Comments
ghandi3737 t1_ixmoye3 wrote
It's only good for the big agribusinesses who can afford it.
Most of the farmers in my area are just barely scraping by and many have left, retired or passed away. None of them have the money to pay for this let alone paying to take a tractor into the dealer just to reset the computer for a broken belt they can fix themselves, at a cost of several thousand dollars just to get it towed in.
This is definitely needed, but they need to help the small farmers and preferably tell the big agribusinesses to pay for it themselves.
They need the right to repair, they need the right to collect the seed from the plants they grow, they need to tell monsanto and any other company trying to patent genetics to fuck off.
Jaker788 t1_ixp9xb4 wrote
Even if farmers had rights to seeds, barely any if any farmers have bothered to collect seeds anyway. It's not worth the effort for the cost of seeds
rotetiger t1_ixnp15y wrote
The company Lindsay is doing things linke this. https://www.lindsay.com/usca/en/irrigation/
derpaderp_flaps t1_ixo15cd wrote
Farmobile has their PUC system that hooks into tractors for real-time GPS connected data of spraying/fuel use/etc https://www.farmobile.com/
Seen_Unseen t1_ixpiq23 wrote
Pesticides / fertilizer already happens precision based. My family are large scale farmers (in Europe) and the machines already adjust real time the need for pesticides as well fertilizer based upon visual and historical data. I never asked about water but I would be surprised that this isn't a thing.
rop_top t1_ixmlgzr wrote
To be fair the problem has much more to do with lack of incentive for implementation. They've been able to run drip irrigation for a looooong time. Its even better for yield. The reason many farmers don't do it is because irrigation systems must be maintained and water is sold to them for rock bottom prices. They can just flood irrigate (yes, literally flood entire fields) for a few bucks and have little to no maintenance costs.
rddtact t1_ixmv4o3 wrote
Also doesn't help that in most states water rights are use it or lose it, the system is geared towards waste.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/use-it-or-lose-it-laws-worsen-western-u-s-water-woes
bertrenolds5 t1_ixp0pyo wrote
I thought they were changing this
hollisterrox t1_ixn87bz wrote
I just road-tripped through the imperial valley in Southern California, it is a straight-up desert environment. Field after field was growing alfalfa, with flood irrigation or arrays of sprayers blasting water into the dry, hot air.
Wildly wasteful.
Uberschrift t1_ixnisxe wrote
Flood irrigation also returns much more water to the water basin. Increased efficiency does not always translate to water savings.
mtgfan1001 t1_ixo2dgj wrote
Another hurdle is the lack of networking in rural areas.
Userbog t1_ixmms53 wrote
I want to chime in as an agronomist with industry and academic experience in precision Ag. I currently work on irrigated vegetable farms in the southeast, but with familiarity of dry cropped grain production in the mid-west.
Most of our calories and fibers (corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton), especially those fed to livestock, are grown in dry cropped areas of the southeast and mid-west United States. That means that the majority of acreage is not irrigated and uses rainfall. The impact of soil moisture meters (tensiometers, etc.) for decision making in industrial scale production will be limited to irrigated operations.
As for nutrient analysis, the cost of fertilizing isn't in testing the soil. Most state labs do this for free. It is the cost of the fertilizer itself. The idea of testing in the field is novel and potentially time saving, but I imagine they mean some sort of electrical conductivity or total dissolved solids meter as a proxy for total nutrients. As far I know there is no economically viable way to analyze particular soil nutrients via a remotely operated field sensor. Shit would be pretty expensive, as is stated in the article itself:
"It may actually be cheaper to have people do the extra work than have sensors and sensor-based irrigation and fertilization."
You are still going to need somebody to mix fertilizers into solution for fertigation as with some vegetable operations. If it is dry cropped, someone is still going to drive the tractor to spread/spray the fertilizer.
I DO see drones and remote sensing helping tremendously with pest scouting and precision pesticide applications which would save money and time, and help to avoid resistance issues. Also, remote sensing for plant health can help optimize timing and amount of nitrogen applications in season, ESPECIALLY in big dry cropped acreages of crops such as wheat, even if the actual nutrient application is made by tractor.
edited: to clarify between remote sensing of nutrients in the soil vs in plant tissue
jvdizzle t1_ixn5wdx wrote
I worked in agriculture sensors for years and every time I see articles like this I chuckle a little. They make it sound so easy.
