that symbiotically live at the roots to help plants make use of those nutrients. Root systems of plants grow together, and plants biochemically communicate with each other. Roots also need oxygen, so aerated soil matters. Plants that die back in the soil leave their roots in place, slowly decomposing and releasing other nutrients for use of other plants, and other organisms such as earthworms. Those same roots — both larger tap roots, and fine branches of the root system, changes the absorptive qualities of the soil so that it can hold water and release them.
In other words, healthy, fertile soil is very much alive, and helps store and regulate water and nutrients for the plants that live and die on the soil.
Healthy, fertile soil can support life directly in a way in a much tighter feedback loop. Using amendments requires more intervening steps. If the top soil gets eroded away, that top soil has to get imported, creating a longer supply chain. The longer the supply chain, the more fragile it becomes. It becomes less adaptive, more sensitive to volatility.
Another is that the optimization toward short term yield is often at the cost of long-term fertility. We build these fragile systems that are optimized for scale and yield as if that fertility will not run out. If the soil is depleted somewhere, importing soil amendments, or even top soil, has to come from somewhere. Even if the supply chain is not cut, at some point, the resources to maintain that longer supply chain will run out.
This setup also conditions people into a situation where they now have to rely on currency to supply basic needs. That, in and of itself, drives the growing wealth inequality of today.
To address that wealth inequality, we are now seriously considering universal basic income. But if you looked at universal basic income as just one type of energy and nutrient flow, it is ridiculous that an easier method for obtaining those basic needs can be had by allowing each household, or neighborhood to supply some of those needs locally.
There is a small town in Canada where the community got together to convert one of their public spaces into a food forest. Volunteers came in to dig and plant. Local businesses stepped up to provide transportation to bring in the compost, the perennials, shrubs, and trees. The food forest was designed in a way so that the natural rainfalls can sustain the growth. The perennials all create a long-term supply of food. Once the initial capital was invested, there is little ongoing maintenance.
People in the community can then go into food forest and get free food. There are probably some education on identifying what is edible (and there are plenty of it). Food grows on trees and on the land. A food forest doesn’t require currency to feed people, and as such, is resilient to a deflationary contraction of the economy.
And that is just one regenerative system. Individuals who have access to multiple, local, regenerative food systems have a greater food security than those that do not.
And that is just food, one out of a handful of the foundational survival needs. There is also shelter, warmth, clothing, water.
Permaculture design looks at the whole system, such that all of the basic needs can be partially, if not wholly, met with regenerative systems. A individual within a community that has access to multiple regenerative processes that can meet all of the basic needs do not require universal basic income. When something like the pandemic happens, they are in a far better place than individuals who do not have access to any regenerative processes.
Such an individual can build the higher needs (I am referring to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) on a foundation of resilient and regenerative processes. With such a solid foundation of abundance, there is less reason to hold others in contempt. Or to cast out and alienate another group out of fear and anxiety over survival needs.
That fertility of the land extends into creativity of the people. The permaculturists I encounter tend to generate many new ideas. There is a liveliness and exuberance that is a contrast to the general malaise and loneliness of many urban and rural residents.
It isn’t as if building this is not for free either. This does require a significant shift in the mindset, in how one views and experiences the world. There is hard work required. Your hands get dirty. But I would say, it is also more fulfilling — not just nourishing the body, but also more intangible needs for people to have meaningful and purposeful lives.
I love "decentralization" as much as the next person on HN, but one the problem is not pricing in the externalities, I am not sure centralization is the problem.
A few bleeding hearts can run a parallel economy for good X with an alternate value function, but this doesn't really scale in and of itself.
Now, if someone combines alt grid / alt farms with lobbying for punitive tax in the smallest surrounding jurisdiction that can enforce it, perhaps that might work.
A few bleeding hearts can run a parallel economy for good X with an alternate value function, but this doesn't really scale in and of itself.
Now, if someone combines alt grid / alt farms with lobbying for punitive tax in the smallest surrounding jurisdiction that can enforce it, perhaps that might work.
And I am somewhat suspicious of the complaints about sustainability.
If modern agriculture is bad for soil in the long run, the owners of the soil surely will have an opinion about that. That's not even an externality.
The only thing holding back soil sustainability would be high interest rates. But that hasn't been a thing in more than a decade.
If modern agriculture is bad for soil in the long run, the owners of the soil surely will have an opinion about that. That's not even an externality.
The only thing holding back soil sustainability would be high interest rates. But that hasn't been a thing in more than a decade.
My vague recollection leads me to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus
While they can pump in nitrogen and phosphorus, they can get away with trashing the soil as much as they want. But if phosphorus becomes scarce they'll be suddenly left with ruined soil and no cost-effective work-around.
While they can pump in nitrogen and phosphorus, they can get away with trashing the soil as much as they want. But if phosphorus becomes scarce they'll be suddenly left with ruined soil and no cost-effective work-around.
A slight increase in phosphorus prices will conjure new supply.
> we're culturally conditioned to define wealth and status in terms of how much one has hoarded more than other people.
Do you have an alternative to this? This is basically animal behaviour, it's not unique to humans. Most of that hoarding is out of an effort to get a mate, too.
Do you have an alternative to this? This is basically animal behaviour, it's not unique to humans. Most of that hoarding is out of an effort to get a mate, too.
I wrote the alternative: seeing wealth as being stewards of regenerative processes. I'll elaborate.
Plants are generally more cooperative than they are competitive, and groups of plants that cooperate will do better together than by themselves. Trees will establish a network of roots, and shunt nutrients to trees within the grove that are not doing so well. Just because some plant species will engage in chemical warfare with some species doesn't mean it won't cooperate with others, and there are many examples of such cooperation. This idea that nature is based on competitive pressure is not wholly true; there is a whole aspect of cooperative processes that occur in ecology.
Animals (an insects), if you actually observe them, can also be more cooperative than competitive. It depends on how you set it up.
Some examples: chickens are micrograzers, and sheep are grazers. They don't compete for the same niche. Due to the size of their mouth, sheep cannot eat plants past a certain height. Chickens will also eat bugs. That includes eating the bugs off of the sheep, if you let them.
Yeah, my chickens get into my tomatoes sometimes. They scratch at the green mulch I put down in the garden. They will fly over the small fence to get to it.
But a different perspective: I let them out into the main yard, and they like the forage there more than they like it in my garden. They help keep the cricket population down (which helps keep the black widow spider population down. The fertilize my backyard (which has poor soil fertility from the previous owner). Their scratching to get at things help aerates the soil, and bring in more fertility.
So I don't have to compete with my chickens. I can shape the circumstances such that their natural instincts further the overall health of the system.
Plants are generally more cooperative than they are competitive, and groups of plants that cooperate will do better together than by themselves. Trees will establish a network of roots, and shunt nutrients to trees within the grove that are not doing so well. Just because some plant species will engage in chemical warfare with some species doesn't mean it won't cooperate with others, and there are many examples of such cooperation. This idea that nature is based on competitive pressure is not wholly true; there is a whole aspect of cooperative processes that occur in ecology.
Animals (an insects), if you actually observe them, can also be more cooperative than competitive. It depends on how you set it up.
Some examples: chickens are micrograzers, and sheep are grazers. They don't compete for the same niche. Due to the size of their mouth, sheep cannot eat plants past a certain height. Chickens will also eat bugs. That includes eating the bugs off of the sheep, if you let them.
Yeah, my chickens get into my tomatoes sometimes. They scratch at the green mulch I put down in the garden. They will fly over the small fence to get to it.
But a different perspective: I let them out into the main yard, and they like the forage there more than they like it in my garden. They help keep the cricket population down (which helps keep the black widow spider population down. The fertilize my backyard (which has poor soil fertility from the previous owner). Their scratching to get at things help aerates the soil, and bring in more fertility.
So I don't have to compete with my chickens. I can shape the circumstances such that their natural instincts further the overall health of the system.
I mean, just look at the massive variety of human cultures that have existed since the dawn of civilization.
Some of the regen folks hate the chisel plow, think it causes most of the problems you then have to deal with.
Yup. When the problem is we refuse to price in the externalities, technological solutions are probably doomed, or at least nothing to be broad of.
First jack up punitive taxes, then let tech do it's job. Market economics works far better when demand comes before supply.
First jack up punitive taxes, then let tech do it's job. Market economics works far better when demand comes before supply.
We can do better than that. You can, for example, plant nitrogen fixers directly as a companion plant for the plants that are heavy feeders. (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)) (But you'd still have to rotate out tomatoes and other nightshade family plants because of accumulated toxins in the soil).
There's a way to do this kind of a thing with perennials, and better yet, in the backyard or in the neighborhood garden. That is as local and "farm to table" as you can get.
There's a way to do this kind of a thing with perennials, and better yet, in the backyard or in the neighborhood garden. That is as local and "farm to table" as you can get.
Monoculture is bad for bees even if you rotate every other year.
The three-field system has the problem of leaving the soil uncovered which leads to erosion, which aggravates the nutrient depletion problem.
