3 ms·

I see the multi-generational family farm being doomed as anything more than a niche boutique to make premium-priced organic produce in the next few decades. Th

by cletus 8y ago

I see the multi-generational family farm being doomed as anything more than a niche boutique to make premium-priced organic produce in the next few decades. The reason for this is automation, though it isn't really touched on by this article. At some point in the near future robots will not only be able to construct greenhouses for growing crops with hydroponics but they'll also be able to do most of the work too. Look at these examples of hydroponic (vs soil) yields [1]. Hydroponic yields are in typically in the order of 3-10+ tims that of soil. In greenhouses you can control temperature, grow year-round and not have your crop wiped out by inclement weather (barring hurricanes/tornadoes, which may destroy your greenhouses but this is less of an issue than a frost or snowstorm destroying your crop). When human labour is only minimally required to construct a greenhouse or man it you'll see (IMHO) the biggest change to human food production since the advent of agriculture. It's also why I'm not particularly worried about the ability of the planet to feed itself. If food were produced this way, Earth could easily support a population of 50-100 billion. The article mentions that two bad years can lose the farm. The only way to counter such risks is scale. That's why mega-farms are becoming and will become the norm. Of course along the way I fully expect massive increases in government subsidies because of the political power of farmers (in the US and EU) but you just can't turn back time. [1] http://uponics.com/hydroponics-yield/ http://uponics.com/hydroponics-yield/

BariumBlue 8y ago
For hydroponics, I've heard of lettuce being commercially grown, but nothing else - it's more expensive than just farming a large section of land. And for automation, yes it is a threat, but often times more expensive than just paying cheap labor, which it seems the world won't be running out of in the short term
- xoa 8y ago
  >it's more expensive than just farming a large section of land. Does that take into account all the externalities that are currently still ignored in standard farming? I mean, one could argue that they'll continue to get ignored indefinitely sure, but I wonder if we're starting to reach a tipping point there again and while cletus didn't mention it I think that's one of the most compelling arguments towards hydroponics. Pure physical barriers could mean the elimination of pesticide and herbicide requirements for example, and both of those hide and enormous amount of expense upstream and downstream. Nutrients (fertilizer) can be applied vastly more effectively and efficiently, and possibly at least as importantly excess can be recovered or processed before any emission which can entirely eliminate runoff issues and entry into the environment. Even thinking politically, the general public often enjoys the views and imagine romanticism of farming, but the general public can also quite easily notice and hate algal blooms, outbreaks shutting down beaches, nutrient baths causing explosions of invasives like zebra mussels, etc., and just general reductions in recreational water quality even beyond any other effects. Those also represent big, powerful industries as well. And there is the land itself, hydroponics means arable land is unnecessary for basic food production, and there are other compelling uses for said land. Also land-wise and politically, one argument that frequently gets brought up is "food security" and governments reasonably worried about having enough basic food available in an emergency. But at least for rich countries, if anything LED hydroponics could offer a better story there (at a price), since the facilities can even be put underground/underwater or in other non-arable, dense and defensible positions. They can be protected from new forms of diseases and pests far more effectively. Small developed countries that currently must import might be able to achieve that politically attractive (whatever the practical merits) "food independence" that is current infeasible for them. I mean, I don't think there will be any super rapid changes here, and I do think many places will continue to have some agriculture as a boutique offering, but hydroponics long term looks pretty compelling in a lot of major ways.

by cletus 8y ago

BariumBlue 8y ago

For hydroponics, I've heard of lettuce being commercially grown, but nothing else - it's more expensive than just farming a large section of land. And for automation, yes it is a threat, but often times more expensive than just paying cheap labor, which it seems the world won't be running out of in the short term

xoa 8y ago
>it's more expensive than just farming a large section of land. Does that take into account all the externalities that are currently still ignored in standard farming? I mean, one could argue that they'll continue to get ignored indefinitely sure, but I wonder if we're starting to reach a tipping point there again and while cletus didn't mention it I think that's one of the most compelling arguments towards hydroponics. Pure physical barriers could mean the elimination of pesticide and herbicide requirements for example, and both of those hide and enormous amount of expense upstream and downstream. Nutrients (fertilizer) can be applied vastly more effectively and efficiently, and possibly at least as importantly excess can be recovered or processed before any emission which can entirely eliminate runoff issues and entry into the environment. Even thinking politically, the general public often enjoys the views and imagine romanticism of farming, but the general public can also quite easily notice and hate algal blooms, outbreaks shutting down beaches, nutrient baths causing explosions of invasives like zebra mussels, etc., and just general reductions in recreational water quality even beyond any other effects. Those also represent big, powerful industries as well. And there is the land itself, hydroponics means arable land is unnecessary for basic food production, and there are other compelling uses for said land. Also land-wise and politically, one argument that frequently gets brought up is "food security" and governments reasonably worried about having enough basic food available in an emergency. But at least for rich countries, if anything LED hydroponics could offer a better story there (at a price), since the facilities can even be put underground/underwater or in other non-arable, dense and defensible positions. They can be protected from new forms of diseases and pests far more effectively. Small developed countries that currently must import might be able to achieve that politically attractive (whatever the practical merits) "food independence" that is current infeasible for them. I mean, I don't think there will be any super rapid changes here, and I do think many places will continue to have some agriculture as a boutique offering, but hydroponics long term looks pretty compelling in a lot of major ways.