Live data from Hacker News

Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

eater.com

231–240 of 291 posts

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the amount of farmland area you could substitute with urban vertical farming is neglible. way below one percent.

This is like the famous 'we'll only need 64kb ram' quote. I look forward to it being proven completely and absurdly wrong in the coming years.

No, it is actually not.

To elaborate:

a) Urban Farming commonly produces leafy greens and water rich produce like tomatoes and cucumbers. This is commonly known as 'horticulture'. The horticulture to 'farmland farming' ratio is already less than 1:10. A larger part of horticulture are crop that grow pretty well on the fields and that are commonly not produced under glass in CES (controlled environment systems). These are crops like Kale, Cabbage, Beans, Peas, Potatoes, Carrots etc. The ratio of CES to horticulture is also well above 1:10. So in summary even if we'd take all the CES production into the cities, it would be well below 1%

b) Viewed from the other side, from the available area. Even in a relatively boring and unpopular city like for example Dortmund/Germany it is extremely hard to find available plots that would be suitable for UF. If the plot is in a residential zone the square meter price is 200-400€. Commercial zone: 80-100€. Agricultural (outside city boundaries): 3-5€. So inner city plots are waaay more expensive than agricultural land. We are currently trying to find roundabout three acres of inner city space for an urban farm. With the help of the municipality. It is going to become very hard to find something. To find anything...

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like the famous 'we'll only need 64kb ram' quote. I look forward to it being proven completely and absurdly wrong in the coming years.

No, it is actually not. To elaborate: a) Urban Farming commonly produces leafy greens and water rich produce like tomatoes and cucumbers. This is commonly known as 'horticulture'. The horticulture to 'farmland farming' ratio is already less than 1:10. A larger part of horticulture are crop that grow pretty well on the fields and that are commonly not produced under glass in CES (controlled environment systems). These…

Heck, even if you'd simply assume that you can take _all_ of the city space and farm on it, it is still just a small fraction of agriculture. Cities are dense. Cities only cover relatively little of the overall available area.

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#233

A biggest problem with farming these days is labor. Period. Growers (farmers) cannot manage 6000 acres of land. They rely on their crop consultants to tell them where to spray and what they need to spray. Once you start automate these tasks, e.g. crop scouting, then the grower and the consultant can use data to spray less and produce a higher quality crop.

Labor is one of the biggest advantages of these vertical farms. They are year round instead of seasonal and located near cities instead of remote areas. Temperature can be controlled and there's not the need to be constantly bent over.

With these improved conditions one would expect to rely less on immigrant labor that is subject to such harsh conditions.

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#234
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" where farm land is cheap (in relative terms)" To put this into context for me, what cost do you call 'cheap'? And that land they're being outpriced from, how much does that sell for? For comparison, agricultural land in the Netherlands is around 50-60k euros (60-70k USD) per hectare, so about half that per acre; in Belgium it's a little bit less but not much. When I look at those prices and do some back of the enve…

I don't know about that guy's area, but near me in Michigan, which has a similar climate as NY, you can find decent land for $9K per hectacre easy, possibly cheaper.

Wow. That's in stark contrast to across the lake in Southern Ontario. Good farmland has been selling for upwards of $20,000 CAD/acre, or about $30,000 USD/hectare.

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#235

Policy idea that will never get passed: provide a tax credit for those who eat more efficiently using some ratio of CO2 emissions over calories consumed. Add some measure for food waste in there too.

Or tax everyone else's produce to make it artificially more expensive until the one with lower CO2 footprint is cheaper

Same for packaging

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#236

There's a lot of misunderstanding of agriculture in this thread. 1) No, land is not expensive. In agricultural areas, land is quite cheap. Organizing shelves of crops vertically solves for a problem that isn't actually a problem. 2) The sun is free and electricity isn't cheap. Putting plants indoors and then buying electricity to create light is going to be expensive compared to using the free sun. (The absurdity of…

> 1) No, land is not expensive. In agricultural areas, land is quite cheap. Organizing shelves of crops vertically solves for a problem that isn't actually a problem.

Land is cheap but we're running out of it in a lot of places. We need to stop razing forests to make more farmland, and we need 100% more calories by 2050 to feed the world, and yields are only going up by 2% / year over year, which won't even come close to 100% growth in the next 30 years. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/01/this-...

All that means that the vast amounts of land required for field production are going to get more expensive. The way I've seen folks pitch vertical farming is as a member of a diverse portfolio of food production investments. It is not going to replace field agriculture, especially of cash crops, but it might free up some field space by moving vegetable and insect production off the land we already have.

> 2) The sun is free and electricity isn't cheap. Putting plants indoors and then buying electricity to create light is going to be expensive compared to using the free sun. (The absurdity of putting solar panels on a roof to make electricity to beam LEDs on plants, losing 90% of the energy along the way, shouldn't be lost on anyone.)

Absurd indeed, but I think the argument that you could just use the sun has the situation backwards. Indoor and vertical farming is about reliable quality that comes from control, and to get that control without spending too much, you need extreme density to keep rent and HVAC costs low. To get extreme density you need to go vertical and stack plants, and sadly, the sun only shines in one direction instead of nicely in each aisle/shelf. You can use something like the Zipgrow tower in greenhouses with the sun only (http://www.zipgrow.com/hydroponic-farming/) , but most people can make more money by going indoors and denser. You spend the extra on electricity, you grow vertically and higher, and you have lower labour costs from less walking about. Solar is also not the only renewable energy source that could power LEDs -- much of the farm land where I grew up is speckled with wind turbines and at night when vertical farm lights are on all my area's energy is provided by nuclear.