At least in my experience you plant cover crops there and plow them under at the end. My relatives used field peas. And the four-field system is considered a strict upgrade over the three-field system last I heard, basically just 3 productive fields and 1 planted in cover crops.
https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Building-Soils-fo...
https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Building-Soils-fo...
We can do better than that:
- Someone figured out a way to grow comfrey (and other nitrogen fixers) in a separate field with low maintenance to supply mulch material for the main crop, without having to rely on animal manure.
- There are people who built their animal barn at the top of a hill and dug swales to transport runoff from manure downward. They plant edibles all along the swale. Once established, low maintenance.
- I saw another practice that involved growing grasses, and using grazers and micrograzers to increase fertility in depleted soil. It’s part of an overal system where fences and chicken trailers are used to move grazing around.
Some of these practices may not be practical at scale, but that is not the point — these practices work well for decentralized food system
- Someone figured out a way to grow comfrey (and other nitrogen fixers) in a separate field with low maintenance to supply mulch material for the main crop, without having to rely on animal manure.
- There are people who built their animal barn at the top of a hill and dug swales to transport runoff from manure downward. They plant edibles all along the swale. Once established, low maintenance.
- I saw another practice that involved growing grasses, and using grazers and micrograzers to increase fertility in depleted soil. It’s part of an overal system where fences and chicken trailers are used to move grazing around.
Some of these practices may not be practical at scale, but that is not the point — these practices work well for decentralized food system
It’s much better to have a natural environment from a biodiversity perspective
From [4]:
Three kinds of evidence point toward declines of some nutrients in fruits and vegetables available in the United States and the United Kingdom: ... 3) recent side-by-side plantings of low- and high-yield cultivars of broccoli and grains found consistently negative correlations between yield and concentrations of minerals and protein, a newly recognized genetic dilution effect.
I think more automation is only going to make the nutrition content problem far worse. Industrial agriculture has optimized the strains largely based on consumer preference - consumers vote with their dollars for fruit that look consistently like their ideal vegetable or fruit (i.e. round, bright red tomatoes). They pay a lot of money for produce out of season so it's far more profitable to ship long distance so they have to look good and have a decent shelf life after a long transport too. We've been running breeding programs to optimize for those variables for a century or more without ever considering their impact.
These evolutionary pressures combined with yield optimization seem to strongly select against nutrition, sugar content, and flavor. For example, my parents only started planting their homestead a year or two ago but already this year the peaches, raspberries, and apples are leagues better than anything I can find in stores or farmers markets and bring me back to the food I remember before I moved to the United States. I can't easily test the nutritional content but I bet it's much better, even with the over-fertilization that they have to do (despite being in California).
Once we start optimizing for automation requirements as well as everything else - to justify the extra capital expense - I'm afraid the quality of the food will get even worse. Every operation, even the "organic" ones, falls prey to loss of quality beyond a certain size and it's largely because of economic pressure that I suspect will only get worse.
Three kinds of evidence point toward declines of some nutrients in fruits and vegetables available in the United States and the United Kingdom: ... 3) recent side-by-side plantings of low- and high-yield cultivars of broccoli and grains found consistently negative correlations between yield and concentrations of minerals and protein, a newly recognized genetic dilution effect.
I think more automation is only going to make the nutrition content problem far worse. Industrial agriculture has optimized the strains largely based on consumer preference - consumers vote with their dollars for fruit that look consistently like their ideal vegetable or fruit (i.e. round, bright red tomatoes). They pay a lot of money for produce out of season so it's far more profitable to ship long distance so they have to look good and have a decent shelf life after a long transport too. We've been running breeding programs to optimize for those variables for a century or more without ever considering their impact.
These evolutionary pressures combined with yield optimization seem to strongly select against nutrition, sugar content, and flavor. For example, my parents only started planting their homestead a year or two ago but already this year the peaches, raspberries, and apples are leagues better than anything I can find in stores or farmers markets and bring me back to the food I remember before I moved to the United States. I can't easily test the nutritional content but I bet it's much better, even with the over-fertilization that they have to do (despite being in California).
Once we start optimizing for automation requirements as well as everything else - to justify the extra capital expense - I'm afraid the quality of the food will get even worse. Every operation, even the "organic" ones, falls prey to loss of quality beyond a certain size and it's largely because of economic pressure that I suspect will only get worse.
I once bought some Californian peaches (I live in NZ). They were very large, good looking, and absolutely tasteless. Watery with only vague hints of peach flavour.
I do not believe the solution is to increase robotics to support this field, I think the solution is much more about a paradigm shift from over-optimization aka mono-cultures to a more holistic approach that increases the human-nature connection. We have to heal ourselves to heal the planet and while technology can help, software engineers will not be the heroes on this front, it will be more traditional stewards of the land.
I am a software engineer.
I agree with you.
There is something deeply broken about our human experience and that comes from becoming abstracted away from the ecology. It isn't just that we have to heal the plant; we also have to heal ourselves. (And frankly, if human civilization self-destructs and humans get wiped... the planet will recover just fine, eventually. Outside of maybe nukes going off everywhere).
We have come to think of ourselves as apart from the ecology rather than a part of the ecology. We think that the ecology is a factor in our economy, rather than our economy being a part of the over-all ecology. Software engineers in particular, have this weird aversion to getting their hands dirty with hardware, and so we abstract ourselves away from the hard, dirty bits. It blinds us to simpler, more practical solutions.
I think there is a place for technology, but only in terms of how it supports the direct human experience with the land, rather than getting in between. For example, I think the free and open web is highly vital to helping people share ideas and methods. Every single locale is different, but there are design patterns that may work. Seeing all the forums, subreddits, podcasts and blogs on this subject ... we already have the technology we need to pull all of this off.
And none of this involves VCs, Big Tech, or aggregators (from Stretechery, Aggregation Theory). It will be the land stewards. Those aggregation of wealth are fundamentally based upon the extraction of resources (be they from the earth or the people), and then controlling access to them. It's to the point where we have to depend upon buying into the civilization in order to live and survive, but it is breaking down and now the best we can come up with is the universal basic income. (When right there, in your backyard, you can be a part of something that nourishes you directly!)
The irony is that, the same skill and mindset software engineers use to design an appropriate architecture from a myriad of design patterns is the same kind of mental process one can analyze a site and design resilient, regenerative, and decentralized food systems.
I agree with you.
There is something deeply broken about our human experience and that comes from becoming abstracted away from the ecology. It isn't just that we have to heal the plant; we also have to heal ourselves. (And frankly, if human civilization self-destructs and humans get wiped... the planet will recover just fine, eventually. Outside of maybe nukes going off everywhere).
We have come to think of ourselves as apart from the ecology rather than a part of the ecology. We think that the ecology is a factor in our economy, rather than our economy being a part of the over-all ecology. Software engineers in particular, have this weird aversion to getting their hands dirty with hardware, and so we abstract ourselves away from the hard, dirty bits. It blinds us to simpler, more practical solutions.
I think there is a place for technology, but only in terms of how it supports the direct human experience with the land, rather than getting in between. For example, I think the free and open web is highly vital to helping people share ideas and methods. Every single locale is different, but there are design patterns that may work. Seeing all the forums, subreddits, podcasts and blogs on this subject ... we already have the technology we need to pull all of this off.
And none of this involves VCs, Big Tech, or aggregators (from Stretechery, Aggregation Theory). It will be the land stewards. Those aggregation of wealth are fundamentally based upon the extraction of resources (be they from the earth or the people), and then controlling access to them. It's to the point where we have to depend upon buying into the civilization in order to live and survive, but it is breaking down and now the best we can come up with is the universal basic income. (When right there, in your backyard, you can be a part of something that nourishes you directly!)
The irony is that, the same skill and mindset software engineers use to design an appropriate architecture from a myriad of design patterns is the same kind of mental process one can analyze a site and design resilient, regenerative, and decentralized food systems.
The parent is precisely arguing against mono-cultures. I don't see how your reply is really discussing any of the various relevant points he raised.
Right now, all that I understand from your opinion is that you think robots are bad because of mono-cultures, but the parent would argue equating those two things is incorrect.
Right now, all that I understand from your opinion is that you think robots are bad because of mono-cultures, but the parent would argue equating those two things is incorrect.
If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.
I know what you mean by "Luddite", but historically, they were not anti-tech either. They broke machines to gain leverage and put pressure over employers to give better working conditions, and not because they hated machines.
There are many design patterns in regenerative agriculture that works, but are low-tech or no-tech. It isn't that you need to be anti-tech; it is that we don't need high tech to solve these problems. They are low-tech because you are allowing natural processes to do things on its own, for the most part. Nature, not technology, is the "automation".
There are many design patterns in regenerative agriculture that works, but are low-tech or no-tech. It isn't that you need to be anti-tech; it is that we don't need high tech to solve these problems. They are low-tech because you are allowing natural processes to do things on its own, for the most part. Nature, not technology, is the "automation".
