Linux Foundation starts AgStack, an open-source agtech initiative | Hacker News Reader

Linux Foundation starts AgStack, an open-source agtech initiative

investableuniverse.com

324 pointsteleforce98 comments

Something like this is so sorely needed.

I've been doing some work in ag-tech for the past few years (having previously worked in ISP/telco, general SME web/mobile development, then consumer travel tech).

The tools available to farmers/growers for what should be quite basic things - i.e., web-connected weather stations and monitoring systems for soil moisture, frost alarms and irrigation control are terrible.

The industry is full of small players who take a look and think "I know how to build stuff with [Arduino/Raspberry Pi/Zigbee etc], I can build an ag-tech monitoring/control product easily".

So everyone builds a hardware product from scratch, then as a quick afterthought, a web app with an SQL database and Highcharts to show data graphs. You have an MVP within a few months, then a few paying customers in your local community, then suddenly your customers start asking for features you'd never thought of, like sensor inputs you didn't know existed, or combined displays of different kinds of data you'd never considered anyone would want, or needing it to be faster (SQL turns out to be really slow for this kind of data) or more reliable (bugfixing is hard when your devices are hundreds of miles away and connected via weak 3G/4G data links), and you realise your hardware and software architecture doesn't support any of this, and you'd have to completely start over to actually deliver something that customers really need, but you're out of money and energy.

The result is a lot of farmers/growers dissatisfied/frustrated at never being able to get the monitoring systems they need (some of them having tried 3+ different vendors), and a lot of new companies trying to build new solutions and going bust.

I've been thinking there needs to be some widely accepted open standards in the industry for hardware and software platforms, so solutions providers can avoid trying to re-invent everything and instead focus on integration of tried-and-true building blocks.

If this initiative brings that about, it would be a big win for everyone in the industry.

You appear to have had the exact same experience as I have. I work in the fresh vegetable side of things and the tools that are available are completely closed source and locked in. Even silly things like humidity controls and whatnot. there's so much potential for the ag sector to benefit from all these open data sources and systems.

You can't make money selling hardware with open API, though. It'll get cloned and manufactured in China, and people buying in bulk will naturally choose the cheapest option.

Nobody makes money in open-source selling software, either. Everything is either consulting, or SAAS.

Can you elaborate on the kind of data and queries that SQL is slow for?

Likely the sensor data being stuffed into a "standard" SQL schema -- loads of these bespoke solutions aren't fully dialed in with tools like timescaleDB, or Prometheus for these metrics. Even with slower (eg 240s interval) sensors the data builds up -- and slows the systems (w/o indexes).

The problem that arises with a lot of these "pull data from sensors, pump it into a database" is schemas and data integrity have to be kind of a second-class problem behind storage. When you can't push an update to whatever is ingesting data, and that ingestion tool is also ingesting with an invalid format, you can't just ignore the data (or fix the problem). So your store has to accommodate semi structured and unstructured data gracefully.

I do not agree that SQL is "slow" for these types of problems. I've built a number of systems that support this issue effectively. You _could_ use a tool that has schemaless/unstructured data as a first-class feature, but if your goal is to reduce complexity a Postgres instance is just fine. As with all data projects, indexing is important and needs to be thoughtful (from the beginning). For sensor data, it's also a good idea to think about data retention and removal policies immediately (keep your metrics/aggregates, move raw data to cold storage after a while).

Are you aware of any promising companies or start ups in this area?

I'll do a bit of self-marketing, but we at GeoPard Ag https://geopard.tech work on this. Have some big ag companies as clients

Wow. I worked in an agtech startup and this is exactly how it went. Hopefully your comment stays on top for others to read.

The best work I've ever done was for one of the biggest energy/agg companies in the world. They wanted an outside contractor to build something from scratch and ignore their normal corporate bureaucracy. They thought it was insane how much better the system we (I) built for them was than their normal in house tooling. The crazy part was the solutions were mostly just normal cloud tech. Postgres, DynamoDB, some AWS tools. They paid over a million dollars (nothing to them) for a set of tools that weren't technically advanced at all.

In my experience, the problems are a result of the manufactured constraints on the physical hardware/sensor devices. Mountings and power and connectivity. Receiving data from an array of devices into a shared storage system for analysis is a well solved problem. Receiving data from multiple sensors on a fixed interval, when the sensors may be made by different companies/work totally differently, is where the complexity lives. Combined with each company trying to build their own awful closed source proprietary data system on top of their sensors, you've got a really terrible time.

