Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable • Hacker News Board

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#91

Post by hosh » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

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

We can do better than that. You can, for example, plant nitrogen fixers directly as a companion plant for the plants that are heavy feeders. (Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)) (But you'd still have to rotate out tomatoes and other nightshade family plants because of accumulated toxins in the soil).

There's a way to do this kind of a thing with perennials, and better yet, in the backyard or in the neighborhood garden. That is as local and "farm to table" as you can get.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#92

Post by einpoklum » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:51 PM UTC

ngngngng wrote: post #4

> It turns out, people NEED food. Really, it's remarkable. And they'll actually pay dollars for food that you've grown, so that they can then eat it, because otherwise they'll die.

Surprisingly, that's not quite true.

That is, people do need food, but humanity over-produces food massively already [1]. And in many countries, you'll collapse economically if you try to live by selling food - and it's government subsidies which keep farming afloat.

[1] - Of course there's also massive hunger due to the failure of our species to more reasonably distribute the food it produces, biases in which kinds of food get produced where and when etc.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#93

Post by einpoklum » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

This is a weird piece in that it seems to completely ignore the massive subsidies [1] the agriculture sector of most (?) industrialized economies relies on.

Then when you read:

> [Someone] estimates that agroforestry systems can create eight times more profit than conventional agriculture.

you have to ask yourself: "Profit after subsidies? But who said you'll get the same subsidies? If you can actually turn a profit, they might not subsidize you at that point?"

----

[1] - For more information on these subsidies (which I'm not opposed to, it's complicated):

* In the EU it's apparently 59 Billion EUR/year , according to this: https://farmsubsidy.org/

* Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#94

Post by hosh » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

AOsborn wrote: post #85

armenarmen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a layman I assumed that was the case. But I understand the bigger issue now is that both soil and crop nutrients are dropping in farms due to soil depletion[0]. 0: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...

Yeah. And not only that, the "regenerative agriculture" mentioned in the article isn't just about sustainable practices, where we put back into the soilwhat we take out. Regenerative practices includes practices where soil fertility is built up year after year as a result of the agricultural practices. In other words, you can take a depleted land and bring it back up into productive land, and potentially, become more productive than non-regenerative practices.

You can grow more than a single plant together, and depending on the combination, they can synergize in a way that helps both of them grow. Some of that is due to pest management (where one plant species deters pests that raid the other). Some add nutrients (nitrogen fixers and other dynamic accumulators). Some can grow at different canopy layers (such as growing ground cover to help retain moisture while taller plants are used as trellises for vining plants).

Some plants have deep tap roots that break up compacted soil and help draw out nutrients to make them bioavailable. Many of them are pioneer plants and are considered weeds or considered invasive.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#95

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

hosh wrote: post #94

AOsborn wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a layman I assumed that was the case. But I understand the bigger issue now is that both soil and crop nutrients are dropping in farms due to soil depletion[0]. 0: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...

Yeah. And not only that, the "regenerative agriculture" mentioned in the article isn't just about sustainable practices, where we put back into the soilwhat we take out. Regenerative practices includes practices where soil fertility is built up year after year as a result of the agricultural practices. In other words, you can take a depleted land and bring it back up into productive land, and potentially, become more…

Much of big Ag is an effort to shortcut all this. Use a chisel plow to break up compacted soil. Add ammonia. Use earth movers to create more flat land with useful soils. Etc.

The advantages are clear: you can decide when to do these things, and do them on a short schedule. Its hard to argue waiting 5 years for some remediation project to maybe work, when I have a chisel plow right over there in the shed.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#96

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #66

ngold wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Several cities consider every drop in California and several surrounding states to be rightfully theirs.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#97

Post by hosh » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #86

reginaldo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The three-field system has the problem of leaving the soil uncovered which leads to erosion, which aggravates the nutrient depletion problem.

At least in my experience you plant cover crops there and plow them under at the end. My relatives used field peas. And the four-field system is considered a strict upgrade over the three-field system last I heard, basically just 3 productive fields and 1 planted in cover crops. https://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Building-Soils-fo...

We can do better than that:

- Someone figured out a way to grow comfrey (and other nitrogen fixers) in a separate field with low maintenance to supply mulch material for the main crop, without having to rely on animal manure.

- There are people who built their animal barn at the top of a hill and dug swales to transport runoff from manure downward. They plant edibles all along the swale. Once established, low maintenance.

- I saw another practice that involved growing grasses, and using grazers and micrograzers to increase fertility in depleted soil. It’s part of an overal system where fences and chicken trailers are used to move grazing around.

Some of these practices may not be practical at scale, but that is not the point — these practices work well for decentralized food system

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#98

Post by IAmEveryone » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #64

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?

We've kinda been doing that for a while, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopesticide

More mechanical contraptions also have a long history, and do actually include lasers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_scarer#Lasers

But most pests are rather microscopic. I doubt we will ever construct silicon/metal hardware better able to operate at the level of, say, spores than the biological systems that are natural to that environment.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#99

Post by dzink » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

Why many buzzwords? In simpler language: trees surrounding farm land keep strong winds from blowing nutrients away and have other benefits. For that and other benefits Before 1989, a lot of farm land in Bulgaria was surrounded by tree belts as they also provided shade for farm workers. In the US much bigger efficiency has been achieved by farming large fields with giant automated machinery. Effect on nutrients is unclear. However what this company is suggesting is to pair farmers of different types and plant productive trees between flat crop lands to enable multiple types of production happening at the same time. An underlying premise is a carbon offset system may pay for such investment. The part that’s missing is how much harvesting efficiency will be lost when you lose the ability to use big machines to harvest single crops. That said, there may be lands suitable for mixed farming that were underused before. Hopefully those farmers don’t get into too much debt trying to pursue potential carbon credits.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#100

Post by reillyse » Fri, Jul 10, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

einpoklum wrote: post #93

This is a weird piece in that it seems to completely ignore the massive subsidies [1] the agriculture sector of most (?) industrialized economies relies on. Then when you read: > [Someone] estimates that agroforestry systems can create eight times more profit than conventional agriculture. you have to ask yourself: "Profit after subsidies? But who said you'll get the same subsidies? If you can actually turn a profit,…

I like the European farm subsidies, I think they are a great example of how to share wealth among a lot of citizens and maintain high quality food. Btw, 59 Billion seems like a large number but compared to the actual GDP of the EU thats a very very small number. Also in the US for example farm subsidies are pretty high and generally funnel to rich people, there is both farm related subsidies that go direct to farmers and insurance companies (among others) and then the farm bill which is another huge subsidy.