Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies(montanafreepress.org)
montanafreepress.org
Organic and regenerative agriculture are revitalizing rural Montana economies
https://montanafreepress.org/2021/07/06/regenerative-agriculture-evitalizing-rural-montana-economies/
296 comments
Speaking in generalities but hackers love hard problems, and implementing a 21st century food system is the intersection of most of the biggest problems of our time- climate change, population growth, sustainable energy. The fact that the best solutions seem to involve decentralization, taking a big chunk out of the market cap of destructive megacorporations, and transferring power down the class hierarchy aligns closely with the hacker ethos as well.
Also speaking in generalities, engineers love to come up with glib solutions to complicated problems in domains they've heard about but don't have a deep understanding of.
Agriculture and its future are like candy.
Agriculture and its future are like candy.
I'll add, hackers are also super fond of non-obvious, counterintuitive solutions to hard problems.
Engineers are also notorious for having opinions about everything regardless of the depth of their expertise :)
I echo this take, particularly the latter sentiments.
I actually come here more for these kind of stories than the tech news. From the hacker news guidlines:
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
It's not a blog, it's a user-submitted news story aggregator.
And we the users are nerds, and while most of us work in software engineering, we're interested in everything and anything deep and tech/science related.
And we the users are nerds, and while most of us work in software engineering, we're interested in everything and anything deep and tech/science related.
Often times I feel interested in anything but software engineering
I think hackers like understanding complex systems and problem solving within them (or at least trying). The environment and modern agriculture is a complex system and food scarcity is a problem to be solved. And ADHD.
I work with technology but I'm skeptical that we understand some of the complex systems we claim to understand (or just as likely, something about the bottom line for a big corporation means it's hard to get the full story). 20th century agriculture was focused on short term gains, often resulting in profits for a few big businesses, that eventually resulted in big "unforeseen" problems. Like soil depletion, cancers among farm workers, runoff and polluted waterways. Technology caused those problems, so I guess sometimes it's good to be reminded that sometimes older methods can be better than new.
I work with technology but I'm skeptical that we understand some of the complex systems we claim to understand (or just as likely, something about the bottom line for a big corporation means it's hard to get the full story). 20th century agriculture was focused on short term gains, often resulting in profits for a few big businesses, that eventually resulted in big "unforeseen" problems. Like soil depletion, cancers among farm workers, runoff and polluted waterways. Technology caused those problems, so I guess sometimes it's good to be reminded that sometimes older methods can be better than new.
We run astrobiology experiments aboard the ISS for students around the world. In addition to making life better here on Earth, regenerative Ag is critical for off-world sustainability.
Health and climate mitigation. Trace elements of Glyphosate in food supply. Intensive grazing to reverse desertification (as per Alan Savory) and carbon sequestration.
A 2015 USDA study shows organic corn fetching 3X conventional. But, higher variable costs. What if lowering costs with new techniques changes the roughly equal profit margins to a 2X? That's the sort of questions I and folks like me like to ask.
Aside from that, my housemate sold a cattle ranch in Montana and his family is one of the largest wild rice growers in California before the drought. Now, converting some of that parched land to Solar. Seems like a terrible waste. What if you could do both?
A 2015 USDA study shows organic corn fetching 3X conventional. But, higher variable costs. What if lowering costs with new techniques changes the roughly equal profit margins to a 2X? That's the sort of questions I and folks like me like to ask.
Aside from that, my housemate sold a cattle ranch in Montana and his family is one of the largest wild rice growers in California before the drought. Now, converting some of that parched land to Solar. Seems like a terrible waste. What if you could do both?
ok great. Makes sense. And people have definitely moved to Montana during the pandemic! Another q:
What new markets in this space are interesting to you?
What new markets in this space are interesting to you?
The whole “right to repair” thing gets a lot of traction with this crowd. One of the worst offenders is John Deere, which won’t let you repair your own tractor. Vehicles are mostly software now so tinkering with them is basically criminalized under the CFAA.
This sucks and echoes the repairability problems with modern laptops and phones. Apple and the other major consumer tech companies make more money by selling stuff that can’t be fixed, or that only they can fix. That gets consumers slightly thinner, less expensive stuff, but it’s terrible for e waste and weakens the secondary market for tech, making tech more expensive overall while boosting corporate profits.
So, to answer your question, you could probably get traction by talking about people who are building tools that aren’t encumbered by repairablility and IP problems. Let’s see some open/source crop cycles. Let’s see bootleg tractor repair. Let’s see weird local regulations that force people to play fair.
This sucks and echoes the repairability problems with modern laptops and phones. Apple and the other major consumer tech companies make more money by selling stuff that can’t be fixed, or that only they can fix. That gets consumers slightly thinner, less expensive stuff, but it’s terrible for e waste and weakens the secondary market for tech, making tech more expensive overall while boosting corporate profits.
So, to answer your question, you could probably get traction by talking about people who are building tools that aren’t encumbered by repairablility and IP problems. Let’s see some open/source crop cycles. Let’s see bootleg tractor repair. Let’s see weird local regulations that force people to play fair.
Thanks for these ideas. I think the right to repair is going to get a lot of traction right now with the new executive order—or at least I hope so. The robotics for weeding are definitely interesting too. In terms of reporting on problems or potential solutions, this project is “solutions journalism,” which means rigorous reporting on responses to a problem. The problem part is built in as you look at the how well (or not) the response is working.
...and "solutions journalism" itself sounds like an interesting topic. There are lots of posts on HN discussing journalism in general, challenges faced by "serious" news orgs, and fresh takes. Searching for "journalism" (search box is at bottom of the main page) turns up lots, such as [0], [1], [2], [3], and [4].
And now I'm off down the "Blendle" rabbit hole...
[edit] Arggh. Homepage blendle.com, subhead "To our Beta users": "Today Blendle starts its beta in the United States..." -- undated, and "... Continue reading on medium.com"
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14020950 Social media's effect on journalism is greater than shift from print to digital
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146086 Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12611377 Best practice examples of data journalism and visualization projects
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11343822 Blendle: Pay-per-article journalism platform that refunds you for clickbait
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9453821 Blendle: A radical experiment with micropayments in journalism, 365 days later
And now I'm off down the "Blendle" rabbit hole...
[edit] Arggh. Homepage blendle.com, subhead "To our Beta users": "Today Blendle starts its beta in the United States..." -- undated, and "... Continue reading on medium.com"
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14020950 Social media's effect on journalism is greater than shift from print to digital
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22146086 Jim Lehrer’s Rules of Journalism
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12611377 Best practice examples of data journalism and visualization projects
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11343822 Blendle: Pay-per-article journalism platform that refunds you for clickbait
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9453821 Blendle: A radical experiment with micropayments in journalism, 365 days later
These are interesting, and I second a lot of the journalist’s comments in the Lehrer discussion. I see that Blendle is one response to the problem of the lack of funding for journalism, and someone here suggested Substack as another. I’d love to see this group hack how to pay the real cost of in-depth journalism. I spent 450+ hours on that first story. Which is great, and I’ll do it again, but we can’t expect journalists to always shoulder that load.
More than the new markets, it would be great to get "boots on the ground" information of real honest no bullshit understanding of the pain points of farmers, agricultural industry in general. Sometimes markets are not well defined or don't exist but taking a fundamental look at problems is fascinating. This information is hard to come by and people like yourself can help.
The major pain point is a simple one: we have a cheap-food-policy in place in the US to keep revolution at bay. I have many friends dumping hundreds of gallons of raw milk daily because that's all the state will allow them to do with it. It would be fantastic if farmers could once again post a profit by charging consumers true cost of production.
What I want to know is what steps can be taken to re-engineer incentives so that the major players in agriculture are pushing for regenerative agriculture and organic farming in their financial and political strategies.
I'm interested in small-scale robot farms that take the drudgery out of distributed food growing, particularly in suburbia. Robotic pest control is the most exciting because it would be a nice application of computer vision and chemical free pest control. Gardens in general are good uses of food waste and recycled water; so if you could lower the barrier to entry and operational costs, they might become more common.
In this talk from 2017, around 1h30m in, he says that he hasn't yet found a way to make no-till organic work in terms of weed prevention. But, he said he was close to figuring it out. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
Has any progress been made since? Is this an area where technology could help (eg robotic precision weeding machines)?
Disclaimer that I have yet to read your article so it may already be covered.
Has any progress been made since? Is this an area where technology could help (eg robotic precision weeding machines)?
Disclaimer that I have yet to read your article so it may already be covered.
Personally, I’m fascinated by the system aspect of regenerative (etc.) ag. A lot of what I do as a tech CTO is systems based, but realistically we’re just mere amateurs compared to nature. Plus screens are boring.
>isn’t this a tech/VC blog? How is it that so many of you are so interested in and knowledgeable about agriculture?
It's a moderated forum of scientists, engineers, and intellectuals. ycombinator was one of the original VC funders of reddit and decided to use the same idea for its VC community.
It's a moderated forum of scientists, engineers, and intellectuals. ycombinator was one of the original VC funders of reddit and decided to use the same idea for its VC community.
> It's a moderated forum of scientists, engineers, and intellectuals.
There sure are a lot of stereotypes about tech enthusiasts. Hackers are interested in hacking nature too! ;-)
There sure are a lot of stereotypes about tech enthusiasts. Hackers are interested in hacking nature too! ;-)
While this is a tech/VC blog, every subject that is interesting is appropriate here and welcomed.
A lot of people in tech have diversified jobs and the community has a lot of valuable insights on a wide range of subjects.
An couple of examples:
- SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16319505 )
- Is that ship still stuck? ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26585282 )
And many more...
In this case, I'd say that soil depletion is a known problem here and the article discussed that.
A lot of people in tech have diversified jobs and the community has a lot of valuable insights on a wide range of subjects.
An couple of examples:
- SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy successfully launches ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16319505 )
- Is that ship still stuck? ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26585282 )
And many more...
In this case, I'd say that soil depletion is a known problem here and the article discussed that.
By the broadest definition this is in fact technology. I'm personally very interested in sustainable agriculture both from a technological standpoint and a community impact standpoint
We come here for interesting things to learn about, and the sometime even more interesting tangents that come up in the comments.
I watched a few hours of the videos linked to here in the comments, and I will never look at those photos of "drought" the same way again.
They always feature dry parched bare earth, and now I understand that of course that land is dry, there's no cover crop on it!
I hope that regenerative agriculture takes off soon enough to keep our food supply stable during the next few decades of climate shift.
I watched a few hours of the videos linked to here in the comments, and I will never look at those photos of "drought" the same way again.
They always feature dry parched bare earth, and now I understand that of course that land is dry, there's no cover crop on it!
I hope that regenerative agriculture takes off soon enough to keep our food supply stable during the next few decades of climate shift.
[deleted]
I live in Switzerland and we often vote (referendum) on agriculture. I actively took part to the last political campain (ban on synthetic pesticides, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/world/swiss-pesticide-ref...) which forced me to get interested in (and research) the topic.
[deleted]
Agriculture is the next frontier of big tech. The last several decades decades have seen continuous improvements in labor effectiveness with automated equipment. Ag is big business, big data and in the next decade (IMHO) will be big tech.
I believe ycombinator even invested in a few ag tech startups.
I believe ycombinator even invested in a few ag tech startups.
Hi Emily. It would be amazing if more farmers would look into participating in the Open-Source Digital Infrastructure for the Agriculture Ecosystem: AgStack https://agstack.org/ by Linux Foundation
Whoa Ag Stack is a fascinating idea. I love when two seemingly disparate disciplines come together to create simple solutions to complex problems. Seems like a lot of potential here!
One of the nice things about software is that it impacts everything, it's relevant everywhere, and the best software and technology is created when you understand both software and the domain where it is applied. "Software is eating the world".
I just want to say, this was a wonderfully written article!
Personally, I have an interest in biology and nature - everything is so complex and interconnected!
I would say that many people here have an interest in learning "how things work" that isn't limited to just computers.
Personally, I have an interest in biology and nature - everything is so complex and interconnected!
I would say that many people here have an interest in learning "how things work" that isn't limited to just computers.
Thank you!
Many readers here came from a farming family, but pursued careers in technology. They might still be actively involved in farming, and some ultimately return to either take over the farm or manage the land.
Some of us have also founded or worked at AgTech companies.
Some of us have also founded or worked at AgTech companies.
I am not from the US but on the lookout for agriculture related stories since all generations in my family up until my grandfather have only done farming. My uncles still do it full-time.
I think this as much about technology as anything. It's a difference in how to do things that isn't obvious and that can carry a significant impact.
Emily there will be a lot of reasons here but I bet if you were able to dig deeper you’d find a handful of people here moved to Montana during the pandemic.
Or already lived in Montana ;)
tech/VC aren't solely about the quick buck, but about expressing the desires of the technologist or VC in how they engage in the world.
As many of us neo2k hackers are getting to ages where we think about future generations and even legacy, the stranglehold of corporatism on agriculture R&D and production is very worrying - and your blog is quite informative.
As many of us neo2k hackers are getting to ages where we think about future generations and even legacy, the stranglehold of corporatism on agriculture R&D and production is very worrying - and your blog is quite informative.
I'm a software engineer with a passion for botany and growing vegetables. I mostly attribute this interest to growing up with a gardening mother, but I think the mixture of engineering systems, working with equipment, and trying to balance complex trade-offs all lend themselves to the kind of person who likes to create virtual worlds in their mind. Writing software is like creating a little ecosystem of moving parts and interlocking components, and taming complexity is the eternal battle as systems grow. Many of us are probably drawn to analogous systems and problem spaces. Hacker News is basically a place where we share links, nerd out on ideas, and make snarky comments.
I think part of what is exciting and intriguing in your article is that it paints a picture of what agriculture could look like. Instead of just feeling a sense of dread about how our society is ruining everything, many of us are technological optimists with a core belief that science and engineering can help light a way to a better future. Who doesn't like reading articles that reinforce their existing beliefs? ;-)
I've scoured YouTube and other sources for regenerative ag content over the last few years, and what I crave are more specifics and details of business models, scientific analysis, etc. It would be fascinating to actually see the books for a couple of different farms, conventional vs organic vs regenerative. How much money is spent on chemicals vs labor vs seed, etc.? What does insurance cost, and how much risk is there? Does regenerative ag with higher soil carbon lower this risk? (Maybe there is a smart regenerative only insurance play here?) Many of us would probably love to work on autonomous tractors, computer vision to spot problems, etc., etc., so learning about the key levers and problems underlying this industry would be incredibly thought provoking. While reading your article my head went to: why can't those electric fences both monitor the cattle and move themselves around? Could you attach water or compost to the cows themselves to have them help distribute useful inputs? There is an incredible amount of food waste, yard trimming waste, and other carbon rich waste streams generated by society. Why aren't we spreading that on these farms? Instead of tilling the top inch or two, couldn't we be planting the seeds in a new layer of added material? I guess this would require moving a lot of mass, but maybe if it's an autonomous supply chain it could be constantly bringing beneficial waste streams to farmers? It seems like each crop is likely to take some nutrients and provide others. Could you not auto-sample a farm and then automically determine the optimal crop mix which will most benefit the soil? If you have market data you could also connect this with current market prices. Last, if all you did was grow optimal cover crops for a few years could you dramatically improve a farm? Should we pay farmers to give the land a break and only grow beneficial crops so they can come back in N years as an organic, regenerative operation?
My wife and I have started trying to order all of our meats (fish, pork, beef, chicken) from sustainable operations, and it's actually quite hard to know who to go to. When we do finally find one that seems compelling, they are often sold out. Is anyone creating a centralized marketplace for the output from regenerative farms? I have a feeling we aren't the only ones who want to support these operations.
Thanks for a thought provoking article!
