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

Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

news.mongabay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#61

Post by jessaustin »

jbeales wrote: post #8
Shared404 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks to me less like rediscovering orchards, and more mixing them in with livestock/other crops in a beneficial manner.

Mixing with livestock isn't really new either. So long as the animal doesn't kill the trees orchards are pretty great places for animals. I think I've seen orchards that are also hay operations too. I guess if we get into something more mixed then that they haven't really rediscovered orchards, they've rediscovered permaculture!

I think I've seen orchards that are also hay operations too.

I've mowed, raked, and baled a fair amount of hay over the years. This involves driving tractors and trucks around in fields pulling easily damaged implements in precise circles. Doing so in the presence of lots of mature trees seems a daunting task...

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#62

Post by konschubert »

freeqaz wrote: post #16

I think that "mixed" farming like this article describes has a huge potential for automation by the software field. Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1]. But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the…

Wouldn’t it be easier to just plant something else every other year?

I thought this was solved literally 1000 years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#63

Post by konschubert »

harikb wrote: post #45
jeffbee wrote: post #33

The feds would have to stop distorting the markets in the West before any of this could happen economically, right? People didn't just forget how to grow orchards and pastures. They got run out of business by the California water projects and the BLM. As long as the BLM keeps leasing out grazing land for $1/acre and as long as Reclamation allows Stewart Resnick to grow 100k acres of nuts on otherwise worthless land,…

Just so people aren't confused, BLM == Bureau of Land Management

Thanks, I was confused.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#64

Post by tootie »

freeqaz wrote: post #16

I think that "mixed" farming like this article describes has a huge potential for automation by the software field. Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1]. But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the…

How long until we can deploy fleets of microdrones capable of killing pests with computer vision and lasers?

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#65

Post by airstrike »

mikeg8 wrote: post #31
_2d30 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.

I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.

Citation still needed.

The environmental problems we're facing in agriculture seems more closely related to our need to improve yield given limited land / proximity with customers.

If you hate on agricultural technology, you're just hating on the effect, not the cause.

Most people are against your so-called "environmental problems". It's just that solutions have to be financially sustainable besides being environmentally sustainable. The original comment you replied to was suggesting how that trade-off can be fixed with technology, just like many other trade-offs before it.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#66

Post by jeffbee »

ngold wrote: post #58
jeffbee wrote: post #33

The feds would have to stop distorting the markets in the West before any of this could happen economically, right? People didn't just forget how to grow orchards and pastures. They got run out of business by the California water projects and the BLM. As long as the BLM keeps leasing out grazing land for $1/acre and as long as Reclamation allows Stewart Resnick to grow 100k acres of nuts on otherwise worthless land,…

The nut industry around Sacramento is a true tragedy of the commons. Billions of wallstreet speculative dollars to pump water out of the ground as fast as possible. No one wins, but a percentage gain on a balance sheet.

Interesting perspective. I always viewed the Sacramento Valley rice and nut crops to be some of the less objectionable activities, seeing as how that valley is knee-deep in water much of the year, and the depth to ground water in many places is less than a meter. But I'm sure every form of industrialized agriculture falls apart under enough scrutiny.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#67

Post by armenarmen »

konschubert wrote: post #62
freeqaz wrote: post #16

I think that "mixed" farming like this article describes has a huge potential for automation by the software field. Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1]. But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the…

Wouldn’t it be easier to just plant something else every other year? I thought this was solved literally 1000 years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-field_system

I was always confused by this as well. Then I spoke to a person working in agriculture, apparently chemical fertilizers are cheap enough to make crop rotation redundant.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#68

Post by zanny »

hodgesrm wrote: post #19

It's really surprising to me that we tend to focus on sustainability rather than simple economic benefits when pitching initiatives to combat climate change. Case in point: The US had a great opportunity to sell alternative energy sources as way to get off Middle East oil after 9/11. Instead we continued to consume oil like there's no tomorrow while squandering trillions on fruitless wars.

The trillions weren't squandered for the thousands of defense contractors and suppliers that made fortunes off said wars. Its why they lobbied for them in the first place. Now a lot of warmongers profiteering off occupational imperialism are rolling in wealth courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#69

Post by fillskills »

evilsetg wrote: post #37
hodgesrm wrote: post #19

It's really surprising to me that we tend to focus on sustainability rather than simple economic benefits when pitching initiatives to combat climate change. Case in point: The US had a great opportunity to sell alternative energy sources as way to get off Middle East oil after 9/11. Instead we continued to consume oil like there's no tomorrow while squandering trillions on fruitless wars.

The valuing of (short-term) economic benefit over sustainability is precisely what is fueling climate change.

I would go a little further and say that short term economic benefits of existing entrenched players is causing harm. Its taking too long to get those people out and replaced with fresh minds who can look at the same systems and find new ways to make money while having a sustainable earth

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#70

Post by [deleted] »

Vysero wrote: post #57
jessaustin wrote: post #32

This seems like a scam to me. The reason VCs don't fund "normal" crops like wheat etc. is that commodities don't generate the high profits that make "unicorns" possible. There have been fewer people employed in agriculture in USA every year for the last 150 years. The only long-term successful firms are selling "picks and shovels", and even they have to resort to evil to generate reliable profits (Monsanto, etc.) All…

It seems fishy to me as well knowing that most farmers operate at a loss each year. Whatever profit a system like this might generate would have to be enough to offset those losses whilst still providing enough to keep the farmers happy along with the investors?? Seems pretty damn unlikely that this "agroforestry" is capable of doing that.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN