#Agriculture Industries

[bestagriculture]

Big Business Investments in Crop and Soil Management for Profit

In the realm of agriculture, big businesses are increasingly recognizing the pivotal role of strategic investments in crop and soil management for driving profitability and sustainability. The convergence of cutting-edge technology and traditional farming practices has paved the way for innovative solutions that not only enhance crop yields but also safeguard the environment. This article delves into the burgeoning trend of large-scale enterprises directing their resources towards advanced crop and soil management techniques, reflecting a paradigm shift in the industry. As agribusiness giants embrace data-driven insights and precision agriculture, the impact on productivity and profitability becomes increasingly pronounced. Examining the driving forces behind these investments and their potential ripple effects on the agricultural landscape promises valuable insights for stakeholders across the board. By exploring the intricate interplay between technology, economic factors, and sustainable practices, we aim to shed light on how these developments are reshaping the future of agriculture and business alike.

In the realm of agriculture, big businesses are increasingly recognizing the pivotal role of strategic investments in crop and soil management for driving profitability and sustainability. The convergence of cutting-edge technology and traditional farming practices has paved the way for innovative solutions that not only enhance crop yields but also safeguard the environment. This article delves…

[headspace-hotel]

Researching herbicide resistance in weeds.

A decade ago, everyone said rotating applications of different herbicides was key to stopping herbicide resistance.

Then, around 2015, evidence from a large study emerged saying that this actually causes weeds to be MORE resistant, so the best thing to do is to spray a combination of multiple herbicides mixed together at once.

Now that is being called into question too. Whoda thunk it...

Herbicide resistance among weeds is only getting stronger. Recently, scientists found an annual bluegrass (Poa annua) on a golf course that was resistant to seven herbicide modes of action at once. Seven. SEVEN. Amaranth plants been found with resistance to six herbicide modes of action at once. Twenty years ago, the narrative was that resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) was unlikely to become widespread; today it's the second-most common type of resistance.

What's more, plants are developing types of herbicide resistance that are effective against multiple herbicides at once and harder to detect. Instead of changing the chemical processes within them that are affected by the herbicides so the herbicides don't work as well, they're changing the way they absorb chemicals in the first place. Resistant plants are producing enzymes that detoxify the herbicides before they even enter the plants' cells.

It took Monsanto ten years to develop crop varieties resistant to Dicamba (after weeds made 'Roundup Ready' crops pointless). Palmer amaranth evolved Dicamba resistance in five years.

So I asked, "Why are all the proposed solutions dependent on using more herbicides, when we know damn well that this is going to do nothing but make the weeds evolve faster?"

The answer is that chemical companies have the world in a death grip. They can't make money off non-chemical solutions, so chemical solutions get all the funding, research, and outreach to farmers.

But why do chemical companies have so much power?

One of the biggest reasons is the U.S. military.

In the Vietnam war, all of Vietnam was sprayed with toxic herbicides like Agent Orange, which was incredibly toxic to humans and affected the Vietnamese population with horrible illnesses and birth defects. Monsanto, the company that made the herbicides, knew that it did this, but didn't tell anyone. The US government didn't admit that they'd poisoned humans on a mass scale until Vietnam veterans started dying and coming down with horrible illnesses, and even then, it took them 40 years. (My Papaw died at 60 because of that stuff.) And the soldiers weren't there for very long. As for the Vietnamese people, the soil and water where they live is contaminated.

Similarly, during the "war on drugs," the US military sprayed Roundup and other chemicals on fields to destroy coca plants and other plants used in the manufacturing of drugs. This killed a lot of crops that farmers needed to live, and caused major health problems in places such as Columbia. The US government said that people getting sick were lying and that Roundup was just as safe as table salt. (A statement that did not age well.)

So chemical companies make money off arming the USA military. The American lawn care industry, and the agricultural system, therefore originates in more than one way from the United States's war-mongering.

The other major way is described in this article (which I highly recommend), which describes how after WW2, chemical plants used for manufacturing explosives were changed into fertilizer producing plants, but chemical companies couldn't market all that fertilizer to farmers, so they invented the lawn care industry. No exaggeration, that's literally what happened.

This really changes my perspective on all the writings about fixing the agricultural system. The resources are biased towards the use of chemicals in agriculture because the companies are so powerful as to make outreach and research for non-chemical methods of agriculture really hard to fund. All the funding is in finding new ways to spray chemicals or spraying slightly different chemicals, because that's what you can actually get ahold of money to look into. It is like the research has to negotiate a truce with the chemical companies, suggesting only solutions that won't cause lower profits.

Meanwhile my respect for Amaranth is skyrocketing.

