Vertical farming taking off?

[Robert Zwilling]

I didn't catch that before that there were no or very few insects to speak of. That's a big plus. Since we kill all the bugs on farms I guess it is a mute question to ask if some bugs are needed for better agricultural results. There could be a vertical farm building every couple of blocks for big cities. That feature could change cities reliance on outside food sources for vegetables. Traditional farmers must be unhappy about that or are they already switching to things that can't be grown in vertical farms. If there were walkways in the cities that went over the roads and lower height buildings, that could all be solar paneled. Is there a new generation way to generate light that is equivalent in energy savings to the switch from tungsten filament to leds? I don't see anything searching that isn't led.

The light can't be all hitting its target, its got to be going everywhere. Maybe light pipes that distribute the light the same way tube irrigation distributes the water. Is it a waste of time lightning up plant stems? The lightning seems to be a shotgun approach. Could everything be mirror surfaced to catch all the reflected light and the light that never goes in the right direction. In the pictures it seems like the frames, beds, racks, are opaque, how much energy is lost by that. Does everything get algae covered if everything is made out of clear plastic.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Our government and others pursued Uranium rather than Thorium, because Uranium reactors give you material for making nuclear bombs, and Thorium reactors don't. It is one of the reasons that Thorium reactors are safer.

It may be one reason, but there are other advantages. In this thread Thorium reactors I posted a 20min video which seems to explain Thorium reactors in an understandable way ...

 

[Parson]

I didn't catch that before that there were no or very few insects to speak of. That's a big plus. Since we kill all the bugs on farms I guess it is a mute question to ask if some bugs are needed for better agricultural results.

It is not a mute question. Insects are needed for farming. Some plants need insects for good pollination --- think bees, but there are a ton more than honey bees --- One of the continuing problems with pesticides is that they kill too many kinds of insects. Some, besides pollinators, are marginally good for the crops and a few of which are very good for the soil. In fact it is a partial reason for genetically altering plants to provide protection against the most destructive insects without harming others.

Another kind of pollination, wind, might be more difficult in a closed setting.

 

[Dave]

Insects are needed for farming....

Natural predators i.e. Birds and parasitic wasps attack aphid eggs, and ladybirds (ladybugs) eat aphids. Most pesticides are indiscriminate. Most kill everything. They will accumulate higher up the food chain and kill birds too, and whatever eats the birds. In most cases, humans are at the top of the food chain.

I wonder how you would replicate this on a generational spaceship flying to colonise another planet? We can build the vertical farm easily, but it would only take one pregnant aphid hidden under a leaf and the crop is devastated. Can we take wasps, ladybirds and birds along with us?

 

[Vertigo]

Can we take wasps, ladybirds and birds along with us?

I find that quite an interesting question and would turn it around. Can we not take wasps, ladybirds and birds along with us? Can we actually create a sustainable ecosystem with only the 'good' bits. Personally I seriously doubt it. Apart from anything else if you leave holes in the ecosystem something will just take their place. Leave out aphids and something else will figure out how to get sustenance by siphoning off the plant sap and without a natural predator like say a bird it will run riot.

 

[Brian G Turner]

were no or very few insects to speak of

I saw this and suddenly imagined the vertical farming of insects for food. I hear locusts are good and maggots taste like shrimp.

 

[Montero]

You have to have something for said insects to eat .......
But, in a general, theoretical way, with no idea of the practicalities, don't see why not.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

It's no difference than a fish farm. Some of the fish farms are so inefficient that they use far more food to feed the fish than the fish provide as food. Insects might be better suited to convert carbohydrates to protein. It would be a weird sight to see vertical towers with plants in them and other vertical towers with insects in them. A good story could have the insects continually plotting to escape from their tower filled with crap food to get into the other towers with the grade A prime food. Tunneling underground, making passageways through the metal and plastic frames connecting everything. Traveling on the undersides of crates.

 

[Montero]

Earlier in this thread, I posted about overpopulation being the biggest problem and was hoping for an extensive discussion, but there was only a little response. I just received a link to Karen Shragg's latest blog, Karen being a noted activist regarding the impacts of overpopulation on climate change. It rather struck a chord for me, so I am posting a link and one paragraph here:

Why Environmental Moderates Are More Frustrating than Outright Climate Deniers — Moving Upstream with Karen Shragg

"As a self proclaimed and proud overpopulation activist, I have personally been told to wait to push this issue because other issues are more pressing. Well waiting gets us an additional 1 million passengers every 4.5 days to find water for, clothe, house, feed and employ. We are already at least 5.5 billion overpopulated compared to our resources and the pollution resulting during their extraction. The environmental moderates also operate by a mythical timetable, one in which renewable energy and cloth bags will save us."