I think part of what is exciting and intriguing in your article is that it paints a picture of what agriculture could look like. Instead of just feeling a sense of dread about how our society is ruining everything, many of us are technological optimists with a core belief that science and engineering can help light a way to a better future. Who doesn't like reading articles that reinforce their existing beliefs? ;-)
I've scoured YouTube and other sources for regenerative ag content over the last few years, and what I crave are more specifics and details of business models, scientific analysis, etc. It would be fascinating to actually see the books for a couple of different farms, conventional vs organic vs regenerative. How much money is spent on chemicals vs labor vs seed, etc.? What does insurance cost, and how much risk is there? Does regenerative ag with higher soil carbon lower this risk? (Maybe there is a smart regenerative only insurance play here?) Many of us would probably love to work on autonomous tractors, computer vision to spot problems, etc., etc., so learning about the key levers and problems underlying this industry would be incredibly thought provoking. While reading your article my head went to: why can't those electric fences both monitor the cattle and move themselves around? Could you attach water or compost to the cows themselves to have them help distribute useful inputs? There is an incredible amount of food waste, yard trimming waste, and other carbon rich waste streams generated by society. Why aren't we spreading that on these farms? Instead of tilling the top inch or two, couldn't we be planting the seeds in a new layer of added material? I guess this would require moving a lot of mass, but maybe if it's an autonomous supply chain it could be constantly bringing beneficial waste streams to farmers? It seems like each crop is likely to take some nutrients and provide others. Could you not auto-sample a farm and then automically determine the optimal crop mix which will most benefit the soil? If you have market data you could also connect this with current market prices. Last, if all you did was grow optimal cover crops for a few years could you dramatically improve a farm? Should we pay farmers to give the land a break and only grow beneficial crops so they can come back in N years as an organic, regenerative operation?
My wife and I have started trying to order all of our meats (fish, pork, beef, chicken) from sustainable operations, and it's actually quite hard to know who to go to. When we do finally find one that seems compelling, they are often sold out. Is anyone creating a centralized marketplace for the output from regenerative farms? I have a feeling we aren't the only ones who want to support these operations.
Thanks for a thought provoking article!
These are fantastic questions!!! I am bookmarking them for later.
Montanan here:
This is true. One of the regenerative crop types are pulses (lentils, chick peas), and MT produces a lot.
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/pulse-info/resources-pdf/Growing...
The state often appears in stories about agriculture in precarious environments (See Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for one example.)
Montana is largely a semi-arid desert, especially over the 2/3's of the state that are northern Great Plains. East of the continental divide, it gets about 10" of rain per year, which is about a quarter of the US average.
And with climate change, it is more precarious. Temperatures have been unusually high this summer, and it's fire season now. Weather has become more volatile. (Cherry crops on the Flathead have been destroyed two of the last three years.)
This is true. One of the regenerative crop types are pulses (lentils, chick peas), and MT produces a lot.
https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/pulse-info/resources-pdf/Growing...
The state often appears in stories about agriculture in precarious environments (See Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for one example.)
Montana is largely a semi-arid desert, especially over the 2/3's of the state that are northern Great Plains. East of the continental divide, it gets about 10" of rain per year, which is about a quarter of the US average.
And with climate change, it is more precarious. Temperatures have been unusually high this summer, and it's fire season now. Weather has become more volatile. (Cherry crops on the Flathead have been destroyed two of the last three years.)
> Lentils (Lens culinaris
Medik.) are produced on
over 1.5 million acres
throughout the world. They are
primarily used for domestic consumption in casseroles, salads,
soups and stews. Lentils provide an
excellent source of protein (20 to
35 percent), but are limited in the
sulphur-containing amino acids
methionine and cystine. However,
consumption of lentils with cereals
provides a balanced diet high in
fiber, protein and essential amino
acids.
> Lentils in the United States are primarily grown for export.
Growing lentils is a great idea, but the developed and developing worlds' palates also need to also change course toward consuming less climate-damaging foods like meat and more lentils, chickpeas, and other pulses.
Already today, pea protein is a major constituent of the newer more realistic meat-substitutes, which is a good trend, but if most lentils just end up being exported and used as some sort of livestock feed, it will make little differences to the climate and environmental issues we are experiencing.
> Lentils in the United States are primarily grown for export.
Growing lentils is a great idea, but the developed and developing worlds' palates also need to also change course toward consuming less climate-damaging foods like meat and more lentils, chickpeas, and other pulses.
Already today, pea protein is a major constituent of the newer more realistic meat-substitutes, which is a good trend, but if most lentils just end up being exported and used as some sort of livestock feed, it will make little differences to the climate and environmental issues we are experiencing.
From the article.
> They also lease land to neighboring ranchers, whose grazing cattle aerate the soil with their hooves and add organic matter and nutrients via manure.
Meat can and should be a part of regenerative ag.
I recently visited a family friend's place/farm. A year ago, the soil was the typical cracked dry light tan clay ground that I have in my yard. It's quite typical in Oregon.
This time, the soil was a dark color with tons of organic material and great water retention. This was entirely due to the grazing. They have goats and an alpaca. Ruminants are excellent for soil health, and the meat they produce is also great for human health.
> They also lease land to neighboring ranchers, whose grazing cattle aerate the soil with their hooves and add organic matter and nutrients via manure.
Meat can and should be a part of regenerative ag.
I recently visited a family friend's place/farm. A year ago, the soil was the typical cracked dry light tan clay ground that I have in my yard. It's quite typical in Oregon.
This time, the soil was a dark color with tons of organic material and great water retention. This was entirely due to the grazing. They have goats and an alpaca. Ruminants are excellent for soil health, and the meat they produce is also great for human health.
There's really not that much meat in regenerative agriculture. Given the current per capita consumption of meat in kg, a regenerative ag operation could never accomplish that.
Reducing to 4-30kg of meat per capita per year seems impossible.
No one can even accomplish that with ruminants. That's why there's so much chicken everywhere, because accomplishing that with ruminants is near impossible, so chicken is advertised massively instead.
A nitpick, there's no single food that is great for human health or bad for human health. Diet can contain various things and be healthy and it can also lack meat and be healthy.
Reducing to 4-30kg of meat per capita per year seems impossible.
No one can even accomplish that with ruminants. That's why there's so much chicken everywhere, because accomplishing that with ruminants is near impossible, so chicken is advertised massively instead.
A nitpick, there's no single food that is great for human health or bad for human health. Diet can contain various things and be healthy and it can also lack meat and be healthy.
Do you have sources for this?
I used to think similarly, but now I’m not so sure. Gabe Brown, the author of Dirt to Soil, changed my outlook on animals place in a healthy ecosystem.
On his farmland he puts about 700k lbs of cattle on 1acre of land at a time, rotating those cattle frequently across 40 acres. He claims this practice has been an integral part of his regenerative ag method.
http://brownsranch.us/grazing/
I used to think similarly, but now I’m not so sure. Gabe Brown, the author of Dirt to Soil, changed my outlook on animals place in a healthy ecosystem.
On his farmland he puts about 700k lbs of cattle on 1acre of land at a time, rotating those cattle frequently across 40 acres. He claims this practice has been an integral part of his regenerative ag method.
http://brownsranch.us/grazing/
I don't think that math works out. That works out to around 6 square meters per cow. Google says cows eat about 160 pounds of grass per day.
Brown has bred his cattle for efficiency.
> A large-framed cow is one that requires a higher intake level for maintenance alone
https://brownsranch.us/livestock/
My math came out similarly to yours but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for there to be 150lbs of waste high cover crop biomass in a 6 square meter area.
Again he is rotating these cattle daily and never depleting the crops of any one area, giving them a chance to grow back by the time the cattle are rotated back through.
Another term you can search for to find visuals of what this sort of density looks like is mobgrazing.
> A large-framed cow is one that requires a higher intake level for maintenance alone
https://brownsranch.us/livestock/
My math came out similarly to yours but I don’t think it’s unreasonable for there to be 150lbs of waste high cover crop biomass in a 6 square meter area.
Again he is rotating these cattle daily and never depleting the crops of any one area, giving them a chance to grow back by the time the cattle are rotated back through.
Another term you can search for to find visuals of what this sort of density looks like is mobgrazing.
I think in this case Google might not be right. Other sources say it's more like 10-15kg (22-33lbs)[1] for beef cattle. Dairy might be higher.
[1] https://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage-do...
[1] https://www.thebeefsite.com/articles/3154/how-much-forage-do...
You speak as if a goat is a goat, a cow is a cow, a pig is a pig, a calorie is a calorie, and a protein is a protein. No. The world is much more nuanced than that. Ruminants are thee biggest factor is driving soil-building as part of regenerative agriculture. Goats are by far (in my experience) the quickest way to rebuild parched top soil, or just build soil in a place that badly needs it (say run-through dirt that won't even grow lentils).
Well, I did not say that ruminants aren't a part of regenerative agriculture. There's just not that many to support the current meat consumption levels.
If you're going to grow ruminants just on grass, it takes a lot of time and land to eventually sell the meat compared to what's happening now.
We could argue that a reduction from 100+ kg to 4-30kg of meat per capita per year could be supported this way but I have no idea.
If you're going to grow ruminants just on grass, it takes a lot of time and land to eventually sell the meat compared to what's happening now.
We could argue that a reduction from 100+ kg to 4-30kg of meat per capita per year could be supported this way but I have no idea.
I do work at a farm and around farms that use regenerative grazing. It works great.
However as a vegan my hope is that we eventually let animals graze and simply do not kill and consume them. One could argue “the meat is there” but that meat is beings with a heart and a mind. When I see the grazing animals with their babies in toe, I think about how they will be separated and the pain the mothers will go through.
We can take great care of our soil with regenerative grazing but that is quite apart from whether or not we need to treat those animals as mere property and eat them.
However as a vegan my hope is that we eventually let animals graze and simply do not kill and consume them. One could argue “the meat is there” but that meat is beings with a heart and a mind. When I see the grazing animals with their babies in toe, I think about how they will be separated and the pain the mothers will go through.
We can take great care of our soil with regenerative grazing but that is quite apart from whether or not we need to treat those animals as mere property and eat them.
I'm a meat-eater (have been my whole life), but I've always been partial to this argument. This is why I'm looking forward to lab-grown meat and would pay a bit of a premium for it.
Lab grown meat is promising, for sure.
FWIW I am now in year three of veganism and it feels like I have made it past all the "teething" stages to the point where I am absolutely loving my vegan meals. It is rare for me these days to eat a meat or cheese substitute - more like the occasional junk food throwback than a normal meal. Lentils, tofu, potatoes, carrots, broccoli, brown rice, peanut sauce, lettuce, zucchini, and just some of the foods that bring me joy to eat.
Hopefully you're already learning to make vegan meals but if anyone out there is on the fence I highly encourage you to learn how to make delicious vegan food. It's so tasty and you won't feel the guilt of eating meat.
FWIW I am now in year three of veganism and it feels like I have made it past all the "teething" stages to the point where I am absolutely loving my vegan meals. It is rare for me these days to eat a meat or cheese substitute - more like the occasional junk food throwback than a normal meal. Lentils, tofu, potatoes, carrots, broccoli, brown rice, peanut sauce, lettuce, zucchini, and just some of the foods that bring me joy to eat.
Hopefully you're already learning to make vegan meals but if anyone out there is on the fence I highly encourage you to learn how to make delicious vegan food. It's so tasty and you won't feel the guilt of eating meat.
Are there any chefs who unify veganism with traditional cuisines that use lots of animal products, e.g. french or chinese? I would love to be vegetarian but I'm lucky in that my partner makes fantastic traditional food and I don't want to give it up.
Vegan modifications along the lines of 'substitute the meat in your burger for mushroom' seem depressing, like they're unengaged with the balance of flavours in the dish.
Vegan modifications along the lines of 'substitute the meat in your burger for mushroom' seem depressing, like they're unengaged with the balance of flavours in the dish.
In general yes. Depending on where you are this can be harder to find.
In San Francisco there is an absolutely amazing vegan japanese restaurant. https://www.yelp.com/biz/cha-ya-san-francisco-san-francisco-...
I googled for "french vegan food" and found this: https://veggievagabonds.com/best-traditional-french-vegan-re...
For chinese food I would imagine there is a lot of traditional vegan food. Tofu for example originated in China. For lots of chinese dishes with meat, something like Tempeh or Seitan make great traditional foods that can substitute meat.
I googled "chinese vegan food" and found this: https://thewoksoflife.com/traditional-chinese-vegan-dishes/
The thing to keep in mind is that veganism is very common in parts of the world where the right crops grow well. So indian food is full of vegan and vegetarian options like dal (lentils).
One of the things you can do is just get to know the traditional plant proteins like lentils, tempeh, seitan, and tofu. Go find some tempeh at the store, unmarinated. Slice it in to long thin fries, and pan fry them in some olive oil. Brown them on all sides, then add salt. Some super tasty fries that will make you want more. Now next time you cook tempeh do the same thing but cut it in to small cubes. You can add that on top of anything in place of meat and it will be very satisfying.
Then learn to cook tofu and seitan. Eventually you will become familiar enough with them to plan dishes with them.
And for me I found that adding peanut sauce is an easy way to make things tastier. So experiment with that!
In San Francisco there is an absolutely amazing vegan japanese restaurant. https://www.yelp.com/biz/cha-ya-san-francisco-san-francisco-...
I googled for "french vegan food" and found this: https://veggievagabonds.com/best-traditional-french-vegan-re...
For chinese food I would imagine there is a lot of traditional vegan food. Tofu for example originated in China. For lots of chinese dishes with meat, something like Tempeh or Seitan make great traditional foods that can substitute meat.
I googled "chinese vegan food" and found this: https://thewoksoflife.com/traditional-chinese-vegan-dishes/
The thing to keep in mind is that veganism is very common in parts of the world where the right crops grow well. So indian food is full of vegan and vegetarian options like dal (lentils).
One of the things you can do is just get to know the traditional plant proteins like lentils, tempeh, seitan, and tofu. Go find some tempeh at the store, unmarinated. Slice it in to long thin fries, and pan fry them in some olive oil. Brown them on all sides, then add salt. Some super tasty fries that will make you want more. Now next time you cook tempeh do the same thing but cut it in to small cubes. You can add that on top of anything in place of meat and it will be very satisfying.
Then learn to cook tofu and seitan. Eventually you will become familiar enough with them to plan dishes with them.
And for me I found that adding peanut sauce is an easy way to make things tastier. So experiment with that!
Specifically with Chinese you rarely actually need to prepare a dish with meat in it. The savory/fat elements can be brought in via other means, and that often leaves just the sauce that’s very flexible to be used on any number of veggies and great tofu variety.
Remember the vast majority of China was extremely poor until just recently. No ones affording meat. The most traditional cuisines can function entirely without meat.
Remember the vast majority of China was extremely poor until just recently. No ones affording meat. The most traditional cuisines can function entirely without meat.
I've been to a great vegan Chinese restaurant. I think most countries where Buddhism is present have traditional meat-free cuisine.
Thanks for sharing this sentiment, vegetarian here who's been trying to read what I can about ecosystem restoration and such and it's really led to more balanced view around animals/meat consumption.
From your experience is it possible (in a farm context of a fixed amount of land) to just let the larger animals graze in such a way that they can live their natural lifespan? or are there concerns of species overpopulation (and ecosystem degradation) akin to deer on poorly managed land?
From your experience is it possible (in a farm context of a fixed amount of land) to just let the larger animals graze in such a way that they can live their natural lifespan? or are there concerns of species overpopulation (and ecosystem degradation) akin to deer on poorly managed land?
No, it's not possible (rather it's possible but not desirable), nor is it natural. The natural thing for ruminants (and humans for that matter) to do, is wander freely from place to place with no limits or boundaries, allowing vegetation to get eaten down (or be left alone) by succeeding populations of all sorts of animals, insects, microbes, etc. Then maybe them coming back through the same spot 8-36 months later, etc.etc.etc. Unfortunately, humans have chosen to abandon this nomadic lifestyle. I think ultimately this is the root cause of our climate crisis, but obviously not one that we will ever be inclined to address.