Who would win: The USA military-industrial complex or one leafy boi

[probablyasocialecologist]

A key issue in understanding who feeds the world is the distinction between calories produced and calories delivered. Simply because a farming method produces a lot of calories, does not mean that those calories are going towards feeding people. Calories can be wasted or channeled into animal feed, biofuels, and other non-food uses, complicating how we assess methods for alleviating hunger. Emily Cassidy and her team studied this phenomenon across major agricultural countries. They found that in India, for example, 89% of produced crop calories went to feeding people during the study period. In Brazil, however, that number was 45%. In the United States, which produces the most gross calories out of any country studied, it was only 27%.

Backgrounder: Small Scale Farmers and Peasants Still Feed the World

[thatveganwhiterose]

Tumblr, I promise you that animal agriculture does not need you licking their boots.

[reasonsforhope]

“Across America, more than 20 state legislatures are looking over proposed laws that would help guarantee citizens’ access to parts, instructions, and diagnoses to help them repair products—from smartphones to tractors—in their own homes.

Called the “Right to Repair” movement, it’s been growing in urgency and size since the turn of the millennium, and 2023 could be the first year in many where the DIY capability of the American consumer grew, rather than diminished.

In Colorado, a bill was passed along party lines in the State House 9-4, mandating that tractor and other farm equipment manufacturers provide enough parts and instructions to allow farmers to repair their own tractors.

“The manufacturers and the dealers have a monopoly on that repair market because it’s lucrative,” said Rep. Brianna Titone, a Democrat and one of the bill’s sponsors. “(Farmers) just want to get their machine going again.”

Certain dealers like John Deere (previously) and Steiger don’t allow, as part of the buying agreement, fixes at home, but as an article in the Miami Herald points out, repairmen aren’t on call 24-7 in the high plains of Colorado. One farmer had to wait 5 days for a service on his tractor that stopped during a crucial period in the growing season, where he could have been losing as much as $83,000 a day.

Right to Repair farming legislation is on the table or has already passed in 10 states in the Union, including Colorado, but also Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Texas, and Vermont...

It’s not just tractors that are potentially becoming easier to fix at home, but automobiles as well.

This January, the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair Act was introduced into the House.

“The legislation would require all tools and equipment, wireless transmission of repair and diagnostic data, and telematics systems needed for vehicle repairs to be made available to the independent repair industry,” writes Automotive News.

The bill has come to the House after similar legislation was passed in Massachusetts and Maine, where lawmakers wanted to beef up the right-to-repair and aftermarket auto parts industry, especially regarding telematic data and other information from onboard computers.

Just as it wasn’t only tractors and farmers who felt their right to DIY repairs needed protecting, it isn’t only mechanical engineering where right-to-repair is flourishing.

The New York state Senate signed the Digital Fair Repair Act into law in the dying days of December, ensuring original equipment manufacturers make parts, instructions, and diagnostics data available to anyone looking to repair a device, such as a smartphone or tablet.

“As technology and smart devices become increasingly essential to our daily lives, consumers should be able to easily fix the devices they rely on in a timely fashion,” Governor Kathy Hochul said. “This legislation will empower consumers with better options to repair their devices, thereby maximizing the lifespan of their devices, saving money, and reducing electronic waste.” ...

“After a decade of trying, we get two [state laws] in a very short period of time,” Kyle Wiens, CEO of iFixit, told Axios.

“Every single day, I’m seeing a couple more states file a new bill. And I think we’re going to be over 20 states very soon and those bills are moving.”

There’s also something to be said for the ultimate end which consumers of many of these irreparable items are forced to make for them; they end up in landfills. E-waste is a potentially-catastrophic oncoming environmental problem since it doesn’t really biodegrade in any meaningful sense, and recycling it requires technical dismantling.

The right-to-repair is also equally about keeping easily-fixable devices out of the landfills.”

-via Good News Network, 2/14/23

[noosphe-re]

Versatile Millstone Workhorse of Many Industries (Jon A. Sass)

[lesbianchemicalplant]

“As more growers have adopted drip irrigation, more high-tech farming tools to grow the peppers, they’ll tend to be milder,” Walker told me first, as a sort of throat-clearing exercise before the real explanation. “But there’s more to it than that.”

The truth is more like a vast industrial scheme to make the jalapeño more predictable—and less hot.

Most jalapeños go straight to factories, for canned peppers, pickled pepper rings, salsas, cream sauces, dressings, flavored chips and crackers, dips, sausages, and other prepared foods. For all those companies, consistency is key. Think about the salsa world’s “mild,” “medium,” and “hot” labels.

