You're losing a lot (if not all) of the efficiencies of growing outside urban centers. The efficient distribution and consumption of irrigation water and fertilizer is more of a cost ($ & CO2) than the final transportation of food to consumers. This is likely feel-good solution that produces great food, but not net savings to consumers or society.
The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
11–20 of 47 posts
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I recall reading some of the newer indoor hydro systems (plus LED) were getting greater than 20x increases (I think the lettuce/basil warehouse in Japan was getting over 60 heads of lettuce per square foot in comparison to traditional 3 per square foot in standardized farming). Perhaps by combining some of the different newer technologies they'll get the orders of magnitude of differences.
So why not use these techniques where land is cheap instead of on expensive urban rooftops?
Transportation has a large impact on the varieties and quality of food available.
Excessive handling creates waste and even drives your shopping habits; damaged fruits and vegetables don't last as long on the shelf so you have to pursue 'fresh' food regularly. Growers choose varieties based on transportation before taste or health.
It's not uncommon for someone harvesting their own root vegetables or apples to store one season's harvest for most of the year (my grandfather advocates a wooden barrel filled with sand). Almonds, and other nuts, are only harvested once a year and stored for distribution to meet demand.
In the US, modern perceived limits of 'fresh' food and expiration are greatly exaggerated, driven by the abundance of inferior product.
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#13Maybe work on high tech ways to grow high value foods like sweet potatoes, soybeans and wheat indoors. Aeroponics with additional support structures maybe.
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#14[deleted]
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#15You're losing a lot (if not all) of the efficiencies of growing outside urban centers. The efficient distribution and consumption of irrigation water and fertilizer is more of a cost ($ & CO2) than the final transportation of food to consumers. This is likely feel-good solution that produces great food, but not net savings to consumers or society.
Aquaponics uses much less water than traditional agriculture. And the plants don't require as much (any?) fertilizer because of the fish.
And if people can pick their own vegetables, or pick them and sell/use them the same day, extremely locally, then you can select for taste instead of for transportation resilience.
It's well beyond feel-good.
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#16Maybe work on high tech ways to grow high value foods like sweet potatoes, soybeans and wheat indoors. Aeroponics with additional support structures maybe.
Are these techniques likely to be all that different from the techniques used to grow marijuana indoors? I was under the impression that a decent amount of R&D already went toward this.
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why not use these techniques where land is cheap instead of on expensive urban rooftops?
Part of the thought was to also reduce transport cost. So if you have effectively the harvest and distribution localized one would reduce footprint in other ways. That being said I'm not saying "expensive urban rooftops" are where we should be doing this. I was simply suggesting there are other changes afoot that are, for example, increasing yield. Any location will have pros on cons such as locality, cost, infrastru…
Transport costs (in $ and CO2) are a rounding error compared to the cost of other inputs in food production.
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#18You're losing a lot (if not all) of the efficiencies of growing outside urban centers. The efficient distribution and consumption of irrigation water and fertilizer is more of a cost ($ & CO2) than the final transportation of food to consumers. This is likely feel-good solution that produces great food, but not net savings to consumers or society.
Aquaponics uses much less water than traditional agriculture. And the plants don't require as much (any?) fertilizer because of the fish. And if people can pick their own vegetables, or pick them and sell/use them the same day, extremely locally, then you can select for taste instead of for transportation resilience. It's well beyond feel-good.
Possibly as or more importantly, you can pick only what you need. A huge fraction of the food produced today is simply thrown away.
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#19You're losing a lot (if not all) of the efficiencies of growing outside urban centers. The efficient distribution and consumption of irrigation water and fertilizer is more of a cost ($ & CO2) than the final transportation of food to consumers. This is likely feel-good solution that produces great food, but not net savings to consumers or society.
Aquaponics uses much less water than traditional agriculture. And the plants don't require as much (any?) fertilizer because of the fish. And if people can pick their own vegetables, or pick them and sell/use them the same day, extremely locally, then you can select for taste instead of for transportation resilience. It's well beyond feel-good.
Also roofed in gardens don't need pesticides...
Re: The Future of Food on Urban Rooftops
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aquaponics uses much less water than traditional agriculture. And the plants don't require as much (any?) fertilizer because of the fish. And if people can pick their own vegetables, or pick them and sell/use them the same day, extremely locally, then you can select for taste instead of for transportation resilience. It's well beyond feel-good.
Also roofed in gardens don't need pesticides...
You have clearly never dealt with a spider mite invasion.
They. Are. Everywhere.
They routine infest indoor houseplants, even in places you wouldn't expect. They'd find their way into a roof garden. And because most predators require a wider range than most prey, there may not be as many natural predators available.
Commercial greenhouse growers definitely try to isolate their plants from invasion, but still rely on pest control when the inevitable happens.