Many of my dairy animals live through their long natural lifespans; it hurts to see my 14 year old best friend (usually the matriarch of the herd) get torn apart by a pack of coyotes though, or suffer other disease or mechanical injury as a result of old age and bad luck. However, on a large plot of land (say 60-100 acres+) that is not managed, they will surely run out of nutritionally dense foods to eat, as they will freely pick and choose certain stands of certain forbs or grasses, and let others lie dormant (these ultimately going to forest). The result is the highly nutritious choice foods get eaten to death, forest slowly sprouts everywhere else, and animal health suffers as a result. Now, if you had a large mixed herd, it becomes a possibility (think cows, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, other fowl all living together). Now, if you can take that same large plot of land, and that same mixed herd of various animals and preferably plants, insects, and fungus, and rotationaly graze in much smaller paddocks, you can make magic happen, assuming your soil was dense enough in minerals to keep the animals happy and healthy on pasture alone (unlikely in many parts of the world without mineralizing the soil first).
Many of my dairy animals live through their long natural lifespans; it hurts to see my 14 year old best friend (usually the matriarch of the herd) get torn apart by a pack of coyotes though, or suffer other disease or mechanical injury as a result of old age and bad luck. However, on a large plot of land (say 60-100 acres+) that is not managed, they will surely run out of nutritionally dense foods to eat, as they will freely pick and choose certain stands of certain forbs or grasses, and let others lie dormant (these ultimately going to forest). The result is the highly nutritious choice foods get eaten to death, forest slowly sprouts everywhere else, and animal health suffers as a result. Now, if you had a large mixed herd, it becomes a possibility (think cows, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens, other fowl all living together). Now, if you can take that same large plot of land, and that same mixed herd of various animals and preferably plants, insects, and fungus, and rotationaly graze in much smaller paddocks, you can make magic happen, assuming your soil was dense enough in minerals to keep the animals happy and healthy on pasture alone (unlikely in many parts of the world without mineralizing the soil first).
It's a good question. While I work at a farm, my focus is on engineering our farming robot (see my profile if curious) so I do not have a lot of experience with the animals. It seems like goats could be pretty self sufficient but I'm not sure of the details.
Are you sure that plants don't go through pain? How do you feel about the small animals that cows eat when they graze? I'm sure those little birds and insects feel some pain when the cows chew them up.
No I am not sure that plants don't go through pain. I am however quite sure that animals experience pain, and so I don't want my food system dependent on that. I am pretty unconcerned with wild animals eating other wild animals however, as that seems to be the way of the Earth. I am only concerned with humans confining animals and growing them for commercial consumption, as it is clear to me that we are capable of thriving without such cruelty.
Big props to any cow that eats a bird though.
Big props to any cow that eats a bird though.
I lived on a dairy farm for many years and never saw a cow eat a bird.
Someone on Twitter told me “you obviously don’t care about the fawn that will lose a leg from the harvester” as if vegetable farmers are out there mowing down deer every chance they get. People come up with weird reasons why “actually the vegans are the monsters”. And this is just me talking about being vegan, I do not criticize people for eating meat.
My family and I raise all of our own meat and have for many generations going back as long as anyone remembers. I suppose as all things it depends on the specific character and personality of the animal. Many mamas I know of goat, pig, bird species want nothing to do with their babies once they quickly get them taught how to graze and finally off their teats. Others grow attached to their kids and definitely go through separation anxiety if they're separated (don't think it's any easier for your parents once you freely leave the home nest). None the less, I and many of my farming friends (certainly not all) do not treat the animals or plants as property. We treat them as good friends. In fact, they are my best friends, as I spend more time with them than I do anyone else. They live good long lives on high quality soil/pasture/hay/rain water, and eventually we eat them. I don't feel regret or pain at this, though I do miss them as I would all my family members or friends that have passed. I only feel joy and the deepest appreciation, that my best friends gave their lives so my family can live theirs. I feel the same way about all the plants I grow and kill, just so we're clear. I think it's about time we stopped pretending that plants are "lesser" than human or other animal intellectually. It's a false premise.
Yes, meat is a good component of a healthy diet, but as with many things, Americans take the quantity about 10 miles past the advisable point.
Growing lentils is a great idea, but the developed and developing worlds' palates also need to also change course toward consuming less climate-damaging foods like meat and more lentils, chickpeas, and other pulses.
If you like lentis, you too can experience the joys of the US Humanitarian Daily Ration, NSN 8970-01-375-0516 [1]. It's vegetarian. It's kosher. It's halal. It's cheap to manufacture. It can survive being air-dropped without a parachute. It's heavy on lentils.The US military gives it out to starving people.
[1] https://www.dla.mil/TroopSupport/Subsistence/Operational-rat...
If you like lentis, you too can experience the joys of the US Humanitarian Daily Ration, NSN 8970-01-375-0516 [1]. It's vegetarian. It's kosher. It's halal. It's cheap to manufacture. It can survive being air-dropped without a parachute. It's heavy on lentils.The US military gives it out to starving people.
[1] https://www.dla.mil/TroopSupport/Subsistence/Operational-rat...
Not sure what your point is. Lentils are used in thousands of recipes that aren't the US Humanitarian Daily Ration that most people would much rather eat.
Has there been any work on meat substitutes using lentils or chickpeas?
Most of the meat substitute burgers available today (impossible, beyond) use pea protein. Not sure if it's chickpea but they could always substitute.
There have long been chickpea based "chikn" patties available at grocery stores.
Also try IKEA's plant balls, which are made primarily of chickpea flour.
There have long been chickpea based "chikn" patties available at grocery stores.
Also try IKEA's plant balls, which are made primarily of chickpea flour.
> Growing lentils is a great idea, but the developed and developing worlds' palates also need to also change course toward consuming less climate-damaging foods like meat and more lentils, chickpeas, and other pulses.
Forget about the developing world. This is all about the developed world. You are to blame. Most of the pollution is by the US and Europe, regardless of whether it happens at home or as pollution outsourced to China.
Forget about the developing world. This is all about the developed world. You are to blame. Most of the pollution is by the US and Europe, regardless of whether it happens at home or as pollution outsourced to China.
If you're using a computer of some kind to type this message on a message board, surely you recognize that you too are to blame.
Cherry crops on the Flathead have been destroyed two of the last three years
Very sad. I grew up in Bozeman, and I loved Flathead cherry season.
Very sad. I grew up in Bozeman, and I loved Flathead cherry season.
Interesting, I saw a map show chick peas as being a big crop in that region and thought it was surprising, just because it's not seen as a huge money crop.
where would one go to read about the cherry crops on the flathead? (such a lovely area!)
For news about the cherry harvests you could go to the Daily Interlake, a newspaper published in Kalispell, or the Flathead Beacon:
https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2021/jul/03/growers-expect-e...
https://flatheadbeacon.com/?s=cherry
https://dailyinterlake.com/news/2021/jul/03/growers-expect-e...
https://flatheadbeacon.com/?s=cherry
>This is true. One of the regenerative crop types are pulses (lentils, chick peas), and MT produces a lot.
Interesting! I always sorta thought those were warm-weather crops.
Interesting! I always sorta thought those were warm-weather crops.
For those who are interested in the topic of soil reconstruction and balance in nature, some more sources:
Documentary on the Loess plateau in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjLV_aVRUmQ
Talk on the Caledonian Forest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGHUkby2Is
Talk on using the "herd effect" in Africa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pI7IYaJLI
A talk presenting a realistic view on soil reconstruction, what IMO is the best argument to convince farmers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
Documentary on the Loess plateau in China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjLV_aVRUmQ
Talk on the Caledonian Forest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGHUkby2Is
Talk on using the "herd effect" in Africa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pI7IYaJLI
A talk presenting a realistic view on soil reconstruction, what IMO is the best argument to convince farmers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
That Gabe Brown video convinced me a couple years ago. I agree, it is the most convincing soil health video and I share it every chance I get.
His book, Dirt To Soil, is what convinced me. It was the first time in a while that I felt optimism about the future of the planet. It also changed how I viewed the morals of meat consumption.
Thank you for the added resource links
Organic and regenerative ag are built on the assumption that crops must be grown in open air soil. The reality is that crops can be grown in open air soil and, if they are, regenerative ag in particular is significantly better for soil longevity.
That said it is not necessarily better to produce all crops in low density, high volatility, season dependent environments. Some material % of crops can move to more intelligent indoor settings where yields are higher, weather isn't a factor, and production yields can be scheduled without risk of weather impact. I'm actually a partner in one of these high volume operations in Montana (randomly). Uses less water, has zero soil impact, requires little to no chemical agents and is predictable.
What I hope will continue is crops that are capable of producing profitable and predictable yields in indoor environments will move more and more in that direction. This could serve to reduce soil stress and leave soil for crops that need more space (e.g. tubers) and livestock to aid in improving soil longevity.
Note this is not a plug for vertical farming. That's an entirely different mirage of financial engineering.
That said it is not necessarily better to produce all crops in low density, high volatility, season dependent environments. Some material % of crops can move to more intelligent indoor settings where yields are higher, weather isn't a factor, and production yields can be scheduled without risk of weather impact. I'm actually a partner in one of these high volume operations in Montana (randomly). Uses less water, has zero soil impact, requires little to no chemical agents and is predictable.
What I hope will continue is crops that are capable of producing profitable and predictable yields in indoor environments will move more and more in that direction. This could serve to reduce soil stress and leave soil for crops that need more space (e.g. tubers) and livestock to aid in improving soil longevity.
Note this is not a plug for vertical farming. That's an entirely different mirage of financial engineering.
Sweet, there is only approximately 300 million acres of cropland in the United States alone.
Sun == free, rain == free
How does indoor ag plan on scaling up for anything other than super high margin vegetables and spices when their competitor (outdoor ag) has no cost associated with sun or rain? Not even to mention soil.
edit: I like indoor/vertical ag a lot (when applied correctly) When people try to propose producing things that have no chance of succeeding in our current Kardashev scale, it makes me think they are arguing in bad faith or with a fundamental lack of understanding of the problems faced in food production.
Sun == free, rain == free
How does indoor ag plan on scaling up for anything other than super high margin vegetables and spices when their competitor (outdoor ag) has no cost associated with sun or rain? Not even to mention soil.
edit: I like indoor/vertical ag a lot (when applied correctly) When people try to propose producing things that have no chance of succeeding in our current Kardashev scale, it makes me think they are arguing in bad faith or with a fundamental lack of understanding of the problems faced in food production.
I actually agree with you. It's purely a math problem. Where can predictable yield be profitable (including loss calculations) and where can it not.
Vertical as it is today is an excellent nursery solution to feed growable plants into float ponds with little to no loss. As an independent production method, vertical isn't mathematically sustainable.
40% of fresh food is lost before it makes it to the end user (USDA data). The loss comes from a combo of unpredictable weather, timing issues where market prices dip below production costs at harvest time, and supply chain issues.
So it's a complicated math problem but it's important to consider in the suite of food security tools we look to.
Absent regen, we're likely to decimate soils over generations. If we flip totally to regen, we won't have enough land.
So a host of solutions is required.
Vertical as it is today is an excellent nursery solution to feed growable plants into float ponds with little to no loss. As an independent production method, vertical isn't mathematically sustainable.
40% of fresh food is lost before it makes it to the end user (USDA data). The loss comes from a combo of unpredictable weather, timing issues where market prices dip below production costs at harvest time, and supply chain issues.
So it's a complicated math problem but it's important to consider in the suite of food security tools we look to.
Absent regen, we're likely to decimate soils over generations. If we flip totally to regen, we won't have enough land.
So a host of solutions is required.
Fair comments.
I'm mulling whether we have enough land (at 100% regen practices). I almost think we do.
From a system-level, we're over saturated because of ethanol and other things that realistically could disappear and society would be better off. Just need to recalibrate our acres a bit
I'm mulling whether we have enough land (at 100% regen practices). I almost think we do.
From a system-level, we're over saturated because of ethanol and other things that realistically could disappear and society would be better off. Just need to recalibrate our acres a bit
I don't know the number but I suspect some material % of corn production could go away if we stopped subsidizing that industry for insane things like making gasoline for electoral reasons. :-)
I think a material % would go away if we stopped feeding it to cows as well, a la regenerative ag.
make all the corn fields back into grasslands that they were and the cows will help rebuild the soil.
Should we be worried about how many more ruminants this would require, and their impact on the climate? I just saw some estimates of 90 million acres used to grow corn in the U.S., and a cow calf pair needs 1.5-2 acres to feed itself. I know we probably wouldn't maximize cows to the area for the type of growing we're talking about, but that's 45 million cows (with calfs) at the low end if we were, and I'm seeing reports we currently have ~95 million head of cattle in the U.S.
Those are all napkin numbers, or poorly sourced, and worst case, but I would love to see some good numbers on what it means to the climate to have a lot more ruminants in the farming process. (If much of current beef cattle production was moved to be dispersed along these lands, that seems like it might be a good idea for all involved though).
Those are all napkin numbers, or poorly sourced, and worst case, but I would love to see some good numbers on what it means to the climate to have a lot more ruminants in the farming process. (If much of current beef cattle production was moved to be dispersed along these lands, that seems like it might be a good idea for all involved though).
I think these numbers are from the more traditional way of farming.
At least one practitioner of regenerative agriculture, Gabe Brown, uses super dense grazing and frequent movement of the cattle to actually restore his soil health.
http://brownsranch.us/grazing/
If this sort of stuff interest you, I highly suggest his book, Dirt To Soil. It’s a light read with a lot of great information on regen ag.
At least one practitioner of regenerative agriculture, Gabe Brown, uses super dense grazing and frequent movement of the cattle to actually restore his soil health.
http://brownsranch.us/grazing/
If this sort of stuff interest you, I highly suggest his book, Dirt To Soil. It’s a light read with a lot of great information on regen ag.
its about 33% of acres of corn that go to ethanol.....this should go away even before electric cars MAKE them go away
Vertical is the future.
Imagine all the kick in the mid 2000s for "vertical living walls" as all the rage in large scale office complexes.
Imagine that if instead they put vertical gardens in every high-rise and the farming of the veggies was a part of the HOA and the veggies were just included in the cost of the living in the home - and you could opt-out and give the veggies to the homeless/shelters/churches/etc...
Now imagine if the US was like Singapore, where the setbacks in dense urban environs is massive enough to manage handling a ton of eatable growth between all buildings.
There are three things that should be required for every single building going up (aside from structural sound-ness)
1. Parking underground for 3 levels
2. Vertical EATABLE gardens
3. A network of 'non=potable' water supplies (water you can get from a grey-water system run through the entire building to feed the plants in the vertical gardens.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_water
Imagine all the kick in the mid 2000s for "vertical living walls" as all the rage in large scale office complexes.
Imagine that if instead they put vertical gardens in every high-rise and the farming of the veggies was a part of the HOA and the veggies were just included in the cost of the living in the home - and you could opt-out and give the veggies to the homeless/shelters/churches/etc...
Now imagine if the US was like Singapore, where the setbacks in dense urban environs is massive enough to manage handling a ton of eatable growth between all buildings.
There are three things that should be required for every single building going up (aside from structural sound-ness)
1. Parking underground for 3 levels
2. Vertical EATABLE gardens
3. A network of 'non=potable' water supplies (water you can get from a grey-water system run through the entire building to feed the plants in the vertical gardens.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_water
Sure, sun and rain are free, but the costs for outdoor farming are huge too. Irrigation, pesticides, fencing, harvesting equipment, anti-weed chemicals. Then your yields are super volatile -- weather can be bad, you can just get unlucky, you can have weeds/bugs/mice eating into your yields. Then you need to get your crops all the way from Montana to big markets hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Indoor farming sure does require an input of energy and a high up-front cost, but you can get extremely high yields reliably, and you can dramatically reduce transportation and chemical costs, plus reduced water costs often.
