The energy that drives agribusiness

Since the industrial revolution, in the 18th century, humans have become the only living beings that systematically use energy flows outside their own bodies, through the power of their intellect and the tools they create: from horses to nuclear power plants. This energy is the universal currency, sine qua non for life, which overwhelmingly depends on the photosynthetic conversion of solar energy into biomass. In turn, human nutrition depends on this biomass, and agriculture is the control of its generation to guarantee food, industrial inputs and energy available for other uses – we all depend on agriculture.

Thomas Robert Malthus, an English economist, developed the theory in 1798 that the food supply would be exceeded by population growth and that the result would be, inexorably, hunger and misery. From 1800 to 2020 we went from 1 billion individuals to almost 8 billion and, in much of the world, obesity is a bigger problem than hunger. We do not owe the relative success in global food security to a better climate, nor to the deforestation of fertile land, and even less to the equitable distribution of land among producers. We owe this relative success to the entrepreneurship of farmers, the input and agricultural equipment industries and, mainly, to the technological development promoted by them.

According to the Czech-Canadian scientist and political analyst, Vaclav Smil, up to ten hectares were needed to feed a single person until the first adoption of the agricultural process, after which one hectare started to feed up to ten people, guaranteeing an increase in the density of energy available per hectare to feed by at least an order of magnitude. After this adoption, the energy density of the agricultural hectare continued to grow exponentially, which can be exemplified by the growth in wheat production from 0.5 ton/ha in the year 1.000, to ~1-1.5 ton/ha in 1.800, and up to 17.3 ton/ha ha in 2.020 (new record).

Since then, the adoption of new techniques and technologies has allowed us to migrate to new technologies. From manual labor to pack animals, and from pack animals to engines. From manual labor to managing the farm, and from managing to precision management, giving each hectare, meter and even individual plant what it needs. From tribal rituals to manure, and from manure to precisely formulated fertilizers following dynamic georeferenced soil analyses. From luck to choosing the best specimens, and from choice to genetic engineering. Finally, we moved from hoeing to agrochemicals, the main one being herbicides.

In this way, most of the technologies used have passed through different generations and today are gradually migrating towards the precise optimization of their application, through the digitalization of the field, georeferenced sensing, the application of variable rates, among others. The herbicide, despite benefiting from these optimizations, goes against the grain of other technologies, not presenting significant technological developments since the Glyphosate patent.

Their effectiveness has gradually reduced over the last thirty years because of the appearance and rapid expansion of the population of several plant species that, through an evolutionary process of natural selection against these chemicals, have developed resistance. There are currently around 500 cases of species with some degree of resistance to herbicides, and cases of multiple resistance where a single species is resistant to up to 6 different active ingredients. The conclusion is clear: we need another technological leap that offers an alternative to these agrochemicals that is socially responsible, environmentally sustainable, economically viable and, above all, operationally feasible.

Conceptually, the ideal solution to problems like this is to use a physical method, as it is inherently free of chemicals harmful to health and the environment and must have the highest possible theoretical energy efficiency. Among them there are thermal (e.g. steam and fire), light (e.g. lasers), electromagnetic (e.g. microwaves) and electrical methods. All of them, with the exception of the electric one, are limited in controlling the root system, as the soil acts as a barrier whose transposition has a high inherent energy cost, in addition to being difficult to control, as once enough energy is used to control the roots, the soil is sterilized. as a whole, including the beneficial macro and micro biota.

However, electrical methods are extremely energy efficient, as they can be used to use just enough energy to interfere with the xylem and phloem (plant vascular systems through which the sap passes), which are more electrically conductive than the soil, ensuring that the energy actually spent on the soil is minimal, not affecting other living beings that are not or are directly connected to these plants, and minimizing energy waste. For this and other reasons, agricultural energy is essential.

Sérgio Coutinho, Founder and Co-CEO Zasso Group