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

Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

entrepreneur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 135 posts

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#21

Post by robbiep »

jvm___ wrote: post #20
coin wrote: post #3

> 4. You can't A/B test a farm (yet) This is done all the time. When evaluating a new seed variety, a different seed spacing, a new nitrogen application, farmers will do a test plot next to the control. If things looks good then they'll expand the new change to more acreage.

There's farms near me that have a field of corn, every 5 rows has a different sign up with some sort of code and a logo for a seed company. I'd always assumed thats what they were testing.

Those are field trials of different varieties. It’s not at scale

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#22

Post by boomanaiden154 »

Teever wrote: post #19
ijoijiuiuni wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vertical farming can do 10X, GMOs can do 10x, urban farming can cut out 90% of transportation costs, (not exactly what you mean but getting people to eat less meat would 100x our efficiencies) there is still room for improvement.

Even in a place like Canada where so much food is imported, transportation only adds up to about 12pc of the total energy cost. I'm not aware of any vertical farm that is 10x as efficient as a regular farm.

It depends upon what you're defining efficiency as. In terms of yield per acre, there are estimates that yield per acre can increase by a lot more [1]. I haven't seen anything more efficient energy or cost wise (outside of a couple types of plants, really just microgreens).

[1] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002655117

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#24

Post by screye »

Animats wrote: post #5

The key insight Silicon Valley lacks about agriculture is that there is little potential for a big win. Major improvements mean 10% of something, not 10x. US agriculture is already highly efficient. On the down side, there's potential for a big loss if you screw up.

I'd go 1 level deeper than that. Agriculture isn't a real market at all. It is closer to govt infrastructure contract work, than selling a commodity. There are no wins, juts minimized losses.

Govts decide farming subsidies, allowable environmental damage & even exploitative immigrant labor practices based on the prices their voters would be willing to pay. This means that an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency will likely lead to reduced subsidies rather than increased profits. Also, the value of food is subjective. Increasing lobster or caviar supply will decrease its perceived desirability just as fast. So infinite scaling laws stop applying pretty quickly.

The one agricultural industry that is ripe for disruption is the fake-DOP industry. A lot of European premium processed DOP goods are expensive because they are manual labor intensive. If you can train some minimum-wage laborers in a 3rd world nation to do the manual labor, then you can sell practically-perfect Parmigiano-Reggiano or Jamon-Iberico for a fraction of their price. As of now, all the fake DOP products are vastly inferior (it isn't rocket science) and still incur huge labor costs because they're still produced in 1st world countries.

Premium sausages, Premium cheeses, Premium sliced meats are ripe for disruption. It won't replace these products in top-tier $$$-$$$$ restaurants. But the more numerous $-$$ restaurants would be salivating at the prospect of such a replacement.

I am already seeing some of this. ~~Columbian~~ (Colombian) Burrata is both cheaper and a better product for US customers due to faster supply chains. I'd like to see more of this from developing and underdeveloped countries with the right climate, soil and water table.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#25

Post by bagels »

coin wrote: post #3

> 4. You can't A/B test a farm (yet) This is done all the time. When evaluating a new seed variety, a different seed spacing, a new nitrogen application, farmers will do a test plot next to the control. If things looks good then they'll expand the new change to more acreage.

I came in to make the same point. You can reserve a small part of your crop for the experiment.

This is exactly akin to how social media companies do growth hacking. Try something new out on x% of the users/crops, measure the results. You don't have to risk your whole farm on it, unless there is a huge capital expense on equipment.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#26

Post by bagels »

lostlogin wrote: post #23

World food production needs to double by 2050? Why? Population modelling doesn’t have a doubling in that time. I’ve read the link but suspect I need a EILI5. https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

Increasing worldwide living standards of living leading to increased consumption, and increased meat consumption?

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#27

Post by rmujica »

screye wrote: post #24
Animats wrote: post #5

The key insight Silicon Valley lacks about agriculture is that there is little potential for a big win. Major improvements mean 10% of something, not 10x. US agriculture is already highly efficient. On the down side, there's potential for a big loss if you screw up.

I'd go 1 level deeper than that. Agriculture isn't a real market at all. It is closer to govt infrastructure contract work, than selling a commodity. There are no wins, juts minimized losses. Govts decide farming subsidies, allowable environmental damage & even exploitative immigrant labor practices based on the prices their voters would be willing to pay. This means that an order of magnitude improvement in efficien…

Colombian*

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#28

Post by boomanaiden154 »

> To feed a growing population, we need to double global food production by 2050, but we can't double agricultural acres. We need more food (or more high-quality calories and nutrients) per acre. That's where technology comes in.

While it's true that increasing global food production is one way to enable food security for a growing population, I think it's also pertinent to analyze the inefficiencies within our current supply chains. Food waste is a big issue[1] and efficiencies gained in this area could also have a big impact.

[1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123952

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#29

Post by ido »

lostlogin wrote: post #23

World food production needs to double by 2050? Why? Population modelling doesn’t have a doubling in that time. I’ve read the link but suspect I need a EILI5. https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

Perhaps improvement in the quality of life (=wealth) of the population as well as population increase? The world is incredibly richer today than in 1992 (particularly Asia, which accounts for about 60% of the world's population).

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#30

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

screye wrote: post #24
Animats wrote: post #5

The key insight Silicon Valley lacks about agriculture is that there is little potential for a big win. Major improvements mean 10% of something, not 10x. US agriculture is already highly efficient. On the down side, there's potential for a big loss if you screw up.

I'd go 1 level deeper than that. Agriculture isn't a real market at all. It is closer to govt infrastructure contract work, than selling a commodity. There are no wins, juts minimized losses. Govts decide farming subsidies, allowable environmental damage & even exploitative immigrant labor practices based on the prices their voters would be willing to pay. This means that an order of magnitude improvement in efficien…

What is so labor intensive about making cheese? I was under the impression some cheeses were produced with a lot of automation in giant factories.

Why can't Parmesan or Reggiano or Burrata be made like that?

Post reply on HN