4 ms·
> But fertile soil is a massive input cost that you can't really get around for most full sized plants. If you had read the article, you'd know this is a hydro
by galdosdi 9y ago
> But fertile soil is a massive input cost that you can't really get around for most full sized plants.
If you had read the article, you'd know this is a hydroponic system. No soil. Yields are substantially higher and less water is consumed. Hydroponics are pretty interesting technology.
> Anyone can grow bad produce indoors.
Yeah, if they just stick some dirt under a random LED light. That's not what they're doing here. A different article I recently read about the same farm in Newark mentioned some gourmet chef next door raving about the quality of the greens.
- j-c-hewitt 9y agoI said 'full sized plants' because hydroponics can only be used for some kinds of plants. For other things you need soil. Hydroponics are also much finickier and require more labor and energy -- not to mention climate control, drainage, and dehumidifying.
- galdosdi 9y agoSo what? There's no merit badge for making hydroponics work for all the plants. Like, if you can make it work for just one plant that there's a sizable market for, like say, tomatos, that alone is enough to sustain a huge industry. Like, if you then extend it to other crops, that's cool I guess, but there's no economic need to. In order for your thesis that this is all bogus and useless to hold, hydroponics has to be industrially infeasible for ALL plants of any market value. It makes sense to start out with high value density crops like herbs or something (and it seems the Newark facility is starting with leafy greens for that reason)
- j-c-hewitt 9y agoWell, the gist of articles like this is that indoor rack farming could replace traditional dirt-and-soil farming. This is commentary on an article and not some separate argument about whether or not hydroponics are good or not for certain crops.