It mentions IoT soil nutrient sensors as if they already exist off the shelf. My company worked on developing one for years that could detect NPK, and it's such a niche technology, incredibly expensive to manufacture, and not very accurate yet. We're probably at least 10-20yrs out from having a reasonably cost highly accurate sensor.
As far as sensor arrays go, it's just not economic. Imagine having to cover 100 acres of fields in sensors. 1000 acres. One sensor per acre isn't enough for precision. At that scale you're looking at tens of thousands of sensors, for a medium sized farm. That's potentially six figures of investment, plus a monthly fee for the software. Most farms aren't going to put down that kind of money in one go, so companies that are offering IoT solutions are going to get a trial run in one small section. It will take many seasons until they even get access to a substantial portion of land. The sales cycle is slow. Most startups can't wait that long and will go out of business.
Remote sensing via satellite will always be more economical than physical sensors and I think the industry will continue to move in that direction.
Userbog t1_ixqmrxr wrote
Awesome reply. I agree, remote sensing via satellite or even drone maybe. Can you explain how the field sensors for detecting soil NPK worked? What were they actually measuring?
jvdizzle t1_ixrhi7p wrote
Existing solutions aren't specific enough right? This new tech was trying to improve specificity by targeting the conductivity of the specific nitrate/phosphate and K ions using nanostructures.
MD82 t1_ixmd223 wrote
I work on a golf course and use a VWC meter daily during the summer. It’s two prongs that go in and tells me the volumetric water content of the soil in a percentage form. It makes it so I can have novices be able to see what areas need water. My next goal is to have some sensors installed permanently underneath the surfaces for continuous monitoring.
kenlasalle t1_ixmbybx wrote
Advancements such as this and vertical farming always feel like they're just about to happen, which I think tells us they are going to happen soon. I look forward to seeing it.
Riversntallbuildings t1_ixnjveq wrote
Vertical farming is acceptable for growing nutrients. It will not/cannot scale to grow calories more efficiently. (Corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, etc.)
It’ll be great to see all of these innovations blended appropriately.
But, the OP’s original post, there needs to be more incentives for change.
bionor t1_ixps6pj wrote
Can you elaborate on this limitation?
Riversntallbuildings t1_ixqanl9 wrote
Sure. Because I forgot to mention potatoes too.
Any food that is calorically dense like corn, wheat, potatoes, soybeans, rice etc, all those foods are grown most efficiently through our current horizontal farming methods. Our crop yields have increased dramatically in the most recent decades.
Have you seen the size of some of the industrial corn fields? We’re never going to put those in skyscrapers. You can do the math and see how many buildings it would take to get the same acreage and yields. There is no advantage. Only cost.
Additionally, other high calorie foods like bananas and nuts, often come from trees. As much as I love the idea of vertical forests and floating mountains (Pandora reference) the root systems of trees usually make any sort of container gardening a non-starter.
So that leaves us with nutrient rich green leafy vegetables mostly. And there’s nothing wrong with this. **I’m all for more food being produced as close to the source of consumption as possible. **
As important as sustainable farming practices are, the reduction of industrial animal production is far more impactful. Excess animal production causes a lot of waste and imbalance in our food supply chain. Not the least of which is the over production of grains for animal feed.
I’m most encouraged for our future by the work that’s taking place in cultured meat and proteins. If we can grow the proteins without the animal, that is a significant shift in food production.
Which is a great final point for another calorically dense food. Cheese and milk, those can’t be grown vertically. (yet) A dairy farm, or even almond farm if you prefer almond milk, all require significant space. And again there is no benefit for vertical orientation. You don’t want dairy animals on the 50th floor of a skyscraper.
Riversntallbuildings t1_ixqvl7i wrote
I was just cleaning the kitchen and I thought of another calorically dense food that’s very important to humans nutritional needs.
Oil.
Olive oil, avocado oil, vegetable oil, etc. Can you grow any crops vertically that produce a significant, or even reasonable amount of oil in the space that you use?
CommonConfusables t1_ixq2fri wrote
As a vertical farmer I get more yield from less square footage than other farmers.
I can have a smaller footprint to maintain, which means using less materials for watering and maintenance, and double or more yield by utilizing vertical space for growth.
I also intergrow species, meaning I plant more than one type of harvestable plant in one square foot of space because some grow up and some grow down. Use all the space.