According to The Mexican Chile Pepper Cookbook by Dave DeWitt and José Marmolejo, 60 percent of jalapeños are sent to processing plants, 20 percent are smoke-dried into chipotles, and just 20 percent are sold fresh. Since big processors are the peppers’ main consumers, big processors get more sway over what the peppers taste like.

“It was a really big deal when breeders [told the industry], ‘hey, look, I have a low-heat jalapeño,’ and then a low-heat but high-flavor jalapeño,” Walker explained. “That kind of became the big demand for jalapeños—low heat jalapeños—because most of them are used for processing and cooking. [Producers] want to start with jalapeños and add oleoresin capsicum.”

Oleoresin capsicum is an extract from peppers, containing pure heat. It’s the active ingredient in pepper spray. It’s also the active ingredient, in a manner of speaking, for processed jalapeños. The salsa industry, Walker said, starts with a mild crop of peppers, then simply adds the heat extract necessary to reach medium and hot levels. She would know; she started her career working for a processed-food conglomerate.

“I’ve worked in peppers in my entire life,” she told me. “Jalapeños were originally prized as being a hot pepper grown in the field. When we were making hot sauce in my previous job, we had the same problem, that you couldn’t predict the heat. When you’re doing a huge run of salsa for shipment, and you want a hot label, medium label, mild label, it’s really important to predict what kind of heat you’ll get. We tried a statistical design from the fields, and it just didn’t work, because mother nature throws stressful events at you or, sometimes, does not bring stress.”

The standardization of the jalapeño was rapidly accelerated by the debut, about 20 years ago, of the TAM II jalapeño line, a reliably big, shiny, fleshy pepper that can grow up to six inches long—with little to no heat. TAM II peppers have become some of the most popular in the processing business. The 2002 paper in HortScience trumpeted TAM II’s benefits: virus resistance, absence of dark spots, longer fruit with thicker flesh, earlier maturation, and, compared to a variety of jalapeño called Grande, less than 10 percent of the spiciness. TAMs grown in one location measured in at 1620 Scoville units, while those at another came in at just 1080, which is milder than a poblano.

In conclusion, the paper’s authors wrote, “The large, low-pungency fruit of ‘TMJ II’ will make it equally suited for fresh-market and processing uses.”

DeWitt, writing in his solo book Chile Peppers: A Global History, says TAM became widespread in Texas after its introduction. “It was much milder and larger than the traditional jalapeños, and genes of this mild pepper entered the general jalapeño pool. Cross-breeding caused the gene pool to become overall larger and milder.”

[...]

After 40 years of the milder pepper enjoying increased popularity, virus resistance, higher yields, and a shiny new sequel, hotter pre-TAM jalapeños appear to have lost substantial ground. Exact statistics on planting demand are hard to obtain because growers do not want to tip off seed suppliers on how to price their products.

As the invention of TAM I and II suggests, “jalapeño” as a name does not connote a single breed or genetic line. There are varieties of jalapeño as there are of tomatoes. Mitla peppers are at the opposite end of the scale from TAMs, sometimes reaching 8000 Scoville units. (The A&M paper derides Mitlas since they are often wonkily curved, and need more culling.)

[...]

For heat seekers, Walker recommends Mitla and Early jalapeños; they’re called “Early” not because they were picked early but because, as a breed, they grow quickly and are well-adapted to cooler environments.

[...]

For gardeners and small growers, the Chile Pepper Institute sells seeds but results will always be complicated, since a hot, dry summer can turn even TAM jalapeños into weapons, and a cool, wet season will result in pampered plants. But how can you find hotter peppers if you are shopping, or looking to supply your restaurant?

Walker’s best advice is to lobby suppliers and grocers for specific pepper breeds. Ask a produce manager or a supplier if you can get Early or Mitla peppers, or if the store can label its pepper breeds. And ignore the bogus factoids spread by many online shopping guides. I found a Rachael Ray Show article claiming that bigger peppers are always spicier than smaller ones—which contradicts everything I had just learned about TAMs being deliberately engineered for size. Walker called that tip “misinformation.”

(8 May 2023)

I am officially going Joker Mode

[wachinyeya]

Scientists in Switzerland have invented a way to make chocolate healthier and more sustainable.

Typically, only cocoa beans and pulp are extracted for our chocolate bars. But researchers at the ETH Zurich federal technology institute have discovered that the cocoa pod husk can be used

Their new recipe involves taking what’s known as the endocarp, the inner layer of the fruit shell, and mixing it with some of the pulp surrounding the beans to make a sweet cocoa jelly.

“This means that farmers can not only sell the beans, but also dry out the juice from the pulp and the endocarp, grind it into powder and sell that as well,” explains Kim Mishra, lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Food.

