#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…

[probablyasocialecologist]

The global food economy is massively inefficient. The need for standardized products means tons of edible food are destroyed or left to rot. This is one reason more than one-third of the global food supply is wasted or lost; for the U.S., the figure is closer to one-half. The logic of global trade results in massive quantities of identical products being simultaneously imported and exported—a needless waste of fossil fuels and an enormous addition to greenhouse gas emissions. In a typical year, for example, the U.S. imports more than 400,000 tons of potatoes and 1 million tons of beef while exporting almost the same tonnage. The same is true of many other food commodities and countries. The same logic leads to shipping foods worldwide simply to reduce labor costs for processing. Shrimp harvested off the coast of Scotland, for example, are shipped 6,000 miles to Thailand to be peeled, then shipped 6,000 miles back to the UK to be sold to consumers. The supposed efficiency of monocultural production is based on output per unit of labor, which is maximized by replacing jobs with chemical- and energy-intensive technology. Measured by output per acre, however—a far more relevant metric—smaller-scale farms are typically 8 to 20 times more productive.

5 November 2024

[elbiotipo]

This is from one of my worldbuilding posts in response at the bias of temperate climates being considered the "default" in fantasy and fiction in general (so these are tags in response to tags in another post but try to keep up)

This is very true, and as someone from a subtropical region who has never truly seen snow, to me the danger that cold weather represents is, let's use the word, "exotic" when I read into writing. Things do get cold here, but the fact that there are entire months where things get cold enough that nothing grows and staying outside can outright kill you is not something I would get used to easily.

This is ESPECIALLY relevant when you're doing worldbuilding on pre-industrial societies. Nowadays we can go to the store in the deep of winter, but when most of the population is composed of subsistence farmers, the above dangers are more than fatal. In temperate regions, a great deal of effort in daily life was spent into getting ready for the winter; storing harvested crops and meat in one way or the other until the spring. A harsh winter or a bad harvest could and did mean people just starved to death.

In tropical and subtropical regions, you don't usually get a season where nothing grows. Actually, you do, most have a rainy and a dry season of some sort (in my region, you do get a relatively strong winter, but the main difference is rainy/dry), so the pace of life is regulated by rain, and there's also a greater diversity of crops (see for example the milpa/three sisters system of the Americas, still used today). It doesn't necessarily mean that tropical and subtropical regions had better food all the time, since they also faced the same challenges of dealing with bad harvests, droughts, and more (DROUGHTS, especially, are the kind of civilization-ending event), but they did sustain overall high population densities and extensive systems of irrigation. I'll admit I read this long ago and don't know where to look at it, but a good comparison would be the higher density of villages and small plots in rice-producing regions compared to those in more temperate places. The Americas were completely disrupted by European colonization so it's hard to make sweeping statements about them but if we believe 1491's research (there are some points in dispute there), they had very, very high population densities, and partly this must be because of year-round cultivation of a great variety of tropical and subtropical crops.

Indeed, cold places far away from fishing, for example, often had low populations because there simply wasn't enough reliable crops to support them. Until the widespread adoption of a calorie rich crop that can tolerate cold conditions. Can you guess which it is?

[thatveganwhiterose]

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

[horseimagebarn]

https://archive.is/LAwFB <- Here is a link to a 2023 National Geographic article about horse slaughter in the Americas. You might be interested to know that thoroughbreds actually make up only 10% of horses exported for slaughter. The vast majority of retired racehorses in the US and the UK that aren't kept for breeding purposes go on to second careers or are simply kept as companion animals. This is *NOT* to say that the racing industry doesn't have horrific problems, but rather that even when they don't succeed on the racetrack, the horses are still worth more alive than they are as food. Quarter horses, on the other hand...YEESH. Let's just say the Jockey Club keeps meticulous track of how many thoroughbreds are foaled every year. The AQHA...doesn't.

for context this ask is referring to this post i made yesterday

i have much to say on this and ended up just rambling about horse which i love to do when given an intriguing ask so here we go

punctuation and capitalization usage for ease of understanding GO!

sorry if this makes no sense i just went crazy and hate proofreading

Thoroughbreds are not the only racehorse, their racing is just the most popular kind in the States. Quarter horses are actually a bit faster than thoroughbreds, but that makes their races quicker and less entertaining to rich betters. Standardbreds and arabians are also popular racers, but standardbreds are used more in harness racing, and arabians for endurance. 

