Vertical farming taking off?

[Montero]

I think some interesting points are coming out of this, in particular
the variety of what could be done - which is very important as one size doesn't fit all, despite many organisations (including governments) tending to default to that assumption
growing and consuming locally
the impact of weather on crops - we've all experienced shortages and price hikes when one or another crop dislikes the weather it has had - or is just plain flattened, or flooded, out of existence

I'd like to add another to the mix - farming with rewilding. See Home — Knepp Wildland.
I read Isabella Tree's book on why and how they did it - and it started for economic reasons as much as any. They were trying to run their estate as an efficient farming business, kept on following the latest advice - and they just couldn't make enough money to stay afloat. Modern farming methods just didn't suit the land. By re-wilding they moved into a form of farming that does include meat production - but got rid of most of the farming machinery. All of a sudden they didn't need to buy, maintain and fuel all the massive tractors and other kit. That is one of the things that made a massive difference economically. More on it is here Background — Knepp Wildland

So could even have the hypothesised vertical farm surrounded by fields could be a vertical farm surrounded by re-wilded fields.

Also, recognising that not all land is the same is so important - varying what you do depending on where it is to be done.

Incidentally, on the subject of human impact on nature, plastic is another massive problem. All the plastic and microplastic scattered across every ecosystem that is killing wildlife - completely independently of global warming.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

All the plastic and microplastic scattered across every ecosystem that is killing wildlife

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the plastic is also killing human life. Unlike most of the animals who don't know what the garbage is that they are looking at, just because we know what it is, that doesn't make us immune to it. We aren't. The easiest way to imagine what happened, is to visualize a 25 mile diameter plastic asteroid that hit the Earth, say about 25 years ago, and imagine how it impacted everything the same way a rock or metal asteroid would have, because it did. It is embedded into the crust of the Earth and it is still flying around, but that is because we are still making it. The asteroid that keeps on hitting.

The modernized mechanized chemicalized farm business probably works like gambling. You can make a solid 5 percent but anything after that is by chance. So if you want to make a business of it you put up a whole lot of money, so the 5 percent actually amounts to something. Works even better if you can borrow it with unlimited credit.

Even if you make the land "all the same" on the surface, it will still impact the land around it that it no longer matches and the land below it is expecting something else to be on the surface which is no longer there.

A farm of the future. The crops are grown inside a huge vertical barn and the animals are wandering around in the fields all around the vertical barn. The fields have sections shaded by trees and other sections devoted to root crop and grain crops that supplement each other. The only question is what to do with the run off?

 

[Montero]

A farm of the future. The crops are grown inside a huge vertical barn and the animals are wandering around in the fields all around the vertical barn. The fields have sections shaded by trees and other sections devoted to root crop and grain crops that supplement each other. The only question is what to do with the run off?

Or you rewild and run the animals in that - so the land is properly held together by plant root systems which hold back most particulates from the water, you don't use the pesticides and fertilizers in rewilded farms, so that is the run-off largely solved - the manure stays on the land to fertilize next years growth. They also live off the land, and are not given grain derived supplements.

In terms of the root veg, if you decided to continue growing them, rather than ploughed fields you could go one of two ways:

Grow them in containers/raised beds around the vertical farm, in the way that cities used to be surrounded by market gardens and that is in turn surrounded by the wilded areas, which form natural filters for the water. Growing in containers will also contain far more run-off than ploughed fields.

Look for agroforestry equivalents - I've dabbled a little in forest gardening, perennial walking onions that kind of thing, but other than oca, not played with agroforestry root veg or their equivalents. Tried doing a quick search but couldn't find anything to put in here. But in general IF there are shrubs or trees with starchy fruit, picking crops off perennial trees would mean the land is not frequently disturbed. At the least, anything where the starch is processed - dried mashed potato, crisps, hash browns etc - could be made from some other processed starch rather than starting with potato. It's been done for vegetarian meat, so the kind of processing technology is there.

Incidentally, chickens do rather well in open woodland - Eggs in the woods

 

[RJM Corbet]

Eventually the problem is overpopulation, imo. Climate change is a result of overpopulation. As @Dave said earlier the ecomomic model is for constant annual growth. The business model is to make money for shareholders as the highest morality.

The Amazon forest is disappearing.30% of Japan's population is over 65 and Europe and Britain not far behnd.

It's unsustainable. Something has to give. I believe antibiotic resistance is going to become a pandemic that reduces the world population.

 

[Parson]

Interesting thread with a lot of interesting ideas.