 

[Brian G Turner]

Karen makes no argument, as much as just rants with the assumption that most of those 1 million are Western superconsumers - which they are not. Try reading this instead: The burning issue of population control

However, I'd much rather we move the thread back to issues of futurism: what the future could look like, in terms of changes from technology and how that can change ordinary society - such as how vertical farming could potentially develop - rather than a focus on present day issues which are more likely to spawn social arguments.

 

[Dave]

No question that over-population is a bigger problem, and that it is linked to, and it sits behind all the others. It is more that we don't discuss world affairs on this forum and as we already took this thread off on several tangents (my fault), I was trying to reign it back onto the original subject of vertical farming. The other reason, as I see it, is that the solutions to over-population ( I can think of several, some tried for real, such as the Chinese one-child policy, some theoretical, and some from science fiction - Soylent Green, Logan's Run.) which in every case are even more unpalatable or harsh than those solutions to global warming are. As Brian says, any discussion will produce very strong views especially of a political and religious nature. They must be discussed, but not necessarily here.

 

[Montero]

I think I will come back with a small reply, as there are assumptions about what I have said that I would like to briefly counter.
@ Brian - I was reading solely Karen's article on the frustration of trying to talk about population control. I have read your article, which yes, does mention the problems on overpopulation - but then moves on to talking about it as though it is being imposed on the third world by the first world. That is not what I am advocating, and it is frequently, and inaccurately an accusation leveled at people who highlight overpopulation as the problem. Maybe some do advocate that, but I've not met any and I'm not one of them. Yes, I agree that people on a western lifestyle should reduce their overconsumption.
@Dave - not all solutions to overpopulation are harsh. The one I've been advocating (CHASE Africa) is providing birth control to people who want to limit their family size and have no access to contraception. They want it. There are other organisations around the world doing the same. I picked CHASE Africa to support due to all the additional things they were doing in employing locals and reforestation. I thought that was where my limited donations would do the most good.
Yes, this thread started as futuristic, but kept going sideways onto current renewable energy - with little understanding of the practicalities of electricity generation. My earlier suggestion of rationing electricity would have a far quicker impact on CO2 emissions than building more renewable installations as building new in and of itself uses resources and produces CO2. It could be implemented by central government and does not rely on individuals recognising the problem and limiting themselves.

 

[Dave]

@Dave - not all solutions to overpopulation are harsh.

I don't think I've made any unfair assumptions, on the other hand that ^ was not what I actually said. What I actually said was:

...in every case are even more unpalatable or harsh than those solutions to global warming are.

The availability of contraception is only a piece of the problem. Just to start with, it is unpalatable to ‎1.313 billion (2017) Catholics, and to many evangelical Christians too. The problem with population control is in the "control" part. Someone is "doing" the controlling of someone else, and whether they both agree or not, someone holds power. I'm struggling to think of any kind of "control" method that someone somewhere wouldn't object to at some level. I'm not thinking about what you or I believe is right, I'm thinking of what can actually be achieved by unanimous agreement.

with little understanding of the practicalities of electricity generation.

On the other hand, that is one huge assumption, but as you yourself have pointed out, these problems of the practicalities of electricity generation are mainly ones of fluctuating supply and maximum demand load. I guess I am just much more optimistic that engineering solutions can be achieved to solve those problems than I am that international diplomacy can get people to agree to common goals. And I did also say:

However, all energy use produces heat itself, and in a warmer world, maybe we should try to use less too.

More efficient energy use is key.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Continuing off topic, into World Affairs territory:

The Maltheus theory of population says basically that if exponential population growth cannot be checked by controlling the birth rate, that nature will reduce it by war, plague, famine (climate change and antibiotic resistance), etc.

Malthusianism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I would assume that reducing over consumption of materials, food (just another form of energy) and energy, is based on the idea that we are already using too much. I don't think we can reduce current levels because a lot of people in undeveloped countries and even in developed countries need more materials, food and energy than they are getting now. When their needs get satisfied, we would still be at the same levels we are at now, and only if the ones who have it now, cut way back, and 10 percent will never do it.

What is needed is solutions that are practical, easy and affordable to operate, and not used as a way of extracting money from people who don't have enough of it. These towers are exactly what happened to towns that became cities by going vertical in their development. That seemed to work and seems to fail when the properties aren't properly maintained. What is happening is that the farms are being moved in to and closer to the cities where all the consumption is located.

If the farming towers aren't maintained I figure they will fall apart a lot faster than a city going into decline, so there is the cost of keeping them in operational shape to consider. Well designed vertical farms should keep this in mind, simplicity of maintenance and low maintenance costs. If these become a means of simply extracting money from the people running them than they will probably fail as independent operations. People can be be stuck in apartments where the facilities are substandard for long periods of time because they settle for what they have. I suspect that plants in a vertical farm will not settle for rundown conditions, and will noticeably not produce suitable yields.