"Appropriate technology"
https://www.appropedia.org
I believe we are of similar understanding here. Great to read your responses here. Here's to the wish that we could share a conversation at some point. Trade notes.
https://www.appropedia.org
I believe we are of similar understanding here. Great to read your responses here. Here's to the wish that we could share a conversation at some point. Trade notes.
Send me an email sometime (talktohosh at gmail). This stuff I am deep diving —- permaculture design —- is still fairly new to me. But I had started to reevaluate the existing tech in my life in the context of the main ethical principles of permaculture (care of earth, care of people, fair share).
I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.
Biointensive gardening and earth-centric/organic/whatever methods definitely have their place, but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy.
The idea of bringing companion planting, cover cropping, etc to conventional agriculture by way of increased automation is a fascinating one, in part because of how pragmatic it is. It could allow those methods to scale much more than they do today, and allow a conventional farmer to adopt them incrementally, realizing the savings piecemeal (better yield here, reduced fertilizer use there, etc). This is going to be way more realistic than trying to reboot the whole system from scratch, especially to a method that requires 100x the labour inputs.
And it's definitely closer to the land than the other high tech direction, which is closed loop indoor hydroponic/aquaponic system— essentially doubling down on the monoculture approach by isolating the whole operation even more from unwanted natural inputs (pests, weather, and so on).
The idea of bringing companion planting, cover cropping, etc to conventional agriculture by way of increased automation is a fascinating one, in part because of how pragmatic it is. It could allow those methods to scale much more than they do today, and allow a conventional farmer to adopt them incrementally, realizing the savings piecemeal (better yield here, reduced fertilizer use there, etc). This is going to be way more realistic than trying to reboot the whole system from scratch, especially to a method that requires 100x the labour inputs.
And it's definitely closer to the land than the other high tech direction, which is closed loop indoor hydroponic/aquaponic system— essentially doubling down on the monoculture approach by isolating the whole operation even more from unwanted natural inputs (pests, weather, and so on).
Thanks for your great comment, it's helping further the discussion and my own understanding.
> but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy.
Agree completely. But I think a huge shift is very much needed, and this shift may decrease our dependencies on staples like corn, much of which goes to cattle feed and fuel uses when we have other, more ecological methods like pastured beef, solar etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
RE 2nd paragraph, also totally agree with, minus the "100x labor inputs". If done properly, bio-mimicry in Ag should decrease labor inputs as you leverage the advantages of natural plant/soil nutrient cycling, reduced watering and tillage from cover cropping and soil development, reduction of pesticide application by attracting animal/insect diversity etc.
From my understanding, "conventional" farming (I say ironically as we've really only been practicing these methods for ~60-70 years vs millennia of small scale farming that is the real "conventional"methods lol) has forced us to increase labor inputs - adding fertilizers, pesticides, annual tillage, managing irrigation systems - these are all things that can be eliminated, if the proper systems are put in place.
Gabe Browns book, Dirt to Soil was an eye opening read. Cheers.
> but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy.
Agree completely. But I think a huge shift is very much needed, and this shift may decrease our dependencies on staples like corn, much of which goes to cattle feed and fuel uses when we have other, more ecological methods like pastured beef, solar etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
RE 2nd paragraph, also totally agree with, minus the "100x labor inputs". If done properly, bio-mimicry in Ag should decrease labor inputs as you leverage the advantages of natural plant/soil nutrient cycling, reduced watering and tillage from cover cropping and soil development, reduction of pesticide application by attracting animal/insect diversity etc.
From my understanding, "conventional" farming (I say ironically as we've really only been practicing these methods for ~60-70 years vs millennia of small scale farming that is the real "conventional"methods lol) has forced us to increase labor inputs - adding fertilizers, pesticides, annual tillage, managing irrigation systems - these are all things that can be eliminated, if the proper systems are put in place.
Gabe Browns book, Dirt to Soil was an eye opening read. Cheers.
We don't necessarily have to scale this. I think a better approach is to build decentralized food systems using these practices. At the neighborhood or household level, these practices are very practical. It does not require rebooting the whole system. It does not require venture capital, because you're not trying to make a big return. It does not require waiting for conventional farmers to change their practice.
That process is under way, somewhat— I have several CSAs serving my city, and two major farmers markets. But relevant to note: all of those outfits are focused on fruits and vegetables, where the impact of "fresh" is the greatest. All of the corn being grown around me is sweet corn for immediate consumption, or for animal feed.
No one is growing wheat on a small scale, much less in the kind of quantities that would allow me to have several dozen kg with which to bake through the winter. Same with legumes, as far as I know.
In any case, I'm not trying to impose a solution here. Quite the opposite; the food system is a large problem that requires multiple irons in the fire, and that may well look like reinventing large-scale cropping to be less destructive and chemical-intense, while simultaneously moving fruit and veg production closer to home with smaller scale operations.
No one is growing wheat on a small scale, much less in the kind of quantities that would allow me to have several dozen kg with which to bake through the winter. Same with legumes, as far as I know.
In any case, I'm not trying to impose a solution here. Quite the opposite; the food system is a large problem that requires multiple irons in the fire, and that may well look like reinventing large-scale cropping to be less destructive and chemical-intense, while simultaneously moving fruit and veg production closer to home with smaller scale operations.
Legumes are interesting in that there are many crops that can be companion planted. Can they get to quantities that can sustain a family? I don’t know. But pole beans are known to grow better as a companion plant to corn than by themselves. There are many other types of legumes — the Mesquite tree here in my neck of the woods (lower Sonoran) is a nitrogen fixer, with some varieties producing bean like pods that can be harvested. (They require a mill to get the full use pf them).
My point is that there is a lot more options out there, and what is possible is a lot greater than people think.
As far as wheat goes, I have not heard much from permaculturists doing that. I hear more about cultivating amaranth and quinoa as nutritionally dense pseudo grains.
Generally, I also hear a lot more about winter squashes. That follows the design principle of “Catch and Store Energy”, with squashes being a very durable store of sunlight and nutrients. Speghetti squashes can be made into pasta-like noodles. Not so much with bread.
Cauliflower can be processed to make a kind of flour that can be used in a lot of baking. Again, I don’t know the yields that can sustain a family. Depending on where you are, they are a fall crop. (They are a winter crop for the lower Sonoran, zone 9b/10). Probably grown in succession so that they can be had for a while. Maybe the flour can be stored over winter.
There are also sunchokes. These are in the sunflower family, and are considered invasive. They are very hardy, and their tubers can be harvested during a time when few other plants can be harvested. Their flowers open late season, and also nourish pollinators at a time when they don’t have a whole lot of options. They will grow in poor, depleted soil, and will probably edge out other pioneer plants. So not bread for the winter, but a good source of calories nonetheless.
Maybe that will the challenge my wife presents to me: finding the a good set of crops that would allow her to bake.
My point is that there is a lot more options out there, and what is possible is a lot greater than people think.
As far as wheat goes, I have not heard much from permaculturists doing that. I hear more about cultivating amaranth and quinoa as nutritionally dense pseudo grains.
Generally, I also hear a lot more about winter squashes. That follows the design principle of “Catch and Store Energy”, with squashes being a very durable store of sunlight and nutrients. Speghetti squashes can be made into pasta-like noodles. Not so much with bread.
Cauliflower can be processed to make a kind of flour that can be used in a lot of baking. Again, I don’t know the yields that can sustain a family. Depending on where you are, they are a fall crop. (They are a winter crop for the lower Sonoran, zone 9b/10). Probably grown in succession so that they can be had for a while. Maybe the flour can be stored over winter.
There are also sunchokes. These are in the sunflower family, and are considered invasive. They are very hardy, and their tubers can be harvested during a time when few other plants can be harvested. Their flowers open late season, and also nourish pollinators at a time when they don’t have a whole lot of options. They will grow in poor, depleted soil, and will probably edge out other pioneer plants. So not bread for the winter, but a good source of calories nonetheless.
Maybe that will the challenge my wife presents to me: finding the a good set of crops that would allow her to bake.
There is an element of truth to this. I agree -- people are out of touch with the world around them, on average.
But it's a double-edged sword. The abstraction has been hugely beneficial to society as a whole. Specialization lets us create entirely new industries.
These problems can't be ignored forever though. Eventually the dollar figure behind them will motivate even the most conservative actors. If it's cheaper to use better technology, and that technology doesn't have the same side effects, then there is no reason to continue to harm.
We're just not there yet.
But it's a double-edged sword. The abstraction has been hugely beneficial to society as a whole. Specialization lets us create entirely new industries.
These problems can't be ignored forever though. Eventually the dollar figure behind them will motivate even the most conservative actors. If it's cheaper to use better technology, and that technology doesn't have the same side effects, then there is no reason to continue to harm.
We're just not there yet.
Having been wrangling this over the years, I've come to conclude that these abstractions create more problems than it benefits society.
I think these very abstractions are the cause of class inequalities, and by extension, racial and gender inequalities as well. Many identity issues come from that specialization. We've defined worth to society to how economically productive someone is. There are many things that society as a whole and individuals can benefit from, but society don't value them economically to pay for them. People involved in that (such as artists and musicians) are constantly struggling with the tension of authentic expression as an artist and creating something popular so they can make a living wage.