One insight that I haven't seen is cost. Building a vertical farm would be very expensive and unlike land it would not likely appreciate, and likely be more labor intensive, and if not, then more costly still in the investment stage. Farming (at least here in Iowa and I'm pretty sure in all the American Midwest) is a low profit business. If you rely on crops for your income you are hugely fortunate to achieve a profit $100 an acre, less is much more common. That means to have a family income of $100,000 you would have to have at least 1000 acres of land. The inputs rent, fertilizer, herbicide, seed, interest, equipment, time etc. (depending on crop, I'm using corn here) is about $800 an acre with a normal yield (250 bu per acre) and ($3.50 a bu. income). So putting $800,000 at risk you MIGHT on a good year make $100,000 probably about $75,000. And a really bad year puts you in debt for the rest of your life, and my figures are optimistic figures. So unless food becomes much more expensive, or the government brings out astronomical assistance. Vertical farming is going to be very niche (Human consumed plants in the middle of densely populated areas.) and pretty much the definition of hard science fiction for at least a couple of generations.

On the other hand the robotic sprayer has a chance, but the part no one is talking about there is grass. To reduce grass you either have to till A LOT, or you have to put down a herbicide before you spot spray as that sprayer is seen doing. I wonder how well it would work if normal grass were in the field? Would there be any savings then? Would it even work? I would note that before the advent of herbicide protected beans. We did something like that spot spraying on our soy beans with humans doing the spotting and we put down a herbicide for grass before spraying for the broad weeds. As far as I know, no one does that human spot spraying anymore.

 

[Dave]

I believe antibiotic resistance is going to become a pandemic that reduces the world population.

It is unlikely to be a lack of food. While a lot of the world is starving, we waste more food than ever before. History has shown that we can use technology to continually increase agricultural yields. We did first this with ploughing, then chalk fertiliser, animal manure and crop rotation, then with machinery, seed development, automation, chemical fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, GMOs... but we are now doing this at the expense of the nature we rely upon. As a for instance, something (or a combination of things) is killing off bees. Without bees there can be no seeds to harvest. These new ideas in this thread, give hope that we can increase production using less land, less herbicides and pesticides, less wasted fertilisers run-off into rivers and lakes, and less soil compaction or soil loss.

Edit: @Parson Those robots can spot spray better than humans. I agree that the costs are higher, but food has become too cheap. It was once about 90% of a household's expenditure. Now it is what? it depends on household income, but much less.

As for grass, well, we are all going to have to eat less meat. That is really a given with the problem of climate change. It is healthy to eat a little less meat too.

 

[AlexH]

Apparently, vertical farming is more resource intensive than traditional farming techniques, using much more energy than a greenhouse, for example.

More than anything, we need to reduce consumption and waste.

 

[Montero]

@RJM Corbet absolutely regarding overpopulation. Yes, we should reduce consumption and waste too, but reducing the population is the number 1 winner.

I support two charities regarding this - Population Matters, which raises the profile of the issue in the UK and promotes charities taking direct action such as CHASE Africa. The approach of CHASE Africa has an additional relevance to this thread, as they have a threefold approach - making contraception, including long term contraceptive implants available in rural areas to all women who want them, and supporting a tree planting scheme which has the combined benefits of holding water on the land in the catchment areas of major rivers and providing a sustainable crop for the locals. This includes planting on land round schools and education on the usefulness.

Population

As for grass, well, we are all going to have to eat less meat. That is really a given with the problem of climate change. It is healthy to eat a little less meat too.

Or eat grass fed meat...... As mentioned further up the thread, there is a lot of land in the UK that is only suitable for grazing, not for the plough. So grazing, or return to woodland. You can buy grass fed meat directly BTW - see for example RED RUBY BEEF | higherhallfarm.

So a few things that you could choose to do with your pennies to help........

 

[RJM Corbet]

I support two charities regarding this - Population Matters, which raises the profile of the issue in the UK and promotes charities taking direct action such as CHASE Africa. The approach of CHASE Africa has an additional relevance to this thread, as they have a threefold approach - making contraception, including long term contraceptive implants available in rural areas to all women who want them, and supporting a tree planting scheme which has the combined benefits of holding water on the land in the catchment areas of major rivers and providing a sustainable crop for the locals. This includes planting on land round schools and education on the usefulness.

I think you are doing a wonderful thing by supporting charities like this. The big problem imo, is that reducing population at the birth end of the scale simply increases the percentage of over 65s on pension, that the young are required to support? Of course this probably applies more to first world urban areas than to the third world places where state benefits and pensions are not always there, are riddled with corruption and are slight when available.

I believe the terms 'first' and 'third world' should be replaced by global north and global south, not as geographical terms, but in terms of development: Australia as global north, for instance, and Mexico global south.

