Vertical Farming

[American Horse]

I realize this is an old article, but it was brought to my attention recently....

Spiraling Skyscraper Farms

As the world’s population continues to skyrocket and cities strain under the increased demand for resources, skyscraper farms offer an inspired approach towards creating sustainable vertical density. One of three finalists in this year’s Evolo Skyscraper Competition Eric Vergne’s Dystopian Farm project envisions a future New York City interspersed with elegantly spiraling biomorphic structures that will harness cutting-edge technology to provide the city with its own self-sustaining food source.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the things I've heard about these projects are mindblowing and game changing. Imagine a self sustaining mega city. With vertical farming, the city could feed itself with little need for actual farming land.

This could be a game changer in a lot of ways.

I'm all for the innovation and everything but this idea is impractical on so many levels(No pun intended). Obviously thought up by someone with little or no knowledge in farming. We are not now nor will we ever be close to short on land to farm. The most important thing to consider in growing produce is cost. You can grow pot in your attic if you are selling ounces of bud for $2000. To feed masses of people a head of lettuce needs to cost less than a dollar. If you spend 10-20 million bucks just to build your fantasy vertical garden and have to pay city prices for water your head of lettuce will cost about $20. There are so many problems inherant with this idea beyond the forementioned economic reality check. For one and it is hardly a minor problem...cities are filthy.. germs and parasites that would attck your produce would be overwelming. You couldn't spray toxins to combat them so most of what you tried to grow would be lost. It is one thing to grow a few tomatoes in a hanging basket off your deck... It is a whole nother proposition to try to grow 100 tons of em with all that time and investment relying on your performance. Crops need an environment that you can control for the most part. A huge part of that control is eliminating airborne risks which you could not do in a city.

Oh did I mention sunlight? What do you think the cost of light would add to the price of this produce? You will end up eating your cannibis to save money.

This is an idea from idiots with way too much time on their hands and absolutely no practical skills and experience. This seems to be a growing problem now-a-days. People will believe almost anything because they too are out of touch, so these "creative" people have a market for their hairbrained schemes. A large segment of our population seems to be beyond any level of critical thinking.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

This is the stupidest idea ever. Now if they had just said to plant crops on the roofs of commercial buildings I might say "ok, that's feasible". What happens if you build a whole farm of those stupid ass contraptions? Crops will only grow on the top, that's what.

 

[HUGGY]

I see several advantages to the concept..

YOu should change the prescription on your reading glasses

If current trends continue, safe drinking water will be impossible to come by in certain densely populated regions. .

Leading to less densely populated regions and helping keep the population down.
Didn't Malthus say something about that?
Funny thing is - these vertical farms will still need water and fertilizer and some damned expensive building maintenance. So building them would only lead to greater water shortages.

Why don't you list everyone on your ignore list? Shogun isn't the onlyest motherfucker that cusses at your pussyfied dribblings. I swear at your shit all the time...

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Pretty much every technological innovation of the last century was not economically practical in it's infancy.

No doubt. The difference between a Verne vision and one of Wells is that most of Verne's were moderately accurate and all of Wells were wildly inaccurate.
This is a Wells sort of vision.

No offense, but you are a nitwit.

I disagree.

We already have all the technology to make this work:

• Hydroponics-Check!
• Freight Elevators-Check!
• Environmental Control-Check!
• Plumbing (for skyscrapers)-Check!

The only issue is efficiency, namely cost and energy efficiency. That comes down to a cost analysis of transportation costs with the caveat that with time this method of farming would become more efficient (as is true with any new technology).

In short, this could be done if we wanted to. There are no technological difficulties to surmount.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Pretty much every technological innovation of the last century was not economically practical in it's infancy.

No doubt. The difference between a Verne vision and one of Wells is that most of Verne's were moderately accurate and all of Wells were wildly inaccurate.
This is a Wells sort of vision.

No offense, but you are a nitwit.

I disagree.

We already have all the technology to make this work:

• Hydroponics-Check!
• Freight Elevators-Check!
• Environmental Control-Check!
• Plumbing (for skyscrapers)-Check!

The only issue is efficiency, namely cost and energy efficiency. That comes down to a cost analysis of transportation costs with the caveat that with time this method of farming would become more efficient (as is true with any new technology).

In short, this could be done if we wanted to. There are no technological difficulties to surmount.

Nuclear power plants to power gillions of fluorescent lights? No check. Not enough electricity, sorry.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I disagree.

We already have all the technology to make this work:

• Hydroponics-Check!
• Freight Elevators-Check!
• Environmental Control-Check!
• Plumbing (for skyscrapers)-Check!

The only issue is efficiency, namely cost and energy efficiency.

In short, this could be done if we wanted to. There are no technological difficulties to surmount.