I won't even go into how these abstractions are a detriment to mental and emotional health, let alone, someone's spiritual life.
I am not advocating for things to go back "to the way they used to be".
Rather, I think there is a way to move forward. I think it will involve decentralizing our food system using resilient, and regenerative practices at the household and neighborhood scale. People will have to become more involved with growing their food, and that is generally a good thing. We have collected a number of design patterns that can yield nutrient-dense foods without as much labor, and reducing transport costs to ... going to your backyard (or going down the street).
Our society is already moving towards more remote work (for some segment of our populous at least), and that will drive a trend towards the hyperlocal. The big missing piece is the decentralized food system.
I think these very abstractions are the cause of class inequalities, and by extension, racial and gender inequalities as well. Many identity issues come from that specialization. We've defined worth to society to how economically productive someone is. There are many things that society as a whole and individuals can benefit from, but society don't value them economically to pay for them. People involved in that (such as artists and musicians) are constantly struggling with the tension of authentic expression as an artist and creating something popular so they can make a living wage.
I won't even go into how these abstractions are a detriment to mental and emotional health, let alone, someone's spiritual life.
I am not advocating for things to go back "to the way they used to be".
Rather, I think there is a way to move forward. I think it will involve decentralizing our food system using resilient, and regenerative practices at the household and neighborhood scale. People will have to become more involved with growing their food, and that is generally a good thing. We have collected a number of design patterns that can yield nutrient-dense foods without as much labor, and reducing transport costs to ... going to your backyard (or going down the street).
Our society is already moving towards more remote work (for some segment of our populous at least), and that will drive a trend towards the hyperlocal. The big missing piece is the decentralized food system.
I have a coworker who grew up on a farm. When asked about the experience he has almost nothing positive to say about the experience. Working on a farm, even in modern times, does sound like a significant step down from the relative comforts of city living.
If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.
If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.
"Growing up on a farm" can have vastly different meanings across places - from living next to an industrial-scale operation to an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature.
> an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature.
That sounds more like a country house — or a tax dodge— than it does a working farm.
That sounds more like a country house — or a tax dodge— than it does a working farm.
Well, that goes to show it. Not every country has gotten rid of small-scale family farms. I used to visit a place just like that in Brazil, and a friend's parents also still live in such a setting in France.
There has been an incredible resurgence of small scale farms, in the range of 40-300 acres, that are a combo of country house and working farm. Some are capable of feeding thousands of community families. Not all food comes from industry.
Citation still needed.
The environmental problems we're facing in agriculture seems more closely related to our need to improve yield given limited land / proximity with customers.
If you hate on agricultural technology, you're just hating on the effect, not the cause.
Most people are against your so-called "environmental problems". It's just that solutions have to be financially sustainable besides being environmentally sustainable. The original comment you replied to was suggesting how that trade-off can be fixed with technology, just like many other trade-offs before it.
The environmental problems we're facing in agriculture seems more closely related to our need to improve yield given limited land / proximity with customers.
If you hate on agricultural technology, you're just hating on the effect, not the cause.
Most people are against your so-called "environmental problems". It's just that solutions have to be financially sustainable besides being environmentally sustainable. The original comment you replied to was suggesting how that trade-off can be fixed with technology, just like many other trade-offs before it.
Top soil depletion, nutrient deficiencies in crops, watershed damage from excess fertilizer run-off, insect population decline from overuse of pesticides; these are all real issue. I'm accurate in hating the effect... the cause is ignorance and shortsightedness.
I suppose somebody calling for a paradigm shift would be called a “Luddite”.
That's not realistic. It will never be profitable.
Unless that world is itself the profit
BS. It can, and often times is, more profitable than traditional farming. I encourage you to learn about Joel Salatin and the amazing Polyface Farms in Virginia.
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/
By layering different farming enterprises like beef, hay production, pastured pigs, chickens, rabbits, and more, they have a higher profit per acre than many larger farms, and are doing so in a way that benefits that land, rather than degrades it.
How long until we can deploy fleets of microdrones capable of killing pests with computer vision and lasers?
Or, I can plant things that repel specific pests, plant things that attract the natural predators of that pest, or plant sunflowers and tobacco as sacrificial plants. I can let the chickens go after the pests. I can recognize that sometimes, the pests are a solution to a different problem, and adjust things accordingly.
All of those solutions are more resilient than microdrones, computer vision, and laser. These high tech solutions require a long global supply chain. They don't make them as robust as as they used to. Further, having multiple, redundant pest management systems means that when one of them fails, they won't all fail.
All of those solutions are more resilient than microdrones, computer vision, and laser. These high tech solutions require a long global supply chain. They don't make them as robust as as they used to. Further, having multiple, redundant pest management systems means that when one of them fails, they won't all fail.
If that were true farmers would already be doing it.
the whole efficient markets argument requires pressure in both directions. no one is short selling farmers.
just like how if a house is overpriced and real estate investors believe it that doesn't mean there's going to be adequate downward pressure (in expectation) to prevent an unlucky family from overpaying on the house. (there is upward pressure, though, because of house flipping)
and since entry into the agriculture industry is pretty steep, it's not like anyone who has an idea can just build a farm with a cool robust idea that is more optimal than the current solution.
the other difficulty is the extensive time horizons to implement the solution suggested by hosh. farmers can't just drop everything they're doing this season, implement regenerative ag ideas today and reap the benefits come harvest this year.
it's the same issue with organic. transitioning to organic is a time and cost intensive process for farmers (it can take a few years to be fully certified). only a small percentage of farms produce organic even though it commands a higher price.
edit: added this year to end of paragraph 4
just like how if a house is overpriced and real estate investors believe it that doesn't mean there's going to be adequate downward pressure (in expectation) to prevent an unlucky family from overpaying on the house. (there is upward pressure, though, because of house flipping)
and since entry into the agriculture industry is pretty steep, it's not like anyone who has an idea can just build a farm with a cool robust idea that is more optimal than the current solution.
the other difficulty is the extensive time horizons to implement the solution suggested by hosh. farmers can't just drop everything they're doing this season, implement regenerative ag ideas today and reap the benefits come harvest this year.
it's the same issue with organic. transitioning to organic is a time and cost intensive process for farmers (it can take a few years to be fully certified). only a small percentage of farms produce organic even though it commands a higher price.
edit: added this year to end of paragraph 4
There are some farmers who are already doing it. Like this guy: https://youtu.be/J_htLIUKX1Y
We've kinda been doing that for a while, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopesticide
More mechanical contraptions also have a long history, and do actually include lasers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_scarer#Lasers
But most pests are rather microscopic. I doubt we will ever construct silicon/metal hardware better able to operate at the level of, say, spores than the biological systems that are natural to that environment.
More mechanical contraptions also have a long history, and do actually include lasers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_scarer#Lasers
But most pests are rather microscopic. I doubt we will ever construct silicon/metal hardware better able to operate at the level of, say, spores than the biological systems that are natural to that environment.
"“Unprecedented” locust invasion threatens crops in East Africa " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22205251 (not yet)
drones are used to disperse corn moth preditor larve in germany, and cv is being tested on mobile platforms that can target spray or dig plants.
There is a short explanation on why heterogeneous cropping is not the norm : Harvesting is just extremely difficult. It's not just a software automation problem, it's building the machinery and tractors, training people, gathering feedbacks... Even if you manage to repetitively grow successful combinations of produces, that's only the beginning of the journey.
Farming is an far older industry than software engineering, don't you think humans already tried that in the past 10 000 years ?
Farming is an far older industry than software engineering, don't you think humans already tried that in the past 10 000 years ?
It is a hard problem. Historically, people often grew plants in heterogeneous environments because they grew their own crops. Even if it wasn't _all_ of their food, it was still a subset of their food. But it was very labor intensive.
The scale of monocrop farming today with modern tractors is a very new field as well (no pun intended).
With machine learning specifically, I can see a robot arm being able to farm a lot of mixed crops. This is already happening for the most labor-intensive crops like strawberries[0]. Robots are cheap and can work 24/7.
I think it just a matter of time before computers advance enough to be able to perform the basic, repetitive tasks that humans are able to.
0: https://www.therobotreport.com/strawberry-picking-robot-make...
The scale of monocrop farming today with modern tractors is a very new field as well (no pun intended).
With machine learning specifically, I can see a robot arm being able to farm a lot of mixed crops. This is already happening for the most labor-intensive crops like strawberries[0]. Robots are cheap and can work 24/7.
I think it just a matter of time before computers advance enough to be able to perform the basic, repetitive tasks that humans are able to.
0: https://www.therobotreport.com/strawberry-picking-robot-make...
This very interesting piece might be of interest for you : https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/how-to-pick-a-pepper/
It took one of the protagonist ten years of testing to find a machine capable of harvesting special-bread peppers. The breakthrough your are looking for isn't for software engineering only - or even at all -. It's a combination of mechanical engineering, biology and hacking. Venture-led startups often lead to short-lived niche products made to impress silicon valley. It's not sustainable, and it's not the future.
