Monsanto Buys Climate Corp. Envisions Big Data Farming

cagraham writes "Agriculture giant Monsanto has purchased the weather analytics firm Climate Corporation for over $930 Millionl. Climate Corp, a firm founded by ex-Google data scientists and software engineers, specializes in hyper-local weather prediction which they use to recommend risk-management and crop-insurance policies for farmers. Monsanto likely wants to use this technology to boost their big data farming systems, and help better market their genetically engineered crop seeds. This news comes the same day that Monsanto posted increased Q4 losses of $0.47 per share."

Comments

ooook..??

[geekoid]

And? Why do we have a routine business sales article instead of an article on hyper-local weather forecasting?

and it's not prediction, it's forecasting.

Re:ooook..??

[khallow]

and it's not prediction, it's forecasting.

It'd be helpful if you could tell us the difference. I gather forecasting makes predictions/estimates of future numerical parameters over a fixed span of time such as amount of rainfall for a given area over the next day. Predictions can be more general, say, the odds of an event which triggers an insurance claim.

Re:ooook..??

[girlintraining]

It'd be helpful if you could tell us the difference.

There isn't one; the definition of forecasting is "to predict or estimate (a future event or trend)." I think he views prediction as more "crystal ball" and forecasting more "computer screen" ... but he tripped over his lack of finesse with the language and took a snarky to the knee.

Re:ooook..??

[the eric conspiracy]

> Why do we have a routine business sales article

Because somebody submitted it, and Slashdot caters to the Monsanto Derangement Syndrome crowd.

Re:ooook..??

[peragrin]

The problem is Predicting means using a computer and science where as forecasting especially weather is reaching into your ass and pulling out something. Seriously the closest weather forecasting comes at 5 days out is a rough Idea of temperature. maybe clouds if a big system is moving a big enough area.

At 48 hours out I expect weather forecasts to be about 50% correct but i still make plans the same

At 24 hours out it isn't to far off but they have trouble with more localised(county level) events.

at 1 hour out they are usually pretty spot on but then you can always look out the window yourself.

Re:ooook..??

[ShanghaiBill]

At 48 hours out I expect weather forecasts to be about 50% correct but i still make plans the same

It depends where you live. Here in San Jose, the weather reports for the last four months have been 100% accurate. Every day they predicted "warm and sunny", and they were right. We don't look at the weather report to decide if we need an umbrella. We look at the calendar.

Re:ooook..??

[s.petry]

And? Why do we have a routine business sales article instead of an article on hyper-local weather forecasting?

and it's not prediction, it's forecasting.

Because Monsanto brings out lots of emotional debate? Just a hunch of course.

Another reason could be the relation to the obvious conflict of interest in Monsanto owning such a tech company.

Re:ooook..??

[jd2112]

And? Why do we have a routine business sales article instead of an article on hyper-local weather forecasting?

and it's not prediction, it's forecasting.

The accuracy of current weather forecasting technology is still technically considered to be in the "Wild-Assed Guess" category.

Re:ooook..??

[slick7]

Monsanto is a conflict of interest, against man and nature. They want the same capabilities as the NSA but without the constraints.

Re:ooook..??

[Aryden]

ah but you see, many of us believe that corporations should not be blatantly malicious. Look at Monsanto's history of abuses and you will easily see why many of us have a deep abiding distaste for them. And yes, corporations should actually server some public benefit, but not banished if they don't, just fined/taxed/penalized not given the keys to the whorehouse.

Re:ooook..??

[cyber-vandal]

Given that society has granted them the enormous privilege of limited liability it's not unreasonable to expect them to serve the public good, or at the very least not make the world a worse place to live.

Re:ooook..??

[khallow]

Recall, if you can, that corporations' primary role is the efficient distribution of capital. The secondary roles are a neat and demonstrated way to organize a bunch of people and second, a set of means for legally compartmentalizing economic activity. It's not to make the world a less worse place to live. That just happens to be a happy outcome of these benefits.

Now, as I understand it, most systems of law do not require normal people to serve the public good. So why should the law require corporations, which are just tools for normal people to conduct mundane business and other activities, to do so?

Perhaps we should require you to serve the public good. If that turns out well, then we might consider enlarging the pool to other legal entities.

Monsanto rules the US

[Valentinial]

I'm fairly certain Monsanto is one of the big corporations that rule the US. Where is that chart I saw once about the major companies that own all the other companies. This has to be on there somewhere.

Re:Monsanto rules the US

[Tablizer]

In 50 years it will be Borgsanto

Re:Monsanto rules the US

[Valentinial]

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2013/15083-senate-to-end-monsanto-protection-act

Re:Monsanto rules the US

[the eric conspiracy]

I doubt it. Monsanto is about 200 in the Fortune 500 list.

Good sized, but not likely to be ruling the US.

Re:Monsanto rules the US

[the eric conspiracy]

That's unlikely since Monsanto's corn seed market share has never been more than 40%.

Re:Monsanto rules the US

[the eric conspiracy]

Monsanto is the largest seed company in the world, however they only have about a 20% market share.

The idea that they decide 'the steady march towards monoculture' or have a huge impact on the entire world population is preposterous tin-foil mad hattery.

Re:Monsanto rules the US

[idunham]

But how many of the 200+ above Monsanto have a real impact on food production worldwide? How many more or less decide the steady march towards agricultural monoculture that has been predicted by many to be the first step in a crop collapse?

Let's see who's involved in ag-related industries and above Monsanto:
Food processors:
Archer-Daniels-Midland, ConAgra, Tyson Foods, Smithfield, and a few more. I'm excluding bottling companies like Pepsi and Coca-Cola.
Manufacurers producing ag equipment among other products:
Ford, Caterpillar, Deere & Co.
Chemical/drug companies with major ag lines and a larger total size:
Dow (ag chemicals, seeds), Merck (veterinary), DuPont (ag chemicals, seeds)

Monsanto is in the same vicinity as Waste Management and DISH Network. I named ten companies that are larger.

fast forward a few years and I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that Monsanto is found to be skewing the forecasts for the benefit of their other products (only based on the fact that their track record shows that they really do have everyone's best interests at heart).

Monsanto will soon be suing over weather

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing Monsanto, they will predict the weather for an area, but if that predicted weather then accidentally moves onto your property, Monsanto will sue you for using the weather they predicted.

Here Come The Conspiracy Theories!

[Hartree]

Two great sources of them. Now in one easy package!

"Monsanto must be buying Climate Corp. to help the global warming denialists to let them keep destroying the earth!"

Perfect

[PopeRatzo]

Good to see all these big corporations known for their ethics and concern for the public getting involved in Big Data.

What could possibly go wrong?

Big data in farming

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto is developing its own big data system, called IFS, to provide farmers more customized seed suggestions for their farms. It uses a geographical and soil survey of the farm to suggest many very small decisions in planting that should raise yields: Maybe this type of corn grows better in a part of the soil, or the same one will work better when planted using different seed densities in different locations. The big difficulty comes from implementing said decisions: regular combine is not designed to switch seed types and seed densities on the fly, so following the recommendation with old equipment would slow down planting to a crawl. Thus, it only makes any sense for big operations that can buy the latest and greatest equipment.

Buying a weather analysis algorithm might hand them better predictions, which should make the improvements in yield for using IFS. That would allow them to both increase the price for the recommendations, and to make them worthwhile to somewhat smaller farms. The weather algorithm itself will probably also gain from access to very detailed rainfall and temperature data collected to support IFS.

Nonetheless, this is an acquisition, and anyone that has been around long enough knows that most acquisitions end up destroying value, not creating any.