(Sorry. I apologise for taking the thread a bit off-topic.)

 

[Montero]

Well, continuing off topic, yes, the percentage of over 65s increases - but only for a while. Time takes care of that. And the whole "that the young are required to support" - erm - well most people work and contribute taxes all their lives, and most people benefit from the government spending those taxes on schools, healthcare, old people's homes etc. People of all ages contribute, and people of all ages benefit.
I also think that people do not appreciate how much older people help each other. My father-in-law has a wide circle of friends of similar age, and when one has an operation, the others rally round to do shopping, cooking, etc for the one convalescing - and then they return the favour.
You were mentioning removing first and third world - I think the whole "young" and "old" is simplistic and over-done. Some people are helpful and neighbourly, others aren't. I think those who are part of a "help" circle are going to do a lot better if the future is as grim as some think.

Regarding effective ways of tackling global warming, a study was done which does put having one fewer child top. See
Smaller families most effective action on global warming. That link in its turn will lead you to the original research paper. The headline is:

"Researchers reviewed multiple actions which can help reduce individual emissions. They identified four high-impact actions with the greatest potential to reduce our individual emissions.

1. Having one fewer child
2. Living car-free
3. Avoiding airplane travel
4. Eating a plant-based diet"

 

[RJM Corbet]

Well, continuing off topic, yes, the percentage of over 65s increases - but only for a while. Time takes care of that. And the whole "that the young are required to support"

I'm over 65 myself, though still working. The elderly consume the bulk of healthcare spending, etc. Please don't get me wrong. But 'global north' urban lives are longer, often into the 90s.

1. Having one fewer child
2. Living car-free
3. Avoiding airplane travel
4. Eating a plant-based diet"

Again this is a view from the 'global north'. Most 'global south' residents can't afford a car, can only dream of ever boardng an aircraft and wish they could afford a better diet.

Solutions have to be realistic and applicable to underdeveloped places, imo. Sorry I'm not bring argumentative and I do understand these are sc-fi forums.

 

[AlexH]

"Researchers reviewed multiple actions which can help reduce individual emissions. They identified four high-impact actions with the greatest potential to reduce our individual emissions.

1. Having one fewer child
2. Living car-free
3. Avoiding airplane travel
4. Eating a plant-based diet"

If everyone ate a plant-based diet, it'd probably be worse for the environment. It's about moderation and where the food travels from. The study doesn't seem to take into account how rampant consumerism is encouraged either. It's all down to the flaw of how economies are measured (thanks to war), and I can't see anyone being brave enough to change that in my lifetime.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

It's very simple, it's not what's being done, just how it is done. Rampant is a good word to describe the situation. I prefer to use developed and underdeveloped instead of first and third world. Many areas of underdeveloped countries are becoming developed and encountering/generating the same situations that developed countries have. I don't think it's old people and young people so much as it is people who can fend for themselves and those that can't. In those terms, both young and old can help each other. As the electric vehicle proliferates, the cost of vehicles can come down quite a bit, because at some point, gulf cart type vehicles that cost little to be assembled, literally from a box of parts, will be offered as general transportation. Warmer climate areas already have smaller, lower cost vehicles as transportation, that concept will certainly become more prevalent. It is far easier to put a smaller electric motor in an electric vehicle than it is to put a smaller combustion motor in a standard size vehicle.

The impact of vertical farms should be looked at over the long term. Many agricultural procedures appear to have lower impacts and costs in the short run but the costs and impacts increase over the long term because the impact of the way the land is treated goes way past it's borders. Vertical farms could be designed to keep the impact within the borders of the property. As you get closer to the perimeter the uses can be tailored to act more as buffers instead of extenders. Large field operations tend to use all the land in one or two particular venues, without the use of large buffer areas to contain the impact of the land uses. The holding tanks that are used to contain unwanted by-products are themselves liable to cause extensive damage to surrounding areas when they are compromised. The question arises, would vertical farms be more resilient in increasingly stormy weather or would the cost of building high wind speed proof buildings greatly increase their costs.

 

[Montero]

I'm over 65 myself, though still working. The elderly consume the bulk of healthcare spending, etc. Please don't get me wrong. But 'global north' urban lives are longer, often into the 90s..

And the young consume the bulk of educational spending....... And everyone is protected by spending on defence and police...... And with good health care, a lot of the elderly are more likely to be healthy and self-supporting for a lot longer so there are savings to be had there.

I've seen it said around newspapers, internet "we must have more young people to care for the old people" - and that is pointless - because they in turn become old and it is a never ending cycle of larger populations. Yes, there will be a population imbalance for a while, but with care, neighbourliness, and the Japanese solution of care robots which is a big thing, it can be managed. With each generation the actual numbers will decrease, though it might still be a similar percentage of the population as a whole. While birthrates drop it will be a continuing issue, but for goodness sake it's not so hard we can't handle it.

