3 ms·
The only reason I've seen for vertical farming that makes any sense right now is that you can control the environment without damaging the ecosystem around you.
by foxyv 6y ago
The only reason I've seen for vertical farming that makes any sense right now is that you can control the environment without damaging the ecosystem around you. Filtered air so no cross pollination with wild strains, no insects, recycled water so no runoff or wasted fertilization, perfectly regulated soil/hydroponics, no PH issues from rain, no herbicides, etc... Good for high value, difficult to raise crops. Usually stuff that costs an arm and a leg like pink lettuce, white asparagus, hop shoots and wasabi root.
Otherwise the entire thing is too expensive. Usually water is more expensive in urban areas and power costs are prohibitive. Then you have the cost of capital to build a giant building that can support extremely heavy equipment for grow beds. You can't just use an old office building to support a couple thousand tons of equipment unfortunately.
But the thing is, right now there is so much arable land we can have luxuries like cattle and farmed wild game. In 80 years we may not be able to maintain those luxuries for 10.5 billion people without vertical farming. Especially since a lot of those people are starting to become more affluent on average. I wouldn't be surprised to see beef prices go above $20-30 a pound before the end of my life. Even accounting for inflation. Maybe VF will become economical by then?
- throwaway1777 6y agoCattle are not a luxury, they are literally part of subsistence farming in many regions and an important part of the ecosystem. One of the reasons we have to use so much fertilizer is because we stopped letting cattle graze over the fields. Monocrop corn and soy fields are a far bigger problem for sustainability than people think, maybe as bad as industrial animal farming.
- splistud 6y agoHistory shows that 3 things are important for food security: live animals for milk or slaughter, grain that can be stored, and any local food that can be easily dried. Before we react that food security isn't really a thing anymore, history has something to say about that as well. And yet the foolish are advocating for 2 of these safety nets to be disposed of.
- foxyv 6y agoYou are right! If you are a subsistence farmer you NEED to have cows, goats, pigs, and/or chickens to make up for the fact you can't grow 12 months a year and most of what you grow isn't edible by people. However subsistence farming is extremely land inefficient requiring 5 acres per person it feeds. This means that the maximum supportable human population is roughly 2.4 billion using subsistence farming. Also, allowing animals to graze over fields used for growing food results in food borne illness and crop disease. (Usually anthrax and E-coli) Typically if you are going to use animal based fertilizers they must be sterilized and composted ahead of time unless you don't mind poisoning people. Meat IS a luxury though. It's significantly more expensive per calorie than vegetable crops. (At least twice as expensive for the cheapest meat) It also uses about twice as much land as vegetable crops. Often subsistence farmers end up taking animals to market rather than slaughtering and eating themselves because they can get so much more food that way. https://www.primalsurvivor.net/much-land-need-self-sufficient/#:~:text=Even%20though%20a%20lot%20of,and%20a%20long%20growing%20season https://www.primalsurvivor.net/much-land-need-self-sufficien.... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229200736.htm#:~:text=FULL%20STORY-,Researchers%20have%20discovered%20that%20grazing%20animals%20such%20as%20deer%20and,of%20native%20grasslands%20in%20California https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229200736.h.... https://extension.psu.edu/common-diseases-of-grazing-beef-cattle https://extension.psu.edu/common-diseases-of-grazing-beef-ca...