It took one of the protagonist ten years of testing to find a machine capable of harvesting special-bread peppers. The breakthrough your are looking for isn't for software engineering only - or even at all -. It's a combination of mechanical engineering, biology and hacking. Venture-led startups often lead to short-lived niche products made to impress silicon valley. It's not sustainable, and it's not the future.
[deleted]
> don't you think humans already tried that in the past 10 000 years ?
Often what you are saying is true. Except in this case we have access to new technologies that have only existed for a small percentage of that 10,000 years. It might be worth re-examining what we think we know about growing food in light of these new technologies. That is, things that would have been ideal but were practically impossible may now be possible.
Often what you are saying is true. Except in this case we have access to new technologies that have only existed for a small percentage of that 10,000 years. It might be worth re-examining what we think we know about growing food in light of these new technologies. That is, things that would have been ideal but were practically impossible may now be possible.
Software gives the agriculture industry new tools, it helps gather information, it helps build better machinery and can even help train people. Of course software engineers won't be the only ones contributing to solving these problems, but farmers are very resourceful and tend to welcome any new tools to improve their businesses. They've been improving for the last 10,000 years, why stop now?
Nature abhors monoculture
On a similar note, is there any way to get money to fund amateur crop research? I know you usually need to plant at least 1,000 trees to have a decent shot at creating a new commercially viable cultivar, which I'm not interested in doing at that scale, but I'd plant and monitor 100 as a hobby if I could get someone to pay for that as 1/10th of a research plot.
The thing is, "market forces" (= large corporations) might "solve" it by relying on the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels for doing online vision processing. And then you've converted one sustainability problem into another.
(Which may not be a terrible trade-off, but still.)
(Which may not be a terrible trade-off, but still.)
I think this is a problem seen in many fields, that they are designed around our ability to model them.
That, and the fact that we don't really revisit the modeling approaches when the constraints that led to them no longer apply. For instance, incremental evolution based on a branch where work was done "by hand" into animals, simpler machines and then very complex machines might lead to a very different result than evolution from a branch where the ability to design some types of complex machines is there "from the start".
Note that this is different than saying "let's completely ignore the past".
Note that this is different than saying "let's completely ignore the past".
[deleted]
Tree farming and automation: rm -rf /
The feds would have to stop distorting the markets in the West before any of this could happen economically, right? People didn't just forget how to grow orchards and pastures. They got run out of business by the California water projects and the BLM. As long as the BLM keeps leasing out grazing land for $1/acre and as long as Reclamation allows Stewart Resnick to grow 100k acres of nuts on otherwise worthless land, how can sustainable growers compete?
Just so people aren't confused, BLM == Bureau of Land Management
Hahaha I had this weird picture in my head of an angry mob of protestors leasing out grazing land for $1/acre.
Thanks, I was confused.
The nut industry around Sacramento is a true tragedy of the commons.
Billions of wallstreet speculative dollars to pump water out of the ground as fast as possible.
No one wins, but a percentage gain on a balance sheet.
Billions of wallstreet speculative dollars to pump water out of the ground as fast as possible.
No one wins, but a percentage gain on a balance sheet.
Interesting perspective. I always viewed the Sacramento Valley rice and nut crops to be some of the less objectionable activities, seeing as how that valley is knee-deep in water much of the year, and the depth to ground water in many places is less than a meter. But I'm sure every form of industrialized agriculture falls apart under enough scrutiny.
Several cities consider every drop in California and several surrounding states to be rightfully theirs.
FWIW, there's an infamous photo showing how the Central Valley has literally sunk over the years from over-use of the aquifer.
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/images/sub...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_land_subsidence
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/images/sub...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_land_subsidence
Just note, for those not familiar with the territory, that the San Joaquin valley and the Sacramento Valley, although often combined as "Central Valley", are two very different hydrological systems.
Can't taxes from those gains just be used to buy water from elsewhere though? If water from elsewhere is cheap why not use local water to make money instead?
One thing people don't realize about the BLM and the Department of the Interior in general is that they maintain the world's largest airforce. This Airforce exists mainly as a mountain rescue and forest firefighting unit(s).
Also, because we're now in the 2020s, they are the worlds largest purchaser of drones, even beyond the military.
A lot of fascinating, cutting edge stuff is going on at BLM and DoI.
Also, because we're now in the 2020s, they are the worlds largest purchaser of drones, even beyond the military.
A lot of fascinating, cutting edge stuff is going on at BLM and DoI.
It doesn't bother me one bit that the BLM manages land. It's a major public benefit that we have so much information about our natural resources. I think the USDA soil survey, for example, a one of the great wonders of the information age.
The thing that bothers me is how they lease out public lands essentially for free to stockmen who proceed to destroy the landscape.
The thing that bothers me is how they lease out public lands essentially for free to stockmen who proceed to destroy the landscape.
> The thing that bothers me is how they lease out public lands essentially for free to stockmen who proceed to destroy the landscape.
They are all just giving the consumer what they want - low cost meat - which requires a ton of land both for grazing and for growing animal feed.
Asking them to raise the price on the stockmen is also to ask them to raise prices on consumers. I don't necessarily disagree with that idea, but (pun intended), the consumer has long been the holy cow of American politics.
They are all just giving the consumer what they want - low cost meat - which requires a ton of land both for grazing and for growing animal feed.
Asking them to raise the price on the stockmen is also to ask them to raise prices on consumers. I don't necessarily disagree with that idea, but (pun intended), the consumer has long been the holy cow of American politics.
A vanishingly small percentage of beef comes from the lands under discussion. [0] The reason is simple: cattle were not evolved for the alpine desert. Consumers wouldn't even notice if cattle were outlawed completely on BLM land. Wildlife biologists certainly would notice!
In reality, these policies are political shenanigans. No Republican wants to be the first to stop providing welfare to the Cliven Bundy types that one can find lurking under many cowboy hats.
[0] https://beef2live.com/story-ranking-states-beef-cows-0-10818...
In reality, these policies are political shenanigans. No Republican wants to be the first to stop providing welfare to the Cliven Bundy types that one can find lurking under many cowboy hats.
[0] https://beef2live.com/story-ranking-states-beef-cows-0-10818...
> A vanishingly small percentage of beef comes from the lands under discussion.
I don't doubt at all the environmental destruction being wrought. However, the land's use is supporting some market for beef though, or else why would the question of $1 leases to stockmen exist?
Is it just that it's cheap and marginal (in both cost and quality) land that can be used for marginal production increases, or is it supporting some niche high cost beef sub-market based on its wilder place of production (high alpine beef)? It can't just all be a UBI scheme for alpine beef ranchers.
I don't doubt at all the environmental destruction being wrought. However, the land's use is supporting some market for beef though, or else why would the question of $1 leases to stockmen exist?
Is it just that it's cheap and marginal (in both cost and quality) land that can be used for marginal production increases, or is it supporting some niche high cost beef sub-market based on its wilder place of production (high alpine beef)? It can't just all be a UBI scheme for alpine beef ranchers.
It can't just all be a UBI scheme for...
Every one of my travels to western states and every conversation I've had with other cattlemen there and elsewhere implies that it is exactly that. Perhaps once upon a time it was something else, and as the situation changed our government didn't keep up. I imagine that numerous bureaucrats at BLM and other agencies have some personal interests in the disastrous way that things are done. Some call this a "principal-agent problem".
Likewise, the various stupid wars we in USA fight aren't at all about our security or saving democracy or any of the other myths. Those are "UBI schemes" for armaments manufacturers and their employees in politics and the media.
Every one of my travels to western states and every conversation I've had with other cattlemen there and elsewhere implies that it is exactly that. Perhaps once upon a time it was something else, and as the situation changed our government didn't keep up. I imagine that numerous bureaucrats at BLM and other agencies have some personal interests in the disastrous way that things are done. Some call this a "principal-agent problem".
Likewise, the various stupid wars we in USA fight aren't at all about our security or saving democracy or any of the other myths. Those are "UBI schemes" for armaments manufacturers and their employees in politics and the media.
The last sentence of my post should have read:
"It can't just all be a UBI scheme for alpine beef ranchers, can it?"
As in, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were, but haven't had the conversations you've had first hand.
"It can't just all be a UBI scheme for alpine beef ranchers, can it?"
As in, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were, but haven't had the conversations you've had first hand.
Main thing I’ve learned from reading about western water and land policy is if you ever think “it can’t be that!” maybe you’re just not using your imagination.
I'm surrounded by leased BLM land around here but the parts I've seen are not overgrazed. The lessees are very long term and their livelihood depends on the quality of the forage from year to year. If not overgrazed, cattle have a very positive effect on the landscape. They cultivate the ground with their hooves and excrete fertilizer and seeds. A well grazed lot grows more cow food than an ungrazed one. Even the ranches that focus on elk hunting graze cattle to improve the land for the elk.
