What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture • Hacker News Board

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#281

Post by Gibbon1 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:27 AM UTC

coder543 wrote: post #272

saeranv wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar panels themselves are only 10% - 15% efficient at converting solar to electricity. So I think your estimate here is off by a factor of 10.

If you google “solar panel efficiency”, you will instantly find several sources that all indicate that most (cheap!) solar panels are 15% to 20% efficient, which is 50% higher than the number you’re providing. Top end residential solar panels are over 20% efficient, somewhere in the neighborhood of 22%. Specialized/research solar panels can reach efficiencies of over 40%. Also, energy density is not nearly as importa…

Your comment about a solar panel and battery reminds me of my van with solar panel and 100ahr lead acid battery and a 2000W inverter.

Things I've done with it. Run a Engel Cooler. Run a microwave. Boil water. Probably 1-2 gallons a day. Charge batteries for power tools. Run a skill saw. Power lights indefinitely.

With just that you're getting close to a middle class lifestyle.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#282

Post by floatrock » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:40 AM UTC

paconbork wrote: post #265

kls wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are wanting to do it as a commercial venture, then livestock (particularly beef if you are in the US) is about the only way to go unless you can purchase vast tracts of land and the equipment to run it. If you are considering vegetable farming commercially, don't unless it is an extremely boutique product like truffles or exotic mushrooms, the economies of scales are crushing. The other option that is still vi…

What changed after NAFTA, if you don't mind my asking?

I assume the little "Product of Mexico" sticker on all my supermarket bell peppers and that they don't have a $14 minimum wage down there.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#283

Post by floatrock » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:42 AM UTC

kls wrote: post #187

mathgladiator wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what advice would you offer to another developer that longs to get into agriculture?

If you are wanting to do it as a commercial venture, then livestock (particularly beef if you are in the US) is about the only way to go unless you can purchase vast tracts of land and the equipment to run it. If you are considering vegetable farming commercially, don't unless it is an extremely boutique product like truffles or exotic mushrooms, the economies of scales are crushing. The other option that is still vi…

Aren't there stories where 30 years ago lots of people had the same idea and planted similar species, resulting in a price crash when the trees matured? I'm not a tree expert so don't know the species, but I feel like I heard something like that happening in the southeast.

How did you decide on your species and how do you know other people don't have the same thing in the ground right now?

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#284

Post by hosh » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:10 AM UTC

primroot wrote: post #244

sushisource wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the type of magical thinking that pervades a lot of these ag startups. Just because you noticed "Hey, this unpopular grain grows so easily it's popping up from the sidewalk!" does not mean you can actually then go and scale that to providing food for hundreds of millions of people. We developed modern agriculture the way we did for a reason . Some of those reasons are no longer valid, true, but a whol…

Yes I agree with you, but maybe I did not express my point with enough clarity. I mentioned this two species because they count as food of negligible caloric value (sidewalk amaranth is mostly useful because of the edible leaves). As far as I understand, human caloric needs at present population levels require the large scale conventional methods of production (including the Haber-Bosch process). But caloric needs as…

Not the original person, but I agree with you. A decentralized food system does not require as much of the distribution network we have, nor does it require scale.

There are food sources that can be had if they were grown local, and grown in a way that makes sense for that locality. By "local", I mean at the neighborhood, and home level. They can be grown synergistically. Even the old, but simple idea of (thoughtful) companion planting can create better yields than monoculture crops.

Our current food system is optimized towards the kind of scale that allows an easier way to control and meter food resources. VCs chase after multiples on investment, and are not incentivized to truly decentralized food systems.

For others following along, there _are_ already people who have guardens with a synergistic diversity of plants. And not only that, have practices that, over time, create yields that require less time to maintain. The permaculture design community have been exploring and implementing these ideas for over 50 years, and people have gotten them to work. They may not have achieved 100% self-sufficiency, but you would be surprised how much they are able to achieve by synergizing not only plants, but also animals, and human social inclinations into the whole system.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#285

Post by hosh » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:16 AM UTC

manicdee wrote: post #275

primroot wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can only grow non-calorically dense foods in vertical farms Purslane (Portulaca oleracea) grows on the sidewalk already, and often next to some wild amaranth (Amarathus Hybridus). What is the point of more efficiently producing specific crops, when there are all these underutilized nutritious plants growing without any human input (or should I say growing despite human input)? This is another problem that I see…

The human input is providing the moisture trap (the concrete lid on the ground preventing water vaporising into the air), so of course plants will thrive there once the level of lime leeching out is low enough to be tolerable. But in the end you have several tons of concrete covering tens of square metres of ground, to allow one or two square metres of cereal grains to grow. That is not particularly efficient use of…

I'm not sure why you think the plant will only grow with a concrete lid on the ground. That plant thrives in the marginal spaces in the sidewalk with poor soil quality, and can probably do better if allowed grow in the lawns where we normally cultivate inedible, ornamental grass.