> SQL turns out to be really slow for this kind of data

I think this is just poor modeling. SQL is just fine for the work you're talking about.

> Combined with each company trying to build their own awful closed source proprietary data system on top of their sensors, you've got a really terrible time.

The more I think about right to repair, the more I become convinced it's a symptom of hazy interface specifications.

Radical idea: Ban sensor / actuator companies from building software on top of them in-house.

They're welcome to offer a turn-key solution to market, but it must (1) have hardware and software built by two separate, independent companies & (2) publish its interface specs, between those two companies, to all customers or end users.

Things would cost more. But I'm not convinced this would be a worse world, in aggregate.

Kind of simpler to me, is just making closed-source drivers illegal. I like the idea of being able to buy something cheap because they were too lazy to actually write a spec for how it works. But not being able to read the de facto spec - the source code for the driver - is just silly. I've paid for the device, the driver is basically useless except for that device. Give me the code.

> I think this is just poor modeling. SQL is just fine for the work you're talking about.

I'm as big a booster of good old SQL as anyone, but there's a lot to be said for more targeted time series solutions when it comes to sensors.

I'm working on a platform for monitoring water water tank levels. It slices Grafana and influxdb horizontally to share the resources between multiple users and multiple tanks.

The productivity of such a stack is high, when it comes to getting beautifully rendered, interactive graphs of e.g stacked water levels. And with influxdb flux language, you can write joins that join data from the time series database and the rdbms (for more reference data, like the names and calibration data of individual tanks).

Yes you can do anything with SQL but there's a reason for the presence of dedicated time series databases.

> I'm as big a booster of good old SQL as anyone, but there's a lot to be said for more targeted time series solutions when it comes to sensors.

https://www.timescale.com/

Sensors aren't really different from any other timeseries data.

> The productivity of such a stack is high, when it comes to getting beautifully rendered, interactive graphs of e.g stacked water levels. And with influxdb flux language, you can write joins that join data from the time series database and the rdbms (for more reference data, like the names and calibration data of individual tanks).

Your productivity being high with a given tech stack does not disqualify an alternative tech stack from having equally high (or much higher) productivity for equally trained users.

> Yes you can do anything with SQL but there's a reason for the presence of dedicated time series databases.

The reason you're describing is "marketing"

> Your productivity being high with a given tech stack does not disqualify an alternative tech stack from having equally high (or much higher) productivity for equally trained users.

Try implementing classic timescale features like down sampling in your straight RDBMS.

Certainly you can do it, just as you can build a house with a hammer and nails rather than a nail gun.

But you'll spend lots of time building undifferentiated infrastructure that you could have got out of the box.

https://blog.timescale.com/blog/how-to-proactively-manage-lo...

Also InfluxDB used to support InfluxQL (SQL). And I believe its still partially supported in v2.

Not completely related, but I also briefly consulted at Monasanto in an entire department that seemed composed of consultants hired to build something from scratch and ignore the normal bureaucracy.

It was fun because we were hired to do things that in house employees had failed to do for whatever reason, so when I built the little dashboard I was hired for, everyone was so amazed. I just completed the job I was given, but to them I was a superstar. Consulting can be fun like that.

There is a bit of progress towards open standards: e.g., MIAPPE, BrAPI. But you're right, we have a long way to go. Programmers and software/hardware engineers are sorely needed but ag struggles to attract them, and the startup model is not very well suited for the space imo- we need to build a collaborative ecosystem of open source tooling that farmers, biologists, breeders, and others in ag/plant sciences can hack for their particular use case

Check out Phenome Force, they do weekly webinars featuring the open source/DIY tools people are building: https://phenome-force.github.io/PhenomeForce/

Is remote work common in AgTech?

I can't comment on the situation prior, but post-covid it's pretty common afaik. I've been entirely remote since last March, in both software developer and grad student roles, and although word is students will be back in the office/classroom this fall at my institution I think there is likely a lot of flexibility w.r.t. software-oriented positions

I know a few people who work outside of academia, e.g. agtech companies under the Flagship Pioneering umbrella (Inari etc, same parent as Moderna and various other ag/biotech) and the software teams are very remote friendly I believe

If you're interested in a staff position at a university there's a chance my PI might be hiring for full time dev positions later this year (dependent on luck with grant applications), lmk if interested

That's the issue indeed. The entry threshold and the amount of minimum needed features for agtech products are very high. Moreover, the seasonality of ag business makes the situation for agtech startups even more difficult (you can usually sign new test clients only in between ag seasons)

You know what I'd like to see is there can be other non-dev support for these types of efforts. For example:

* technical writers

* security pentesting/code reviews

* hosting and infrastructure support services for open source projects

Pretty sure that there are a lot of people who would be happy to donate their time to opensource projects that benefit farmers, so there is a bigger opportunity for matchmaking here.