Indoor farming sure does require an input of energy and a high up-front cost, but you can get extremely high yields reliably, and you can dramatically reduce transportation and chemical costs, plus reduced water costs often.
Those costs are known, and outside of California and Nebraska, almost no crops are irrigated.
As far as transporting crops to markets? That's actually a success story. Rail hauls most of the crops from Montana to the PNW (if exporting to China). Rail is dirt cheap and efficient, as any true HN reader will know. :)
As far as transporting crops to markets? That's actually a success story. Rail hauls most of the crops from Montana to the PNW (if exporting to China). Rail is dirt cheap and efficient, as any true HN reader will know. :)
For context, the "almost no crops" that are irrigated comprises about fifty-five million acres, a little over 7% of cropland & pastures. Removing pastures from this data is difficult, but since we're only looking at three hundred million acres primary cropland in the US, we can confidently approximate between a tenth and a sixth of primary crops are irrigated.
1 - https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
1 - https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/report...
I believe around 50% of that 55M acres are hay/forage/pasture. Nebraska and Colorado are easily top players. I underestimated the delta. Point remains there isn’t a ton a irrigated production for commodity crops (corn/soy/wheat/cotton)
Do you know if things like sprinklers count as irrigation? I grew up spending a lot of time in Delaware which is tons of farmland, and I remember seeing lots of weird watering devices and sprinklers.
Yes, they absolutely do.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/june/understanding...
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/june/understanding...
By providing predictability/consistency/efficiency. Yes you end up paying for things that are otherwise free, but those free versions are at the mercy of nature and nature isn't exactly getting more predictable/consistent. You can also create highly efficient watering systems where evaporation is nearly nonexistent and nutrients are easily distributed meaning you're making way better use of that water. And let's be honest - if you're working with 10" of rain per year you're not just relying on the free rain anyway. California's central valley is also a prime candidate for this sort of thing as they're pumping water out of the ground so fast it's sinking and the underground aquifers are getting destroyed meaning the groundwater can't replenish and they're unable to capture as much snowmelt. That's in addition to importing water from other regions that are on the brink of not being able to sustain those exports. Water's already expensive and about to get more expensive.
And that's not even taking into consideration the higher density you can get indoors vs outdoors - the amount of land that is cleared for ag around the globe is staggering. Getting an order of magnitude more output from the same amount of land, but having to pay for water and light, is likely to make business sense and be better overall for the environment.
Do the actual economics work out right this second? Maybe not. Will they in the not so distant future? I'd bet on it.
And that's not even taking into consideration the higher density you can get indoors vs outdoors - the amount of land that is cleared for ag around the globe is staggering. Getting an order of magnitude more output from the same amount of land, but having to pay for water and light, is likely to make business sense and be better overall for the environment.
Do the actual economics work out right this second? Maybe not. Will they in the not so distant future? I'd bet on it.
[deleted]
I'd say that future is far more distant than you're willing to entertain.
California's central valley is a primer candidate not so much because of geographic concerns, but economic ones. Almost everything grown in the Valley is high margin. Those indoor ag systems need to get their water from somewhere so if if aquifiers and fresh waters supplies are dwindling, that will affect indoor ag too.
Growing stuff indoors, at any scale has proven harder than people thought. My experiences have mostly revolved around pests being more present in indoor setups (thrips, white flies) and you end up spraying more pesticides indoors than you would outdoors. Indoor systems are susceptible to the same climate variability as outdoor systems. A storm knocks out power for an extended period will kill an indoor crop too, or the storm itself may destroy the building.
I'm pro indoor ag. It needs more investment, but it needs the right investment, not this pie-in-the-sky mindset that we shouldn't grow anything outdoors and indoor ag will save us all.
California's central valley is a primer candidate not so much because of geographic concerns, but economic ones. Almost everything grown in the Valley is high margin. Those indoor ag systems need to get their water from somewhere so if if aquifiers and fresh waters supplies are dwindling, that will affect indoor ag too.
Growing stuff indoors, at any scale has proven harder than people thought. My experiences have mostly revolved around pests being more present in indoor setups (thrips, white flies) and you end up spraying more pesticides indoors than you would outdoors. Indoor systems are susceptible to the same climate variability as outdoor systems. A storm knocks out power for an extended period will kill an indoor crop too, or the storm itself may destroy the building.
I'm pro indoor ag. It needs more investment, but it needs the right investment, not this pie-in-the-sky mindset that we shouldn't grow anything outdoors and indoor ag will save us all.
[deleted]
If you've ever tried hydroponic, you quickly realize that soil is amazing technology. Indoor ag is yet another utopian fantasy.
Plenty of people are proving that wrong, with certain crops.
I visited with some friends a couple of years ago who had leased a paddock to a pair of humans who used it to build a hydroponic green house.
They produced leafy greens for the local restaurant market and in the first part year had more cash flow than the whole farm around them.
They were working very hard but were poised to make a lot of money.
They were using the sun for energy input - I fail to see how indoor agriculture under lights can be profitable except for the most valuable of crops
I visited with some friends a couple of years ago who had leased a paddock to a pair of humans who used it to build a hydroponic green house.
They produced leafy greens for the local restaurant market and in the first part year had more cash flow than the whole farm around them.
They were working very hard but were poised to make a lot of money.
They were using the sun for energy input - I fail to see how indoor agriculture under lights can be profitable except for the most valuable of crops
It seems like vertical and hydroponics are great for leafy green cash crops and spices, but don't work well to produce cereals, soy, or pulses, which are materially where all of the calories come from.
Bad old farming: put plants in sun
Good new farming: put solar panels in sun, connect lightbulbs to solar panels, put plants under lights.
(Although it's not totally as daft as I make it sound, because it's theoretically possible to do frequency conversion in a way that makes all the energy of sunlight available to plants instead of everything but green.)
Good new farming: put solar panels in sun, connect lightbulbs to solar panels, put plants under lights.
(Although it's not totally as daft as I make it sound, because it's theoretically possible to do frequency conversion in a way that makes all the energy of sunlight available to plants instead of everything but green.)
That equation doesn’t balance out.
The physical limit to frequency conversion efficiency, whatever it is, is much higher than the efficiency of today's cost-effective solar panels plus cost-effective purple LEDs. So it may happen some day.
City boy here with no knowledge of farming.
When you say "indoor" are you describing large greenhouses? Or growing crops using artificial light?
When you say "indoor" are you describing large greenhouses? Or growing crops using artificial light?
I'm generally referring to float pond greenhouses though some variants are emerging that use artificial light in a vertical setting for the germination stage where loss rates are high and you can get extremely high density. The types of density you can't get in the overfunded vertical pipe dreams in VC.
So that when you hit the float pond for a 12-16 grow cycle, there's marginal loss.
So that when you hit the float pond for a 12-16 grow cycle, there's marginal loss.
Interested in links or books on this if you know any good ones. Don't you still have to use soil?
Probably hydroponics? Soil is adds more variables and can be a home to pests/microbes.
Hydro grown plants are often more susceptible to pests and problems because they lack the natural fortifications provided by soil. Large scale living soil can still be done indoors though.
What criteria (crop type, geography, etc) are required for the benefits you outline of indoor ag to outweigh the energy cost of artificial lighting?
> What criteria (crop type, geography, etc) are required for the benefits you outline of indoor ag to outweigh the energy cost of artificial lighting?
Massive amounts of government regulation that inflates the price.
I.e. just weed so far.
Massive amounts of government regulation that inflates the price.
I.e. just weed so far.
It's mostly high margin vegetables and spices. Look up gotham greens for a successul and properly done indoor ag startup.
Generally tomatoes and maybe peppers have enough margin and volume to be justify indoor settings.
Things like nuts are a no-go or any sort of wheat/cotton/maize/soybean operation (even specialty applications like edamame have severe uphill battles to profitability)
Generally tomatoes and maybe peppers have enough margin and volume to be justify indoor settings.
Things like nuts are a no-go or any sort of wheat/cotton/maize/soybean operation (even specialty applications like edamame have severe uphill battles to profitability)
You are 100% right on the grains.
I hope you realize that high yields are the problem, not the solution.
Well, with low yields, financial viability is the problem. It's already difficult to make a living farming, unless maybe you're in an area with lots of rain or where you can mine groundwater.
>>*What I hope will continue is crops that are capable of producing profitable and predictable yields in indoor environments will move more and more in that direction. a*
WTF - I hope ZERO of this happens... Don't attempt to think that youre smarter than ~5BILLION years of earths bio/eco balance until we were weaponized by fungi...
We dont need "higher yields" -- we need more efficient consumption and distribution...
WTF - I hope ZERO of this happens... Don't attempt to think that youre smarter than ~5BILLION years of earths bio/eco balance until we were weaponized by fungi...
We dont need "higher yields" -- we need more efficient consumption and distribution...
Predictable yields at controllable times are how you get efficient consumption and distribution.
"How to save a planet" just has an episode out on the same topic: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/76hmbge/soil-...
I found it an interesting listen. Of course it's a fairly shallow entry into the topic, but that's what they are about after all; get you interested, give you pointers for more if you feel like it.
Just too bad they'll go spotify-only and thus seize to be a podcast... I'll have to stop recommending (and listening...)
I found it an interesting listen. Of course it's a fairly shallow entry into the topic, but that's what they are about after all; get you interested, give you pointers for more if you feel like it.
Just too bad they'll go spotify-only and thus seize to be a podcast... I'll have to stop recommending (and listening...)
> Just too bad they'll go spotify-only and thus seize to be a podcast... I'll have to stop recommending (and listening...)
Yes, that bums me out too. It must make economic sense (for both parties; presumably the data in the app and exclusive content is a win for Spotify), but it's a real bummer that they are moving from a format that lets me, the listener, control how I want to listen, to a format that requires me to download an app. Not gonna happen, but companies will always try to build walled gardens.
Yes, that bums me out too. It must make economic sense (for both parties; presumably the data in the app and exclusive content is a win for Spotify), but it's a real bummer that they are moving from a format that lets me, the listener, control how I want to listen, to a format that requires me to download an app. Not gonna happen, but companies will always try to build walled gardens.
I don't know why they just don't use something like Acast which will take care of distribution (or maybe others I don't know of).
The worst part of it is that Spotify's android app is buggy. Actually, that's an understatement: it's garbage. I shouldn't have it hang waiting for network connection just to navigate the offline portions of the app (e.g. downloaded podcasts). Anyone who writes a simple "music player" android app in a weekend or two could handle that case far better.
The worst part of it is that Spotify's android app is buggy. Actually, that's an understatement: it's garbage. I shouldn't have it hang waiting for network connection just to navigate the offline portions of the app (e.g. downloaded podcasts). Anyone who writes a simple "music player" android app in a weekend or two could handle that case far better.
I assume any Spotify-only podcast is because Spotify is paying them to be exclusive?
Spotify bought Gimlet (the podcast company) a few years back, so they presumably owned the rights to begin with.
Ah, TIL.
More here if you want to learn about the reasons why: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18214941/alex-blumberg-matt-lie...
More here if you want to learn about the reasons why: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/7/18214941/alex-blumberg-matt-lie...
Don't feel left out, the iOS app is also garbage and doesn't even manage to pause during a phone call.
Now that I see there’s such a hunger for this kind of storytelling, I want to build on what I’ve done in part 1. To do so, I’m seeking to fully fund parts 2 and 3 of this series, so I can continue digging deeply and telling stories of great characters. What ideas do you have for individuals/entities that might be interested? The money would go through the publisher, which is a 501 c3 nonprofit.
Thank you all for such a great conversation here and asking such thought-provoking questions!
Thank you all for such a great conversation here and asking such thought-provoking questions!
There's a ycombinator startup for this.
https://substack.com/
https://substack.com/
What is the best criticism of regenerative ag? Everything I see about it is so positive that it seems crazy everyone hasn't switched. Are there really no downsides and it's just institutional inertia/caution holding everyone back?
Honestly?
My biggest concern about it is that half its advocates say crazy things. For instance, down-thread we got the line:
"[Paul Wheaton] believes that in a decade the soil will be so rich in organic matter with healthy microbial activity (with no chemical history) could produce food that cures cancer. I believe that in an environment where human body is not weakened by the constant bombardment of chemical compounds, it could heal itself from cancer."
I do my best to keep an open mind because, hey, a lot of bits and pieces sound plausible, but whenever I get to lines about cancer-curing food, I begin to doubt the truth, validity or factual nature of anything else that was said on the topic.
Aside from that, the biggest question is always going to be "Does it scale to growing sufficient food for 10 billion people?" Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whenever food comes up keep in mind that end game. If a particular agricultural system could produce food at lower energy costs, more sustainably, "better", but could only feed a billion people applied globally, it's only an acceptable solution in very particular moral frameworks.
My biggest concern about it is that half its advocates say crazy things. For instance, down-thread we got the line:
"[Paul Wheaton] believes that in a decade the soil will be so rich in organic matter with healthy microbial activity (with no chemical history) could produce food that cures cancer. I believe that in an environment where human body is not weakened by the constant bombardment of chemical compounds, it could heal itself from cancer."
I do my best to keep an open mind because, hey, a lot of bits and pieces sound plausible, but whenever I get to lines about cancer-curing food, I begin to doubt the truth, validity or factual nature of anything else that was said on the topic.
Aside from that, the biggest question is always going to be "Does it scale to growing sufficient food for 10 billion people?" Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whenever food comes up keep in mind that end game. If a particular agricultural system could produce food at lower energy costs, more sustainably, "better", but could only feed a billion people applied globally, it's only an acceptable solution in very particular moral frameworks.
That's a reasonable response, but it's actually totally normal to have expertise in one domain and totally wacky ideas in another one.
It's even possible to combine these things, although that's a dangerous game to play. Biodynamic agriculture is a great example of this, Rudolph Steiner's model of how agriculture (and scientific matters in general) is... heterodox... but biodynamic farms regularly produce good crops of quality food, and the practices cultivate healthy soil by any objective measure you would care for.
I wouldn't go casually trying this with medicine, where practitioners are more likely to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, rather than the right thing for the wrong reasons.
It's even possible to combine these things, although that's a dangerous game to play. Biodynamic agriculture is a great example of this, Rudolph Steiner's model of how agriculture (and scientific matters in general) is... heterodox... but biodynamic farms regularly produce good crops of quality food, and the practices cultivate healthy soil by any objective measure you would care for.
I wouldn't go casually trying this with medicine, where practitioners are more likely to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, rather than the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Paul Wheaton is a grifter, petty tyrant, and mini Hubbard who has built a cult around himself.
He bans anyone from the permaculture subreddit who disagrees with him, which is why there are multiple off-shoot subreddits, including one specifically dedicated to his malfeasance which broaches into criminality.
He bans anyone from the permaculture subreddit who disagrees with him, which is why there are multiple off-shoot subreddits, including one specifically dedicated to his malfeasance which broaches into criminality.
This guy has control of the permaculture subreddit? That's awful. Permaculture is a great and important movement.
Does anybody know why movements rooted in holism keep getting taken over by people like this? It seems like every movement that starts out by wanting to incorporate high-level perspectives ends up getting burdened with the crystal-spinners and magic-cancer-curers of the world.
Does anybody know why movements rooted in holism keep getting taken over by people like this? It seems like every movement that starts out by wanting to incorporate high-level perspectives ends up getting burdened with the crystal-spinners and magic-cancer-curers of the world.
Every system is corrupted by those willing to leverage the most from it.