The book that got me into this was Mark Shepard's 'Restoration Agriculture". [1] His "New Forest Farm" in WI has been making use of these ideas for some time now. [2]
Shepard got his inspiration from Permaculture [3] and the books, "Tree Crops", [4] and "The One Straw Revolution". [5]
1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-agr...
2: https://newforestfarm.us
3: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/381988.Permaculture
4: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/714112.Tree_Crops
5: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/976905.The_One_Straw_Rev...
Shepard got his inspiration from Permaculture [3] and the books, "Tree Crops", [4] and "The One Straw Revolution". [5]
1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-agr...
2: https://newforestfarm.us
3: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/381988.Permaculture
4: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/714112.Tree_Crops
5: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/976905.The_One_Straw_Rev...
Fukuoka's own apprentices declared that his methods flat out didn't work.
Lots of permaculture practices are pure dogma and don't have a scientific justification.
All the permaculture farms I could find were profitable thanks to free outside input or through selling training sessions.
Lots of permaculture practices are pure dogma and don't have a scientific justification.
All the permaculture farms I could find were profitable thanks to free outside input or through selling training sessions.
One Straw Revolution changed my life. It inspired me to learn permaculture first hand. It's such an enjoyable book to read
Seconded, also a great read if you're just casually interested
It's really wild to me that investors realizing foresting exists and continues to exist because it makes money is a story. I did forestry related club stuff in high school for a program called Envirothon and there's a rich history of silviculture in the US and Europe going back a long ways. IIRC, we actually have more forest in the US today than 100 years ago because of silviculture. Notably, the Vanderbilt's started modern silviculture in the US and introduced all sorts of interesting measurements only relevant to foresters to the US like a chain (66 ft imperial) or Diameter Breast Height (the circumference of a tree at 4.5 ft, because that was right around the breast of your average heighted forester).
Fun fact, one of the first detailed concepts of sustainability comes from forestry in Germany by Hans Carl von Carlowitz in 1713.
https://www.forstwirtschaft-in-deutschland.de/index.php?id=5...
https://www.forstwirtschaft-in-deutschland.de/index.php?id=5...
Japan also started protecting forests and managing them sustainably a long time ago[0], in the Edo period (1603-1868).
[0] https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c03912/
[0] https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c03912/
I got quite deep into the article, but couldn't get through the morass of PR to understand the basic idea of their agroforestry initiative. At one point, they actually write that a lightbulb went off... but what is the new idea?
Is there anyone familiar with this field who tell a clear story of what their idea is, and how planting trees in existing farms will work in practice to accomplish all the results they predict? I'm sure it's an interesting story.
Is there anyone familiar with this field who tell a clear story of what their idea is, and how planting trees in existing farms will work in practice to accomplish all the results they predict? I'm sure it's an interesting story.
I think there are a few benefits that they're (poorly) trying to articulate in the article, so I'll fill in with my own (biased) thoughts. :)
- Growing trees in rows alongside feed crops (like hay) is more profitable for farmers because they gain additional income from fruit trees + lumber sales.
- More trees that get to grow pulls CO2 from the atmosphere and is good for the environment.
- There is a symbiotic relationship with the soil and trees that is beneficial for the health of other plants. This also helps with soil blowing away due to wind barriers + roots holding it down. Less erosion.
- Pests can't travel as easily between "segmented" fields of crops because they are obstructed by trees. This helps mitigate risk for farmers.
- Higher income per acre when you intermix trees in the fields where livestock graze. You can go harvest the fruit trees while the grass grows for the cows to graze on.
The problem is that these changes require time to make. Trees don't sprout up overnight and that's a problem for farmers, but there is a big environmental incentive for it. Maybe the government should step in to incubate these kinds of projects? They may be the only institution with the long-term economic incentive to do so.
- Growing trees in rows alongside feed crops (like hay) is more profitable for farmers because they gain additional income from fruit trees + lumber sales.
- More trees that get to grow pulls CO2 from the atmosphere and is good for the environment.
- There is a symbiotic relationship with the soil and trees that is beneficial for the health of other plants. This also helps with soil blowing away due to wind barriers + roots holding it down. Less erosion.
- Pests can't travel as easily between "segmented" fields of crops because they are obstructed by trees. This helps mitigate risk for farmers.
- Higher income per acre when you intermix trees in the fields where livestock graze. You can go harvest the fruit trees while the grass grows for the cows to graze on.
The problem is that these changes require time to make. Trees don't sprout up overnight and that's a problem for farmers, but there is a big environmental incentive for it. Maybe the government should step in to incubate these kinds of projects? They may be the only institution with the long-term economic incentive to do so.
This is a great answer, thank you for articulating. My only disagreement would be in regards to government being the only institution with the economic incentive to do invest here, long-term. From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems. I hope for a future where our department of agriculture comes around to support these holistic farming practices.
> My only disagreement would be in regards to government being the only institution with the economic incentive to do invest here, long-term.
If not government what other sort of institution do you think has the ability to make such civilization scale investments, with the associated short-term risks? Corporations won't do it, nor will venture capital, private equity, investment banks, retail investors. What's left?
> From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems.
Which kind of demonstrates that it's capable of supporting a long-term investment in agriculture, but that it is perhaps putting that support behind the wrong approach considering the threat of climate change.
If not government what other sort of institution do you think has the ability to make such civilization scale investments, with the associated short-term risks? Corporations won't do it, nor will venture capital, private equity, investment banks, retail investors. What's left?
> From my understanding of the federal governments involvement in agriculture subsidies, the government seems to be much more in support of the entrenched, large-scale industrial farming systems.
Which kind of demonstrates that it's capable of supporting a long-term investment in agriculture, but that it is perhaps putting that support behind the wrong approach considering the threat of climate change.
I just so happened to watch this youtube this week that answers that (at a high level):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZvF68sytc
Part of the reason its so difficult to summarize is because its about taking a systems approach to the farming/biology and therefore it is infinitely varied in practice.
Part of the reason its so difficult to summarize is because its about taking a systems approach to the farming/biology and therefore it is infinitely varied in practice.
It's really surprising to me that we tend to focus on sustainability rather than simple economic benefits when pitching initiatives to combat climate change.
Case in point: The US had a great opportunity to sell alternative energy sources as way to get off Middle East oil after 9/11. Instead we continued to consume oil like there's no tomorrow while squandering trillions on fruitless wars.
Case in point: The US had a great opportunity to sell alternative energy sources as way to get off Middle East oil after 9/11. Instead we continued to consume oil like there's no tomorrow while squandering trillions on fruitless wars.
Reminds me of this classic political cartoon: https://i.cbc.ca/1.5192931.1562703009!/fileImage/httpImage/j...
The problem with any revamp is that powerful incumbents wield the most power. They are capable of controlling the rate of change. In the early 2000s, Exxon and other oil companies were the most powerful, influential businesses on the planet, and they weren't about to let their politicians endorse a shift to renewables.
The problem with any revamp is that powerful incumbents wield the most power. They are capable of controlling the rate of change. In the early 2000s, Exxon and other oil companies were the most powerful, influential businesses on the planet, and they weren't about to let their politicians endorse a shift to renewables.
The trillions weren't squandered for the thousands of defense contractors and suppliers that made fortunes off said wars. Its why they lobbied for them in the first place. Now a lot of warmongers profiteering off occupational imperialism are rolling in wealth courtesy of the US taxpayer.
The valuing of (short-term) economic benefit over sustainability is precisely what is fueling climate change.
I would go a little further and say that short term economic benefits of existing entrenched players is causing harm. Its taking too long to get those people out and replaced with fresh minds who can look at the same systems and find new ways to make money while having a sustainable earth
Where did the money go, whom did it benefit? The military-industrial complex wants to be fed.
"If farmers increased silvopasture acreage from approximately 550 million hectares today to about 770 million hectares by 2050 (1.36 billion acres to 1.9 billion acres), Drawdown estimated carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced over those 30 years by up to 42 gigatons — more than enough to offset all of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans globally in 2015, according to NOAA — and could return $206 billion to $273 billion on investment."
Note that silvopasture is a combination of livestock grazing pasture and trees. The opposite method it would replace is the factory farm where animals are much more concentrated (with all the moral issues involved).
The problem, I think, is one of volume- I don't see the factory farms shutting down in favor of techniques that require broader skill sets (tree harvesting, land management) beyond what they are already hiring for and investing technology in, especially since per-square-area production of meat is substantially smaller.
I would love to see factory farms convert to silvopasture, especially if that means lower prices for things like nuts, but the broader skill set and management challenges make me think they will continue to be niche competitors to, not replacements of, our current supply.
The problem, I think, is one of volume- I don't see the factory farms shutting down in favor of techniques that require broader skill sets (tree harvesting, land management) beyond what they are already hiring for and investing technology in, especially since per-square-area production of meat is substantially smaller.
I would love to see factory farms convert to silvopasture, especially if that means lower prices for things like nuts, but the broader skill set and management challenges make me think they will continue to be niche competitors to, not replacements of, our current supply.
> if that means lower prices for things like nuts,
aren't nuts in the US stupid cheap as it is? American almonds are everywhere in Europe, and cost less than locally grown ones.