"Pinhooking" is a popular thing in horse racing. According to horseologyinc.com, "Pinhooking is a fancy term that describes the practice of buying a horse at one stage of development and selling them at the next." This makes it difficult to track every single horse's purchase history, because there are just so many transactions being made. The Jockey Club can track births, sure, and it can do its best to track deaths, but the births of potential successful racehorses are much more interesting to the organization than the deaths of former ones. Even if deaths were monitored with the same vigor, horses would slip through the cracks, and oh brother, they already do. It's impossible to expect an organization that facilitates the often-fatal exploitation of horses to be stalwart advocates of its victims' aftercare. Even if they witnessed the slaughter of thoroughbreds in Canadian slaughterhouses, what's the difference between a horse that died for meat and a horse that died for the entertainment of the bourgeoisie? They both end up dead, and the Jockey Club doesn't deal in dead horses, it deals in eventually dead horses.

Many racehorses are later sold out of the industry once they've served their two potential purposes: racing and breeding. Once a horse is sold to a private owner that isn't involved in the racing industry—including the Amish, who often buy ex-racers as work animals—the Jockey Club's influence, if there is any, can falter. Sure, some are treated with a lavish retirement at Old Friends or Akindale or even Puerto Rico, but many, many horses do not have that privilege. Horses do not have the pull (pun intended) they once did in American society. They are a luxury to most, as their cost of upkeep and maintenance often outweighs their function when compared to machinery that performs similar jobs. Kill buyers—those who buy horses in bulk to export for slaughter—buy horses private owners either cannot or do not want to keep investing in their companion. More often than not, they don't register their purchase of horses for slaughter with the Jockey Club, nor really with anyone, as laws surrounding horse slaughter and export are murky at best and nonexistent at worst. I want to provide you more evidence of this, but the Jockey Club's website keeps timing out for me, so I'll try later.

USA Today estimates that 7500 thoroughbreds are slaughtered for meat each year. When compared to the 57000 total horses slaughtered annually, this resembles the 10% number you gave me. Compare this to the 600 thoroughbreds estimated to die each year in race-related accidents. The racing industry is constantly criticized for its mistreatment of its horses and the deadliness of its sport, and yet, slaughter claims over 12 times the amount of thoroughbreds each year—likely more. I personally believe that it is very unlikely that kill buyers accurately judge the breeds of the horses they slaughter. These buyers process thousands of horses each year and transport them in large quantities. They do not care what breed the horses they process are. It's the meat that matters. Similarly, these kill buyers are not checking the lip of every horse they buy to see if it's a former racer. Some might, if they're looking to "ransom" some of their horses off—sell the horses to non-slaughterhouse buyers for much higher than the ~60 cents/pound they get for their meat—but it's unlikely. Mike McBarron, a long-time kill buyer in Texas, told USA Today Sports, "It’s just a job to me. I mean, I don’t attach myself to them." He went on to say that he has "bought and sold retired racehorses for slaughter [and] sent tens of thousands of horses to slaughter plants," generating "millions of dollars in revenue." To kill buyers like McBarron, these horses are products to be processed and shipped, not beings whose personalities and histories are meant to be known, or whose breeds are significant to their new function: becoming meat.

And this is just thoroughbreds. Quarter horses are the most popular breed of horse in the U.S., and, like you said, there's even less regulation of the sales of other breeds. I just think it's unfair to say that the Jockey Club cares enough about its horses that they don't end up in slaughterhouses.

By the way, I don't think it is morally wrong to eat horses. Cows, pigs, goats, sheep, chickens, and other livestock animals can have just as much personality as your average horse and are not afforded the public outcry horses receive when it comes to their slaughter. Horse lives are not worth more than other "farm" animals just because they are viewed as companion animals while the rest are not. I instead have a problem with the fact that horses used for meat are often severely mistreated, just as they are in the racing industry. Regulations have been put in place to improve the lives of many meat animals, and yet, the government largely shuffles its feet when it comes to regulating the production of horse meat. This encourages kill buyers to do shady business and mistreat their animals, exploiting a loophole in the government's weak implication of a ban on horse meat: in their 2006 budget, U.S. Congress decided to simply forbid the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) from using taxpayers' money to inspect horse slaughter plants. This sort of banned horse slaughter by preventing horse slaughter plants from being USDA inspected or approved, making them functionally illegal, as they require regulation, but meant that kill buyers could instead simply collect horses and then sell them to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada for slaughter. This encourages a shitty, shady business of horse exportation, leading to horrible temporary holding conditions as horses wait to be transported across country borders in equally horrible trucks and trailers. If the industry was legal and faced the same regulations as other types of meat production, these horses would have much better lives. Though I am very aware of the many, many flaws of the meat industry, denying horses even those basic protections that are applied to meat animals, especially large ones like cows, only encourages abuse and mistreatment. Big advancements in animal welfare in the meat industry have been made in the past few decades, and it is not the ethical win many think it is to force horses to live in horrible, barely-legal conditions because it is hard to accept the facts that:

Horses are large, hard-to-care-for animals whose main function in American society has mostly become obsolete 

Even in their current major societal role, racing, they face massive amounts of abuse and mistreatment

There are a LOT of horses in the world (so many, in fact, that they sometimes become pests or invasive species)

Every single horse will not have the privilege of a forever home that can provide for them the utmost care

Some horses can live satisfactory lives as PROPERLY CARED FOR meat animals if given the chance

Horse meat is a valid, valued food source for many people

I know it's crazy for The Horse Blog to say they support horse meat production and consumption, but honestly, I've tried my best to express on this blog that no being is greater than another and all things deserve equal love and appreciation. It would be hypocritical of me to condemn horse meat consumption when I myself eat the meat of cows, pigs, and chickens, who are just as valuable as horses in the grand scheme of the universe. All living things have value that is not contingent on their perceived purpose or use. Meat consumption is a necessity for many in the world, both human and inhuman, and the consumption of meat on its own is not unethical. To live is to consume, be it meat, vegetation, oxygen, water, time, space, etc. and I believe that we should strive not to abhor consumption but do it ethically, in alignment with our world's fragile, functional balance of creation and destruction, and with utmost respect for that which we consume. Horses deserve that respect.

anyway yeah feel free to engage with me on this i like discussing stuff like this and spent way too long thinking and researching and stuff

Sources: "Horses go from racetracks to slaughterhouses: 'It's just a job to me'" by Josh Peter with USA Today

"Horse racing deaths mount as states spend billions to keep tracks alive" by Frank Esposito and Stephen Edelson with USA Today Network

"What is Pinhooking? The History and Practice of Pinhooking." from horseologyinc.com

"Horse Racing Fact Sheet" from fundforhorses.org

ps this wasnt made as an attack on you anon or anything i like to write horse essay style posts sometimes like this and this because its honestly super fun for me and i love receiving these types of asks i am always happy to talk about horse stuff at length like this because i end up learning a lot about these subjects too as i go

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this Chicago Tribune story:

Thirty million acres of unprotected wetlands across the Upper Midwest, including 1 million acres in Illinois, are at risk of being destroyed largely by industrial agriculture — wetlands that provide nearly $23 billion in annual flood mitigation benefits, according to new research. In the long term, these wetlands could prevent hundreds of billions of dollars of flood damage in the region.

“Wetlands can help mitigate flooding and save our homes. They can help clean our water. They can capture and store carbon. They support hunting and recreation, and they support the commercial fishing industry by providing habitats for the majority of commercially harvested fish and shellfish,” said study author Stacy Woods, research director for the Food and Environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nationwide nonprofit science advocacy organization.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court stripped protections from freshwater and inland wetlands in its Sackett v. EPA ruling, allowing private property development in wetland areas that don’t have a “continuous surface connection” to permanent bodies of water.

But environmentalists say wetlands are rarely truly “isolated” from a watershed, no matter how inland they may be. Some experts worry that after President-elect Donald Trump takes office, he might roll back President Joe Biden’s effort to counter the Supreme Court ruling by expanding federal regulations of small bodies of water and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Undoing those protections would leave control of wetlands up to the states, some of which — like Illinois — have no strong safeguards in place.

Half of the nation’s wetlands have disappeared since the 1780s, and urban development and agriculture in Illinois have destroyed as much as 90% of its original marshy, swampy land. Nowadays, its wetlands are vastly outnumbered by the 26.3 million acres of farmland that cover almost three-fourths of the state.

While urban and rural development and climate change disturbances contribute to the problem, the expansion of large-scale agriculture poses the biggest threat to wetlands, according to the study. Advocates see an opportunity in the next farm bill in Congress to support and encourage farmers to protect wetlands on their property.

A wetland is a natural sponge, said Paul Botts, president and executive director of The Wetlands Initiative, a Chicago-based nonprofit that designs, restores and creates wetlands.

By absorbing water from storms and flooding, wetlands can effectively reduce the risks and destructive effects of these disasters, which are intensifying and becoming more frequent because of a changing climate. Previous research estimated that 1 acre of lost wetland can cost $745 in annual flood damage to residential properties, an amount that taxpayers fund through local, state or federal assistance programs.

[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)

[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.

[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

[boschintegral-photo]

Countryside

[peripateticavian]

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

[democracyunderground]

PROJECT 2025

[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.

[marcosrfotografia]

Tirando de archivo. Nave agrícola entre la niebla en la carretera de Nuevo Naharros (Salamanca).

[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?