Interested question : would those folks be interested in low bandwidth / long distance network over the 800khz band ( Lora ) ?

There is incentive to deploy those network now. A agreement to deploy is all what is needed ( private property style ). Electricity is a plus but that work well on solar too.

Of interest to me because I have been doing agricultural process monitoring and production control systems for about 30 years. And most of my clients' systems are at least semi-custom and re-invent wheels for no other purpose other than to do it their way; that is, silos (pun not intended). But where NDAs and IP agreements allow, I have attempted to standardize some architectures.

But was disappointing to see the way the LF is organizing this - no representation from the ag industry's heavy hitters and no specific and attainable goals.

Should this be done by an Operating Systems organization? Other than centralized control and logistical systems, ag engineering is not the realm of microprocessors and operating systems, and code monkeys. Ag engineering is a world of hardware, micro-controllers, FSMs, and scheduler stacks.

But then, if not the LF, whom has the organization to do this?

This should be done by the Food and Agriculture Organization that belongs to the UN. But well, you can't ask much to the United Bureaucrats Organization

LF is basically a deployable organizational model, typically taken advantage of by someone with an existing project or projects they want to release & collaborate on.

there are blockchain, mainframe, embedded os projects, countless more, under LF.

worth noting that Linux Foundation began as a merger of between Open Source Development Labs (who worked to push Linux adoption in enterprise) and the Free Standards Group (who worked to push open source standards) to standardize Linux. Only one of these groups started with an exclusive Linux focus, and that same group also focused on the enterprise & driving adoptability.

> and that same group also focused on the enterprise & driving adoptability.

well, sort of. there were a couple of half-assed pushes with things like linux for data centers, but mostly it was a data center filled with hardware that got very little use other than one asterisk system sitting in a corner, a stack of machines/disk that could be "checked out", but mostly got used for automated testing, and an NEC numa itanium machine that barely worked. add to that, projects that intel no longer wanted to support being shoved off, and you have a pretty good view of day to day life at the OSDL.

source: worked there, doing day to day life at the OSDL.

OSDL was almost certainly too focused on Linux vertical scalability at the time because that's what IBM and others were focused on. While things like NUMA optimizations became more broadly important over time (as those architectures became part of smaller and smaller systems), it's of course not how Linux primarily grew early on. The current LF executive director actually held that position at FSG when they merged.

Despite the name, the Linux Foundation covers a whole lot more than Linux these days, including a variety of industry vertical orgs with both industry and vendor representation including (off the top of my head) motion picture, finance, healthcare, energy, automotive. So this is actually a pretty good fit. The general idea is to start out an org like this as essentially an MVP and iterate and grow over time.

Unfortunately the article doesn't contain any link to the AgStack Foundation itself, so here it is: https://agstack.org/

Having read that still don't know what the project really is. A venue for people and corporates to discuss open agtech and a source of funding for open agtech software?

I think that it's just the same mechanism as the Linux Foundation itself, but specific for the AgTech sector.

My basic understanding is that on one side you have companies who want to sponsor open source tech they depend on, and on the other side you have open source developement teams who would like to be supported; the Foundation facilitates interaction between these 2 sides.

This was listed on the Project page:

"The AgStack Foundation will not engage in building software applications but will instead focus on the software infrastructure (tools, frameworks, and models) that will be needed to build, manage and run applications by the members and users"

I think it’s basically the CNCF for AgTech

This is very needed for the industry. I'm a co-founder of agtech startup https://geopard.tech, we act as a platform and infrastructure for ag businesses (provide analytics and APIs) in the precision agriculture niche. When we created the company, it was the idea - to support agtech companies to launch their software faster/cheaper (our engine analyses yield, soil, topography, satellite, ground sensors, drone data and provides analytics on top of it). Before GeoPard we had another agtech company acquired by ag giant Bayer in 2015, then inside Bayer, we built Xarvio digital farming system. So, this is very needed, I know what I talk about. It takes usually minimum few years to launch solid agtech product.