Found this interesting and surprisingly balanced point of view on the man from people who clearly denounce him and his behvior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP9GM-1YJCI
[deleted]
I've experienced this, and I've learned to search for the grains of truth. At core, the people doing this are highly disagreeable, and so they form their own opinions and go deep.
I think going deep into crazy is natural, and the hard question is trying to balance that out with a deeper truth. At core, I think there is a deeper value in being the control group outside of the modern world.
So, can food cure cancer? I don't know, but it may be worth looking into. Amish, for instance, have 40% less cancer. Is it the food? the air? the bacteria? the hard work? No Idea!
Myself, I'm getting firmly on the fasting train. I eat every other day, and I feel great.
I think going deep into crazy is natural, and the hard question is trying to balance that out with a deeper truth. At core, I think there is a deeper value in being the control group outside of the modern world.
So, can food cure cancer? I don't know, but it may be worth looking into. Amish, for instance, have 40% less cancer. Is it the food? the air? the bacteria? the hard work? No Idea!
Myself, I'm getting firmly on the fasting train. I eat every other day, and I feel great.
The study of cancer among the Amish found lower incidence of only a subset of cancers, essentially the ones related to not drinking or smoking, sun exposure (wearing long clothes and big hats), and having few sexual partners.
There’s no mystery.
There’s no mystery.
AFAIK Amish people consume less alcohol and tobacco than the average American. Could this be a factor in their lower cancer rates?
Also - who diagnoses Amish people for cancer? Can there be a higher "dark number" of undetected cancers among them than among the general population?
Also - who diagnoses Amish people for cancer? Can there be a higher "dark number" of undetected cancers among them than among the general population?
It may not be that it cures cancer, but that it stops causing it. Food that is sourced without chemicals, or pesticides.
While cancer is lower, their life expectancy is around the US average. US average lifespan isn’t something to write home about.
Does that account for infant mortality?
Life expectancy should really only be talked about in terms of expected lifespan of someone who's already made it to say 3 years old.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted view of modern medicine's ability to stave off death. Modern medicine has really done well at reducing infant mortality though.
Life expectancy should really only be talked about in terms of expected lifespan of someone who's already made it to say 3 years old.
Otherwise, we get a very distorted view of modern medicine's ability to stave off death. Modern medicine has really done well at reducing infant mortality though.
I agree, but you also distort things by excluding infants, but if that group are included in a separate statistic it would seem ok.
A person could totally be an expert on soil and sustainable agriculture and know nothing useful about medicine. In fact, that is what I would expect. Listen to the experts on their subject of expertise, and take the rest with a huge grain of salt.
The problem is deciding whether someone is actually an expect in a subject area where I'm not.
People can say things that are patently absurd about one field while being an expert in another, but I also can't just be completely credulous in treating any assertion about any subject I do not understand as true. I don't really have much else to do but build out from a network of trust rooted in people who seem competent and clear-minded by whatever criteria I can judge.
People can say things that are patently absurd about one field while being an expert in another, but I also can't just be completely credulous in treating any assertion about any subject I do not understand as true. I don't really have much else to do but build out from a network of trust rooted in people who seem competent and clear-minded by whatever criteria I can judge.
Replies to your questions are good. I'd say the yield downside is the most glaring. Farmers really can't afford a have a self-imposed 'bad' year while they try to adopt new practices. Bankers and lenders (which farmers rely on for operating loans might not even approve--IDK). It absolutely takes some trial and error as no 2 farms are the same. This also hurts testing things out in a smaller scale on your farm. You need to borrow/rent equipment or buy the equipment. But when you buy equipment without the scale, it basically adds overhead (with additional risk to the downside for yields).
People don't like to admit it, but yields under current intense monoculture, fertilizer happy are best-case scenario. This is obvious and intended, we're squeezing as much yield as possible without care for long-term consequences. Those yields might not be achievable under regenerative practices (but they might be in certain farms). For some reason, we have this mindset where we can't give up any yield, but in reality, if the economic models and government subsidies were redesigned, we absolutely could.
People don't like to admit it, but yields under current intense monoculture, fertilizer happy are best-case scenario. This is obvious and intended, we're squeezing as much yield as possible without care for long-term consequences. Those yields might not be achievable under regenerative practices (but they might be in certain farms). For some reason, we have this mindset where we can't give up any yield, but in reality, if the economic models and government subsidies were redesigned, we absolutely could.
I don’t think the yield downside is a given though. Gabe Brown sees >20% more yield than his counties average using regenerative methods. I want to see more data but I’m hopeful that as regenerative ag practices begin to be improved and honed across the United States, the yield problem will go away.
https://www.csuchico.edu/regenerativeagriculture/demos/gabe-...
https://www.csuchico.edu/regenerativeagriculture/demos/gabe-...
What if the measurement wasn’t yield but total nutrition?
Yield is an important measurement though. Nutrition is a fine metric, but some things grown in permaculture are not nutritive. They may grow nitrogen-fixers, shade plants, fodder, etc. These don't provide 'yield', but reduce outside inputs.
The most important thing is to change how you think about yield. Yield/acre needs to take into account how much outside inputs are involved (trucked in fertilizers, mechanical inputs, etc).
It's absolutely correct to measure how we're doing. It's tricky when the units of measurement are not the same. It's harder still where there are so many types of soil/climate conditions and so many types of output to measure. But we can't just ignore output if we want to improve or give prospective adopters some idea of risk (they are literally betting their farms on it afterall).
The most important thing is to change how you think about yield. Yield/acre needs to take into account how much outside inputs are involved (trucked in fertilizers, mechanical inputs, etc).
It's absolutely correct to measure how we're doing. It's tricky when the units of measurement are not the same. It's harder still where there are so many types of soil/climate conditions and so many types of output to measure. But we can't just ignore output if we want to improve or give prospective adopters some idea of risk (they are literally betting their farms on it afterall).
It should be, but isn't for many crops. Commodity crops are incentivized for quantity. Many fruits and vegetables are bred for storage and transportability, not nutritional value or taste.
As i've said in other threads we have many misaligned incentives in agriculture that we're seeing play out. if you click my bio, I post blogs about these topics and more
As i've said in other threads we have many misaligned incentives in agriculture that we're seeing play out. if you click my bio, I post blogs about these topics and more
No-till agriculture, as an example, usually requires different capital equipment for the farm.
It's not a blocker, but financing the capital equipment takes some investment and risk. Farms are fairly dialed into their operations already, and getting people to change (especially when they need to pay money to do it) is a slow process.
It's not a blocker, but financing the capital equipment takes some investment and risk. Farms are fairly dialed into their operations already, and getting people to change (especially when they need to pay money to do it) is a slow process.
So then is it reasonable to conclude government subsidies for regenerative agriculture could increase adoption?
Would taxing poor practices be a better approach? Eg Excess water usage, runoff, water pollution, pesticide use, fuel use or some other metric?
That way the cost of food would rise, but the cost of regenerative practices presumably wouldn’t rise as much and would earn more.
That way the cost of food would rise, but the cost of regenerative practices presumably wouldn’t rise as much and would earn more.
One of the problems with no till is that the equipment, or at least some of it, hasn't been invented yet and could be considered 'cutting edge' in that manner.
No till farming is widespread especially in Australia for decades. Nearly all dryland farms take this approach. It just means controlling fallow weeds without tillage, usually with herbicide. Then plant straight through the previous crop residue. This preserves moisture in the soil and the soil structure. Planters mostly do this fine. I'm not sure what has not yet been invented elsewhere.
How do they handle compaction? The biggest thing I have seen is work toward finding a way to introduce large equipment to a no till or RA farm.
Yes, that does seem reasonable
The key criticism is that it yields less, so it doesn't scale. Furthermore, it generally lacks uniformity, so you can't automate either.
Crops can be integrated and still planted and harvested mechanically. Planting differing height crops or same height crops with different seed sizes you can still use machines and harvest multiple crops from the same time/land.
Yield for some crops is actually more after the ~3 year transition period. However, for all crops quality is greatly improved. Better quality means you need to eat less to be satiated.
Yield for some crops is actually more after the ~3 year transition period. However, for all crops quality is greatly improved. Better quality means you need to eat less to be satiated.
Better quality only helps if customers are willing to pay more. A lot of crops are sold through middlemen as undifferentiated commodities.
If there were a way to differentiate higher quality food in the store it doesn't need to cost more. People will prefer the higher quality produce and the low quality producers will need to adapt or die.
Higher quality food should cost more - it costs more to produce.
I'm envious of Japan's 'designer produce' tied to their gift culture. America doesn't really have much "This fruit is so much better, people are willing to pay 10x+ for it". I think our food system would be much better if we had $20 versions of all produce to get people to stop treating produce as fungible commodities.
I'm envious of Japan's 'designer produce' tied to their gift culture. America doesn't really have much "This fruit is so much better, people are willing to pay 10x+ for it". I think our food system would be much better if we had $20 versions of all produce to get people to stop treating produce as fungible commodities.
[deleted]
Produce grown regeneratively doesnt cost more to produce mostly because of the lessened or eliminated chemical inputs. That doesnt mean that regenerative farmers arent getting a premium for their product. But, that is more the demand warrants a premium than a higher cost to produce.
Customers do pay more for organic food and non-GMO food that's certified.
American farms can be truely vast, so any statement on averages is swayed by this. The article says they are planting 4,500 acres this year.
When you look up average US farm sizes it is hard to know what to compare it to as monocropping or single breed farming seem to be the standard. However you do it, the farm planting is a lot smaller than 4500 acres.
They might not be farming at a scale big ag run at, but it’s no small operation.
The below link says “The midpoint acreage for U.S. cropland nearly doubled between 1982 and 2007, from 589 acres to 1,105.”
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45108/39359_er...
They might not be farming at a scale big ag run at, but it’s no small operation.
The below link says “The midpoint acreage for U.S. cropland nearly doubled between 1982 and 2007, from 589 acres to 1,105.”
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45108/39359_er...
Would disagree with the automated comment. Most thing in regenerative ag are just as automated as conventional ag, unless you're thinking of something specific?
I'm probably thinking along the lines of perma-culture and bio-mimicry where things are all mixed up in a more natural way. Essentially, you don't have giant machines since there are too many edge cases.
It takes about 3 years for the soil to come back to life and it does take more management. During the transition period yields are reduced. Regenerative Ag also takes more farmers as a singer farmer can't manage as much land.
It is crazy that everyone hasn't switched. It is more profitable but it is a leap of faith to switch and most ag extensions are still recommending high chem use. There are some hang ups with crop subsidies making it difficult to change also.
But, the tide has changed as evidenced by this article. General Mills is pushing for 1 million regenerative farmed acres by 2030. The transition is happening but as with any paradigm shift it takes time to convince everybody that there is a better way.
https://www.generalmills.com/en/Responsibility/Sustainabilit...
It is crazy that everyone hasn't switched. It is more profitable but it is a leap of faith to switch and most ag extensions are still recommending high chem use. There are some hang ups with crop subsidies making it difficult to change also.
But, the tide has changed as evidenced by this article. General Mills is pushing for 1 million regenerative farmed acres by 2030. The transition is happening but as with any paradigm shift it takes time to convince everybody that there is a better way.
https://www.generalmills.com/en/Responsibility/Sustainabilit...
It's more that it requires to leave the mainstream system, because the fertilizer and pesticides that destroyed your soil are the money-making machines of "Big Ag" corporations.
Regenerative ag will not make you very rich either, so you have not much money to invest in lobbying activities, to go against the flow.
Regenerative ag will not make you very rich either, so you have not much money to invest in lobbying activities, to go against the flow.
> Regenerative ag will not make you rich…
How do you figure? Regenerative ag is still relatively new, and it’s practices are being honed. Idk what you define as rich but I’d venture to guess that Joel Salatin and Gabe Brown are extremely wealthy.
How do you figure? Regenerative ag is still relatively new, and it’s practices are being honed. Idk what you define as rich but I’d venture to guess that Joel Salatin and Gabe Brown are extremely wealthy.
Look into Chris Newman at Sylvanaqua farms. Scale and social-economic accessibility are some of the big ones. He critiques a pattern of "circle citation" within the community.
More labor intensive. Often requires large upfront capital investment and adopting of new skills to implement. Benefits are difficult to quantify.
At Indigo we're working on incentivizing farmers to adopt regenerative practices and get paid for sequestering carbon.
There's a number of open positions, most with the option to be remote!
https://www.indigoag.com/carbon
https://www.indigoag.com/join-us
There's a number of open positions, most with the option to be remote!
https://www.indigoag.com/carbon
https://www.indigoag.com/join-us
Your carbon site explains the "how it works" as essentially a reactive process, i.e. a farmer adopts regen practices and then gets paid for the results -- what about any proactive processes to help incentivize and facilitate farmers' transitions to regen ag?
I ask because I've been researching regen ag for smallholder farms -- a few programs exist, primarily through microfinance, but I've yet to see any quality + accessible programs to accomplish this proactive approach tightly knit with carbon credit markets.
An obvious difficulty with this approach is verifying the transition actually occurs and more carbon is sequestered, but it does seem to be an essential component if we want to move more farms to regenerative ag. Curious if you have any further thoughts on this space, I'd love to speak more about this.
FWIW, I've been following Indigo and the regenerative ag space for a while and IA is doing some great work, so I don't mean to undermine the impact these programs already have.
I ask because I've been researching regen ag for smallholder farms -- a few programs exist, primarily through microfinance, but I've yet to see any quality + accessible programs to accomplish this proactive approach tightly knit with carbon credit markets.
An obvious difficulty with this approach is verifying the transition actually occurs and more carbon is sequestered, but it does seem to be an essential component if we want to move more farms to regenerative ag. Curious if you have any further thoughts on this space, I'd love to speak more about this.
FWIW, I've been following Indigo and the regenerative ag space for a while and IA is doing some great work, so I don't mean to undermine the impact these programs already have.
Indigo provides resources here: https://www.indigoag.com/carbon-college, including Carbon College - a set of short courses on carbon sequestration and regenerative practices tied w/ economics. Please check it out!
Sounds like an interesting approach. I'm glad there are people working of these issues. When I read this article I was thinking something like this is needed to incentivize the farmers.
Indigo and every other ag player. Space saturated quickly. Now people need to find ways to fund the 10-40 per acre benefits long-term...
Would you mind elaborating what you meant with that comment? What are the "10-40 per acre benefits"?
Whoops. Meant to be 10-40 $$, USD per acre. That range seems to be the most common direct payment for farmers to adapt regenerative or sustainable practices on their farm. It depends where in the country and what method is used to determine payment (usually). It’s a very, very new method but it basically means paying farmers—- that money has to come from somewhere as usually farmers pay companies
Ah, got it - thank you for the explanation. I’m not familiar with this space, so I had no idea that practice existed!
Like everything there are costs and benefits; sometimes people only focus on the benefits of "modern" practices and forget the costs associated with them, like stripping the soil, and the expense and side effects of chemicals. Finding a better approach means taking risks and trying new ideas. This applies to programming as well as growing food.
Correct, but the current economic incentive structure is set up for short term profits and nobody really cares about the soil quality (except perhaps farmers that own the ground they farm; which even then they are to survive long enough to adapt soil-healthy practices).
Right now, farmers (corn/soy/wheat/cotton) are reward on quantity, so they need to increase production and keep costs down. Rightly or wrongly, the prevailing thought is to increase yields rather than cuts costs.
There are news systems thinking approaches slowly gaining steam (as the original article is about), but the reality is these things are economically risky. This is why the government needs to divert agricultural subsidy money from its existing criteria to one that requires practices like cover cropping. Importantly the money is already there, we just need to shift how its disbursed and start incentivizing more sustainable practices
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17833
Right now, farmers (corn/soy/wheat/cotton) are reward on quantity, so they need to increase production and keep costs down. Rightly or wrongly, the prevailing thought is to increase yields rather than cuts costs.
