Canon PowerShot S100
ƒ/2
5.2 mm
1/30
250

From the Monsanto Innovation Forum today:
“To support humanity’s needs, we will have to grow more crops in the next fifty years than in the past 10,000 years combined.”

How?
“In 2030, unattended vehicles will do most of the work, driven by imagery and remote sensing, with new inputs like x-rays of root growth under ground.”

“Corn has doubled its yield twice in history. The first came from the mechanization of farming. Then the move from 75 to 150 bushels/acre came from a new age in the science of seeds and fertility. Both of these advances were on an average basis, with one improved crop for all conditions. The average solution loses a lost of potential value, and the next doubling to 300 bushels/acre will take a systems approach for micro-specialization.”

This all makes sense to me, but I have to take issue with one detail on the 2030 vision — I doubt they will be using a Blackberry phone. =)

Monsanto is the largest seed company and the largest gene sequencer on Earth. They turn over their entire seed product line every three years.

In their molecular breeding program, they sample and sequence each individual corn kernel to detect variation across the cob, with a fleet of ten automated machines, each of which can chip one seed/second to look for 10-100 genetic markers per seed. They test the seeds at 7 million plots at 500 sites in 50 countries. In 2012, they moved from daily data collection to every two hours. It becomes a big data problem. They went from 3 to 8 Petabytes of data in 2012.

This year they will introduce drought-tolerant seeds with a transgene from bacteria. The product has been in development for 12 years with a combination of breeding, biotech and agronomics.

They also have had recent success with spraying naked RNAi (a computer-designed gene silencing technology) on crops to attack beetles and herbicide-resistant weeds. The biologics program is also working on the downstream health of bees.

In March, Monsanto will introduce Field Scripts which takes satellite imagery and soil variation data to drive variable rate planters so planting density and depth will be optimized (e.g., you want plant less densely in poor soil and deeper in times of drought). In their 2012 test, they saw a 5-10 bushel/acre benefit from this optimization algorithm, which would translate to $3-6B of value for the U.S. corn market alone.

They currently use UAVs to count stalks and monitor their health plant-by-plant on their research fields. They are the future of farm equipment as well. “Small autonomous vehicles are a win win. The current oversized combines compacts the soil which reduces yield.”

“Agriculture is set to undergo a series of dramatic changes as IT/Big Data intersects with Robotics, Novel Sensors and Life Science innovations.”

29 responses to “Monsanto’s Future — Farming in 2030”

  1. To be fair, the Blackberry in the photo may have been an Easter egg for futurists, as they showed this vision of the future farm, from 1931… from The Smithsonian:

    1931-country-gentleman-sm

    The flat screen seems impossible to me, but the rotary phone really takes the cake, predicting the way-future use in the Matrix of course… =)

    Corn is still their mainstay:
    IMG_1293

    The BioDirect biologicals program (think RNAi spray):
    IMG_1296
    IMG_1297

    Field Scripts… varying kiloseeds/acre according to the heat map on the right:
    IMG_1298
    IMG_1313
    IMG_1299

    The satellite imagery guy upgraded his image to the iPhone…
    IMG_1320

  2. monsanto: isn’t that the evil company who patents seeds and stops farmers from using their own seeds?

    quite evil ;( even if they’ve done good, their wrong-doing ruins it all.

  3. perhaps that is the party line. Many seed companies go farther still, because patents are worth only so much, and farmers could start growing their own seeds (like copying software; cue Bill Gates’ "open letter to hobbyists" ref), but Monsanto doesn’t and so they have to rely on a seed purchase contract (versus copy-protection).

    Help me out on the evil part of this. It’s an information product, like a cloud service. If a software company chooses to charge for the use of its code, is that evil? (…a dangerous question perhaps for linux works… =)

    Nobody stops farmers from using their own seeds; the problem is that modern crops can be found nowhere in nature. The open source community is relatively weak, and nature does not provide crops that can compete. So I think it’s monopoly power that lies at the root of the concern, not the business model, which is industry standard.

  4. I think some of the evil here is that the genes of Monsanto’s corn can blow over to a neighbor’s farm, and when the neighbor harvests his seeds and plants them next year, Monsanto sues them for genetic theft.

  5. It’s kinda weird, but every time I hear a complaint about GMOs, I take 10 seconds to do a google search and then I have to wonder if the people who repeat the statements have done any research themselves. My simple reaction is that genes don’t blow, but a few seeds can if they are not planted properly.