The biggest issue I see right now is where to get valid data. Model is nothing without a huge amount of validating datasets, which only have ag giants. They will not share the data so easy since all of them build their digital platforms and understand the value of data.

Along the same lines, there is https://farmos.org/

It is a kind of like a CMS/ERP for agtech. I am using it for basic farm management purposes like inventorying equipment, chemicals, etc. It is built on Drupal which I personally do not like. Overall, the open source nature of the project allows anyone to contribute new modules.

I was building my own app before I found it and am glad it's one less project I have to 20%

FarmOS is included in AgStack under 'members and partners'.

Thanks I didn't notice that!

What do you mean by „to 20%“?

I live off grid small,on an old overgrown farm,lots of worn out land around,lots of small farmsteads,no spray operations. Teck has helped with marketing and bieng able to get parts and supplys delivered without losing a day or two going to town. Some interesting teck I have heard of includes planting equipmemt that works like a printer,with indivual planting heads able to plant multiple crops and comensal plants in one pass.Huh?what then? Harvest the whole mess,weed seeds and all and then pass it through an airjet curtain where sensors identify each sead by type and push it where it needs to go. A similar system was pionered by debeers in the 1960's and led to a massive increase in diamonds bieng recovered. Laser weeders are here now and many are working on laser bug zappers. Satelites are bieng used for very precise fertilizer aplication and all the big tractor companys are working on or running fully remote equipment that will allow teams to remotely operate the mega equipment that is common now.They would make the equipment bigger but roads will not acomodate it in most places. What else,gps for ultra precise field grading to control slopes for irigation. Combining solar and wind power with agriculture where it works.Such as putting solar over irigation canals,reduces evaporation,and cools the panels while useing ,free space. Lots happening

Ugh, I can't select text on the page. I do it to read more easily.

I came here to say this! I highlight lines as I read pages to stay focused, and when highlighting is (purposely) broken like this, it's really frustrating.

> Ugh, I can't select text on the page. I do it to read more easily.

If you are on firefox, try this: View -> Page Style -> No Style and scroll down. Hit <cntl>+ to enlarge if needed.

I do this on many sites nowadays - wish there was a way to make this a default setting for all sites. (Other browsers probably have a similar feature but I don't have one in front of me to give the step-by-step instructions.)

Genuine question: why do some websites do this overtly hostile anti-highlighting anyway?

What I've been very interested in lately is whether there's a way for us to enable local food production (local meaning on the individual/family scale) via some technological or business innovation. Maybe something along the lines of automated remote farming which would factor in the lack of local space to farm + time limitations.

Something that concerns me personally is the globalistic nature of the food supply chain and just from a risk management perspective it would be great to push it into a more localized state. But I don't think a world where everybody moves to homesteading is realistic, quite the opposite.

Just superficial pondering. If there's some nice initiatives / startups / other working on this would be keen to learn more about them.

Take a look at spacebuckets ( eg: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceBuckets/ ) works awesome for cannabis -- but also: lettuce, herbs, cuke, growing aquaponic pineapple in the winter in Oregon, etc. You can get a bucket (or larger controlled envrironment) and control the whole thing via Pi and this thing is cool too -- https://github.com/kizniche/Mycodo

e: and we're working on this :)

Can't do it at the individual/family scale. Gotta go back thousands of years for that model. Population is too great (mostly enabled by highly scaled, highly efficient agriculture)

Remember the blockchain hype? Well it turns out it's actually incredibly practical for food traceability and provenance. Governments around the world are starting to demand transparency around this, and in the near future it will be common for consumers to be able to see where their food was grown, processed, shipped to, and how long that took.

So, scan the QR code and pick the produce with the shortest supply chain. If consumers demand it, local food production WILL be a big thing.

Great use case! But why would't a centralized database be fine?

In an honest world, yes. Blockchain prevents people tampering or revising the data, ie removing unflattering stuff like the refrigeration being turned off on their container, or stuff being sent to a third port, etc.

There's a lot of fraud in food.

I still don't see the value a blockchain provides here. You could just have the database be append-only...

Makes sense, although if I think about my personal super market experience, you buy one of two variants: local (grown inside the country borders) or foreign. I assume EU regulation already makes it mandatory to inform consumers of the origins of their product. May be different elsewhere of course.

There's a big difference between knowing the country of origin, and knowing the whole journey of the product, right from the farm.

Where are the major inefficiencies in the supply chain at the moment, from your perspective?