Vertical growth also reduces noise and acts as a barrier.
I am confused why you think it couldn’t be scaled?
Riversntallbuildings t1_ixqbdw8 wrote
Please don’t hear what I’m not saying.
I love vertical farming, and I want it to keep expanding as much as possible. It’s a wonderful addition to our food supply system.
Additionally, I love inter-specie growing practices. So many more farms need to use inter growth methods. The same is true for forestry methods. Plants grow better in a multi species environment. That makes harvesting a bit more complicated, but the sustainability trade off is worth it.
May I ask what products you grow?
What points do you disagree with in my other comment? (Link below)
https://reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z3l02v/_/ixqanl9/?context=1
[deleted] t1_ixp5ydd wrote
[removed]
chrisdh79 OP t1_ixm4tsb wrote
From the article: For all the progress our society has made, we’re still nothing without agriculture. But agriculture has also changed a lot: increasingly, an array of sensors equipped with relatively simple hardware and smart software are being used to make agriculture more efficient and sustainable — and given that agriculture is one of the main contributors to habitat destruction and climate change, this would definitely come in handy.
But unexpected help may come from the internet. The internet you’re using to read this now can be used for a number of different things, including connecting sensors and other objects.
The so-called Internet of Things (IoT) means that you no longer need to go out into a field to inspect it and take samples for analysis — you can leave the sensors in place and they communicate using wireless protocols. These technologies have advanced tremendously in recent years, becoming not only more precise and robust, but also cheaper — a key demand for agriculture.
It works like this: you plant a bunch of sensors to measure things like soil moisture, fertilizer content, and other parameters of interest. You connect the irrigation systems to the sensors and only irrigate when it’s necessary, and where it’s necessary. You can use the same approach for estimating soil nutrient levels and identifying pests, making the entire process as efficient as possible.
The results are, with today’s technology, striking: studies show that between 20% to 72% of water usage can be reduced with this approach, saving money and valuable environmental resources. There’s no doubt that the method has a lot of potential and can be used in most places in the world — although it’s noteworthy that some of the bread baskets of the world still lack access to reliable, high-speed internet.
thot-abyss t1_ixmu2ye wrote
The real problem is convoluted water rights. Many states along the Colorado River have a “use it or lose it” policy and do not incentivize saving. This same policy is used in corporate budgets, where if you don’t use all the allocated money, your next budget gets cut…. but in this case, your water rights go to someone else.
This isn’t all that’s wrong with the water rights, many make absolutely no sense and are taken advantage of by foreign governments. When the law does not incentive saving water and/or prioritizing agriculture crops that humans eat (not cows in other countries), the technology is not utilized. Water rights need to be changed first… and many haven’t been in over a century.
ithinkthereforeisuck t1_ixn8l3q wrote
All we hear is “take shorter showers” “plant low water landscape” and we all high five and hug, one day people will realize repeating lines like “no more pools!” “Citizens are the issue!!!” Have just been feeding into what corporate farms want you to say. It’s like blaming people for the plastics and recycling issue instead of the companies… you want to hear something dumb?
Arizona Water limits new farms by acreage, not water usage within AMA zones to 2 acres. So I can use 1000 gallons on that 2 acres or 10 billion and az gives you me thumbs up. You think they’d limit WATER PER ACRE instead. What’s worse is in some cases 10-20-30 acre land with 2 acres of drip irrigated trees will sell to a developer and the developer will pack it with houses which use more water than the 2 acre drip crops anyways. Oh but hey! If you’re a developer, hotel,or golf course you can use as much water as you want because it’s “watering” not “irrigation”. Smarht!
Not incentivizing water saving irrigation like direct root zone and drip, AND not making flood irrigating illegal is the issue.
People who say flood irrigation recharges the Aquifers, like… yeah some… but like, you still have to pull out that same/more Amt of water the next year… so… no, you’re just delaying the issue.
IdealAudience t1_ixnv73n wrote
AZ has 800,000 cows @ 20 ? gallons / day.. that don't need to be there .. and a lot of ridiculous cotton fields..
CA has 5.2 million cows that don't need to be there.. 47% of the state's water - https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf
alclarkey t1_ixpdbl7 wrote
> All we hear is “take shorter showers” “plant low water landscape”
Or eat bugs..."
boolpies t1_ixquvt4 wrote
our beloved corporations could never be the cause a pox on thee!
vt2022cam t1_ixmf0ap wrote
In areas that are already automated, this could be a big help. In developing areas, this might spawn cheaper alternatives that boost yields, and create more stable and predictable outcomes.
