Slashdot Mirror
GM Crop Producer Monsanto Using Data Analytics To Expand Its Footprint
Nerval's Lobster writes "Monsanto is more infamous for growing its genetically modified crops than its use of software, but a series of corporate acquisitions and a new emphasis on tech solutions has transformed it into a firm that acts more like an innovative IT vendor than an agribusiness giant. Jim McCarter (the Entrepreneur in Residence for Monsanto) recently detailed for an audience in St. Louis how the company's IT efforts are expanding. Monsanto's core projects generate huge amounts of bits, especially its genomic efforts, which are the focus of so much public attention. Other big data gobblers are the phenotypes of millions of DNA structures that describe the various biological properties of each plant, and the photographic imagery of crop fields. (All told, there are several tens of petabytes that need storage and analysis, a number that's doubling roughly every 16 months.) With all that tech muscle, the company has launched IT-based initiatives such as its FieldScripts software, which uses proprietary algorithms (fed with data from the FieldScripts Testing Network and Monsanto research) to recommend where to best plant corn hybrids. 'Just like Amazon has its recommendation engine for what book to buy, we will have our recommendations of what and how a grower should plant a particular crop,' said McCarter. 'All fields aren't uniform and shouldn't be planted uniformly either.' Despite its increasingly sophisticated use of data analytics in the name of greater crop yields, however, Monsanto faces pushback from various groups with an aversion to genetically modified food; a current ballot initiative in Washington State, for example, could result in genetically modified foods needing a label in order to go on sale here. The company has also inspired a 'March Against Monsanto,' which has been much in the news lately."
Because different crops are different. They require different care, different equipment, and have different market demands. That means different prices, different profits, and different outcomes. Instead of just growing and harvesting a crop, you're now managing a multi-year multi-stage process across several rotating plots, and a single bad year can disrupt the next several years of work as you try to rebuild that delicate year-to-year balance of nutrients.
I know the nostalgic image of the gentle old-time farmer is romantic, but the simple fact is that modern farms are a production industry. Just like any other production industry, there's a significant expense associated with every redesign and retooling for a new project. Generalization has some benefits (labeling food "organic", for instance), but specialization has its benefits as well (lower expenses).
Source: I grew up in farmland. When the wind blows just right, you can smell the manure from the pig farms. When it blows the opposite direction, you can smell the manure being spread on the crop fields.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Quite frankly the beef(s) *I* have is that is with suing farmers whose crops show the "patented" gene through cross pollination (because that's how nature works) and forcing GM farmers to strict contracts that don't allow them to keep seed for next years crop.
There are a lot of STINKY business practices going on here. It isn't just about the fact that they've bribed officials to write laws outlawing GM labeling or bribed officials to pass a law that makes sure they have no liability for *anything*.
Just because Monsanto invests in IT as a competitive advantage doesn't mean they're not acting like an Agricultural bully. It may be great for stockholders, but they're threatening the entire world's food supply by modifying plant DNA so that one year's crop cannot be used to plant next year's crop. That's not playing GOD, that's playing Shiva, the god of destruction.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
No, the argument is that we'll end up with a global GMO monoculture, which will lack the variety to withstand some new pest or other threat, and then we'll have a global famine.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
They make better crops, increase productivity, reduce pesticide use, and now they even use IT to aid in their nefarious plans! Oh the horror if it!
they've bribed officials to write laws outlawing GM labeling or bribed officials to pass a law that makes sure they have no liability for *anything*.
Could you please explain what you are talking about? What laws are these? There was recently a ballot initiative in California to require GMO labeling, and it was voted down by the voters not the politicians. Food labeling should be based on science, not superstition, and even for those that want to avoid GMO, it is unnecessary since it is already perfectly legal to label food as "Organic" or "Non-GMO", and since these foods sell for a premium, anyone selling them would be foolish not to label them as such.
I read through the decision, and it seems this to be the most telling part: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." It then goes on to state that the thing the defendant did wrong was using the plants that were accidentally planted on his land. In other words, the court seems to have decided that he should have destroyed the crops on his field after discovering that Monsanto's stuff had inadvertently been planted there. Now, I'm not going to say that Monsanto didn't have the laws on their side, because apparently they did, but to say those laws are right is another matter. Your assertion that the defendant was lying is kinda bold, as it implies he stole the seeds or had planted roudup ready canola and kept the seeds, when even the judge says (in paragraph 125) " That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs' patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was Roundup tolerant." The farmer's concern (now confirmed by the decision) is that if Monsanto's crap blows onto your field is hosed, because though Monsanto may come and collect the errand plants, it's not like they glow in the dark and are easy to spot.
I got nuthin
"I know the nostalgic image of the gentle old-time farmer is romantic"
It's also smarter than you think you are. When the genetic crops fail they will ALL fail and the bio-diversified crops will reign.
What seems a "no brainer" requires one, to ask yourself questions. Like what does the continual use of roundup do to OUR genetic makeup?
Crops have been developed for centuries for particular areas and are called heirloom varieties and passed down legally to each other for eons.
Now Monsanto wants everyone to buy only theirs. But your propaganda is clearly obvious. Superior? Super? Suspect.
Don't change my world Monsanto. Go steal the farms in India like you are doing...to the farmers here with lawsuits.
Absolutely shameful on US
Everything I read about Monsanto points to them being a strong contender for the Famine version of the end of civilization.
See, it's just this kind of hyperbole that drove me out of the environmental movement for good. It got to be worse than a fucking religion. Every company was evil incarnate, every issue was the *end of the world*, every compromise or attempt at reason was deemed insufficient. Between the wild-eyed Chicken Littles and the misanthropes who seemed to secretly want all humans to commit suicide to save beautiful mother earth, I realized that this was one aspect of the left-wing that I didn't want to be a part of anymore.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
The beef most people want you to have with Monsanto is that they're out to monopolize crop planting and eliminate organic food, or something like that, or that GM crops are somehow unhealthy. It's not so much beef as BS.
[citation needed]
Profit, not to mention a regulatory environment that might generously be called ineffective, has driven a headlong rush down a path with a staggering array of potential problems; environmental, nutritional, etc. No, nobody has died from eating GM corn, yet, but the hubris required to ignore the potentially disastrous consequences is well beyond the "what the fuck were you thinking" mark, IMO.