> 3) Shipping is cheap. It may make us feel good that a salad's greens were created on a roof-top in Brooklyn, but using some of the most expensive real-estate on Earth to save a few cents on shipping is beyond economically irrational.

Brooklyn rooftops are for amateurs. The successful vertical farms are all in the peri-urban areas right next to the grocery distribution systems where land is pretty darn cheap and transport costs are super minimal. It doesn't make any sense to use the most expensive real estate on earth without a doubt, but the big boys don't.

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we produce plenty of food, full stop. Starvation is a distribution problem, not a production problem, and most commonly a local distribution problem.

It’s also a not giving a shit problem in many cases. Everyone starving isn’t in a war zone or subject to epic corruption and seizure of goods. Some people starve and go malnourished in the US and other wealthy countries for lack of anyone really caring. A hard problem to hide not giving a shit behind is the kiss of death.

> It’s also a not giving a shit problem in many cases.

Sure, not as an alternative to a distribution problem but as the reason that exists/continues in many cases.

> Everyone starving isn’t in a war zone or subject to epic corruption and seizure of goods. Some people starve and go malnourished in the US and other wealthy countries for lack of anyone really caring.

The idea that the capitalist core of modern developed economies isn't itself a form of systematic seizure of goods is somethingnthat the critics who gave capitalism its name would have issue with.

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#238
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone here is saying there's not enough light. That's not actually true. The sun produces more than enough energy to grow all the plants. The issue is one of distribution. You have to distribute very particular wave lengths of light to the entirety of the structure and all the plants. This is a hard problem. Mirrors are inefficient. Fiber optics don't do exactly what you want, and plus, a lot of the light energy i…

But even then it's not that simple. You need different wavelengths at different phenological stages, and what wavelengths you need depend on the crop (and variety, but you can at least control that for crops you can multiply vegetatively) you're growing, and then still you need to distribute that light to all leaves and not just the top ones. So now you need either LED's that can emit many different wave lengths, or…

You’re right that they’re not like the ikea lamp I bought last week... they’re like the hydroponic lamps I bought two years ago for a shit ton of money.

Everything you said is right. It’s still more efficient to use the suns energy and then distribute the leds than to directly try to use the suns light. Modern hydroponic grow led controllers can adjust the wavelengths as the plants grow

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#239
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants only absorb very particular aspects of light. As far as I remember, it's only visible light, yes. More information here: http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/7A.html Hydroponic lighting is optimized for those particular wavelengths in the ~450 nm and ~650 nm peeks. Some plants absorb additional wavelengths, and could likely be targeted with other lights. The key though is that chlorophyll are like mitochon…

That’s really interesting, thanks for the explanation. Makes me think of tuning LED lighting the same way a mechanic might set spark timing. Obviously in reality the right lighting for a plant is known but it’s neat to be able to see the effect.

It may be well known but there are many practical considerations. It certainly requires a lot of tuning. For example, if you want to target all four peaks of absorption by cholorphyll a and b, that’s four wavelengths, but many people settle for just two due to cost. It’s all a giant optimization problem!

Re: Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

#240

There's a lot of misunderstanding of agriculture in this thread. 1) No, land is not expensive. In agricultural areas, land is quite cheap. Organizing shelves of crops vertically solves for a problem that isn't actually a problem. 2) The sun is free and electricity isn't cheap. Putting plants indoors and then buying electricity to create light is going to be expensive compared to using the free sun. (The absurdity of…

Shipping costs time as well as money. Cheap shipping also requires trade-offs that are not always advantageous with foods.

For instance, it may be cheaper to grow tomatoes in Florida rather than in Manhattan, but in order to get a Florida tomato to Manhattan, the tomato itself has to be a bruise-resistant variety with predictable shape and size, harvested while green, and artificially ripened with ethylene gas. The tomato grown in Manhattan and eaten in Manhattan can be one of those bulbous, deeply-pigmented heirloom varieties, harvested while ripe, and eaten within hours, bursting with actual tomato flavor.

The tomato grown in Florida must be grown during the tomato-growing season for Florida. The vertical farm tomato can be grown as easily in the local regular season or for harvest in mid-February.

Rather than solar panels and LEDs, the rooftop could support advanced deck prisms that pipe natural sunlight through optical fibers. That alone is likely insufficient to meet the lighting needs of the plants, but it would be more efficient, and a watt of natural sunlight is a watt that you don't have to pump through the LEDs. The true advantage of LEDs is not in energy efficiency, but in wavelength tuning. The farming LEDs don't even produce the green light that is usually reflected by plants. Also, the red-blue balance can be altered to produce different effects on the plants. Blue light produces growth, and red light influences the plant hormones for germination, rooting, etiolation, and flowering. Tinkering with the red-blue schedule could allow the farmer to grow larger heads of lettuce or cabbage without bolting.

And, as you mentioned, hydroponics and aeroponics are more water-efficient.

Vertical farming will never entirely replace land-surface farming, but it will complement it. And it will allow farming underground, and in non-terrestrial habitats.

Post reply on HN