(And they taste of nothing, I am not sure if it's because they get harvested earlier, because of preservation or because of the cultivar)
aren't nuts in the US stupid cheap as it is? American almonds are everywhere in Europe, and cost less than locally grown ones.
(And they taste of nothing, I am not sure if it's because they get harvested earlier, because of preservation or because of the cultivar)
As for almonds, probably a combination of cultivar and picking time.
Some nuts are still very expensive, though, and pound for pound beef can be cheaper than many.
Some nuts are still very expensive, though, and pound for pound beef can be cheaper than many.
Ever since watching the video on syntropic agriculture which I bumped into by reading a comment here in HN [1], I've been doing some research on the matter. The practice seems promising. It seems to work at both small and large scales, so it enables small farms, which are very hard to defend as a business in the US. It also has a component of improving the value of land, by making marginal (sandy) terrain into productive agricultural land. The other interesting fact is that the productivity per acre for the individual cultivars when planted together is higher than if they were the only thing being planted. I can see those things combining to drastically increase products.
The part of the video that was the most interesting was the farmer saying "this works. If I don't sell, I don't live, and I do sell" (not an exact quote).
Intriguing indeed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23631196 / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE
The part of the video that was the most interesting was the farmer saying "this works. If I don't sell, I don't live, and I do sell" (not an exact quote).
Intriguing indeed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23631196 / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSPNRu4ZPvE
Why many buzzwords? In simpler language: trees surrounding farm land keep strong winds from blowing nutrients away and have other benefits. For that and other benefits Before 1989, a lot of farm land in Bulgaria was surrounded by tree belts as they also provided shade for farm workers. In the US much bigger efficiency has been achieved by farming large fields with giant automated machinery. Effect on nutrients is unclear. However what this company is suggesting is to pair farmers of different types and plant productive trees between flat crop lands to enable multiple types of production happening at the same time. An underlying premise is a carbon offset system may pay for such investment. The part that’s missing is how much harvesting efficiency will be lost when you lose the ability to use big machines to harvest single crops. That said, there may be lands suitable for mixed farming that were underused before. Hopefully those farmers don’t get into too much debt trying to pursue potential carbon credits.
The article doesn't mention permaculture. Permaculture has been used commercial settings (and its design principles includes agroforestry). Permies have been talking about resilient and regenerative systems for a long while now, going beyond sustainability.
Permaculture design looks at the whole system. So not just trees, but also things to plant with the trees. With planting along contours and adding swales to catch rainfall, and direct it to flow through everything. Incorporating animals into the system, such as grazers (cows, sheep, goats), and micrograzers (chickens, ducks, geese).
Probably the biggest thing not discussed in the article is how permaculture design can lead to decentralized food systems. A decentralized food system is not something that VCs can invest capital in and expect multiple returns on, but I think in the long run, that is where we as a civilization need to move towards.
Permaculture design looks at the whole system. So not just trees, but also things to plant with the trees. With planting along contours and adding swales to catch rainfall, and direct it to flow through everything. Incorporating animals into the system, such as grazers (cows, sheep, goats), and micrograzers (chickens, ducks, geese).
Probably the biggest thing not discussed in the article is how permaculture design can lead to decentralized food systems. A decentralized food system is not something that VCs can invest capital in and expect multiple returns on, but I think in the long run, that is where we as a civilization need to move towards.
Not just food. Let's "localize" all of our needs. Every single one of them. Note that is "needs", not wants.
There will always be room for trade in things that you cannot produce locally such as coffee, but for almost every other thing, there are local solutions.
Open Source Ecology [1] attempts to go the high-tech route and they may get somewhere, but they are only one of many approaches to localizing. With the internet we can have many groups working on localizing their own needs and sharing their successes and failures with the world. Add some gamification and wholla we have people competing to actully figure out how to live on this planet while leaving the place better afterwards.
Note that a completely local system would probably not have much need at all for state backed currency except for trade. [1] http://www.opensourceecology.org
There will always be room for trade in things that you cannot produce locally such as coffee, but for almost every other thing, there are local solutions.
Open Source Ecology [1] attempts to go the high-tech route and they may get somewhere, but they are only one of many approaches to localizing. With the internet we can have many groups working on localizing their own needs and sharing their successes and failures with the world. Add some gamification and wholla we have people competing to actully figure out how to live on this planet while leaving the place better afterwards.
Note that a completely local system would probably not have much need at all for state backed currency except for trade. [1] http://www.opensourceecology.org
Exactly!
OSE has a permaculture page on their wiki, though hardly anyone added anything in there. This kind of stuff is not well-organized.
I thought, for example, building a graphdb-based lookup system for planning companion planting.
Another is some kind of decentralized barter system. Without being beholden to generating huge returns, I think this would be really useful. But like pioneer plants and “weeds”, I see a lot of permies using whatever adhoc means they have to trade information and barter for services. (But it is why I became very interested in Free Software, mesh networking, and raspberry pis. The supply chain that supports the internet is still fragile, and is currently coopted by Big Tech).
OSE has a permaculture page on their wiki, though hardly anyone added anything in there. This kind of stuff is not well-organized.
I thought, for example, building a graphdb-based lookup system for planning companion planting.
Another is some kind of decentralized barter system. Without being beholden to generating huge returns, I think this would be really useful. But like pioneer plants and “weeds”, I see a lot of permies using whatever adhoc means they have to trade information and barter for services. (But it is why I became very interested in Free Software, mesh networking, and raspberry pis. The supply chain that supports the internet is still fragile, and is currently coopted by Big Tech).
Does local production entail urban areas having smaller or less dense populations? Mightn't energy used for extra passenger transport outweigh energy saved by reducing freight transport?
Don't know. There are people in cities working on local food production such as aquaponics, vertical farming, rooftops, etc, but I live in a small town in western North America and that is the system I am attempting to analyze and influence. Its the low hanging fruit (ahem), in that if a small town can't do it, how can you expect a city.
For a good case study, check this out: https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/cubas-urban-farm...
This is a weird piece in that it seems to completely ignore the massive subsidies [1] the agriculture sector of most (?) industrialized economies relies on.
Then when you read:
> [Someone] estimates that agroforestry systems can create eight times more profit than conventional agriculture.
you have to ask yourself: "Profit after subsidies? But who said you'll get the same subsidies? If you can actually turn a profit, they might not subsidize you at that point?"
----
[1] - For more information on these subsidies (which I'm not opposed to, it's complicated):
* In the EU it's apparently 59 Billion EUR/year , according to this: https://farmsubsidy.org/
* Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
Then when you read:
> [Someone] estimates that agroforestry systems can create eight times more profit than conventional agriculture.
you have to ask yourself: "Profit after subsidies? But who said you'll get the same subsidies? If you can actually turn a profit, they might not subsidize you at that point?"
----
[1] - For more information on these subsidies (which I'm not opposed to, it's complicated):
* In the EU it's apparently 59 Billion EUR/year , according to this: https://farmsubsidy.org/
* Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
I like the European farm subsidies, I think they are a great example of how to share wealth among a lot of citizens and maintain high quality food. Btw, 59 Billion seems like a large number but compared to the actual GDP of the EU thats a very very small number. Also in the US for example farm subsidies are pretty high and generally funnel to rich people, there is both farm related subsidies that go direct to farmers and insurance companies (among others) and then the farm bill which is another huge subsidy.
I actually didn't say I oppose them. However, note that better-off Europeans and US citizens are subsidized, then their products flood the markets elsewhere and farmers all over the world - who also don't have access to appropriate technology - can't compete against it. So the farmers in poorer countries get screwed. Not such a great example of wealth sharing...
This seems like a scam to me. The reason VCs don't fund "normal" crops like wheat etc. is that commodities don't generate the high profits that make "unicorns" possible. There have been fewer people employed in agriculture in USA every year for the last 150 years. The only long-term successful firms are selling "picks and shovels", and even they have to resort to evil to generate reliable profits (Monsanto, etc.) All of the crops under discussion in TFA are also commodities. Where is the profit going to arise? These venture funds will not return investors' money.
I think that something the article tries to not to be explicit is that the reel business model is:
Lots of company greenwash and pretend to "compensate" their CO2 emissions by paying farms like that to plant trees.
And that is very profitable as costs to plant a tree compared is a lot lower than the income received from a companies in compensation.
And now, vulture funds realized that they can make a lot of money on the back of the carbon reduction market!
Lots of company greenwash and pretend to "compensate" their CO2 emissions by paying farms like that to plant trees.
And that is very profitable as costs to plant a tree compared is a lot lower than the income received from a companies in compensation.
And now, vulture funds realized that they can make a lot of money on the back of the carbon reduction market!
It seems fishy to me as well knowing that most farmers operate at a loss each year. Whatever profit a system like this might generate would have to be enough to offset those losses whilst still providing enough to keep the farmers happy along with the investors?? Seems pretty damn unlikely that this "agroforestry" is capable of doing that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Anyone here have some woodland and use it for growing food crops (mix of fruit trees, nut trees, root vegetables, berries and mushrooms?) This is something I've been thinking about trying for a while. Or maybe converting pasture land to more mixed purpose?
