Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

startribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 511 posts

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#501

Post by halbritt »

6510 wrote: post #491
halbritt wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fascinating, but also somewhat orthogonal to the argument, assuming there was nothing I missed when skimming that paper. The paper itself describes farming practices that are more sustainable, and possibly more efficient after introducing a new formula to measure efficiency. I'm not sufficiently well-informed to critically assess the formula given, although on the surface it seems fine. To clarify my original…

For the most part I just thought it was interesting. You asked in relation to what modern farming is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. I suppose that merits a comparison to other know ways to grow food? Most of the crops "we" grow use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) To a…

I agree that the comparison deserves merit, but it's a lengthy discussion. I'd presented a simple dichotomy.

> ...use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually)

There are a couple of constraints there. We have a limited amount of arable land to feed the world's population and a significant amount of the carbon emissions in modern farming practices comes from harvesting and transport.

I can't see any way to harvest and transport agriculture products without carbon emissions today.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#503

Post by halbritt »

mrpopo wrote: post #489
halbritt wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not disagreeing that different farming practices may be more sustainable. My argument is that existing farming practices are made more efficient and produce fewer emissions when using modern equipment vs. equipment that is 30-40 years old. There is plenty of research to support your point, also another poster replied to this parent with an interesting paper. My assertion is supported by direct observation, that i…

Let me use an analogy. If you are going to cut down a forest, I don't care that you're doing with a modern solar-powered and drone-controlled circular saw or a petrol-powered chainsaw. There is a more important problem that is dwarfing any improvement in the efficiency used by your tools, and that's all those trees getting cut down. > there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more…

Tilling consumes 2-2.5 gallons of diesel per acre, that results in ~20-25kg of CO2 emitted per acre (~10kg per gallon of diesel).

> If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2).

Repurposed how? We still have to figure out how to feed 11 billion people. Am I missing something from your argument?

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#504

Post by halbritt »

knockout9461 wrote: post #497
halbritt wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I speculate that as corporations take over farming, their operations become more efficient providing greater yields per acre and for the amount of fuel consumed. If true, this is net positive for humanity as a whole as more people can get fed and there are less carbon emissions doing so. There is the problem that corporations tend to trend toward becoming sociopathic entities unless carefully managed, so it's not all…

I'm not sure whether or not corporate farming leads to less emissions, but the environmental impact should not be the only factor evaluated for whether or not corporate farming consolidation is good for humanity. What may be lost in efficiency is gained in good jobs for middle class people to make a living. If we're talking large scale change for the environment, why not electrify farm equipment, expand our solar and…

I'm not suggesting that corporate farming consolidation is good for humanity. I'm suggesting that there is a benefit to using modern farming equipment.

Fundamentally, I believe that corporate farming consolidation is a risk to the global food supply. ADM is proof of how terrible that can be.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#505

Post by mrpopo »

halbritt wrote: post #503
mrpopo wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me use an analogy. If you are going to cut down a forest, I don't care that you're doing with a modern solar-powered and drone-controlled circular saw or a petrol-powered chainsaw. There is a more important problem that is dwarfing any improvement in the efficiency used by your tools, and that's all those trees getting cut down. > there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more…

Tilling consumes 2-2.5 gallons of diesel per acre, that results in ~20-25kg of CO2 emitted per acre (~10kg per gallon of diesel). > If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2). Repurposed how? We still have to figure out how to feed 11 billion people. Am I missing something from your argument?

Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques (regenerative agriculture, permaculture, conservative agriculture, ...). You certainly have heard of some of those.

As for how we will feed 11 billion people by the end of the century. This is a very reasonable question to ask. Sustainable agriculture has reduced yields, so maybe we wouldn't have enough to feed the world anymore. But, again, you are looking at the wrong culprit.

There is already more than enough food to feed the world. Food waste, food distribution problems and our questionable appetite for meat are dragging us down.

The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem. Of course, we shouldn't ship food from the USA to Africa, though. But the phosphate imported from Western Sahara for our fertilizers? Maybe they could use that, to kick-start an agricultural revolution.

Although, if your question was "how to feed 11 billion people without changing anything to our current food industry", the answer is we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#506

Post by halbritt »

mrpopo wrote: post #505
halbritt wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tilling consumes 2-2.5 gallons of diesel per acre, that results in ~20-25kg of CO2 emitted per acre (~10kg per gallon of diesel). > If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2). Repurposed how? We still have to figure out how to feed 11 billion people. Am I missing something from your argument?

Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques (regenerative agriculture, permaculture, conservative agriculture, ...). You certainly have heard of some of those. As for how we will feed 11 billion people by the end of the century. This is a very reasonable question to ask. Sustainable agriculture has reduced yields, so maybe we wouldn't have enough to feed the world anymore. But, again, you are…

> Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques

This answers my question. I was wondering if you were suggesting that arable land be repurposed for carbon capture rather than food production, thus the question, how to feed 11 billion people (projected peak world population).