    Here is Monsanto’s counter:

    It is patently false that Monsanto sues farmers for the accidental presence of our technology in their crops. This misperception likely began with Percy Schmeiser, who was brought to court in Canada by Monsanto for illegally saving Roundup Ready® canola seed. Mr. Schmeiser claims to this day the presence of Monsanto technology in his fields was accidental, even though three separate court decisions, including one by the Canadian Supreme Court, concluded his claims were false.

    If they took the approach of selling sterile seeds, they would not have to turn to the law to enforce their seed contracts.

  6. what I know, is what I saw on food inc (movie). perhaps it was biased, but it showed monsanto in an extremely poor light. farmers were forced to buy seeds from monsanto and even keeping their old seeds were somehow illegal or would bring a team of lawyers to run the poor farmer into the ground.

    it does seem that monsanto is putting profit ahead of everything. I cannot condone behavior like that, not when so much of the world is still just barely able to feed itself.

    there are honorable ways to make money. monsanto is not one of the honorable companies. I wish I was wrong, but all indications are that the reports about monsanto are correct.

    stopping farmers from using their own seeds by suing them into oblivion cannot be excused. it just cannot. do we believe the mega corp or do we believe the little guys? why would we trust monsanto when there have been so many reports about their wrong-doing?

    articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/07/mo…

    who do we believe?

    if I had to pick, I would pick the side of the farmers. big corps with that much power tend to be evil. sorry, but its true.

  7. sorry, but there’s a nil chance that we can believe the PR spin that monsanto puts on their website. why WOULD we believe them?

    lets see some independant reports. are there any, that defend monsanto?

  8. I tried searching for just ONE non-monsanto authored article to support the assertion that they are in the moral right. I after half an hour of searching, I could not find a single one.

  9. wow. that is quite an amazing datapoint in its own right. It might well be true. Another hypotheses I have heard – they are the worst marketing case study in history. But the share of voice out there is an undeniable fact. It’s hard to find a defense for the 2 trillion meals served.

    Help me with the high level moral argument. If they sold software, is there a moral problem with the business model?

  10. this is food, not software.

    one does not need ‘computer programs’ to live.

    however, one DOES need food to live. to interfere with this is just not Right (capital R, intentional).

    interfere with the natural supply of food and you get a lot of hate. deservedly so.

    yes, they have different rules. when buying a product is optional, that’s one thing. but when you force people to buy your product, that crosses the line.

    don’t they make enough without the bully tactics they are (now) known for? how rich do they really need to be? and at what expense to regular people?

  11. Everything you just said is correct, especially the understandable emotional reaction to this framework… but it pivots on the opening dichotomy. And this is the crux of the debate. Monsanto seeds are code. (Corn does not grow anywhere in nature, and never has.) All products of value become code in the long run (with the physical vessel for the code migrating to $1/lb.), so this is the tip of the spear of a much bigger debate. IP laws are another area where the tension of the transition are felt.

  12. My great uncle was one of the original chemists of Monsanto… the boss had no money for the payroll and he paid them in shares… my great aunt had to work in a sweatshop for two years so that they could eat…. they all ended up rich. In those days there was a rotating board of directors, so every so often my relative, like the other original chemists, was chairman of the board…only in America, eh what? He was a lovely old guy, when I was a little kid.

    I just mention this so you could understand how painful it is for me to know that Monsanto is one of the most villainous, monstrous, harmful corporations to ever have existed, which is causing thousands of Indian farmers to commit suicide (this is just a tiny sample). For me this is like discovering that my dear old, Horatio Alger of an uncle was Heinrich Himmler. Watching the wonderful "Food Inc." made my skin crawl and spoiled a hundred lovely, childhood memories for me.

    There is a Spanish saying, "con las cosas de comer no se juega", which translates literally as "don’t play with your food", but in Spanish "jugar", "play" also means to gamble.

    The heart of our humanity in civilization is born in agriculture and naturally, being so fundamental to our deepest needs, physical, cultural and spiritual, it has a religious aspect… seen that way Monsanto is beyond blasphemy.

  13. Just adding a bit to this personal Monsanto memoir:

    A few years back incensed by what I was reading about the old family "milch cow" and giving free rein to my dark journalistic arts, I used a social-hack to fool then WTO head Mike Moore into giving me the private email address of then Monsanto CEO, Bob Shapiro, the creator of the field to dinner plate "Roundup" concept. We carried on a civilized dialog for several years.