The cost of energy to run them can be looked at two ways. If the energy cost is high and you want to make a stiff profit off the operation, the cost of the food produced will have to make up for the costs. But it could also mean that it is a business that needs to be run as exempt from stiff profits so the excess energy costs would be covered by the profits not being delivered to the owners of the operation. If the owners of essential operations can't understand that they are performing a public service by growing food and not running a money machine to make stiff profits then they are not qualified to own the business. Their demands for high salaries where the would be none would automatically disqualify them from running the essential services.

The cost of energy is cheaper at night, can the grow cycles be modified to fit the cheaper power rate times or does it have to be run with the lights on 24 hours a day to even think of breaking even. Dim the lights in the day time if they must be kept on?

Some of the articles I read are about companies that are in the business not to sell food, but to sell the farms to people so some one else can grow the food. In our society it seems like the idea of something being cost efficient has been replaced by the idea that it must be profit excessive. That type of reasoning could result in diminishing returns for a good idea. It's like taking baby horses, mules, and camels, and putting them on full workloads long before they are able to do it and then wondering why they can't do the job.

 

[Parson]

The availability of contraception is only a piece of the problem. Just to start with, it is unpalatable to ‎1.313 billion (2017) Catholics, and to many evangelical Christians too.

This is far too strong to represent the truth of the practice of birth control. Officially, the Catholic church does not permit "artificial" birth control but many Catholics still practice it. See the link, and there is absolutely no evidence that Catholics are becoming less like the main population than they already are.

A survey conducted in 2015 by the Pew Research Center among 5,122 U.S. adults (including 1,016 self-identified Catholics) stated 76% of U.S. Catholics thought that the church should allow Catholics to use birth control.[36
Christian views on birth control - Wikipedia

And among Evangelicals the use and approval (based on the people I know, and I'm the community) is even more widespread. There is no one definitive place that one can look for what Evangelical or Conservative Christians believe. But for proof I would offer the fact that although birth rates for Catholics and Evangelical/Conservative Christians are higher, they do not approach the level of the early nineteen-hundreds; and even less the rate of live births before that. Right now that rate is 2.5 per female, quite a bit higher than the "normal" rate but not nearly high enough if birth control was widely ignored. See the link below from a conservative Christian site.

Conservative Christians Are Having Fewer Babies, Study Finds

------

As to building vertical farms without a profit motive; I have severe doubts that would work in the long run. The Russian collective farms were an utter disaster. If food becomes more scarce, it will also become more expensive and either the consumer and/or the government has to pay more. Which is the long run is the same thing. More demand = higher prices. and equally Less incentive to work hard = less production = higher prices.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Actually, with regards to profits involved with vertical farming - or the lack of - it's worth recalling that pretty all of our nationally grown food is supported by government subsidies. Some re-arrangement of this could favour more Earth-friendly foodstuffs than others. For example, if meat were no longer subsidized so much it would became more expensive and perhaps consumers would ease less of it in the first place. Additionally, if vertical farming were provided with subsidies, it might became quite viable after all in instances where it otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Parson]

Actually, with regards to profits involved with vertical farming - or the lack of - it's worth recalling that pretty all of our nationally grown food is supported by government subsidies. Some re-arrangement of this could favour more Earth-friendly foodstuffs than others. For example, if meat were no longer subsidized so much it would became more expensive and perhaps consumers would ease less of it in the first place. Additionally, if vertical farming were provided with subsidies, it might became quite viable after all in instances where it otherwise wouldn't.

I agree with your post @Brian G Turner, but at least here in the States the raising of animals is little supported by the government. The raising of feed grains and human consumed grains, especially after Trump's disastrous tariffs, most definitely are. And that leads to some absolutely crazy things. Because government subsidies make it possible, one of the biggest rice growing areas in the US is in California, where it is only feasible because of flood irrigation! And that's in an area where water is or will soon be the major limiting factor for human development. Why are some of the highest priced, and most profitable crops like almonds, tomatoes, lettuce, and the like subsidized?

Subsidies are a tricky thing. On the one hand they seem to benefit the "richest" farmers the most. (In the US government aid is given in proportion to the number of acres that are affected, so the bigger the farm the greater the pay out) and it sometimes encourages really dumb farming practices - see above - On the other hand they sometimes encourage conservation (I know a lot of farmers who keep land out of production because they are paid to do it, and thereby allowing more natural habitat) and it might keep the cost of food artificially low. (One line of reasoning: Without Government aid marginal unprofitable land would not be planted leading to lower production leading to higher prices. The Other line of reasoning says it would lead to lower prices because a farmer would now plant every possible inch of his/her land because they would need to maximize their income and thereby actually lowering prices. --- Which is the right one is impossible for me to say. In the short run I'm pretty sure the latter, but in the long run very uncertain.) Subsidies also help to insure a reliable supply of food. If it becomes unprofitable to farm a lot of people will stop assuming the massive risk and if/when demand goes up or supply crashes thee will not be enough food. (This might seem far fetched but all milk producers, especially small ones, are in deep trouble. The cost of production is higher than price of the milk and has been for a couple years now. It would not be shocking to see the production of milk in the US lower by a major fraction in the next 5 years.)

