3 ms·

Environmental impact needs to be calculated as well. The only concern I have is soil, nutrient supplementation quality - profit focus would dictate trying to in

by loceng 6y ago

Environmental impact needs to be calculated as well. The only concern I have is soil, nutrient supplementation quality - profit focus would dictate trying to include bare minimum nutrients which doesn't necessarily yield the best food but "good enough" being produced.

giantg2 6y ago
Yep, we already see this in many cultivars today - they are less nutritious than many heirloom varieties because they prioritize production (paid by the pound).
- ggm 6y ago
  I suspect these target a market intensely focussed on nutritional value, as well as price. Good food commands a premium. Yes, naked competition would force costs down and if nutritional value was costly that would drop, but this technology is early phase, may well still be more expensive than bulk commercial agriculture and succeed because of the variance of price and value and the huge amount of price elasticity inherent in food choices. I think you're arguing too strongly from reductionist economic theories. I already am willing to pay significantly higher prices for brie over US cheese blocks, and I pay over the odds for tomatoes I like. In Food economics, competition is not solely driven by price basically.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    That may be true for people who are well off, but there is a large segment of the population who are food insecure and many others that do not have that level of disposable income. Then you have the segments of the population that don't see any benefit to more nutritious foods and thing they are all the same. For example, why is organic farming not the predominant method?
hourislate 6y ago
>Environmental impact needs to be calculated as well. The first comment on the articles page was addressing some of that impact. Does it feed insects and birds and support biodiversity? Does it sequester carbon in the soil, making below-ground life healthy, increasing access of plants to nutrients, and hence produce healthier food? Does it help water infiltrate into the ground, this replenishing ground water and aquifers? Does convert sunlight into latent heat via plant transpiration, and thus support the Small Water Cycles that cool the surface of the earth and convey water (via rain) downwind to drier land? Does it engage the senses with beautiful sights and smells? Does it engage humans in an honest day's work, making them proud contributors to society?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  It doesn’t do any of that. Vertical farms and other indoor Ag works in places that already have a handicap. Like in deserts(Middle East), lack of arable land(Japan), harsh winters(New England/Canada). To maximize the efficiency for indoor farming, you have to install these systems in the most arid or hostile locations where nothing has been grown before. For example, California or pacific north west doesn’t need this. We can do better with crop rotation and crop diversity in most parts of the world where we grow food and it can be done in an environmentally friendly way.

by loceng 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

Yep, we already see this in many cultivars today - they are less nutritious than many heirloom varieties because they prioritize production (paid by the pound).

ggm 6y ago
I suspect these target a market intensely focussed on nutritional value, as well as price. Good food commands a premium. Yes, naked competition would force costs down and if nutritional value was costly that would drop, but this technology is early phase, may well still be more expensive than bulk commercial agriculture and succeed because of the variance of price and value and the huge amount of price elasticity inherent in food choices. I think you're arguing too strongly from reductionist economic theories. I already am willing to pay significantly higher prices for brie over US cheese blocks, and I pay over the odds for tomatoes I like. In Food economics, competition is not solely driven by price basically.
- giantg2 6y ago
  That may be true for people who are well off, but there is a large segment of the population who are food insecure and many others that do not have that level of disposable income. Then you have the segments of the population that don't see any benefit to more nutritious foods and thing they are all the same. For example, why is organic farming not the predominant method?

hourislate 6y ago

>Environmental impact needs to be calculated as well. The first comment on the articles page was addressing some of that impact. Does it feed insects and birds and support biodiversity? Does it sequester carbon in the soil, making below-ground life healthy, increasing access of plants to nutrients, and hence produce healthier food? Does it help water infiltrate into the ground, this replenishing ground water and aquifers? Does convert sunlight into latent heat via plant transpiration, and thus support the Small Water Cycles that cool the surface of the earth and convey water (via rain) downwind to drier land? Does it engage the senses with beautiful sights and smells? Does it engage humans in an honest day's work, making them proud contributors to society?

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
It doesn’t do any of that. Vertical farms and other indoor Ag works in places that already have a handicap. Like in deserts(Middle East), lack of arable land(Japan), harsh winters(New England/Canada). To maximize the efficiency for indoor farming, you have to install these systems in the most arid or hostile locations where nothing has been grown before. For example, California or pacific north west doesn’t need this. We can do better with crop rotation and crop diversity in most parts of the world where we grow food and it can be done in an environmentally friendly way.