    Shapiro is a very pleasant person to correspond with and I came to the conclusion, which I communicated to him, that he was an idiot-savant like the Dustin Hoffman character in "Rainman". A commercial genius, but completely tone deaf politically… When he got canned more or less for this defect, he was inclined to agree with my analysis.

    He didn’t seem to see the connection to his business model of thousands of Indian farmers, on losing their lands because of debt incurred by Roundup committing suicide by drinking the stuff and that millions of other Indian country folk who have been forced by this agriculture to flee to cities with poor sanitation, where they defecate in the streets, threatening a worldwide 14th century style pandemic. He couldn’t see what a storm this would raise.

    Finally I think if Monsanto could they would patent oxygen and charge us all to breathe. It’s like something out of Kurt Vonnegut.

    The irony of all this is that I have heard classic Marxists maintain that this is an inevitable stage in the completion of the capitalist cycle and that simply by nationalizing Monsanto and Walmart we would have a perfect, planned economy… in other words we are all dressed up and waiting for Lenin.

  14. "get your ass to mars"

    I’m reminded of that arnold movie where they sold air and had a monopoly on it.

  15. @David Seaton — fascinating! Thanks for sharing.

    On the Ag topic, perhaps it’s best to ignore Monsanto as the messenger, and think for a moment what the Agbio industry in general is doing. (For the future of web services, by analogy, it was easier to imagine a startup that pledges to do no evil leading the charge versus say, Microsoft).

    For the near term, I am interested in the potential info services for small farmers provided by cheap daily imagery of the entire planet… and in the use of biologics (RNAi and microbial seed coatings) to address the new "zero residue" chemical ban in Europe (a massive disruption to the $50B crop protection market).

  16. My impression from my dialog with Bob Shapiro was that he saw his mission on earth solely to "create value for shareholders" and could see no other responsibility to humanity and mother earth than that… I am much reminded of Hannah Arendt’s theory of the "banality of evil".

  17. @Steve Jurvetson I get the feeling, like Kurt Vonnegut in "Galapagos" does, that our brains are too big for our own good, that we are moving into dark areas where our scientific ability far outstrips our moral and ethical capacity… That we are setting in motion forces that we cannot control. I am thinking especially of diseases, pandemics. This is in the line of "all that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned".

  18. All please google Mark Lynas –http://www.marklynas.org/2013/01/lecture-to-oxford-farming-conference-3-january-2013/ Mark is an author on numerous books about global change and climate. He lead the anti-GMO movement in Great Britian in the late 80’s and 90’s and coined the term Frankenfoods. He was by far the most outspoken critic of GM technology in agriculture.. Enjoy.

  19. @just the facts2013 Thanks for the link. I wonder how much turning him cost. People are not starving in this world because of a lack of food. You could feed all the starving people of the world with what Americans toss into their garbage cans. Our problems are moral, ethical and political, not scientific.

  20. The big question is how Africa and Asia can produce the food they need.
    e.g. Africa has more than enough land (Africa has 60% of the world’s uncultivated arable land) and in somehow willing farmers to develop agriculture sectors.
    It is important to establish a link between agriculture and nutrition, by improving the nutritional qualities of food. Improved nutrition would address issues such as under-nourishment, which causes the death of millions of children. The title could be called: "Future — Farming in 2030"

  21. @jsbrain One of the more "interesting" developments in Africa today are the foreign corporations buying up the land right out from under the feet of the people: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/aug/31/economi...
    Or this (in German) where Nestlés CEO thinks the following:

    “The one opinion which I think is extreme is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution.”

    And

    “I’m still of the opinion that the biggest social responsibility of any CEO is to maintain and ensure the successful and profitable future of his enterprise. For only if we can ensure our continued longterm existence will we be in the position to actively participate in the solution of the problems that exist in the world.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTqvBhFVdvE
    In today’s Financial Times I read that Nestlé has been found liable for infiltrating and spying on a NGO. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d84a3b94-6af0-11e2-9871-00144feab49a.html

    Like I say, this all reads like Kurt Vonnegut on acid.

  22. Ah, Monsanto…

    I worked at a law firm that was representing Monsanto back in the early ’90s. Monsanto was suing their insurance company. Why? Well, Monsanto had illegally dumped toxic waste at an industrial site and had been found liable for tens (or more) of millions of dollars in actual and punitive damages. Because Monsanto had knowingly and willingly broken the law, their insurance company refused to pay. So Monsanto hired the law firm to force insurance coverage.

