- Agriculture.com Community
- Announcements & Forum Help
- Farm Business
- Young & Beginning Farmers
- Cattle Talk
- Crop Talk
- Hog Talk
- Machinery Talk
- Machinery Marketplace
- Shops, buildings and bins
- Ask the SF Engineman!
- Precision Agriculture
- People & Rural Life
- Ag Forum
- Women In Ag
01-04-2019 09:04 PM - edited 01-04-2019 09:53 PM
It's here...now to deploy it...10 years or less
01-05-2019 07:30 AM
https://www.agriculture.com/markets/newswire/tuna-sells-for-record-3-mln-in-auction-at-tokyos-new-fi... We need to figure out a way to grow tuna. But in reference to the article you linked. So the photosynthesis process will allow 20-40% increase in production. But...
1) Will the consumer accept it? Does it qualify as "organic"?
2) What about increased demands for inputs like water, fertility, etc. will they be affordable/ or even available?
On a somewhat related note. How many acres are using govt subsidized water to produce crops of which surplus amounts are grown? Then growers of those crops rely on govt subsidies to remain profitable? I really don't know, I'm looking for an honest, knowledgable answer.
3) I guess we no longer need to worry about cropland losses due to urban sprawl, etc.
Not trying to stir the pot, I hope for some honest, intelligent discussion. TIA
01-05-2019 07:55 AM
Commodity farming is so unbusinesslike. For examples, I talked to a guy that used to sell boars all the time and asked if he still had any. He said "I now concentrate on show pigs, but occasionally custom raise breeding stock....I got burnt with 7 cent boars too many times" well he finally got it. The ECM went out on my pickup, dealer said " $500 junkyard, $1,000 remanned or $2,000 new from GM" I chose the $1,000 remanned one and it took a little longer to get, because they don`t sell enough that they remanufacture one starting at the time that it`s ordered. So they got, I suppose they were stuck with too many in stock that became obsolete.
Farmers on the other hand grow crops or put up hog buildings with the idea that it`s always worked out and always will. I don`t have a answer (well one that`s politically doable anyway) . So long as supply overwhelms demand, we will continue to be "price takers" on what is offered. During times of the year there`s high uncertainity, a price close to profitable will be offered and more years than not taken away as things look more sure.
01-05-2019 08:00 AM - edited 01-05-2019 08:02 AM
Well, with 50% larger stems from these new plants, It would be a harvest nightmare. I however, won't be losing any sleep over this.
The article also said they will make sure a couple of third world locations would have access to this technology. Yeah right....for a price. It certainly won't be free.
01-05-2019 09:10 AM
good read elcheapo,
I agree with you, we are not in the lead on this venture.... science is in the lead and always has been.
To survive the farmer has only one choice, accept change ................... and change
Be it mechanical power, satellite guidance, fertilizer , genetic changes through hybridization or cell enhancement--- the farmer has no choice but to stay on the inovation wave. Unfortunately, change most often, does not have the expected outcome...
The producers real chalange is being the sane person in the process..... choosing the affordable, sustainable, economical 10 % of inovations that make sense.
How intelligent is it for this article (or the science community) to develope a process that adds 40% to yield potential of a plant and expect to be highly paid for destroying the market with over production.---- it is laughably
And is the farmer sane or intelligent for not seeing that the outcome of this "theory" is just as likely to be 40% less farmers necessary to produce food and fiber.
The money behind the science may very well think that relieving a truck driver from his job is liberating and good for him and his family. We are printing trillions in debt, we are way beyond rational thought.
backtrack my direction of thought-----------------------------------------------------
The one proven change in every one of agriculture's innovative new changes has been "less labor needed to produce food and fiber". That is the only consistent outcome.
It reminds me of a couple of different times in my history
1. Fertilizer boom in the 60's created over supply for decades. Fed the beef industry and drove irrigation development to crippling economic positions.
2. and in 2011 we specifically got drought tollerent corn seed to play with in very extreme conditions, in a location with abundant controlled water and good soil. But in an extreme heat stress year... we watched this corn stay green and tall while others wilted in the heat....... but never produce an ear.... but over time and a little polish, that technology has become manageable and productive is fringe areas.
We should never assume that we know the outcome. Or that it will benefit us individually.
I can't even tell from that good article, whether it is a scientific discussion or the beginning of the well planned advertising campaign.