Furthermore, there are several techniques to help trap moisture that does not require a concrete lid. I'm in the Phnoenix desert, and I use the trimmings from my zucchinni plant as green mulch. Along with the palm fronds that my neighbors love to trim, they create very effective moisture traps. I need to trim my zucchinnis anyways for their optimal health.

I could also plant things in a way to take advantage of the vertical spaces as well. Okra, for example, thrives in the low desert, and provides dense shade that already traps moisture. If I add something that likes shade, and stays closer to the ground, that forms a kind of living mulch that does not require a lot of ongoing maintenance. And if I plant pole beans to take advantage of the sturdy okra stalks, they fix nitrogen and help keep the soil fertile.

I didn't come up with these ideas. They may not be widely known, but people have come up with these design patterns and used them well.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#286

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:23 AM UTC

bgroat wrote: post #207

eloff wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine space is a factor, but energy will be a big one as well. Calorie dense foods will likely need more space and energy (light) inputs. Vertical farms are very water efficient, so I don't think that matters much. Vertical farms make a lot more sense with fresh vegetables like leafy greens that grow quickly, command high prices if grown organically, and benefit from being closer to market. Potatoes are the exact…

Can you expand on this? I get that to store a calorie in a potato I need to supply a calorie of energy from somewhere else. But why is fusion power required instead of better UV lamps in my vertical farm? (Assuming I had enough electricity to run them)

>But why is fusion power required instead of better UV lamps in my vertical farm?

Because of the second law of thermodynamics. Your UV lamp is not going to produce light that contains more energy than the electricity you used as input. That energy needs to be produced via solar panels if you want maximum efficiency. If we ignore nuclear or fusion all energy on earth is derived from sunlight.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#287

Post by hnick » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:27 AM UTC

primroot wrote: post #244

sushisource wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the type of magical thinking that pervades a lot of these ag startups. Just because you noticed "Hey, this unpopular grain grows so easily it's popping up from the sidewalk!" does not mean you can actually then go and scale that to providing food for hundreds of millions of people. We developed modern agriculture the way we did for a reason . Some of those reasons are no longer valid, true, but a whol…

Yes I agree with you, but maybe I did not express my point with enough clarity. I mentioned this two species because they count as food of negligible caloric value (sidewalk amaranth is mostly useful because of the edible leaves). As far as I understand, human caloric needs at present population levels require the large scale conventional methods of production (including the Haber-Bosch process). But caloric needs as…

Some people here in Australia do pick dandelion leaves and other wild greens, but the general advice (unsure if backed by evidence) is you probably don't want a lot of it in a larger city because of roadside pollution.

I was happy when parsley sprung up like a weed around my house, but it all died out in the drought. Hopefully it comes back soon.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#288

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:40 AM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #237

pmontra wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The total amount of electricity to power those UV lamps should be on par with what the Sun sends to the potatoes fields. Maybe that's the reason for fusion. It didn't do the math.

Actually no not really. Plants only absorb two wavelengths of light. It's currently more efficient to convert sun into solar power via panels and then to light LEDs supplying only the wavelengths that plants use. Despite the seeming inefficiency here, the fact is that plants are even more inefficient at absorbing light not at the right wavelengths than solar panels.

Even if artificial lighting and natural lighting were equally efficient you would still have to cover the same number of acres in either solar panels or plants. In other words, the denser your vertical farm the more land it consumes. Clearly vertical farming is meant for some really exotic situations in which you might have access to electricity but are in an environment in which you can't grow the plants you want. That situation would probably be a mars colony or a fallout shelter.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#289

Post by antocv » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:52 AM UTC

DataGata wrote: post #176

antocv wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey man no way, you have been living my dream! First I wanted to just grow berries, then I realized, pesticides and so on, so add another plant to fight that attacker instead of pesticide, then add another plant to protect that plant by being attractive for those other bugs which kill the bad bugs. Then I realized, this would eventually be a forrest with just more berries and edible fruits than normal. Thats where th…

Why wouldn't the pay-off in money not be worth it? You can charge a "responsibility premium" to local hipster stores.

Hipsters and eco-paying-premium people dont have money, not even close to the money provided to vertical ag tech farms.

Capital intensive to develop the automatic reaping bots, which will also cost more to operate compared to current "pour diesel into tractor and pull the earth up and shake it to extract so many potatoes". Destruction just costs less.

Re: What vertical farming and ag startups don't understand about agriculture

#290

Post by imtringued » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 7:54 AM UTC

alisson wrote: post #42

Around 6 years ago I quit my job as a developer to dive into agriculture. I learned about syntropic agriculture systems and felt in love with it because: - You are able to work with space and time in a way to maximize yield (not 1 crop yield, but but multi crop) - It focus on being biodiverse - It builds forests So in this systems you will see rows of trees intercalated with rows of beans, corn, soy anything "weedy"…

I think that's the first time I've actually seen farmers have an interest in improving their soil. Conventional practices are basically strip mining fertile land as if it was some finite resource.