5 ms·

This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch t

This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
Instead of being disappointed in us, can you educate us why you think that farming will never change?
- mason240 10y ago
  I never said it won't change, just that growing food in a field will always be cheaper than in building. Many people in this thread are saying that advances in automation, GMOs, or energy generation will make growing in a building cheaper. It will, but all those advances will apply to field farming as well.
  - Kluny 10y ago
    Well, that's not true. The two key advances of indoor farming are preventing water waste and being able exponentially increase farmable area, by stacking levels. Those two advances will get cheaper and easier for the forseeable future - meanwhile fresh water and farmable land gets scarcer and thus more expensive. The cost of each option will definitely approach parity long before "always" is over.
kefka 10y ago
>This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. Well, I've got 200 sq ft my wife and I are growing by hand. We have manual tools, compost, dirt, and muscles. And your spinach example is a pretty bad one. Why? Spinach grows better when its cold out and earlier in the season. If you plant a week or 2 later, it doesn't really grow and then when the heat hits, it bolts. Bolted spinach and lettuce tastes bitter and bad. It'd sure be nice to be able to grow spinach in ideal conditions... but I can't do that in the ground. >It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building. "always going to be cheaper" is a really long time. Sure you mean to put it that way? I'm no farmer, but I grow quite a bit of my food. I guess amateur farmer is probably more accurate. Right now, the economic equation is on the side of "grow in dirt, on property". But 1 acre only gets you an acre of stuff at ideal yield. Add 10 more stories on that same plot of land, and you get 10 acre yield (ideal). And, you're also not counting having a self sufficient city as an intangible. Something like that is the start of an arcology. That technology stack also seems rather important to grow for a spacefaring culture.
- mason240 10y ago
  Like I said, completely out of touch. You are not going to grow enough to sustain yourselves on 200 square feet, and what ever you do grow will require more resources than growing that same amount on an industrial agribusiness scale.
  - kefka 10y ago
    > Like I said, completely out of touch. Sigh. Is that all you do; respond by insults and innuendo? How about some proof... if you have any. > You are not going to grow enough to sustain yourselves on 200 square feet, 200 sq ft is enough to provide fish and vegetables for 8 people, indefinitely. This only works when using aquaponics with combined plants and tilapia. See more here: http://portablefarms.com/2016/feed-your-family-aquaponics-system/ http://portablefarms.com/2016/feed-your-family-aquaponics-sy... http://upriser.com/posts/this-aquaponic-farm-holds-20-000-lbs-of-fish-and-grows-70-000-vegetables-in-a-1-4-acre-area http://upriser.com/posts/this-aquaponic-farm-holds-20-000-lb... > and what ever you do grow will require more resources than growing that same amount on an industrial agribusiness scale. No. That wasn't your initial argument. Cost is your only argument, and one I have already conceded. What is the cost of food security? What are the costs of having better tasting food than one can buy at the store? I've given other comparisons as well, none of which are about cost. Or what about the next drought? It kills 80% of the crops. Those nice closed-loop hydroponics are immune to those effects.
- randomdata 10y ago
  > I guess amateur farmer is probably more accurate. Gardner is the usual term. And there is a huge chasm between gardening and farming, which is what I expect the parent is trying to get at. Myself, I grow food on hundreds of acres. Yet I wouldn't know the first thing about growing spinach on a 200 sq ft plot. It's just a completely different skill set. To try and draw an analogy that fits HN, the difference is kind of like knowing how to use your Windows PC at home and knowing how to manage a huge data centre full of 1,000s of Linux systems at work. It will be interesting to see what the future brings, but considering that we traditional farmers get a lot of things for for free (solar energy, rain, etc.), it will be difficult to beat that on cost. Depends on what you are growing, I suppose.
reqctomaniac 10y ago
Compared to farming, this system uses a lot less water (which is basically free right now) and a lot more electricity (which is more expensive). So you can just imagine it being viable if the cost of those utilities reverses. Could happen if for example we get efficient solar power and the negative projections of fresh water availability come true.