[deleted] t1_ixm7pgi wrote
[deleted]
FuturologyBot t1_ixm85fj wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/chrisdh79:
From the article: For all the progress our society has made, we’re still nothing without agriculture. But agriculture has also changed a lot: increasingly, an array of sensors equipped with relatively simple hardware and smart software are being used to make agriculture more efficient and sustainable — and given that agriculture is one of the main contributors to habitat destruction and climate change, this would definitely come in handy.
But unexpected help may come from the internet. The internet you’re using to read this now can be used for a number of different things, including connecting sensors and other objects.
The so-called Internet of Things (IoT) means that you no longer need to go out into a field to inspect it and take samples for analysis — you can leave the sensors in place and they communicate using wireless protocols. These technologies have advanced tremendously in recent years, becoming not only more precise and robust, but also cheaper — a key demand for agriculture.
It works like this: you plant a bunch of sensors to measure things like soil moisture, fertilizer content, and other parameters of interest. You connect the irrigation systems to the sensors and only irrigate when it’s necessary, and where it’s necessary. You can use the same approach for estimating soil nutrient levels and identifying pests, making the entire process as efficient as possible.
The results are, with today’s technology, striking: studies show that between 20% to 72% of water usage can be reduced with this approach, saving money and valuable environmental resources. There’s no doubt that the method has a lot of potential and can be used in most places in the world — although it’s noteworthy that some of the bread baskets of the world still lack access to reliable, high-speed internet.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/z3l02v/cheap_sensorbased_agriculture_could_slash_water/ixm4tsb/
WaldenFont t1_ixmk0lj wrote
I was driving through an agricultural area south of San Francisco this last August, during the height of the drought. I noticed the massive irrigation systems that sprayed water high above the fields of lettuce and broccoli. There was so much water in the air, it made a kind of dense fog. I think the real problem is our antiquated method of watering crops.
[deleted] t1_ixmtq45 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixn3d5r wrote
[removed]
MpVpRb t1_ixn8avw wrote
>studies show that between 20% to 72% of water usage can be reduced
That's a wide range. Also, it's only theoretical. I'll believe it when the measured data arrives
I'm optimistic that the tech will be useful, but the article smells like hype and exaggeration
cykelpedal t1_ixna8yr wrote
Soil scout, founded in 2013, has a range of 500 m / 1640 ft, 2.5 times the range in the article. https://soilscout.com/solution/wireless-soil-moisture-sensor
flash-tractor t1_ixnnwhp wrote
That's not even a great range either, LoRaWAN can reach 10km in rural settings. Meter Group's Teros 12 (which is available using LoRaWAN architecture) is a much better sensor too, soil scout doesn't have a particularly good reputation.
[deleted] t1_ixnffan wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixo1hzu wrote
[removed]
flux_capacitor3 t1_ixojd3q wrote
Gonna need a lot more PLCs. Good thing that’s what I do for a living. I think I picked the right career.
alclarkey t1_ixpd8r6 wrote
I guess the ground around the plants would be a lot drier too eh? I could take the tradeoff.
Skrip77 t1_ixpovyj wrote
I need to go to bed. I thought that picture was a carpet on a hardwood floor being chewed up by micro machines.
OliverSparrow t1_ixyhcq5 wrote
Not exactly new: here's one small UK based company but a Google search throws up thousand of them. I was involved in an early attempt at this in Australia. Unhappily, our rather large system proved too tempting a target for rifle users and they got shot up. Must have been an anemometer on the top, spinning away. This was pre-Internet, so we used meteor trails as "mirrors" to bounce signals: transmita constant signal, when the sensor picks it up its empties its bowels and that bounces off the ion trail.
GDPisnotsustainable t1_ixn0d1a wrote
I don’t even need to read the article…
- We need soil-water sensors continuously monitoring for what plants can use.
- Instead we are continuously watering and losing the nutrients to runoff.
No-Satisfaction3455 t1_ixn7hdn wrote
we'll need to change the way water rights work, and also laws for farming but sounds great. note convince the farmers lobby
UniversalMomentum t1_ixm63hx wrote
Precision targeted watering and pesticides look like a good start to make passive gains in agricultural efficiency.