 

[Montero]

Split previous post into two on editing, because it was displaying oddly.

Solutions have to be realistic and applicable to underdeveloped places, imo. Sorry I'm not bring argumentative and I do understand these are sc-fi forums.

My view - solutions have to be realistic and tailored to suit the place to which they are being applied. I don't think, as seems implied by your post, that a solution has to be universally applicable before it can be applied. There have to be many answers, because there are many different problems.
The paper is saying what the impacts are on the world as a whole. Just because a poor person in Africa doesn't ever get on a plane, doesn't mean that planes are not a big problem in trashing the planet on which we all live, rich and poor.
In terms of helping people in rural Africa - well, there are schemes like CHASE Africa. In terms of helping the planet - well - there is the list of top 4 things and the top of the list is having one fewer child.

Returning to an earlier post regarding supporting a charity - I just wanted to clarify that I am not talking about spending vast amounts of time at fund raising events, or street campaigns, I am doing two very simple things.

1. Talking about Population Matters and CHASE Africa online.
2. We have annual membership of PM and make a monthly donation by standing order tp CHASE Africa - if anyone here wanted to do the same then for CHASE AFRICA - Donate - CHASE Africa. From their website

How your donation will help

• £10 pays for 10 indigenous trees to be planted and maintained in a national park
• £15 pays for 2 women to get access to their choice of family planning
• £25 pays for a nurse’s salary for a day
• £50 pays for 23 trees in a fenced school woodlot
• £100 pays for 14 women to get access to family planning

Edited to add - and finally spotted the missing bracket - aargh!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Overpopulation isn't the problem as much as overconsumption. The West has less than 20% of the world's population but uses over 80% of its resources.

 

[Montero]

I'm afraid I disagree. Overconsumption is a very big problem, but overpopulation is a bigger one - in part because a lot of people strive to improve their lifestyles - or in simple terms have the ambition to become overconsumers themselves. There is also the subtler point not just regarding consumption and its impact on CO2 levels, but regarding impact on the environment - felling trees for farms for example - which removes habitat and increases erosion and run-off. That is a global problem and directly related to the number of people wanting to eat, whatever kind of diet they are eating. Even growing vegetables and eating them locally alters the environment.

Edited to add
Organisations such as CHASE Africa are providing a service which local people want and can't get elsewhere - they don't want large families, they just have no access to contraception. At that kind of level, overpopulation is far easier to address than overconsumption.
Overconsumption is not a new thing - this 2,100 year old Chinese mummy shows that - Nobody knows why this ancient mummy is so well preserved - she was overweight and died of a heart attack. These days it is the scale of the overconsumption that is the problem - so many more people are doing it.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Overpopulation isn't the problem as much as overconsumption. The West has less than 20% of the world's population but uses over 80% of its resources.

I think corruption is also a major problem in 'developing' countries. Budgets don't get to the projects or people they're intended for. I think idealism is good. Without idealism there might be no improvement. But solutions have to be practical on the ground, imo.

It is wonderful that well meaning western urban people are anxious to deal with climate change and plastic pollution, etc. But the main culprits are poor countries with more pressing immediate survival concerns than how they recycle plastic and generate energy.

EDIT
Just to get the thread back on topic: solutions like food towers have to be practical enough to work in places like the Congo, not just in prosperous 'western' countries?

 

[Brian G Turner]

But the main culprits are poor countries with more pressing immediate survival concerns than how they recycle plastic and generate energy.

You may find this is simply because Western news tends to focus on what Western countries are doing - but if you look hard enough, you'll see some of these news reports mention things poorer countries are actively involved in to improve their environment.

But the point remains that the biggest consumers create the biggest environmental problems. Those pristine forests aren't being cleared to feed the poor, but to feed the rich through short-term cash crops for export to the West.

Trying to get back on topic - this is why vertical farming could be such an important topic for the future, especially with the aim of trying to make Western countries more sustainable - and especially without directly impacting lifestyle quality and choices.

 

[Parson]

- and especially without directly impacting lifestyle quality and choices.

Now that's the real bugaboo. Almost everyone likes to see the problem generally or where it relates over there, but are willing to make only the smallest of sacrifices in their own daily living. And vertical farming offers something of a low sacrifice model, but I don't for a minute think that it's economically viable without massive governmental sujpport, or raising food prices so that much of the world cannot afford to eat. --- It could sound a little Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to someone in "undeveloped" countries.