5 ms·
Cities have two things in abundance due to human input/output: fertilizer and water. They lack sunlight but with cheap energy LEDs fill that gap. High density
by mceoin 9y ago
Cities have two things in abundance due to human input/output: fertilizer and water. They lack sunlight but with cheap energy LEDs fill that gap.
High density city-"farming" makes economic sense in certain contexts:
- high density living environments
- inefficient or expensive transport costs
- lack of available farming land relative to population (expect net-food-importers like Singapore to lead here)
- northern hemisphere (full-year growing cycle increases appeal and cost efficiency)
- cities not located in close proximity to farmland (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Dubai)
They don't replace organic, and subvert the "local" farm-to-table movement and I'll be surprised if they can match the taste of produce grown in a robust/diverse ecosystem. But they do provide a market need for controlled environments and consistent output that dials into local demand.
Pros and cons, but inevitable part of our agricultural future.
On a long enough timeline, I see this as the future of the industrialization/technology trend that touches everything, including ag. While the "old" industrial-ag model shows that bio-mass reduces over time with fossil-fuel inputs and mass production, so won't stay viable forever. Higher end consumers will support the fully-organic small farm sustainable rural modal, but it remains to be seen if/how they can scale and be price-competitive for mass-consumption vs cheaper alternatives.
- galdosdi 9y agoYou missed an even bigger input: labor! Cities have tons of people, with a wide variety of skills. The boonies have few, and there's a chicken/egg problem (thinner market) that makes it harder to change jobs since there's fewer employers and harder to fill jobs because there's fewer employees.
- j-c-hewitt 9y agoFarm-to-table is a mark of quality for gourmets because the food tastes better and has more nutrition when it has more expensive inputs. Feed a pig nothing but acorns and he's gonna taste great, but he's gonna be really expensive. Feed a pig nothing but hyperprocessed nutrient foam or whatever and he's gonna taste bad but he's gonna be cheaper. >On a long enough timeline, I see this as the future of the industrialization/technology trend that touches everything, including ag. While the "old" industrial-ag model shows that bio-mass reduces over time with fossil-fuel inputs and mass production, so won't stay viable forever. Higher end consumers will support the fully-organic small farm sustainable rural modal, but it remains to be seen if/how they can scale and be price-competitive for mass-consumption vs cheaper alternatives. Why? When people can afford it, they tend to want to upgrade what kinds of food that they eat. The quality issue is not something that is easy to sidestep just because of the law of conservation. Output can't exceed input. It is a huge operation to move soil and fertilizer around. It is expensive even in rural areas. Hydroponics have certain fertility, plant type, and plant quality limitations and cost more money to set up. Not to mention the issue of devoting expensive urban real estate to agricultural production.