 

[Dave]

This is far too strong to represent the truth of the practice of birth control.

This is exactly, why we don't talk about this here. The Pew Research Center conducts opinion research within the USA. As far as I can tell, the US birth rate is 1.80 births per woman (2016) and the population is rising at only 0.7% annual change, due largely to people living longer. I don't see a problem with the birth rate in the USA.

However, opinions held by people on what they themselves should do, is starkly different to what people will demand that other people should do, or, as an example, on how overseas aid is being spent. The fact that there is actually a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" only supports my point. This was not intended as any slur on the USA. Despite some very recent changes, and the Mexico City policy that can be unfairly applied, the US is still the largest donor of contraceptives world-wide. So, no problem there either. These difference of opinion only underline my point: that getting everyone to agree on policy will be nearly impossible.

That was one example. If you don't like that one then another is the cultural aspects of having many children or the economic benefits to poor families. Those are probably stronger reasons than religion to having large family sizes. Making the tax and benefits systems work so that they support poor families with children, at the same time as not giving a financial incentive to such families to have more children is also nearly impossible.

It is for exactly the same reason that the farming subsidies you discuss appear to go to the wrong farmers. Or, even that the biggest corporations can avoid paying taxes. There just cannot ever be a perfectly level playing field, and accountants are paid to exploit whatever loopholes they can find.

The Maltheus theory of population says basically that if exponential population growth cannot be checked by controlling the birth rate, that nature will reduce it by war, plague, famine (climate change and antibiotic resistance), etc.

It is actually worse than that. In closed natural systems (bacteria on a petri dish) there isn't some upper level reached followed by complete annihilation. It is a bell curve. A peak is reached followed by a comparable falling off. In real terms, rather than one single big event, that would equate to lots of small wars, plagues, famines, and floods, getting steadily larger with time, while we live in a steadily increasingly degraded environment. We can avoid that if we can learn to live within our means.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I think the bell curve is ringing loudly for some zones of life. We are part of a much larger group and by no means the dominant group as far as capabilities and responsibilities for keeping the zone we inhabit functional. Chart the total diversity for animals we like and I think we will see the bell curve quite clearly. It is already past the peak and is on a downward slope for total diversity for the zone that we occupy. Especially if we just include species we like. The different zones overlap partially or completely. For water based bacteria that are carbon dioxide based the area of there zone was restricted to areas under ground, under rocks and other out of the way places close to or on the ocean floor. Now their area is expanding to include areas much closer to the surface and open areas, so their curve is rising. Add that to our curve and that slows down the falling curve.

There is a lot of screaming about insect populations falling dramatically. The first one everyone thinks of and studies are butterflies, then come bees, and beetles. They tell us the biomass is decreasing of what they can catch flying in the air or crawling on the ground. No mention if species like flies, gnats, mosquitoes are also in declining population numbers as butterflies and beetles are. The larger stuff is getting knocked off for sure, exactly the same as large animals. But what about the smaller stuff? There are no studies for flies or gnat populations globally because they are too hard to study. What about the insects living in the dirt, underground or other out of the way places? Too hard to study. Cockroach population studies. Nope. Only the stuff we like. Only the stuff that is easy to see. The numbers of the small insects could be increasing and we would never know because the studies are based on what we like to do and what we find easy to do. If we put all the numbers based on population the total number could be running flat level while the mass could be declining. Bad for those who eat insects but probably not bad for the small insect populations as they find more room and less predators. Big numbers for little bodies. There are around 10,000 grains of sand in a handful of sand. And much bigger numbers when we zoom down to micro size.

Farming insects would be a good way to bring back big body insects. At least for that we have the capabilities. And we could always eat them as a reward for our efforts.

Insect farming could become a big business
"Businesses are already jumping into the sector, producing burgers made of buffalo worms, sweet potato soup made with bugs, grubs as pet food and DIY insect farms." People were thinking of raising insects to feed larger animals like fish, and I guess cattle cattle. Instead of that there is a push to go straight from insect to the dinner plate. There was/is a thread where we were joking about cockroach milk, milking the little insects, tiny little herds. It is being done, and people are beginning to design systems to raise herds of insects. This is going on in parallel to the vertical farming towers. Insect herds supposedly produce less ammonia and methane but I don't know what happens when we move from bath tub size enclosures to silo size enclosures, if the benefits of less impact on the environment are still there.