Hey check out twistedfields.com

We're trying make small farms more automated and enable them as economically feasable businesses. Our main project is a precision farming robot, and within the next year were hoping to ship dev kits

Haha, kudos for doing exactly what my imagination thinks slightly scifi-esque "autonomous remote farming" looks like! Really neat.

I have some arable land a couple hours away from home so will be following your progress.

I can't find any information about the automation project(s) on the website you linked above.

Would you mind elaborating a bit more?

Software has not eaten the world yet - not even reached the starters, it's just finished the bread roll.

There is a tension between closed and open source here that is going to occur in every industry, in every country.

And we shall all sit on the sidelines bemoaning the lack of standards ... unless ... err

I have to admit I don't know how to build dynamic detail based standards that don't die in committee - how do we get YAML / JSON and not SOAP?

I suspect it is best to start with a 100 Million dollars, and create open mailing lists for each industry, and invite the best of each industry to conferences each month.

For me Farmbot ( https://farm.bot/ ) is some of the most interesting thing happening in open source farming and they aren't apart of this initiative. None of the projects are really something your need a framework for.

I think what some of the projects involved are doing is laudable but it's not really revolutionary.

Then again I don't do farming though some of my family and friends of my family do.

I do farming. I'm intrigued by this concept, but am hesitant. I don't see any value add off the bat.

From my understanding how you can help farming with software.

You have supercharging current methods which most of the projects in the OpenTeam initiative are doing which seems to be turning into the AgStack Foundation if I understand it correctly. Think adding smart sensors might be some of what they are planning with the framework and importantly all the planning and managing of farms which the strangely named FarmOs is doing ( I say strangely since it's not an OS ).

The other is doing things with hardware and software that aren't mimicking or supercharging current methods but just implementing a new and more efficient way of doing things. Think the difference between making a perfect robot hand and making thing that grips. Both do the same thing but one is not trying to do the same things as the other. So here you have things like Farmbot that probably need so be split into separate stages of operation if it is going to scale at a farm field level.

I feel like we are past the making a better tractor and other farm machinery phase and are moving into automating everything we can phase. Because the problem with our current processes is that they are stressing soil and the nature too much. By having diverse crops in the same field you both minimize the impact of soil, groundwater problems, salting and stuff like that, but also minimizing the risks in farming where you rely on futures commodity markets instead of having a wide balance of produce.

But I'm no expert and haven't put much thought into this. Just want us to head in the right direction and make sure we invest in the right things.

Nice you are thinking about similar things like "autonomous weeding machines".

My biggest problem is with hardware/software combos bolted to something like tractors.

When I was working as a surveyor for my families construction company, we gradually transitioned to having surveying capabilities added to our machines.

And I can tell you they are overpriced pieces of garbage that still work but boy they are backwards. There is some really cool tech but it's obscured by really old buggy software.

The problem with bolting things to existing equipment is you are going to face so many hurdles that is why only a certain type of companies even try to do it. Those include being allowed to integrate with the hardware. Usually not companies that developers interested in elegant solutions. Not that I don't think people that work for those companies can't do interesting things they are usually hindered in doing so.

That is why most companies trying to innovate go the route of building things themselves.

That is also where you would find people that believe in open source that want to do interesting things.

Why bolt things to a tractors whey you can just mod something like a 4x4 vehicle.

I'm a person that would not build a farmbot or probably work much on it in my free time. Have plenty of side projects. But I think their tech is cool and their methodology I feel is right. So I would probably join them as a developer if things lined up. I can't say the same for any of the other projects.

What you need to look out for is when developers are excited about something. It doesn't mean it's the right solution but it's really good starting point.

That is gardening not farming.

You always have to prove things out on a small scale for it to work on a large scale. When I was in my early teen we had a summer program to plant vegetables. I do understand that it's not the same as large scale farming having grown up around farming but fundamentals are still similar.

Yeah having stationary structures doesn't make sense in large scale farming but AUV with the tech that is in Farmbots makes a whole lot of sense.

But I might be missing something. Also the farming I have experience is just in Iceland where things don't get that big. I've been around a lot of different tangential things to do with farming since my father side went from farming to construction. But I feel like a lot of the things are similar.

But what I know most about is software and I am mostly judging things based on that and I'm really impressed with Farmbot and the choices they made.

