6 ms·

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 Jap

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.

rmah 11y ago
So why not use these techniques where land is cheap instead of on expensive urban rooftops?
- badcircle 11y ago
  Because then you're still transporting it to the populated areas?
- ironchef 11y ago
  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, infrastructure, space reuse, etc.
  - evgen 11y ago
    Transport costs (in $ and CO2) are a rounding error compared to the cost of other inputs in food production.
- tcdent 11y ago
  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.
  - lifeformed 11y ago
    Seems like it'd be easier to improve upon that transportation bottleneck instead of something as drastic as restructuring the whole system and growing in urban areas.
    - tcdent 11y ago
      Seems like it would be harder to re-engineer food transportation to be virtually shock-free. You'd have to revolutionize all packaging, sorting, loading and transport for each product. Even handling when picking has an impact on shelf life; field workers aren't encouraged to be lax with their time. As opposed to the alternative, where you walk a few steps to your garden and pick, sort, pack, transport, unpack a few minutes per day yourself.
- thecolorblue 11y ago
  A lot of the waste (at least from produce) comes from every step of the supply chain loosing product to buying to much or letting it sit to long. In theory, growing on a nearby roof could force people to grow only what they are going to use.

rmah 11y ago

So why not use these techniques where land is cheap instead of on expensive urban rooftops?

badcircle 11y ago
Because then you're still transporting it to the populated areas?
ironchef 11y ago
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, infrastructure, space reuse, etc.
- evgen 11y ago
  Transport costs (in $ and CO2) are a rounding error compared to the cost of other inputs in food production.
tcdent 11y ago
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.
- lifeformed 11y ago
  Seems like it'd be easier to improve upon that transportation bottleneck instead of something as drastic as restructuring the whole system and growing in urban areas.
  - tcdent 11y ago
    Seems like it would be harder to re-engineer food transportation to be virtually shock-free. You'd have to revolutionize all packaging, sorting, loading and transport for each product. Even handling when picking has an impact on shelf life; field workers aren't encouraged to be lax with their time. As opposed to the alternative, where you walk a few steps to your garden and pick, sort, pack, transport, unpack a few minutes per day yourself.
thecolorblue 11y ago
A lot of the waste (at least from produce) comes from every step of the supply chain loosing product to buying to much or letting it sit to long. In theory, growing on a nearby roof could force people to grow only what they are going to use.