Palm oil is a commodity that generally evokes images of mass deforestation, human-rights violations and dying orangutans. In Indonesia and Malaysia, where some 85% of the world's palm oil is produced, more than 16 million hectares of land — rainforest, peat bogs and old rubber plantations — have been taken over by oil palm, and there is no sign of the industry slowing down.
Despite its bad reputation, oil palm is the most productive oil crop in the world. Oilseed rape (canola) currently produces only about one-sixth of the oil per hectare — soya bean only one-tenth. But oil-palm plantations still aren't getting as much as they could out of their plants.
The main problem is that genetic and epigenetic variables can cause some palms to underproduce. And because oil palms mature slowly, growers typically don't know for three to four years whether the trees they plant will turn out to be star performers or worthless wood.
That's where Orion comes in. When the leaf punches sent out around southeast Asia return, Orion technicians process the disc of greenery within and can send growers a report on the quality of their young plants. Lakey predicts that, if adopted on a large scale, the test could raise industry revenue by about US$4 billion per year. And, importantly, it could do so without expanding plantations. "We can get more oil for an equivalent area of land — this could help take the pressure off deforestation," Lakey says.
The world's most hated crop is not kale?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @04:04PM (4 children)
> “Organic” (as opposed to what? silicon-based?) is the worst marketing-inspired term...
I'm sure that you feel this way, along with many others.
It's a shame that what started before WWII in England and shortly after in USA as the organic farming movement has now been (mostly) co-opted by big agribusiness. The farmers and others that started the movement and use of the word "organic" were very much against using DDT and other chemicals on their land, sticking to traditional fertilizers and methods of weed control. This capsule timeline puts things in historical perspective,
http://theorganicsinstitute.com/organic/history-of-the-organic-movement/ [theorganicsinstitute.com]
First two paragraphs:
The organic movement is more of a renaissance than a revolution. Until the 1920’s, all agriculture was generally organic. Farmers used natural means to feed the soil and to control pests.
It was not until the Second World War that farming methods changed dramatically. It was when research on chemicals designed as nerve gas showed they were also capable of killing insects.
A good family friend was a farmer in the Finger Lakes area of NY (previously a lawyer who wanted out of the city). He was an early member of a group of organic farmers in NY and PA in the 1950s (when I was a kid) and this capsule history matches my memory of talking with him.
Latest news on chemical agriculture is new information just uncovered about the safety of Roundup, it's alleged that research was suppressed:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 16 2017, @06:43PM
Roundup is not purely glyphosate. Roundup's "inert" ingredients aren't all inert:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/ [scientificamerican.com]
One specific inert ingredient, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or POEA, was more deadly to human embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells than the herbicide itself – a finding the researchers call “astonishing.”
So be suspicious of those who keep claiming glyphosate is safe and cite animal tests etc. Even if glyphosate is safe according to animal tests it doesn't mean Roundup is.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @12:21AM
Which is why I really hate that they call agrichemical-based farming "conventional." What we call organic farming should be called conventional since it was the way to farm for >99% of the history of farming and what we call conventional should be called something else.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by butthurt on Friday March 17 2017, @12:38AM (1 child)
It's a shame that what started before WWII in England and shortly after in USA as the organic farming movement has now been (mostly) co-opted by big agribusiness.
No matter how big they are, they must still refrain from the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, and from genetic engineering in producing the food they call "organic," must they not? If such companies are to exist, it's for the better IMO that they have such food among their offerings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 17 2017, @02:13AM
Rules vary by state and country. In some places "organic" has specific meanings, other places it could be almost anything. Even in places where the rules are strict, I have no idea how good the enforcement is. If an organic crop is all of a sudden hit by some disease or bugs, the temptation for some farmers may be to spray...