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

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#121

Post by hinkley »

AngryData wrote: post #59

I think most people have no idea how thin agricultural margins are to start with. They see that some farmer bought a $500,000 combine and think they got money just to throw around, but that combine is expected to last the next 40+ years and work near flawlessly for every harvest while performing multiple different functions simultaneously in a dirty and uneven environment. There is no alternative to a combine harvest…

And don’t forget that many farmers take low season jobs for supplemental income to keep things afloat. Some only make profit from this extra work. Their farm is in fact underwater.

We talk about consolidation like it’s some evil conspiracy. But some farm kids realize dad is just holding into a dream that will never be true, and if none of your kids want the farm, on principle or because half a farm can’t support a used combine, then you’re going to sell or the kids will.

Gabe Brown, if I’m remembering his back story properly, ended up with about a third of his parents’ farm, split with his siblings. He got hit with hail every time there was a storm, and tried permaculture (lite) as a Hail Mary. He scratched and clawed his way out of the red and eventually reassembled the family farm buying from neighbors and siblings.

For his kids he established subsidiary enterprises and gave them to his kids instead of the land. Some stayed in At and some didn’t. One of his kids is slowly taking over management of his farm and he will get it eventually. Gabe probably has 10-15 years left in him.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#122

Post by tacitusarc »

I am friends with some local farmers who have a multigenerational farm with a few thousand acres, mostly wheat production. Talking with them, the single fact that surprised me the most is how short the lifespan of a combine is. Those things break all the time, are very difficult to repair, and parts can be insanely expensive, and only reliably last a decade or so.

Another thing is that no one makes equipment for hills and that makes their lives harder.

Another reason they are distrustful of new startups is they need parts and the ability to repair incredibly expensive equipment for about a decade, and often startups don’t last that long.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#123

Post by malandrew »

Biologist123 wrote: post #93
AngryData wrote: post #59

I think most people have no idea how thin agricultural margins are to start with. They see that some farmer bought a $500,000 combine and think they got money just to throw around, but that combine is expected to last the next 40+ years and work near flawlessly for every harvest while performing multiple different functions simultaneously in a dirty and uneven environment. There is no alternative to a combine harvest…

I appreciate the risk adjusted returns are poor. My question then is why farms as assets are so valuable. Seems like a disconnect somewhere.

I was looking into this recently and while I didn't find a great analysis, the impression I got was that financialization of the economy is a big part of this.

There are tons of tax benefits for owning land and for many of them you don't even need to produce anything or even have a working farm. You just need to own eligible land. Combine this with the fact that farmers are often capital poor so a lot of farmland is leased from those that own it. We basically have the same issue that renters are facing in modern urban America but with farmers.

Getting the financial industry out of assets we can't make more of seems like the obvious choice.

https://farmfolio.net/articles/why-is-bill-gates-investing-i...

https://www.knightfrank.com/research/article/2022-06-08-why-...

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#124

Post by imtringued »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #80
jeffbee wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask myself this. Are the vertical farm fans really this ignorant? Or is it an act? But there are also people who will pop up and advocate for "personal rapid transit" (they are known as "pod people"), hyperloops, NFTs, and all types of other things that are impossible, nonsense, or pointless. Vertical farms are just the latest of these: a stupid idea with no future whatsoever, but with a vocal army of online booste…

I think they are really this ignorant. The tech suburbanite ideas about farming are insane. Vertical farming is just one of the cringy ideas. Farm underneath solar panels instead of putting the panels on one side of the farm, monocropping is pure evil and farmers are simply stupid for doing it. Grow cover crops so we have to dedicate 50% more land for agriculture.

Would you rather grow cover crops or have soil depletion?

Also cover crops don't result in a 50% increase in land usage.

Here is a video that might interest you:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#125

Post by agtech_startup »

flopriore wrote: post #50
agtech_startup wrote: post #38

I launched a self-funded startup to focus on technologies I developed that have the potential to deliver significant benefits to indoor farming operations. We launched in 2019, yet, the pandemic put everything on hold for almost two years. This year we finally completed our first installation (paying customer) at a farm in Singapore. Yes, we are US-based. Due to circumstances and opportunity our first installation ha…

Honestly I seriously doubt YC uses algos to evaluate applications and automatically reject companies

I used the term as a general reference to applications not receiving full reviews. Given the tens of thousands of applications YC receives, I have a sense there's a filtration layer that is quick and, for lack of a better term, somewhat blind. I am not being critical of this at all.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#126

Post by agtech_startup »

throwaway98797 wrote: post #47
agtech_startup wrote: post #38

I launched a self-funded startup to focus on technologies I developed that have the potential to deliver significant benefits to indoor farming operations. We launched in 2019, yet, the pandemic put everything on hold for almost two years. This year we finally completed our first installation (paying customer) at a farm in Singapore. Yes, we are US-based. Due to circumstances and opportunity our first installation ha…

your pitch doesn’t fit into three bullet points that’s why it ain’t working

Not sure what you mean by this.

Pitch to YC?

Have you ever applied?

I think they do a pretty good job of having you describe things succinctly.

I can't criticize YC at all. Not everyone can get in. I'll keep trying until I either get in or don't have the need because I secured funding elsewhere. That said, the YC ecosystem is valuable, so, yes, I am very interested in coming into the fold.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#127

Post by ac29 »

paganel wrote: post #63
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.

Do tech people really believe in the vertical farming hype? Genuinely asking.

The best greens I've had come from a vertical farm. Its too bad - I otherwise think its a wasteful, inefficient technology. I suspect the high quality didnt really have much to do with the vertical-ness of the farm though, and could likely be reproduced in a more traditional greenhouse (with some supplemental lighting during the shorter days).

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#128

Post by fastaguy88 »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #9
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.

This is really funny to me after living near a place that has done exactly that for ~100 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Experimental_Farm

Or almost 150.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrow_Plots

The US Dept of Agriculture funds comparative research and agricultural extension agents help put it into practice. They actually know quite a bit about technology adoption in agriculture.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#129

Post by vharuck »

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.

If I picked up a random statistics textbook printed before 1990, I'd be very surprised to not see numerous word problems about crop treatments.

Re: Things Silicon Valley gets wrong about agriculture

#130

Post by SteveGerencser »

malandrew wrote: post #118
SteveGerencser wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cattle Trace is great for people with 10s of thousands of acres to manage. But that's not all that many cattle operations in the grand scheme of things. Most of us are small operations that don't interact with major processing plants and so on. We all know when someone has a sick cow and we all talk to each other. I was part of a pilot program using drones and RFIDs in Brazil some 10 or 15 years ago. It was cool, but…

I assume FAA Part 107, the basic license you need as a drone operator, wouldn't fully allow you to do what you're doing in the US at least. You're using the drone to go check on things you can't see from home. If you're lucky you'll be able to maintain visual contact with the drone, but you'd still need to go through the trouble to get a license. This is a shame really because it really sounds like a pretty good use…

I live on about 100 acres. I can see 80% of the land from my deck. The drone comes in handy for looking into the tree areas where the cows like to spend most of their without me having to go look for them. Besides, I figure if they won't do anything about the meth cook 3/4 mile away, they aren't going to care about me flying a small drone over my own land.
Post reply on HN