[boschintegral-photo]

Countryside

[zanzibarhamster]

i feel like it's obvious that between bb and kaz, kaz is the one that's better with money, but it's also worth pointing out that left to his own devices big boss canonically proceeds to dedicate 75% of zanzibarland's GDP to defense spending.

for context the highest in the world (oman) is 12%.

big boss is that dril tweet about candles except it's guns.

[peripateticavian]

H5N1 bird flu outbreak response could be hampered by USDA, FDA turf war

[tinyshe]

Oregon [usa] has been shutting down small farms and market gardens in a pretty aggressive manner. They're even resorting to sending out cease and desist letters to these farms, using satellite tech to track them down first. Their justification? Water conservation and protecting groundwater. They're wielding two laws in particular to make this happen.

[ridenwithbiden]

PROJECT 2025

[probablyasocialecologist]

An essential component of the imperial mode of living is the expansion of industrial agriculture, which has gone hand in hand with land grabs and dispossession, expands the power of agricultural and food corporations, and requires ever greater energy input. As a part of a norm that ties increasing meat consumption to rising prosperity, expansion is accompanied by a ballooning system of industrial animal farming and the massive ethical and ecological problems that are part and parcel of this practice. Producing one calorie of poultry meat requires four times that amount in energy input; pork and milk require fourteen times the final amount of caloric energy; eggs thirty-nine times; and beef, depending on the type of feed, twenty to forty times. ‘Today, more energy is invested in agricultural production than is gained in its form as food. The large quantity of high-quality agricultural products fed to livestock is partially responsible for this.’

The Imperial Mode of Living: Everyday Life and the Ecological Crisis of Capitalism

[homeofhousechickens]

Things I like

-Most birds are active and in good spirits

-no beak mutilation

-bedding in the indoor area looks clean and cozy and good for dust batheing

-plenty of natural safe enrichment. You don't want very tall perches for battery hens they could break a bone.

-Communal roosting

-cockerels used for meat rather than culled at a day old

-use of solar for energy

-when the birdflu isn't a threat they have outdoor pastures the birds can access anytime during foraging time.

-natural daylight

Things I don't like

-birds seem dirty due to communal roosting situation, they are getting pooped on basically. Changing the layout to a almost look like stairs would probably help.

-some birds still show evidence of feather picking, obviously not as bad as American battery farms but always room for improvement. They didn't have as much evidence of this when they could go outside but unfortunately they can't right now for their own safety.

-their feed regime might contribute to the feather picking behavior and poor feather quality if they are truly only using byproducts in their feed. Wheat,soy, and corn byproducts are harder on a chickens gut microbiome than better ingredients.

Things to note-

-Leghorns are more prone to neurotic behaviors than other breeds (this can happen when you take a flighty land race and turn it into a production animal) if they had a different production breed they might see less feather picking. I think they chose pure production leghorns on purpose for sustainability reasons so can't fault them for that.

Their feathers will likely always look a bit shit. White feathers are structurally weaker than pigmented ones and that goes pretty much for all birds.

The feathers you see on the ground are just molted not from plucking of anything like that.

What do you think fellow chicken keepers?

[fjordfolk]

people really be out there like “I wonder what this breed called a Shetland sheepdog was used for historically? alas it’s impossible to tell, we may never know” 🤦‍♀️

There is, believe it or not, some actual controversy regarding the breed origins and most of it (imo) stems from many people's mental image of a working sheepdog is a border collie, and not quite grasping that border collies are freaks and the way that we now work border collies didn't exist prior to the development of the border collie, and in some parts the way we keep SHEEP didn't exist prior to the border collie. There's also been some debate around old letters written by non-shetlanders after visiting the isles or talking to locals and having mmm interesting ideas of how people handled sheep over there. This leads to statements like:

Sheltie legs are too short to outrun sheep

They're also too small to grab the sheep and hold it (don't get me started)

A sheltie could never take sheep through a- (name specific type of herding trial)

Maybe they were actually placed with flocks on peripheral islands to keep watch for birds??

Shelties never existed and were made up in the late 1800s just for shetlanders to make money off of selling cute puppies to gullible tourists

There was an original sheepdog on Shetland but it was a much bigger dog (see reasons above) and the current sheltie was made up in the late 1800s, by breeding cavaliers to pomeranians and maybe a collie, just for shetlanders to sell puppies to tourists

...and so, clearly, they can't have been sheepdogs and we have No Clue what they were actually for (except scamming foreigners)

Meanwhile we know that traditional shepherding on Shetland relied on roaming sheep, keeping them off the property rather than on it (because that's where your crops are) and you'd only be rounding up your sheep a couple of times a year, and that island-bred shelties were smaller and spitzier type than even the current UK type.