There are news systems thinking approaches slowly gaining steam (as the original article is about), but the reality is these things are economically risky. This is why the government needs to divert agricultural subsidy money from its existing criteria to one that requires practices like cover cropping. Importantly the money is already there, we just need to shift how its disbursed and start incentivizing more sustainable practices
https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17833
> the expense and side effects of chemicals
What does that mean? Everything is made of chemicals.
What does that mean? Everything is made of chemicals.
Yes, words are contextual and don't always mean the same things every time they're used.
I had zero difficulty understanding the post you're replying to— and neither did you. It doesn't even annoy me any more, probably because, as a chemist, I got it out of my system years ago.
The time one of my second cousins responded to my telling her my major by making a face and saying "I don't like chemicals" does kind of stand out...
I had zero difficulty understanding the post you're replying to— and neither did you. It doesn't even annoy me any more, probably because, as a chemist, I got it out of my system years ago.
The time one of my second cousins responded to my telling her my major by making a face and saying "I don't like chemicals" does kind of stand out...
From context I’d say they mean fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides.
Edit: you will probably find that many words have multiple meanings, and it is not hard to find words that have one specific technical meaning and a different one in colloquial usage. Organic is another common one.
Edit: you will probably find that many words have multiple meanings, and it is not hard to find words that have one specific technical meaning and a different one in colloquial usage. Organic is another common one.
If you're a UI/UX designer, and this area excites you, please drop me a line.
We're tackling this exact problem at Yard Stick (https://www.useyardstick.com/) - developing a new way to measure soil carbon that is fast, accurate and affordable, with backing by ARPA-E and in collaboration with the Soil Health Institute.
Later this week, I'm going to post a contract-to-hire position. In the meantime, email me at [email protected]
We're tackling this exact problem at Yard Stick (https://www.useyardstick.com/) - developing a new way to measure soil carbon that is fast, accurate and affordable, with backing by ARPA-E and in collaboration with the Soil Health Institute.
Later this week, I'm going to post a contract-to-hire position. In the meantime, email me at [email protected]
I work for a design consultancy with a heavy emphasis on user research. Are you only open to working with individuals or would you be open to working with a consultancy? This sounds like an awesome design problem.
I'm not sure how much time I could commit, but at the very least I could help spread the word.
What kind of involvement are you looking for design-wise?
What kind of involvement are you looking for design-wise?
Ideally full time. As you might imagine, the space is technical & complicated, and I suspect that delivering elegant designs would require quite some time to get up to speed.
Has anyone here undergone a soil restoration project (big or small)? Did you happen to blog about the progress? There's so much I don't know, like how you even determine that your soil is degraded, or how you measure progress.
My wife and I bought a farm in Oregon and we're in the process of doing exactly this. We don't have a blog yet – working on it - but we do have an instagram account if anyone's interested:
http://instagram.com/cleryfarm/
The previous owner had a soil test done, and through that we were able to assess how eroded it was (very). We switched the hay fields over to organic practices, but the biggest projects so far have been roughly 20 acres that we've put into conservation, including an oak woodland and an 'upland prairie' - both vanishing ecosystems in the state of Oregon.
Long term we're moving towards agroforestry practices, and thinking through the lens of carbon sequestration. In the short term, we've been heavily focused on brush removal, tree limbing, etc, for wildfire prevention and suppression.
http://instagram.com/cleryfarm/
The previous owner had a soil test done, and through that we were able to assess how eroded it was (very). We switched the hay fields over to organic practices, but the biggest projects so far have been roughly 20 acres that we've put into conservation, including an oak woodland and an 'upland prairie' - both vanishing ecosystems in the state of Oregon.
Long term we're moving towards agroforestry practices, and thinking through the lens of carbon sequestration. In the short term, we've been heavily focused on brush removal, tree limbing, etc, for wildfire prevention and suppression.
I'd really like to know more about your farm--specifics about acreage, crops, location, etc. There's contact info linked from my profile, or if you don't mind dropping your email here, I'd love to pick your brain!
Sorry for the late reply but DMs on the Instagram page are open if you ever wanted to reach out.
Thanks for sharing. I followed your account. Looks like you're creating an idyllic life!
Get a shovel and dig a hole where there are some plants growing. You will see a darker layer (soil) on top of a lighter layer. The lighter layer is dirt (sand, silt, clay) without carbon in the form of life and carbohydrates. Progress is measured by the depth of the darker layer. The native prairie had a dark layer filled with roots 30 feet deep. To determine exactly how healthy your soil layer is you will need a microscope to survey the microbiota. If you dont have a microscope you can get an idea of how you are doing by observing how well the soil aggregates and is bound to roots. In healthy soil plants will have soil aggregates stuck to their roots that have to be manually removed. The aggregates are formed by glomalin produced by fungus and bacteria.
The more life you see in the soil the healthier it is. Predatory arthropods are a really good indicator. If they are around that means there is food for them.
The more life you see in the soil the healthier it is. Predatory arthropods are a really good indicator. If they are around that means there is food for them.
To determine the quality of your soil, you can perform a soil test. In the US, you will most likely find your local university offering this service through their extension agency. It will probably cost around 30 dollars, and you will need to probe samples from different locations on the property. They will assess and give you results. Some of the metrics are: concentration of major nutrients, organic matter content, pH, and CEC (cation exchange capacity). You will also probably receive a list of recommendations.
In the US, your local National Resources Conservation Service office also provides this service. Costs $7 - $10.
Source: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb116...
Source: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb116...
Not on my own, but I spent some time working on a farm that had been working on soil restoration for roughly a decade. As time went on they had expanded the restoration efforts to new fields, What was awesome though was that they had soil cuts at each field so you could visually see the difference the years were making as the topsoil layer kept getting deeper and deeper.
[deleted]
My wife and I have been heavily influenced by Sepp Holzer, Elaine Ingham, Fukuoka Masanobu, and others in the permaculture/regen ag scene.
We bought a plot of land here in Arkansas a year and a half ago and have been working it, and plan to continue doing so with the aim of creating a self sustaining food forest and garden, one outcome of which will necessarily require healthy and strong soil. The ground is rocky and the rain runs off fast. We have been planting trees, bringing in leaf mulch, and leaving the cut grass when we mow.
There are a shockingly large number of techniques and things to know about this kind of work. Join some groups on Facebook or IRL, visit with farmers at your local farmers market, and search around and you will be able to get your hands on more info than you can handle.
We bought a plot of land here in Arkansas a year and a half ago and have been working it, and plan to continue doing so with the aim of creating a self sustaining food forest and garden, one outcome of which will necessarily require healthy and strong soil. The ground is rocky and the rain runs off fast. We have been planting trees, bringing in leaf mulch, and leaving the cut grass when we mow.
There are a shockingly large number of techniques and things to know about this kind of work. Join some groups on Facebook or IRL, visit with farmers at your local farmers market, and search around and you will be able to get your hands on more info than you can handle.
My father is trying to do this on 17 acres of land in Mallorca, Spain. He hasn't been able to find anyone on the island who can do a soil carbon test, but there are ways of visually identifying water retention, insect and fungal life in the soil, etc. Here's his website and instagram if you're interested:
https://www.regencampos.es/
https://www.instagram.com/regencampos/
https://www.regencampos.es/
https://www.instagram.com/regencampos/
I am doing it on a small and unscientific scale. My soil is silty sand with a pretty neutral PH. I need to add quite a bit of organic material to get plants to thrive. In the past, I'd turn everything over with a shovel each year. This year I went to a no-till method for my annual crops putting down cardboard and woodchips as mulch. If a plant gives me an indication of a deficiency, I will address it. For example, sometimes my tomatoes need a little extra magnesium.
>For example, sometimes my tomatoes need a little extra magnesium.
How do you go about determining this? I just built a 400 sq. ft. greenhouse this year, and aside from watching the plants get bigger each day, I'm not really sure how to tell if I'm "doing it right".
How do you go about determining this? I just built a 400 sq. ft. greenhouse this year, and aside from watching the plants get bigger each day, I'm not really sure how to tell if I'm "doing it right".
Things like soil organic carbon (SoC) are commonly used measures of progress. Also things like humic acid and other secondary measures of biological can be used. No two patches of 'good' soil are the same, so there is some intuition involved
I try and blog a little bit about sustainable ag on thinkingagriculture.io as I work in ag research and am interested in how this meta evolves.
I try and blog a little bit about sustainable ag on thinkingagriculture.io as I work in ag research and am interested in how this meta evolves.
I've started a small market garden here on the far north coast of Scotland (https://www.instagram.com/burnlea.farm). Growing veggies for the local community, trees from local seed stock and this year I'm growing some old local varieties of barley (bere barley).
The soil on our croft is in a good way, having been left undisturbed for decades (aside from being cut for hay). However, we still need to build fertility and are doing so through compost, ramial woodchip and biodynamic preparations. This combined with a no-till (or minimum till) approach is helping to develop build soil and enhance soil structure. One issue we need to address with this is water management, as it can get very wet here (although we are a few weeks without rain now).
For keeping track of fertility in your soil a simple test that many people do is measure organic matter. This isn't something I've done yet. You can also do worm counts. And more detailed soil tests.
There are apps out there such as SoilMentor by Vidacycle that guide you in tracking this. Here's a good overview of their tests, which can be done by farmers on site with minimal equipment https://soils.vidacycle.com/soil-tests/
You can get a sense of the baseline when starting a project by doing this. But a good indicator would be looking at what plants are growing there already (if any) - weeds etc are indicators of soil characteristics. For example, compaction and drainage.
Personally I haven't taken any soil tests yet, I'm just keeping an eye on our crops and getting the sense of things that way. I'll take some tests at some point soon. Simple approaches to this can be pretty handy, for example I've been scything our 2 acre field and it allows me to step over each part of the field noticing how the vegetation changes species-wise and in vigor.
Supporting this, I'm also developing an app for market gardens to use for crop planning and record keeping. It's great to be your own customer, plus I'm tapping into a good network of established markets gardens here who are helping to shape the product.
I recommend anyone starting a project should read Mark Shepard's new book Water For Any Farm. His master line system, built upon PA Yeoman's keyline and scale of permanence is valuable, especially at an early stage. Equally valuable in dry climates as it is in wet ones.
The soil on our croft is in a good way, having been left undisturbed for decades (aside from being cut for hay). However, we still need to build fertility and are doing so through compost, ramial woodchip and biodynamic preparations. This combined with a no-till (or minimum till) approach is helping to develop build soil and enhance soil structure. One issue we need to address with this is water management, as it can get very wet here (although we are a few weeks without rain now).
For keeping track of fertility in your soil a simple test that many people do is measure organic matter. This isn't something I've done yet. You can also do worm counts. And more detailed soil tests.
There are apps out there such as SoilMentor by Vidacycle that guide you in tracking this. Here's a good overview of their tests, which can be done by farmers on site with minimal equipment https://soils.vidacycle.com/soil-tests/
You can get a sense of the baseline when starting a project by doing this. But a good indicator would be looking at what plants are growing there already (if any) - weeds etc are indicators of soil characteristics. For example, compaction and drainage.
Personally I haven't taken any soil tests yet, I'm just keeping an eye on our crops and getting the sense of things that way. I'll take some tests at some point soon. Simple approaches to this can be pretty handy, for example I've been scything our 2 acre field and it allows me to step over each part of the field noticing how the vegetation changes species-wise and in vigor.
Supporting this, I'm also developing an app for market gardens to use for crop planning and record keeping. It's great to be your own customer, plus I'm tapping into a good network of established markets gardens here who are helping to shape the product.
I recommend anyone starting a project should read Mark Shepard's new book Water For Any Farm. His master line system, built upon PA Yeoman's keyline and scale of permanence is valuable, especially at an early stage. Equally valuable in dry climates as it is in wet ones.
I just got back from touring Oregon and Washington and I got to see a lot of fascinating agriculture. Primarily hazelnut trees along with some berries other speciality crops and "hay."
The nut tree farmers need some help. They are spraying water scattershot to soak the ground. What's more is that they have the ground prepared as perfectly flat bare soil--I presume to make automated harvesting possible.
It looks like a lot of resources are allocated to this rather imprecise method of irrigation and as the droughts and heat persist I could see this failing to scale. It doesn't look like it scales very well even in good times.
I was wondering, given the very organized situation of the trees and ground, why are they not using direct or site-based (drip?) irrigation? It would definitely change the watering process from one of rolling and unrolling irrigation line and towing of sprinklers (water canons?) to one where you would automate water delivery via a network of lines with computers and have workers monitor and repair lines as needed.
The nut tree farmers need some help. They are spraying water scattershot to soak the ground. What's more is that they have the ground prepared as perfectly flat bare soil--I presume to make automated harvesting possible.
It looks like a lot of resources are allocated to this rather imprecise method of irrigation and as the droughts and heat persist I could see this failing to scale. It doesn't look like it scales very well even in good times.
I was wondering, given the very organized situation of the trees and ground, why are they not using direct or site-based (drip?) irrigation? It would definitely change the watering process from one of rolling and unrolling irrigation line and towing of sprinklers (water canons?) to one where you would automate water delivery via a network of lines with computers and have workers monitor and repair lines as needed.
Drip irrigation works best when delivering water directly to the roots of small annual plants. Trees have large root systems, and are planted closely enough that you need to water the entire ground. Perhaps a network of smaller sprayers below the leaf canopy would reduce evaporative losses.
I wonder if there's any benefit to water hitting the leaves on the way down to the soil, i.e. cleaning the leaves. I know indoor plants require cleaning, but perhaps that's specifically because they're indoors.
Depends. In many cases that's something to avoid, e.g. moisture can promote the growth of undesirable molds or other pathogens, or wash off pesticides that you wanted to stay.
Indoor plants require cleaning? Any links to that? first i've heard or seen that statement. I can't imagine ANY justification for literally cleaning a plant that just happens to be grown indoors...?
Dust on the leaves blocks light. Yes, you must clean your indoor plants. Outdoor plants get rained on. You can do the same for indoor plants by giving them a rinse occasionally.
There are rarely any good reasons to wet the top of a plant and several downsides.
Dust generally isn't an issue for outdoor plants, especially not in Washington or Oregon, and especially not for deciduous trees.
Dust generally isn't an issue for outdoor plants, especially not in Washington or Oregon, and especially not for deciduous trees.
There does exist sub-surface irrigation setups. They aren't popular, but obviously would deliver water closer to the roots of tree. Note: I haven't ever seen a tree farm with sub-surface irrigation, only annual fruits/vegetables/crops
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/subs...
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/subs...
I believe they keep bare soil under hazelnuts because they harvest by collecting the fallen nuts.
Gabe Brown's talk is my favorite introduction to regenerative ag: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
He did a book on it: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/dirt-to-soil/
I also like Geoff Lawton's work on food forests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgF9BU4uYMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJfSYZqZ0Y
He did a book on it: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/dirt-to-soil/
I also like Geoff Lawton's work on food forests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgF9BU4uYMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJfSYZqZ0Y
Is there an economic argument to be made for increasing the amount of money spent in the local economy?
I often hear it cited as a benefit in situations like this, and it has a certain feel-good quality to it, but instinctively it feels like it means people pay higher prices: if you're buying seed from the local seed & feed, it's almost certainly more expensive than if you buy it from XYZ megacorp.
I often hear it cited as a benefit in situations like this, and it has a certain feel-good quality to it, but instinctively it feels like it means people pay higher prices: if you're buying seed from the local seed & feed, it's almost certainly more expensive than if you buy it from XYZ megacorp.
Money given to a megacorp leaves the local economy, leaving the local area poorer, overall. Money given to your neighbors stays in the local economy.