In any case, I think we're making arguments in slightly different directions. Surely, there are more sustainable farming approaches such as no-till, etc, which saves the CO2 emissions.

Let's presume we've use those approaches and have a field full of corn (or wheat, or what have you) ready to harvest with zero carbon emissions and slightly reduced yield. Then what?

That corn still needs to be harvested at 3.8 gallons of diesel per acre and then transported to market.

> questionable appetite for meat

As most other countries, especially developing ones consume way less meat, this is a US specific problem, though admittedly it makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses.

> The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem

The basis of my arguments has less to do with world hunger as a problem that exists today and more to do with the fact that peak global population is estimated to be 11 billion folks. Feeding that population will be difficult to do with yields well below current industrial farming practices.

> we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes.

We should hit ~10 billion by 2050, I doubt there'll be massive climate change related catastrophes by then. 11 billion is projected by 2100, and well, unless something changes then we likely would.

In any case, thanks for engaging in this discourse. Likely, we agree more than not that more sustainable agriculture practices will be needed.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#507

Post by 6510 »

halbritt wrote: post #501
6510 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part I just thought it was interesting. You asked in relation to what modern farming is among the worst culprits regarding carbon emissions. I suppose that merits a comparison to other know ways to grow food? Most of the crops "we" grow use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) To a…

I agree that the comparison deserves merit, but it's a lengthy discussion. I'd presented a simple dichotomy. > ...use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) There are a couple of constraints there. We have a limited amount of arable land to feed the world's population and a significant amount of…

We could eat where it grows and grow where we eat :).. Back to the trees!...or wait... LEDs are pretty epic already, I could see myself grow salad in the cup board. Then there is the Personal Food Computer for more advanced stuff (back on familiar soil?) https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/personal-food-computer/ov...

I like how hn always finds a way to blame everything on programmers. Who would have thought carbon emissions are our fault? (I hope its to blame on my silly mood)

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#508

Post by halbritt »

6510 wrote: post #507
halbritt wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the comparison deserves merit, but it's a lengthy discussion. I'd presented a simple dichotomy. > ...use to grow just fine on their own. We've cultivated them to be dependent. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think we can cut carbon emissions beyond 100% (eventually) There are a couple of constraints there. We have a limited amount of arable land to feed the world's population and a significant amount of…

We could eat where it grows and grow where we eat :).. Back to the trees!...or wait... LEDs are pretty epic already, I could see myself grow salad in the cup board. Then there is the Personal Food Computer for more advanced stuff (back on familiar soil?) https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/personal-food-computer/ov... I like how hn always finds a way to blame everything on programmers. Who would have thought carbon em…

You could grow salad in the cupboard. Lettuce is one of the few crops that would be economical to grow under indoor lighting. I believe that info comes from here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsaufB5F8dk

If you think LEDs have gotten epic, check out his research. They're just getting to be more efficient than HPS.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#509

Post by BoorishBears »

bsagdiyev wrote: post #473
BoorishBears wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it only don't work on cars or pollute like no tomorrow? Who said it was? The comment mentioned working on the engine specifically, there's not much DRM that can interfere with working on the engine unless you're trying to tune your ECU. It's not like the N20 is going to check your pistons and connecting rods for authenticity before starting after all. There are not even that many parts in BMWs that are VIN-lo…

The N52 engine will refuse to start if the iDrive system is not working (if the car has this feature), the iDrive system is an expensive replacement, on top of the work required to code it to the car. All of the in-car systems signals go through the computer that controls the iDrive system since it is a fiber ring network through the car, terminating at the amp in the trunk and the iDrive system in the front.

How does iDrive being VIN locked become, "I can't work on my engine"?

Also definitely want a source on the N52 requiring iDrive to start, because obviously not all the cars with the N52 even had iDrive...

It sounds like you're oversimplifying it.

iDrive probably fails in a specific way that causes a problem for the car's network, not BMW intentionally had the car stop working because your music couldn't play.

That would be exactly in line with what I said about complexity being the issue, not some concerted effort to get you into the dealership. It's confusing a bad design with malice.

Re: For tech-weary Midwest farmers, 40-year-old tractors now a hot commodity

#510

Post by BoorishBears »

xnyan wrote: post #482
BoorishBears wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it only don't work on cars or pollute like no tomorrow? Who said it was? The comment mentioned working on the engine specifically, there's not much DRM that can interfere with working on the engine unless you're trying to tune your ECU. It's not like the N20 is going to check your pistons and connecting rods for authenticity before starting after all. There are not even that many parts in BMWs that are VIN-lo…

I'm sorry, but you are not correct. My head unit (which is required to do stuff like check the oil level, no dipstick) is VIN locked. That's stupid. It's nothing more than a money grab because they can.

Head units have been Vin locked for like 2 decades now

https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/141045-tech-ii-vin-re...

https://www.fordownersclub.com/forums/topic/58554-help-touch...

It's nothing BMW specific.

Even Honda has had something similar (a pin derived from your Vin)

https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/100567/I+need+the+Specif...

Post reply on HN