You missed a check on your list - the structural integrity of such an unbalanced building. Perhaps because the technology there is not only lacking, but almost certain to remain lacking.
But I'll grant you are correct. As soon as you find someone to purchase 50,000 shares in my private corporation (a 20% share of the company at present) for the low low cost of $20 per share.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You missed a check on your list - the structural integrity of such an unbalanced building. Perhaps because the technology there is not only lacking, but almost certain to remain lacking.

That's a design issue that could easily be resolved. We already know how to handle weight distribution in skyscrapers. We've known that for years. Just as we've known how to move water, sewage, and materials up and down the heights involved.

Again, the problems are cost and efficiency. If the past has been any indicator, cost and efficiency can be addressed over time.

Nuclear power plants to power gillions of fluorescent lights? No check. Not enough electricity, sorry.

You're preaching to the choir here. I think it is a national disgrace that the country that helped lead the research on splitting the atom isn't fully nuclear by now. Widespread nuclear power has the same issues as vertical farming, namely cost and efficiency.

Specific to the issue you raise, power for the hydroponics technology is a cost and efficiency issue. We already run power and lights throughout skyscrapers, so the technology is moot. Its just a matter of cost.

That's kinda the point here. This is a potentially revolutionary technology that we could implement now if we had the desire and the will to do so. I'm not talking about working AI, or Warp Drives, colonizing Pluto, or mining Asteroids. We have all the technology necessary to do this now. The question is this: Is it worthwhile?

 

[manifold]

You missed a check on your list - the structural integrity of such an unbalanced building. Perhaps because the technology there is not only lacking, but almost certain to remain lacking.

That's a design issue that could easily be resolved. We already know how to handle weight distribution in skyscrapers. We've known that for years. Just as we've known how to move water, sewage, and materials up and down the heights involved.

Again, the problems are cost and efficiency. If the past has been any indicator, cost and efficiency can be addressed over time.

Nuclear power plants to power gillions of fluorescent lights? No check. Not enough electricity, sorry.

You're preaching to the choir here. I think it is a national disgrace that the country that helped lead the research on splitting the atom isn't fully nuclear by now. Widespread nuclear power has the same issues as vertical farming, namely cost and efficiency.

Specific to the issue you raise, power for the hydroponics technology is a cost and efficiency issue. We already run power and lights throughout skyscrapers, so the technology is moot. Its just a matter of cost.

That's kinda the point here. This is a potentially revolutionary technology that we could implement now if we had the desire and the will to do so. I'm not talking about working AI, or Warp Drives, colonizing Pluto, or mining Asteroids. We have all the technology necessary to do this now. The question is this: Is it worthwhile?

It is if we ever want to colonize Pluto.

 

[Charles Stucker]

This is a potentially revolutionary technology that we could implement now if we had the desire and the will to do so. I'm not talking about working AI, or Warp Drives, colonizing Pluto, or mining Asteroids. We have all the technology necessary to do this now. The question is this: Is it worthwhile?

No, the technology is not revolutionary. Particularly if, as you claim, the technology already exists. The term you want to call revolutionary is the application.
The application is not revolutionary - it is silly.
Farmland is plentiful. Water is the limiting factor in agriculture. Pumping the water up a skyscraper will not magically make it increase in volume. If the goal is low water use, then install underground irrigation systems in existing fields. Far more efficient.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This is a potentially revolutionary technology that we could implement now if we had the desire and the will to do so. I'm not talking about working AI, or Warp Drives, colonizing Pluto, or mining Asteroids. We have all the technology necessary to do this now. The question is this: Is it worthwhile?

No, the technology is not revolutionary. Particularly if, as you claim, the technology already exists. The term you want to call revolutionary is the application.
The application is not revolutionary - it is silly.
Farmland is plentiful. Water is the limiting factor in agriculture. Pumping the water up a skyscraper will not magically make it increase in volume. If the goal is low water use, then install underground irrigation systems in existing fields. Far more efficient.

I agree this is probably an idea whose time has not yet come, at least in the US. However, if you're an island nation like Taiwan or England, this has to be at least a little attractive. Self-sufficient cities would be a major innovation.

 

[dilloduck]

I think it's a great idea worth exploring.

But what about vertical ranches?

Me likes meat!

It won't be long before meat is grown vertically.

Mad science? Growing meat without animals - Innovation- msnbc.com

My meat already grows vertically---( someone had to say it )

 

[waltky]

'Lettuce lady' leads the way of f future farming...

Hydroponic Farmer Produces Year-Round Harvest
March 12, 2012 : Technique involves growing food plants without soil

Mary Ellen Taylor sells her produce at weekend farmers markets near Washington, D.C. The heads of lettuce, still attached to their roots, are popular and she has many repeat customers. “The lettuce just tastes fabulous," says Betsy Kulick, one of her regulars. "We can come here year round even in January, February and March. The lettuce is very green and tastes just as good then as it does in summer.” Taylor grows the lettuce and other salad greens on her family farm in Loudoun County, Virginia, about 80 kilometers from Washington. She grows the food plants in a greenhouse, without any soil, on a diet of nutrient-rich water.