A well-off local economy supports more things than a poor one. Local seed & feed shops are a start, but think of every other business that might be part of a small town: grocery stores, bookshops, art galleries, clothing, musicians, movie theaters, children's party entertainers, furniture makers, car dealerships, repair shops... how many of these things used to be made locally, and are now made by people working under dubious conditions somewhere in Asia, then shipped across the world at a huge, but completely-ignored cost to the environment? How many local shops has Wal-Mart ruined by being large enough to cut predatory deals with suppliers that let them sell stuff below any sane price point? How much money left the entire US economy for Jeff Bezos' pockets during the pandemic?
Keeping money in the local economy leads to better-off neighbors. Better-off neighbors are less likely to resort to criminal acts to feed your family; better-off neighbors are more likely to be able to help you out if something bad happens.
The metaphor that comes easily to mind is water: each local economy is a pool, with the locals the fish swimming in it. Buying stuff from a megacorp may be cheaper in the short run, but every time you do that, the corporation is pumping a bit of the water out of your pond and putting a little of it in their pond, far far away, and most of it in their giant storage tank even further away, where it sits, unused. Ultimately your pond dries up and either you leave for a larger pond that hasn't been sucked dry by corporations, or you end up baking in the sun and dying.
A well-off local economy supports more things than a poor one. Local seed & feed shops are a start, but think of every other business that might be part of a small town: grocery stores, bookshops, art galleries, clothing, musicians, movie theaters, children's party entertainers, furniture makers, car dealerships, repair shops... how many of these things used to be made locally, and are now made by people working under dubious conditions somewhere in Asia, then shipped across the world at a huge, but completely-ignored cost to the environment? How many local shops has Wal-Mart ruined by being large enough to cut predatory deals with suppliers that let them sell stuff below any sane price point? How much money left the entire US economy for Jeff Bezos' pockets during the pandemic?
Keeping money in the local economy leads to better-off neighbors. Better-off neighbors are less likely to resort to criminal acts to feed your family; better-off neighbors are more likely to be able to help you out if something bad happens.
The metaphor that comes easily to mind is water: each local economy is a pool, with the locals the fish swimming in it. Buying stuff from a megacorp may be cheaper in the short run, but every time you do that, the corporation is pumping a bit of the water out of your pond and putting a little of it in their pond, far far away, and most of it in their giant storage tank even further away, where it sits, unused. Ultimately your pond dries up and either you leave for a larger pond that hasn't been sucked dry by corporations, or you end up baking in the sun and dying.
I agree with most of your comments. I would like to add that a LARGE chunk of rural (truly rural) economic rely heavily on Big Ag and selling those products.
From co-ops to seed dealers, chemical dealers, people to apply and plant these chemicals and seed. Equipment (Deere, Case)...if these people vanished, rural america would suffer GREATLY. Locall replacements for these jobs/companies is not clear to me.
From co-ops to seed dealers, chemical dealers, people to apply and plant these chemicals and seed. Equipment (Deere, Case)...if these people vanished, rural america would suffer GREATLY. Locall replacements for these jobs/companies is not clear to me.
There is often an array of benefits.
Following on your example, if you buy seed from the local seed & feed, you :
- build resilience, for example if a global pandemic prevents far-reaching import-export
- are less subject to geopolitics
- money invested have a higher chance to stay in the local economy : the owner of the local seed & feed may buy its vegetables from you
- create local jobs : this seed & feed owner may be able to create jobs for people
- overall avoid the lock-in that you can have being tied to XYZ megacorp, for example if they now decide to only sell you seed that will grow with their newly branded feed
- preserve local folklore : maybe there is a kind of seed that grows really well on your soil, but not so much in the others, so XYZ has decided to discontinue it because the market is too small to be profitable
Following on your example, if you buy seed from the local seed & feed, you :
- build resilience, for example if a global pandemic prevents far-reaching import-export
- are less subject to geopolitics
- money invested have a higher chance to stay in the local economy : the owner of the local seed & feed may buy its vegetables from you
- create local jobs : this seed & feed owner may be able to create jobs for people
- overall avoid the lock-in that you can have being tied to XYZ megacorp, for example if they now decide to only sell you seed that will grow with their newly branded feed
- preserve local folklore : maybe there is a kind of seed that grows really well on your soil, but not so much in the others, so XYZ has decided to discontinue it because the market is too small to be profitable
If the seed is grown locally you can add "has adaptations to local environment" to that list.
It's bang for buck, basically.
Consider a single (physical) twenty dollar bill. If it enters a small town (remote worker for FAANG withdraws it out of an ATM) and then immediately leaves (from the Walmart till onto an armored truck to the local city center), that's $20 in economic activity.
If it passes between five hands locally before it ends up on that truck, that's $100 of economic activity, five times as many opportunities for people to exchange what they have for what they want.
This is a toy model, there are a ton of things wrong with it, but it does illustrate a real point. In the six-hands scenario, more of the residents are offering goods and services to each other, in the two-hands scenario, everything is being provided to and by the larger economy. Less resilient, less locally-scaled, and it's easier to replace the small town with any other set of producer/consumers who offer lower prices or thinner wages.
Consider a single (physical) twenty dollar bill. If it enters a small town (remote worker for FAANG withdraws it out of an ATM) and then immediately leaves (from the Walmart till onto an armored truck to the local city center), that's $20 in economic activity.
If it passes between five hands locally before it ends up on that truck, that's $100 of economic activity, five times as many opportunities for people to exchange what they have for what they want.
This is a toy model, there are a ton of things wrong with it, but it does illustrate a real point. In the six-hands scenario, more of the residents are offering goods and services to each other, in the two-hands scenario, everything is being provided to and by the larger economy. Less resilient, less locally-scaled, and it's easier to replace the small town with any other set of producer/consumers who offer lower prices or thinner wages.
Beyond just the an outsourcing-style one? Where the local circulation is more important than the immediate sticker price? Giving your money to someone else local means they can purchase stuff from someone else local who then can purchase stuff from someone else local, etc... vs that money being out of the local economy entirely.
Maybe not a strictly economic one, but probably a socioeconomic one: that keeping more money in local communities helps those communities to be better places to live.
Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It's definitely true that corporate concentration has been increasing and that many of these communities are in decline.
Whether that is true or not, I don't know. It's definitely true that corporate concentration has been increasing and that many of these communities are in decline.
There are definitely plenty of towns I've been to in rural America (north GA) that are clearly hollow shells of their former selves. And it's way more fun and interesting to be in a place that does have a thriving local economy. The socioeconomic benefits are clear. I'm just wondering if theres a way to frame it in economic terms, or if everything about resiliency, more local jobs, etc. are basically all "externalities".
People might pay higher prices, but they also get better wages and the economy becomes more resilient against killing the whole area because the local economic network gets more edges. So there is a better chance to find a new job should your current job go away for some reason.
On this topic, I would suggest reading Animal, Vegetable, Junk: A History of Food, from Sustainable to Suicidal [1]. It's a great book on an issue that everyone should understand.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Vegetable-Junk-Sustainable-Sui...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Animal-Vegetable-Junk-Sustainable-Sui...
I'm glad to see formerly conventional farmers adopting no-till and other regenerative practices, but it's crazy to me that they're still trying to plant hundreds of hectares in monocrop. Baby steps, I guess. Maybe there's just no other way to make the economics work with so little rainfall?
"In 2018 they went cold turkey on both pesticide and fertilizer, reducing their operational costs by $200,000 from the previous year, "
I think that is going to be the property of this sort of agriculture that makes it really popular.
Pity they cannot get carbon credits for the increase in top soil. Or can they?
I think that is going to be the property of this sort of agriculture that makes it really popular.
Pity they cannot get carbon credits for the increase in top soil. Or can they?
There's a guy in Montana called Paul Wheaton who spent the last 6 years building soil rich in organic matter using no chemicals (pesticides & biocides) in his 200 acre plot of land. There were giant hugelkultur beds 15 ft high it was a crazy sight. He believes that in a decade the soil will be so rich in organic matter with healthy microbial activity (with no chemical history) could produce food that cures cancer. I believe that in an environment where human body is not weakened by the constant bombardment of chemical compounds, it could heal itself from cancer.
He has a bootcamp and I took 2 weeks off from work to try it out in January and I learned alot just by being there. https://wheaton-labs.com/bootcamp/
After that experience I couldn't focus on work anymore so I quit my job (I have 2 years worth of savings) and now my days are spent trying to restore the soil in my backyard.
He has a bootcamp and I took 2 weeks off from work to try it out in January and I learned alot just by being there. https://wheaton-labs.com/bootcamp/
After that experience I couldn't focus on work anymore so I quit my job (I have 2 years worth of savings) and now my days are spent trying to restore the soil in my backyard.
There feels like a deep truth to the constant assault of man-hand compounds in relation to our health. I recently started fasting every other day, and I've noticed odd issues just clearing up on their own.
I'd wager the down-votes related to the claims around curing cancer, but there is reason to pursue this. I'm self experimenting on myself and wife since the wife has an auto-immune issue (MS). She was on the anti-gluten train way before it was fashionable since there is an immediate cause and effect for her without celiacs.
We really should question all of our practices and values.
I'd wager the down-votes related to the claims around curing cancer, but there is reason to pursue this. I'm self experimenting on myself and wife since the wife has an auto-immune issue (MS). She was on the anti-gluten train way before it was fashionable since there is an immediate cause and effect for her without celiacs.
We really should question all of our practices and values.
I think bodies are not meant to always be processing food. We are designed for downtime to process the backlog. The body would get to nagging issues if given opportunity to do so.
I also think this has a lot to do with our cancer rates.
I also think this has a lot to do with our cancer rates.
I'd say that a less fraught way of putting this is that we have adapted to feast-and-famine since that was the ancestral condition of the species.
So I agree with you that, at least for me, eating less than I want to (or nothing) much of the time, and eating a lot occasionally, feels better than constantly feeding myself more calories (carbs especially!) than I need.
But most people on this site, myself included, don't think we were 'designed' at all.
So I agree with you that, at least for me, eating less than I want to (or nothing) much of the time, and eating a lot occasionally, feels better than constantly feeding myself more calories (carbs especially!) than I need.
But most people on this site, myself included, don't think we were 'designed' at all.
Very cool seeing someone else on HN take on restoring their backyard soil. I've been at it for two years in my quarter acre plot and the results are starting to show, so keep at it! Very interested in your bootcamp link so thanks for posting that.
Personal tangent: The property I have was a typical Roundup maintained monoculture lawn without any insect diversity, bees, etc. Now it's teeming with all types of insects and different native species that have re-established themselves and I've been able to use about half of the property for fruit and vegetable production. It's awesome to see the progress that's possible even in such a short time.
Personal tangent: The property I have was a typical Roundup maintained monoculture lawn without any insect diversity, bees, etc. Now it's teeming with all types of insects and different native species that have re-established themselves and I've been able to use about half of the property for fruit and vegetable production. It's awesome to see the progress that's possible even in such a short time.
Just bought a house surrounded by mostly lawn. I’m starting by sheet mulching my lawn with cardboard covered by a thick layer of wood chips. Hopefully the underlayer will be ready for planting next spring. Going to fill in between the food plants with clover, sweet peas, and lupine for nitrogen fixing. I’m looking forward to the transformation.
That sounds awesome. Best of luck.
You might have heard of this already, but for anyone else who might come across this comment, there's a site called https://getchipdrop.com/ where you can sign up to get a free truckload of wood chips from arborists that just did work nearby. Just beware that you can get a TON of chips dropped off so be ready to move all that matter lol.
You might have heard of this already, but for anyone else who might come across this comment, there's a site called https://getchipdrop.com/ where you can sign up to get a free truckload of wood chips from arborists that just did work nearby. Just beware that you can get a TON of chips dropped off so be ready to move all that matter lol.
Yes! Highly recommended. Took about two days for a load to show up, then the guy asked if I would like a free load of firewood too.
just tried it out in Santa Clara and found a neighbor giving it out 10 mins walk away from my house. Really cool, thanks!
I dont know about curing cancer but if he is using less chemicals than the risk of causing cancer is greatly reduced. Food from healthy soil is more nutritious which makes it more satiating but it isnt magic.
January in MT is no joke. Were the activities in that part of the year more on the theory end? Did you have to wait long between your reservation and getting a spot?
I registered in November and was able to get a spot for January. The winter was a really good time because there weren't there many people (because of weather) and I got to ask all the questions I wanted. We mainly worked on a greenhouse that keeps water from freezing in Montana winters using the earth's thermal energy and no electricity: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/greenhouse-...
Food that cures cancer. And what is the scientific basis of that?
There's no scientific conclusion that says cancer cannot be cured through natural means. I'm not against someone trying and I hope he succeeds.
what are you doing to your backyard soil?
The dirt in my backyard has been so neglected it has turned rocky.
first and foremost, I'm covering the bare dirt from direct sunlight by covering it with a layer of cardboard (empty amazon shipment boxes).
Next is some aerated compost tea to speed up the microbial activity and loosen the dirt and start the process of turning it into soil. Add some compost along the way
I'm documenting the journey on this forum if you want to follow along: https://permies.com/t/164053/Gardening-Journey#1286751
first and foremost, I'm covering the bare dirt from direct sunlight by covering it with a layer of cardboard (empty amazon shipment boxes).
Next is some aerated compost tea to speed up the microbial activity and loosen the dirt and start the process of turning it into soil. Add some compost along the way
I'm documenting the journey on this forum if you want to follow along: https://permies.com/t/164053/Gardening-Journey#1286751
I checked out your post on permies. Using a garden fork or broad fork to loosen the compacted soil will speed up your progress. If you see dandelions or other long tap root plants they are trying to do the job of loosening soil. But, they can only go so fast. Forking the ground then covering with compost and watering in will jump you a few years farther in succession.
Really cool tip thank you! Found a garden fork on craigslist and will be picking it up later this afternoon.
Most apparent was the $200,000 in annual costs one of the farming operations saved by dumping the agro-chemical suppliers herbicides and pesticides.
The number is high, but farming in generally is a high risk bet.
I often say to people, I need to spend (i.e risk) $100,000 for the chance to make $20,000-$30,000 if everything goes correctly. One major event and you just lost 100K. Scale up or down depending on the size of the farm.
I often say to people, I need to spend (i.e risk) $100,000 for the chance to make $20,000-$30,000 if everything goes correctly. One major event and you just lost 100K. Scale up or down depending on the size of the farm.
Sustainable farming is a terrible business as long as giant unsustainable factory farms are a thing. If you want to make money farming, you need to either go the vertical integration or agro-tourism route.
* Citation needed
Not trying to refute what you are saying because I honestly don't know, but this seems to contradict the original article. Of course sustainable/organic farming is going to struggle to compete in the normal international commodities market, but in the article it mentioned that organic grain could be sold directly for 2-3x the base commodity price. Seems like that kind of progressive price scale might make it not such a "terrible business".
Not trying to refute what you are saying because I honestly don't know, but this seems to contradict the original article. Of course sustainable/organic farming is going to struggle to compete in the normal international commodities market, but in the article it mentioned that organic grain could be sold directly for 2-3x the base commodity price. Seems like that kind of progressive price scale might make it not such a "terrible business".
The problem there is that farmers must do a lot of marketing to achieve that 2-3x multiple of commodity prices, so even if you're nominally more profitable, the additional time investment isn't really worth it, compared with taking your crops to a co-packager to get a 10-20x mark up.
Agro-tourism :)
This is a very underdeveloped space. The prairie ecosystem is all but extinct. Reviving it and getting tourist to come will be a real thing I believe.
This is a very underdeveloped space. The prairie ecosystem is all but extinct. Reviving it and getting tourist to come will be a real thing I believe.
I've got several friends and there are a host of others who disagree and whose works completely disprove your point. A search should easily turn up plenty of results so I'm not taking time to look up sources on this one.
Is crop insurance not effective at mitigating this risk?