I think that there's some degree of "you can't get to the moon by climbing taller trees" happening here. There are methods that can be promising for gardens, and even smaller-scale farms (less than triple-digit acres, say) that don't feasibly scale up to what amounts to continental-scale farming like you see in much of North America. It doesn't mean that those approaches don't have value, just that at some point the scale of the problem space changes things pretty fundamentally.

> “Just like an operating system, we feel there will be a whole universe of applications that can be built and consumed using AgStack,” Johal added. “From pest prediction and crop nutrition to harvest management and improved supply-chain collaboration, the possibilities are endless.”

...said AgStack executive director Sumer Johal according to venturebeat (1) in another meaningless statement that provided no concrete details.

Their high level architecture (2) comfortably encompasses everything from ML to shells to security; “like an operating system” the press release claimed, careful to avoid saying they were actually building an operating system, because that would be daft.

...but who is Sumer Johal? Well, no one very interesting (3) it turns out, but he’s been involved in agtech for some time...

So... I guess I’m left puzzled?

What does this have to do with the Linux foundation?

Well, turns out the place to go to find out is... surprise, the Linux foundation:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/press-release/linux-found...

“Through the AgStack Project, the Linux Foundation will provide valuable cohesion and development capacity to support shared, community-maintained infrastructure.”

Or something. You read it and decide for yourself; 20 different companies coming together to collaborate with completely different ideas of how and on what.

Sounds like open office.

Can’t wait to see how it goes...

[1] - https://venturebeat.com/2021/05/05/linux-foundation-launches... [2] - https://agstack.org/projects/ [3] - https://www.crunchbase.com/person/sumer-johal

what about some optimism?

This is great news, hopefully with enough heavy hitters backing this project it will succeed.

I'm not a big fan of improving pesticide application techniques (one of the examples given in the article) as at the end of the day it is still pumping poison no matter how efficient but if it means less chemicals leeching into our food and environment, I suppose it's better than doing nothing.

LifeTrac is an interesting Open Source project that might benifit from this foundational type of support.

When it comes to agriculture, there is already a very large grass roots, open community of farmers and growers. Eg. Market gardeners, Seed sharers, Homesteaders even Hay farmers. I believe this group is primed to turn into a powerful societal movement but does require financial support to compete against the corporate giants that at present literally dominate the AG field(s).

Hopefully we get some Open Hardware too.

This is great news, hopefully with enough heavy hitters backing this project it will succeed.

I don't see any real agriculture heavy hitters (e.g. Cargill, ADM).

Bayer? Aka Monsanto? How about JD Tractors and the whole right to repair?

But yeah it would be awesome if Cargil got onboard. They are into everything, I used to run multi purpose cables for Flir trafficon cameras that was made by a Cargil company. (FLIR could be a huge supporter too for that matter)

Bayer is big, but they are not Cargill and the big farm chain companies. Cargill is into everything. You don't really work for Cargill, you work for a division that can operate totally differently than the rest of the company.

I've been making software for the agricultural industry for 5 years, and I'm really not sure what to make of this.

The big problem agtech has isn't that we don't have enough "open-source agtech initiatives". The big problem is the divide between 'ag' and 'tech'. A few individuals bridge it well, but for the most part most ag people don't know about tech and most tech people don't know about ag. And often they don't want to know.

The standards mentioned are largely ignored and that will continue to be the case. Public data would be useful, but I don't see it as a game changer.

Happy to be proven wrong, but problems here aren't in tech, it's in the lack of two way communication that lets us apply it effectively to solve industry problems.

If this interests you, check out Phenome Force, they do weekly webinars featuring the open source/DIY agtech tools people are building: https://phenome-force.github.io/PhenomeForce/

We need more software/hardware engineers in open source ag. Be warned, you may need to live in a somewhat rural area, accept a modest paycheck, and occasionally get your hands dirty, but it's a lot more fun than writing code to shuffle forms or finances around imo

This is promising; but in the Ag space there are 100s of providers all doing it their own way. The same problem is staring in the cannabis/hemp space too. We've been working for 5+ years to herd all these cats together -- and now another one (cue XKCD about standards). We'll likey join this initiative but, I'm concerned how it will work with the 100s of others who are way more interested in building their own walled garden, or saying "here's a standard API (ours!)" w/o any outside inputs.

And @tomhoward on here brings up loads of good points -- in N farms we've seen N unique implementations ("bespoke") of monitoring, recording, measuring and pumps and processes and power-systems and all that.