pavel_lishin 10y ago

Instead of being disappointed in us, can you educate us why you think that farming will never change?

mason240 10y ago
I never said it won't change, just that growing food in a field will always be cheaper than in building. Many people in this thread are saying that advances in automation, GMOs, or energy generation will make growing in a building cheaper. It will, but all those advances will apply to field farming as well.
- Kluny 10y ago
  Well, that's not true. The two key advances of indoor farming are preventing water waste and being able exponentially increase farmable area, by stacking levels. Those two advances will get cheaper and easier for the forseeable future - meanwhile fresh water and farmable land gets scarcer and thus more expensive. The cost of each option will definitely approach parity long before "always" is over.

kefka 10y ago

>This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. Well, I've got 200 sq ft my wife and I are growing by hand. We have manual tools, compost, dirt, and muscles. And your spinach example is a pretty bad one. Why? Spinach grows better when its cold out and earlier in the season. If you plant a week or 2 later, it doesn't really grow and then when the heat hits, it bolts. Bolted spinach and lettuce tastes bitter and bad. It'd sure be nice to be able to grow spinach in ideal conditions... but I can't do that in the ground. >It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building. "always going to be cheaper" is a really long time. Sure you mean to put it that way? I'm no farmer, but I grow quite a bit of my food. I guess amateur farmer is probably more accurate. Right now, the economic equation is on the side of "grow in dirt, on property". But 1 acre only gets you an acre of stuff at ideal yield. Add 10 more stories on that same plot of land, and you get 10 acre yield (ideal). And, you're also not counting having a self sufficient city as an intangible. Something like that is the start of an arcology. That technology stack also seems rather important to grow for a spacefaring culture.

mason240 10y ago
Like I said, completely out of touch. You are not going to grow enough to sustain yourselves on 200 square feet, and what ever you do grow will require more resources than growing that same amount on an industrial agribusiness scale.
- kefka 10y ago
  > Like I said, completely out of touch. Sigh. Is that all you do; respond by insults and innuendo? How about some proof... if you have any. > You are not going to grow enough to sustain yourselves on 200 square feet, 200 sq ft is enough to provide fish and vegetables for 8 people, indefinitely. This only works when using aquaponics with combined plants and tilapia. See more here: http://portablefarms.com/2016/feed-your-family-aquaponics-system/ http://portablefarms.com/2016/feed-your-family-aquaponics-sy... http://upriser.com/posts/this-aquaponic-farm-holds-20-000-lbs-of-fish-and-grows-70-000-vegetables-in-a-1-4-acre-area http://upriser.com/posts/this-aquaponic-farm-holds-20-000-lb... > and what ever you do grow will require more resources than growing that same amount on an industrial agribusiness scale. No. That wasn't your initial argument. Cost is your only argument, and one I have already conceded. What is the cost of food security? What are the costs of having better tasting food than one can buy at the store? I've given other comparisons as well, none of which are about cost. Or what about the next drought? It kills 80% of the crops. Those nice closed-loop hydroponics are immune to those effects.
randomdata 10y ago
> I guess amateur farmer is probably more accurate. Gardner is the usual term. And there is a huge chasm between gardening and farming, which is what I expect the parent is trying to get at. Myself, I grow food on hundreds of acres. Yet I wouldn't know the first thing about growing spinach on a 200 sq ft plot. It's just a completely different skill set. To try and draw an analogy that fits HN, the difference is kind of like knowing how to use your Windows PC at home and knowing how to manage a huge data centre full of 1,000s of Linux systems at work. It will be interesting to see what the future brings, but considering that we traditional farmers get a lot of things for for free (solar energy, rain, etc.), it will be difficult to beat that on cost. Depends on what you are growing, I suppose.

reqctomaniac 10y ago

Compared to farming, this system uses a lot less water (which is basically free right now) and a lot more electricity (which is more expensive). So you can just imagine it being viable if the cost of those utilities reverses. Could happen if for example we get efficient solar power and the negative projections of fresh water availability come true.