Yes it is. I don't mean to ignore that. Not everyone gets it and its not 100% coverage (usually 50-85% in my experience).
I would argue the pendulum has swung too far with crop insurance. There are acres that have no business being in production and rely on federally subsidized crop insurance programs. Needs to be re-thought IMO
I would argue the pendulum has swung too far with crop insurance. There are acres that have no business being in production and rely on federally subsidized crop insurance programs. Needs to be re-thought IMO
Is there no way for small farmers to band together for some sort of risk pooling?
Yes, farmers have banded together and make large purchases and grain sales. These are known as 'co-ops' in the US. The idea of them is great.
There is a WIDE variance on the quality of co-ops. Some are great and well-run and provide the intended benefits to farmers. Others would make the mafia looks less corrupt (seriously, the CEOs of some co-ops make 500k+ salaries).
There is a WIDE variance on the quality of co-ops. Some are great and well-run and provide the intended benefits to farmers. Others would make the mafia looks less corrupt (seriously, the CEOs of some co-ops make 500k+ salaries).
It seems that banding together on grain sales cuts both ways. I gather that selling to (or is it through?) the co-op gets you access to the commodity markets, which generally makes selling your goods easy. However, when you are buying seed for the next year's crop, you have no guarantee that the market price when you sell it will cover your costs. At least that's part of what I get from:
> Between cash and cover crops, Wicks and Givens are planting about 4,500 acres this year. Some of that land is leased from Wicks’ mother, who retired in 2019, and the rest they lease from neighbors. They’ve contracted most of the barley to Anheuser-Busch, though they’ll sell some to nearby Hutterite colonies for chicken feed. They’re also growing lentils, chickpeas, Kamut and Einkorn for smaller mills including Timeless Seeds and Montana Flour and Grain, both based in Montana.
> Their yields are smaller than their conventional ones were, but Wicks said it’s worth it. Previously, they were at the mercy of international commodity markets, as well as ever-increasing seed, chemical and fertilizer prices. Organic producers often have more leverage, because they usually grow a diverse range of crops and sell directly to processors. Plus, many Montana organic grain and pulse growers forward-contract their crops, meaning they lock in a per bushel price before even planting. Wicks and Givens often sell their organic crops for two to three times the price of conventionally grown ones.
A similar, likely smaller scale, tale is told in TasteMakers[1]. In this episode I think it was the beef supplier that said that he couldn't count on the commodity price of beef, but by contracting with the local artisan butcher prices were set for the year. Who knows what percent of his herd goes to that butcher.
1. https://www.pbs.org/video/preserved-ytoqzs/
> Between cash and cover crops, Wicks and Givens are planting about 4,500 acres this year. Some of that land is leased from Wicks’ mother, who retired in 2019, and the rest they lease from neighbors. They’ve contracted most of the barley to Anheuser-Busch, though they’ll sell some to nearby Hutterite colonies for chicken feed. They’re also growing lentils, chickpeas, Kamut and Einkorn for smaller mills including Timeless Seeds and Montana Flour and Grain, both based in Montana.
> Their yields are smaller than their conventional ones were, but Wicks said it’s worth it. Previously, they were at the mercy of international commodity markets, as well as ever-increasing seed, chemical and fertilizer prices. Organic producers often have more leverage, because they usually grow a diverse range of crops and sell directly to processors. Plus, many Montana organic grain and pulse growers forward-contract their crops, meaning they lock in a per bushel price before even planting. Wicks and Givens often sell their organic crops for two to three times the price of conventionally grown ones.
A similar, likely smaller scale, tale is told in TasteMakers[1]. In this episode I think it was the beef supplier that said that he couldn't count on the commodity price of beef, but by contracting with the local artisan butcher prices were set for the year. Who knows what percent of his herd goes to that butcher.
1. https://www.pbs.org/video/preserved-ytoqzs/
Yes, this is the path for many small players. We had a craft beer revolution, and there is a 'craft beef' revolution slowly happening.
How well can this model scale remains to be seen. Also, do not underestimate the meat cartels. They have deep pockets (and the cutthroat executives) and can go to the mattress far longer than small-time players.
How well can this model scale remains to be seen. Also, do not underestimate the meat cartels. They have deep pockets (and the cutthroat executives) and can go to the mattress far longer than small-time players.
Presumably these expenses have benefits, otherwise companies wouldn't be using them? It's like saying a company saved $200k by dumping their computers... so they can do everything on paper.
Most agricultural chemical products are profitable in the way a loan is profitable. You get higher yields now, but you're disrupting the environment and making it more vulnerable to pests, drought and erosion in the long run. As these problems start to become apparent, your only solution to maintain yields is to use more and more products, until the land is so marginal it collapses.
>until the land is so marginal it collapses.
Where has this happened?
Where has this happened?
Probably referring to dust bowl era land like Oklahoma. I don't like the word collapse, but I'm guessing there are implying that the ground is x% less productive for crop production or grazing).
The risk of land collapsing is probably greatest West of the Missouri river where historic rainfall is less and historic topsoil is less (Dakotas, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, etc).
The risk of land collapsing is probably greatest West of the Missouri river where historic rainfall is less and historic topsoil is less (Dakotas, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, etc).
>Probably referring to dust bowl era land like Oklahoma.
But in that case the use of chemical seems to be unrelated?
>severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent the aeolian processes (wind erosion) caused the [dust bowl] phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
But in that case the use of chemical seems to be unrelated?
>severe drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent the aeolian processes (wind erosion) caused the [dust bowl] phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Overuse of fertilizers can cause chemical burn which damages the soil ecology. In combination with tilling it will gradually destroy the soil quality.
Pesticides destroy insect diversity, including predatory insects that keep pests in check. This is particularly problematic because pest populations tend to recover more quickly than predator populations, so if you stop spraying the problem comes back worse. Pesticides can also harm bird and amphibian populations, which play a role in pest control.
Pesticides destroy insect diversity, including predatory insects that keep pests in check. This is particularly problematic because pest populations tend to recover more quickly than predator populations, so if you stop spraying the problem comes back worse. Pesticides can also harm bird and amphibian populations, which play a role in pest control.
Maybe not what they are referring too, but you can absolutely 'brick' land by over applying chemicals ('salting the earth'). There is a continuum depending on which chemical and how 'bricked' you make it.
Dave Montgomery posits that soil degradation has determined the lifespan of past civilizations. At the rate that plowing erodes soil it takes about 1000 years to deplete the resource to the point of desertification.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQACN-XiqHU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQACN-XiqHU
It's more like saving $200k by switching from Heroku to a dedicated infrastructure.
...which depends on how much a devops engineer costs. All-in compensation can easily exceed that.
I think I read that many farmers are required to use them by contract. If that's the case then a lot of farmers don't have that luxury.
No, just no. This is 100% false. You are not required to use ANY chemical on ANY crop in the united states. It's it 100% a voluntary decision. Why so many people make the decision to use these chemicals is another discussion.
Chemicals like roundup where so effective they changed agriculture production in unforeseen ways (like we lost institutional knowledge on how to successfully grow crops without them). The fact that mother nature is rendering all chemicals (glyposate, glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4-d) ineffective is predictable. Mother nature also had the mechanisms to combat these chemicals, but it happened quicker than most people thought.
We also didn't have 2nd and 3rd generation tools (re: not chemicals) ready to go when the chemicals failed. So we're stuck on treadmill.
There are solutions though...
Chemicals like roundup where so effective they changed agriculture production in unforeseen ways (like we lost institutional knowledge on how to successfully grow crops without them). The fact that mother nature is rendering all chemicals (glyposate, glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4-d) ineffective is predictable. Mother nature also had the mechanisms to combat these chemicals, but it happened quicker than most people thought.
We also didn't have 2nd and 3rd generation tools (re: not chemicals) ready to go when the chemicals failed. So we're stuck on treadmill.
There are solutions though...
> Chemicals like roundup where so effective they changed agriculture production in unforeseen ways
And some of those changes were significant positives not only for agricultural productivity, but also for the environment. The biggest of these is the reduced or eliminated tillage... tilling the soil several times a year with heavy machinery was the biggest contributor to soil degradation and even outright soil loss.
First, after tilling, some of the soil literally blows away with the wind. Second, organic residue in freshly tilled soil decomposes rapidly to CO2 and Methane, versus healthy untilled soil where a significant portion of it would decompose to long-term stable humic and vulvic substances... so we have a double negative where we're increasing the global warming contribution and decreasing the capacity of the soil for retaining nutrients.
I've dabbled in farming, and I'm no fan of glyphosate, and certainly not of Monsanto, but I think it's important to point this out because certain knee-jerk reactions, like "ban glyphosate" by themselves are only likely to make things worse. If you ban glyphosate for example, one of two things is likely to happen... 1) it will be replaced by even worse chemicals, or 2) people go back to frequent tilling. There are no quick fixes to industrial agriculture, the only solution is to move toward highly integrated regenerative approaches, and these are by their nature much more complex and labor intensive. It's great that there are more and more people doing that, but big ag keeps them operating at the margins of our food supply.
And some of those changes were significant positives not only for agricultural productivity, but also for the environment. The biggest of these is the reduced or eliminated tillage... tilling the soil several times a year with heavy machinery was the biggest contributor to soil degradation and even outright soil loss.
First, after tilling, some of the soil literally blows away with the wind. Second, organic residue in freshly tilled soil decomposes rapidly to CO2 and Methane, versus healthy untilled soil where a significant portion of it would decompose to long-term stable humic and vulvic substances... so we have a double negative where we're increasing the global warming contribution and decreasing the capacity of the soil for retaining nutrients.
I've dabbled in farming, and I'm no fan of glyphosate, and certainly not of Monsanto, but I think it's important to point this out because certain knee-jerk reactions, like "ban glyphosate" by themselves are only likely to make things worse. If you ban glyphosate for example, one of two things is likely to happen... 1) it will be replaced by even worse chemicals, or 2) people go back to frequent tilling. There are no quick fixes to industrial agriculture, the only solution is to move toward highly integrated regenerative approaches, and these are by their nature much more complex and labor intensive. It's great that there are more and more people doing that, but big ag keeps them operating at the margins of our food supply.
That just moves the thought back a step. Why would they sign a contract to pay $200k to use those chemicals? They wouldn't if there weren't any benefits to it.
I think when a producer is doing things at scale and is on the hook for millions of tons of wheat the industrial approaches involving chemicals are probably the only way unfortunately.
Please make this a hill that a large and vocal political group is willing to die on.
There are ways to prevent the desertification of the United States, and they don't involve PhDs and lobbying.
There are ways to prevent the desertification of the United States, and they don't involve PhDs and lobbying.
Lol i love that his name is john wicks
If you are still buying groceries from supermarkets, it is in your best interest to change that habit and buy organic only. Food co-ops usually tend to store organic only so they are great places to buy your groceries.
Organic ensures that the soil where your food came from had no prohibited substances (most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) applied for three years. Chances are, if you are buying food from supermarkets without the organic label, your food probably came from a farm that uses unhealthy synthetic fertilizers that may attribute to health issues later down the road.
Unless you know your restaurant is cooking with organic food, they are probably not so it is best to eat out sparingly and learn to cook with your own delicious food with your organic ingredients.
If you want to step up your game, you could also buy organic clothes (aka clothes that came from plants / animal) that came from soil without prohibited substances. Your body is covered most of the day so it's better to be on the healthier side.
Obviously, the label "organic" doesn't mean you are getting the best because there is still alot of room for improvement. Organic still allows some form of pesticides and fertilizers and has next to nothing about the organic matter in your soil (which determine how nutritious your food would be).
The article mentions regenerative organic certification, which addresses the shortcomings for organic labels. If we, as consumers, demand for the highest quality food, it turns out to be good for the soil and the long term health of the earth too!
Hands down, if you have a space for your own garden or even pots at home, you could easily grow food that are more nutritious than any food you can find in a grocery store. Optimize for organic matter in your soil. The higher the organic matter, the more nutritious your food is. Most of the agricultural soil that grows food has about 3-6% organic matter, you can easily get it above 10% at home. So if you have time on your hands, you should try growing the food you eat most regularly at home.
Organic ensures that the soil where your food came from had no prohibited substances (most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides) applied for three years. Chances are, if you are buying food from supermarkets without the organic label, your food probably came from a farm that uses unhealthy synthetic fertilizers that may attribute to health issues later down the road.
Unless you know your restaurant is cooking with organic food, they are probably not so it is best to eat out sparingly and learn to cook with your own delicious food with your organic ingredients.
If you want to step up your game, you could also buy organic clothes (aka clothes that came from plants / animal) that came from soil without prohibited substances. Your body is covered most of the day so it's better to be on the healthier side.
Obviously, the label "organic" doesn't mean you are getting the best because there is still alot of room for improvement. Organic still allows some form of pesticides and fertilizers and has next to nothing about the organic matter in your soil (which determine how nutritious your food would be).
The article mentions regenerative organic certification, which addresses the shortcomings for organic labels. If we, as consumers, demand for the highest quality food, it turns out to be good for the soil and the long term health of the earth too!
Hands down, if you have a space for your own garden or even pots at home, you could easily grow food that are more nutritious than any food you can find in a grocery store. Optimize for organic matter in your soil. The higher the organic matter, the more nutritious your food is. Most of the agricultural soil that grows food has about 3-6% organic matter, you can easily get it above 10% at home. So if you have time on your hands, you should try growing the food you eat most regularly at home.
How did you make it through high school while failing in chemistry and biology?
Organic is a scam for the natural is better crowd that occupies the human experience. A chemical is the same whether it is natural or synthetic. Plenty of natural substances are toxic. There is no difference in taste or nutrition between organic and non-organic, however GMO can be made more nutritious.
Organic is a scam for the natural is better crowd that occupies the human experience. A chemical is the same whether it is natural or synthetic. Plenty of natural substances are toxic. There is no difference in taste or nutrition between organic and non-organic, however GMO can be made more nutritious.
> How did you make it through high school while failing in chemistry and biology?
I didn't fail either. Our school focused on the theoretical and we never had practical applications of the knowledge.
> A chemical is the same whether it is natural or synthetic
For me the difference is naturally occurring and moderated via biological process of organisms vs extracted and manufactured chemicals. For example, you wouldn't find large amounts of Chlorpyrifos (used in herbicides) naturally anywhere in the world. It was mass produced for use in agriculture.
> GMO can be made more nutritious
If you are measuring specifically for say, vitamin A, you can engineer a crop to have higher concentrations of vitamin A than any other crop out there. So yes you are correct.
I didn't fail either. Our school focused on the theoretical and we never had practical applications of the knowledge.
> A chemical is the same whether it is natural or synthetic
For me the difference is naturally occurring and moderated via biological process of organisms vs extracted and manufactured chemicals. For example, you wouldn't find large amounts of Chlorpyrifos (used in herbicides) naturally anywhere in the world. It was mass produced for use in agriculture.
> GMO can be made more nutritious
If you are measuring specifically for say, vitamin A, you can engineer a crop to have higher concentrations of vitamin A than any other crop out there. So yes you are correct.
Setting aside the environmental concerns (which are important, and indirectly health-adjacent), are there material health reasons to eat organic? This Mayo Clinic article [0] points to pretty minor improvements, would love if someone could point me to evidence substantiating OP's claim, or maybe which products in particular are materially healthier if produced organically.
[0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
[0] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
> This Mayo Clinic article [0] points to pretty minor improvements
Seems like minor improvement in a meal, it doesn't measure the cumulative effects of these minor differences every meal, over several years.
Seems like minor improvement in a meal, it doesn't measure the cumulative effects of these minor differences every meal, over several years.
-isn’t this a tech/VC blog? How is it that so many of you are so interested in and knowledgeable about agriculture?
-what about this story made you want to discuss it here?
Looking forward to learning more!