I realise it's not something you can scale or automate easily, but I'm not really looking for that. Just a few hectares for personal use. I understand it will take many years for the trees to grow
I realise it's not something you can scale or automate easily, but I'm not really looking for that. Just a few hectares for personal use. I understand it will take many years for the trees to grow
Check out permaculture, food forests and Geoff Lawton videos (he covers both, and food forests are a subset of permaculture). He is a permaculture boss who learned from Bill Mollison, father of permaculture.
Check (his) Zaytuna Farm video tour parts 1 and 2. Australia is big on permaculture but many other countries' people are doing it too. Huw Richards (Wales, UK), Maddy and Tim Harland (UK), Krishna McKenzie (Auroville, Tamil Nadu, India), Pete Kanaris (Florida, USA), Richard Perkins (Sweden) are just a few. All those named have YouTube videos.
An initiative worth looking at :
The Complete What, Why & How of Agroforestry
https://isha.sadhguru.org/us/en/blog/article/complete-what-w...
The Complete What, Why & How of Agroforestry
https://isha.sadhguru.org/us/en/blog/article/complete-what-w...
I would like to create/see robots that seed and plant Miyawaki style dense mini forests in urban areas.
I don’t live in the right zone, but I tell my friends in the lower hemispheres that when they have a child, they must plant at least 1/2 acre of forest. Or a fruit orchard or a hardwood grove. Why? Because at its worst, it’s Ag but is green and income producing. And at its best it’s green, Carbon sequestering long term..medium benefits for a hardwood grove with ebony or teak or rosewood that are super slow growing and will grow with the child..leaving them a legacy and an inheritance.
If anyone wants to collaborate for such a project, please reach out(my handle at gmail). I am still researching for the northern hemisphere.
I don’t live in the right zone, but I tell my friends in the lower hemispheres that when they have a child, they must plant at least 1/2 acre of forest. Or a fruit orchard or a hardwood grove. Why? Because at its worst, it’s Ag but is green and income producing. And at its best it’s green, Carbon sequestering long term..medium benefits for a hardwood grove with ebony or teak or rosewood that are super slow growing and will grow with the child..leaving them a legacy and an inheritance.
If anyone wants to collaborate for such a project, please reach out(my handle at gmail). I am still researching for the northern hemisphere.
One cool company working on this in the UK: https://projectwren.com/projects/regenerative-agroforestry
Better late than never.
The guy who invented/coined "Syntropic" agriculture grows the world's best cocoa beans at 3x the yield of similar-quality conventional farms with no inputs. He also gets a lot of other crops from the same land.
Life is four-billion-year-old nanotech and it works really well. Get with it money dudes.
(Conventional agriculture is, in retrospect, almost the dumbest thing you can do with land.)
The guy who invented/coined "Syntropic" agriculture grows the world's best cocoa beans at 3x the yield of similar-quality conventional farms with no inputs. He also gets a lot of other crops from the same land.
Life is four-billion-year-old nanotech and it works really well. Get with it money dudes.
(Conventional agriculture is, in retrospect, almost the dumbest thing you can do with land.)
Might be a bit more complicated.
"Underground deserts below fertility islands? Woody species desiccate lower soil layers in sandy drylands"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.04906
> Vulcan Farm in Illinois combines intensive perennial polyculture, windbreaks, alley cropping, and silvopasture, and also features an innovative long-term lease model that provides options to non-operator landholders and land access for agroforestry farmers
Ah, so VCs have discovered sharecropping.
Ah, so VCs have discovered sharecropping.
> and investor financing to help add trees and tree crops to agricultural models.
Wow, sounds profitable I suppose.
Wow, sounds profitable I suppose.
True story, land use when sustainable delivers long term benefits of all kinds, also to investors
> If farmers increased silvopasture acreage from approximately 550 million hectares today to about 770 million hectares by 2050... carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced over those 30 years by up to 42 gigatons — more than enough to offset all of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans globally in 2015
This is both exciting and depressing. A massive effort and it still only offsets 1/30th of global emissions.
Fixing climate is not going to be based in “profitability”, at least in any near term sense. It is about dramatically reducing our CO2-based economic activity to preserve the planet for future generations. Capitalism is not geared for that kind of calculation.
This is both exciting and depressing. A massive effort and it still only offsets 1/30th of global emissions.
Fixing climate is not going to be based in “profitability”, at least in any near term sense. It is about dramatically reducing our CO2-based economic activity to preserve the planet for future generations. Capitalism is not geared for that kind of calculation.
If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend checking out Joel Salatin and Polyface Farm. They are doing amazing work.
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/
https://vimeo.com/125404937
And Mark Shepherd at New Forest Farm.
http://newforestfarm.us
His book "Restoration Agriculture" details his system, which can be likened to agroforestry.
http://newforestfarm.us
His book "Restoration Agriculture" details his system, which can be likened to agroforestry.
Investors say yada is good for you. ok?
There's a startup working on this called Propagate Ventures. IIRC they have an agroforestry project planning tool for farmers.
Gabe Brown has been doing regenerative agriculture for over two decades on Brown's Ranch, over 2000 acres, in Bismarck, North Dakota successfully. Food crops plus cover crops plus livestock, all integrated. Lot of good results compared to neighboring farmers doing the traditional synthetic fertilizer / pesticide / tilling / monoculture approach.
There are others like him too.
And he's been invited to and giving a lot of talks about it at many confs for years:
Watch "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health"
https://youtu.be/uUmIdq0D6-A
There are others like him too.
And he's been invited to and giving a lot of talks about it at many confs for years:
Watch "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health"
https://youtu.be/uUmIdq0D6-A
> It turns out, people NEED food. Really, it's remarkable. And they'll actually pay dollars for food that you've grown, so that they can then eat it, because otherwise they'll die.
Surprisingly, that's not quite true.
That is, people do need food, but humanity over-produces food massively already [1]. And in many countries, you'll collapse economically if you try to live by selling food - and it's government subsidies which keep farming afloat.
[1] - Of course there's also massive hunger due to the failure of our species to more reasonably distribute the food it produces, biases in which kinds of food get produced where and when etc.
That is, people do need food, but humanity over-produces food massively already [1]. And in many countries, you'll collapse economically if you try to live by selling food - and it's government subsidies which keep farming afloat.
[1] - Of course there's also massive hunger due to the failure of our species to more reasonably distribute the food it produces, biases in which kinds of food get produced where and when etc.
Crazy, them people, right?
So they rediscovered orchards?
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ernst gotsch is the name to lookup.
Growing food under a forest canopy with plenty of pruning, which creates healthy soil and less/no need for fertilizers. It's an effort to mimic a forest ecosystem and let things grow in their natural way (livestock is another aspect).
Growing food under a forest canopy with plenty of pruning, which creates healthy soil and less/no need for fertilizers. It's an effort to mimic a forest ecosystem and let things grow in their natural way (livestock is another aspect).
Very cool. Thanks for the ref! Are there any books of his you'd recommend?
I don't have book recommendations, but this channel is worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf9s-yeskYZweEuKyq1ia6w
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf9s-yeskYZweEuKyq1ia6w
It's more complicated than that. They blend traditional food crops with trees, shrubs, etc, often alongside some kind of transition cycle where they'll change what is growing where over time. Sort of a blend of sustainable logging with farming.
It looks to me less like rediscovering orchards, and more mixing them in with livestock/other crops in a beneficial manner.
Mixing with livestock isn't really new either. So long as the animal doesn't kill the trees orchards are pretty great places for animals. I think I've seen orchards that are also hay operations too.
I guess if we get into something more mixed then that they haven't really rediscovered orchards, they've rediscovered permaculture!
I guess if we get into something more mixed then that they haven't really rediscovered orchards, they've rediscovered permaculture!
I think I've seen orchards that are also hay operations too.
I've mowed, raked, and baled a fair amount of hay over the years. This involves driving tractors and trucks around in fields pulling easily damaged implements in precise circles. Doing so in the presence of lots of mature trees seems a daunting task...
I've mowed, raked, and baled a fair amount of hay over the years. This involves driving tractors and trucks around in fields pulling easily damaged implements in precise circles. Doing so in the presence of lots of mature trees seems a daunting task...
Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1].
But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the soil nutrient side, you have to keep re-fertilizing (and often over-fertilize[3]) every year to keep it going. And still nutrients continue to decline in the food that Americans are eating[4].
If, as a field (of software engineers), we can figure out a way to build robots that allow growing and harvesting plants in heterogeneous environments, that will be a significant step forward to fixing these problems. I'm optimistic that it will be possible in the next decade to build it and make it profitable. :)
If you don't have to use fertilizer and pests don't eat your crops because you haven't created the ideal breeding ground for pests + disease, then this problem should be solved by market forces alone. At least, I hope so!
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocropping
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combine_harvester
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocropping#Monocropping_diff...
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Environmental_effec...
4: https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/44/1...