    One day, there was a big celebration in the atrium of the law firm. Why? Monsanto won the suit, earning the lawyers millions of dollars. It still makes my skin crawl thinking about that celebration. Morals and corporate law certainly don’t mix. Monsanto has earned their seedy reputation.

  23. @Kaets Ebut If we look at what we are talking about in this thread, we see that our sense of what is right and wrong, fair and unfair, just and unjust, is offended. These are values which have been developed in our culture over thousands of years. Our sense of humanity is offended by corporate behavior and that this is creating a strong backlash. Even if an investor is totally amoral, she would have to take into account what effect these feelings — even if she shares none of them — would have on her investments. For example;

    US pension fund eyes selling oil holdings – Financial Times

    By Pilita Clark, Environment Correspondent
    A US pension fund with nearly $2bn in assets is considering selling its holdings in some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies because of the threat posed by climate change. In what investor advocacy groups say would be the first divestment of its kind, the Seattle City Employees’ Retirement System is to discuss on Thursday a request from Mike McGinn, the city’s mayor, to sell out of companies including ExxonMobiland Chevron.

    The move is one of the most visible results so far of a campaign spearheaded by Bill McKibben, the US environmental activist, modelled on the 1980s disinvestment movement that pressed South Africa to dismantle its apartheid system of racial segregation. Mr McKibben, founder of the http://www.350.org/ climate campaign group, wants universities, governments and churches to divest from what he calls “outlaw companies”, whose coal, gas and oil cannot be safely burnt if the world is to avoid potentially dangerous global warming, according to climate scientists. “These are no longer normal companies,” he said in an interview. “There is no flaw in their business plans. The flaw is their business plans.”(read more)

    My analysis is that we are entering a political period of deep reform similar to that which followed America’s "Gilded Age".

  24. Last little personal note on Monsanto:

    I like to think that my great uncle, who was one of their original chemists, would be totally horrified by the direction Monsanto is taking. His lifetime day dream was to be a farmer, during his working life he owned a peanut plantation if Florida, but sold it because of the hateful racism there. When he retired, he bought a small proving farm from the University of Illinois near Albion and raised sheep… One of my most magic childhood memories (I was about 5 or 6) was of him waking me up at about three in the morning and carrying me down to the barn in his arms to watch a ewe giving birth to her lamb, it took about an hour and was fascinating. I just can’t see him approving of what Monsanto is doing to small farmers.

  25. A lot of good reading. Thanks to everyone. And to you Steve for bringing this subject. For me, (and I could be wrong), Monsanto and certain other powerful corporations give me the spooks. Just took some time to check Monsanto on the web and they surely know how to manage their image. But for the rest of the links related to them, wow, a lot of very bad stuff. And the affiliation between the FDA and Monsanto ?????
    Anyway, thanks again Steve for this quite instructive issue.

    denis

  26. @denis laframboise I second that! Wonderful subject, we could go on for days. Thanks Steve!

    I would like to underline, at the risk of being repetitive that I believe we are entering into a political period similar to the one that followed the excesses brought on by the post Civil War expansion known as the "Gilded Age", (Rockefeller, Jay Gould, Morgan etc). This period produced much wonderful innovation, but at the same time, poisoned meat, child labor and endless abuses. The reaction to that symbolized by Theodore Roosevelt, Upton Sinclair, Jane Addams, Bob La Follette etc, was known as "progressivism" and brought us federal regulation of the purity of food and drugs, transport and progressive income tax to name only a few.

    Summing up: The present day excesses following the end of the Cold War and the ensuing globalization, the radical tax cuts and deregulation of the "conservative revolution" and the "third way" are producing a similar reaction or backlash as the one that produced the 19th century progressive movement and any serious investor would be wise to factor this into her future calculations.

  27. Farming in 2030 will be hydroponic.

    Imagine lattice, strawberries, paprika, cabbage, all other plants with high water content and a fast growth cycle. They are and will be grown in hydroponic farms that combine fish and plants into one system.

    The scale is not there yet, but the hydroponic farmers definitively win on price as you can see in the European market for tomatoes.

  28. Topical news break… "Farmer’s use of genetically modified soybeans grows into Supreme Court case" — Washington Post

    It will be an interesting case to watch as matter becomes code.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *