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."

Comments

Farmer types, a question for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?

Re:Farmer types, a question for you

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Considering what happened in Oregon recently with Monsanto Wheat Experiments, I think maybe they need to improve the geolocation part of their data analysis.

That, and offer to pay for genetic testing of the entire agricultural industry now polluted with their test genes.

Re:Farmer types, a question for you

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stick to a single crop and not rotate like days of old?

Because we feel like it? What's it to you?

Different crops take different nutrients from the soil. Rotation allows the soil to recover, leaving it fallow allows further recovery and feeds livestock. This has been known for around 700 years, and was the case until a few decades ago. So, other than lining chemical companies' pockets, adding back what's been over-farmed, it's worth asking those that actually know what they're talking about.

The same reason anything else is the way it is - it's the most profitable. You choose to farm the thing you will get the most money for (based on a lot of different considerations - like for example will it even grow in your climate and soil type), and you optimize your operation for doing that. Plus, letting a field go fallow essentially means it is unproductive if you are cash-cropping, so it's basically costing you money sitting there. All letting a field go fallow does is replace nitrogen, and that is very easy and (relatively) inexpensive to do right now, so why wouldn't you? Also, modern farming tends to be fairly specialized, you need different equipment for different types of crops, different pesticides, etc, so changing over from one crop to another isn't as easy as you might think. In the old days, they let things go fallow because there was no other option - but once nitrogen fertilizer became available, you'd be crazy to keep doing it. (Note: fertilizers contain other things besides nitrogen, but that's basically all letting a field go fallow replenishes - something like clover will grow and fix nitrogen into the soil. You still need to put manure or something like that on to replace other nutrients at some point).

Source: grew up on a farm, though mind you back in those days it wasn't anything like it is now - the end of the traditional family farm was just starting to happen, and that's now basically complete.

schitzophrenic summary.

[nimbius]

so the company is using data analytics to determine where it should plant crops most efficiently? thats pretty cool. Chances are great theyve been using analytics heavily in their biosciences divisions for quite some time, considering output from computational modeling software is rarely terse.

this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.

are they really targeting farmers for intentional litigation somehow? there are plenty of other corn seeds besides roundup ready for example that farmers could decide to plant, and the only evidence ive seen to date was some guy who went to the supreme court to challenge the fact that he knowingly saved proprietary seeds. solution: vote with dollars, dont buy proprietary monsanto seeds.

is GM food dangerous? i really cant find any scientific data on the subject...maybe thats because research hasnt been/is still being conducted, but so far i havent seen a public crisis that indicates GM is a bad thing, other than a tentative link to colony collapse disorder.

does monsanto have a history of using analytics for some nefarious purpose? Other than creating superplants i cant think of any.

Re:schitzophrenic summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

this might seem naive, but wasnt this the grand plan for the future? a supercrop that never needs to worry about weeds or bugs? that grows tens of times larger than its regular counterpart? I have a legitimately difficult time bashing monsanto but ive followed lots of slashdot discussion on the matter and it seems to be a pretty common thread.

Yes, a bit Naive. You are confusing alleged end goals with means.
Just because I say "I am trying to save the world" doesn't make it true. And if I create a product even with good intentions, that does not mean its effective or safe. That said, I'm not sure if anyone will argue that Monsanto actually HAS "good intentions"... neutral/selfish at best.

are they really targeting farmers for intentional litigation somehow? there are plenty of other corn seeds besides roundup ready for example that farmers could decide to plant, and the only evidence ive seen to date was some guy who went to the supreme court to challenge the fact that he knowingly saved proprietary seeds. solution: vote with dollars, dont buy proprietary monsanto seeds.

They do sue farmers who save seeds even if they didn't BUY Monsanto seeds, but simply had their plants cross pollinated with Monsanto's product. Its an easy enough google query.

is GM food dangerous? i really cant find any scientific data on the subject...maybe thats because research hasnt been/is still being conducted, but so far i havent seen a public crisis that indicates GM is a bad thing, other than a tentative link to colony collapse disorder.

The reason you don't see studies pointing out issues with Monsanto's products is because to use them you need to sign a EULA (effectively) which strictly prohibits you from publishing anything against their products (or even testing them at least in certain ways).

solution: vote with dollars, dont buy proprietary monsanto seeds.

I 100% agree that people should vote with their dollars! However, farmers being sued didn't necessarily buy anything from Monsanto, so they CANT. And if they keep GMO's from being labeled, they are keeping the consumer in the dark and therefore eliminating the end consumer's right to vote with their dollars too!

So if this company is so good/neutral and the GMOs are so safe, why is there such a level of (can't think of a better word) paranoia on Monsanto's part? If there is nothing wrong with GMOs why oppose labeling? If its all so safe why prohibit information to be put out form independent studies?