Not unsurprising to me, I have a contrarian view to most of the comments here about this. This project is supported by, among others, https://www.farmfoundation.org/about-farm-foundation/board-o... which includes US Bank, McDonalds, John Deere... among others who tend to invite derision here.

What this does is extract even cheaper labor from the masses. 9 in 10 people used to be farmers. Now it's 1 in 300. I find it hard to believe we have a problem with productivity in this industry.

The end game here is to further centralize the power structure into the corporations who already control most of the supply chain. Look at how they treat seed farmers around the world. They pay them pennies for seeds and then charge thousands of dollars for them on the global market.

Again... I don't see it. I see the trees, but where's the forest?

Maybe someone can help me, how can an individual benefit from Linux Foundation? Help means work/career opportunities, business opportunities, consulting opportunities. I want to have first mover advantage in AgStack.

Where's the code?

The planet won't benefit from this.

Agricultural overconsumption with a more efficient or open technology supply chain is still overconsumption.

How do you know it's overconsumption?

Half the habitable land is farm land and farm land is ecologically dead (with pesticide use having damaging effects on the surroundings) and not available for carbon sequestration for instance.

Also "livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. While livestock takes up most of the world’s agricultural land it only produces 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of total protein"

And the trend is growth..

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use

Won't improving ag tech improve the efficiency of farming land? And allow better ecological management?

Beware Jevons paradox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Even 100% efficient agriculture is meaningless in the face of overburdening absolute demand.

Raising efficiency and means of exploitation may also induce demand ("oh we're so eco-friendly").

The point is: Life needs (contiguous) undisturbed wilderness.

And ecological management? That this would even be necessary is testament to our fuckup, but yeah that might actually be topic's biggest benefit I suppose.

Pre-industrialisation life managed itself just fine for millenia.

> Pre-industrialisation life managed itself just fine for millenia.

What do you mean by that, specifically? Clearly we benefit enormously from what has happened since, including food, shelter, peace, freedom, knowledge, etc. etc. I just got something called a vaccine, which protects me from a deadly disease. Someone stuck a needle in my arm, but they had figured out how to do that perfectly safely. The vaccine was driven to the provider, kept cold in refrigeration, and I also drove the provider after making prior arrangements via telecommunications. You're literate and reading this on a website using a computer, a vast collection of manufactured items ... You get the idea.

I meant natural life. You know, animals/plants... Those things that inhabited this planet for millions of years before us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Christ, how far have things come

I understand your point now. I didn't realize that your last sentence referred to human-managed 'wilderness'.

Anyway, what is your solution? Starvation doesn't seem like an option.

Why starvation? Is there nothing between being adequately fed and starvation?

What solution do you recommend?

Consumption patterns will have to change.

Regulate the supply side with land use restrictions and restoration of natural habitat; introduce subsidies for underdeveloped and emerging economies to prevent further ecosystem degradation out of economic necessity.

With a set limit on land use, market prices would adjust accordingly (i.e. meat price rises), consumption will reduce (accompanied by some whining) and food innovators get more time and market share for sustainable alternatives.

See https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture

Is it impossible to use technology to make use of small plots of land to function as regenerative organic farms to sustainablely feed people?

So? The question isn't if it's better than some utopian ideal situation but if it's better than what we have now. If your approach to things is the former then every solution to every problem will fall short and nothing will ever change.

In general I agree with "incremental progress is better than none".

However this problem is not of a technological nature but a political/institutional one.

If there had been a strong forward-looking consensus to keep agricultural ecosystem use in check, it would never have come to this point.

As so often the free market moves first, society gets to clean up afterwards.

If 33% of food is wasted & 9% of people are hungry, then a logistics fix alone might eliminate hunger.

I’m concerned about the Linux Foundation being involved in all these projects. I expected it to be an organization dedicated to Linux. But it seems to have expanded to a myriad of different spaces and it’s endorsement is often used to legitimize really bad products, ideas and initiatives (look at the finops nonsense).

Can’t they just be stewards of Linux kernel development and focus on that? If there are other initiatives just create other foundations or redirect funding to those areas.

>Can’t they just be stewards of Linux kernel development and focus on that? If there are other initiatives just create other foundations

The way a lot of these other initiatives are organized is they are their own foundations/projects under the LF umbrella which lets them share infrastructure, piggtback on events, etc.

Meanwhile Linux seems to be doing quite well from where I sit. I'm not sure what activities are lacking around Linux that a more focused (and inevitably much leaner) organization would drive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com