It's called hydroponic farming. Although the technique has been around for thousands of years, it has filled a very small niche in modern agriculture, especially in the United States, where large tracts of land and other resources are available. Taylor harvests 4,000 heads of lettuce weekly in her two hydroponic greenhuses all year round. That's why she named her farm Endless Summer Harvest. She has a dozen part-time employees and frequent visitors from around the world. “Several weeks ago an investor group from Botswana came to visit with us," Taylor says. "We had farmers from Afghanistan here that were visiting, because this would be an ideal controlled environment to bring to Afghanistan where the climate is so harsh."

Taylor's hydroponic crops are protected from the harsh elements from planting to harvest. It starts with seeds being planted in the nursery. After they germinate, the little plants stay in the nursery for two weeks. Then they're moved to a greenhouse and placed into gutters, where they'll grow to market size. They're nourished sustainably, using recycled water. “The tank has 600 gallons [2000 liters] of water with nutrients," Taylor says. "It continuously flows in and out of that tank after it has gone through the system and all of the plants’ roots.” According to Taylor, the two greenhouses take up a little over 1,000 square meters of land but produce the equivalent of a conventional five-hectare farm. “We have established that it is so productive on small pieces of land," Taylor says, "that it can be closer to major metropolitan areas.”

Besides farmers markets, Taylor sells her fresh produce to specialty grocery stores. “It is incredibly popular," says Don Rodon, owner of The Organic Butcher of McLean. "We have a great following.” At 1789, a restaurant in Washington, D.C., chef Anthony Lombardo uses the hydroponic lettuces in his signature salads. “They [the clients] really like the salad a lot," he says. "We get a lot of positive feedback about the salad.” And that's translating into brisk business for hydroponic farmer Taylor. “People are so into buying local food. Ninety percent of Americans eat lettuce every day. Our business, while other businesses are tanking, is just exploding," she says. "We are a retail farm phenomenon here in America.” Taylor, who enjoys being known as "the lettuce lady," plans to double the size of her farm this year.

Source

See also:

Aquaponics Could Signal Future of Food
January 24, 2012 - Technique combines fish farming, soil-less plants

Imagine growing vegetables and fish in the same space. That’s the idea behind aquaponics, a marriage of fish farming and soil-less plant cultivation in a single, sustainable closed system. Supporters believe aquaponics can play a key role in alleviating food insecurity, addressing the problems of climate change, ground water pollution and overfishing.

Recirculating wetlands system

Aquaponics is really as old as nature itself. “Aquaponics is really a recirculating wetlands system, so it’s happening right on the banks of our lakes," says Sylvia Bernstein. Bernstein was a hydroponic gardener for years - growing plants without soil using a water-soluble chemical fertilizer - before discovering she could use the waste water from fish to grow organic vegetables and fruits. “Honestly, I was very skeptical and just couldn’t believe that something as simple as fish waste could become a complete fertilizer," she recalls. "So I had to actually see a system that was in a friend’s basement. But when I did, it changed my life.” That was three years ago. Bernstein built her first aquaponics system with her 15-year-old son on a concrete pad outside her home in Boulder, Colorado. In her greenhouse today, she mainly raises tilapia and trout - feeding them once a day.

There are no weeds in her aquaponics garden, and she doesn’t have to worry about watering. The plants are growing in containers at a table height for easy access. “I, just this morning, pulled four radishes and some lettuce for lunch," Bernstein says. "In my greenhouse right now, I grow all sorts of herbs, tomatoes, peppers.” Bernstein started her own business, The Aquaponics Source, with an online store, her own YouTube channel and a blog. She teaches aquaponics at the Denver Botanic Gardens and recently published a book about how to set up an aquaponic garden at home. According to Berstein, a growing number of people in the U.S. and around the world are doing it, and enjoying the results: a year-round supply of healthful, safe and delicious food.

Earth-friendly food production

The Internet is helping many aquaponic gardeners get connected and learn from one another. “Aquaponics is a perfect thing to invest one’s mind and heart and elbow grease into," says James Godsil, co-founder of Sweet Water Organics, a commercial aquaponics farm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In 2010, Godsil helped set up a foundation to promote the approach. “The Sweet Water Foundation was dedicated to democratizing and globalizing the information and the methodologies required to advance this very Earth-friendly food production system, which, by the way, only uses about 10 percent of the water normal farming does, and uses no pesticides. It’s all natural.” According to Godsil, those advantages have been a powerful incentive for people from all walks of life who are considering a career in aquaponics. “The Sweet Water Foundation probably has had 500 supporters, including school students, and a community of retired engineers, professionals, social enterprisers, teachers and artists," Godsil says. "There are so many young elders who are retiring and looking for another career for the next 20 years.”

Beyond borders

 

[dilloduck]

Terrorist targets. Have we already forgotten ?

 

[whitehall]

"A game changer"? Pot heads have been drawing up pipe dreams like this for decades.

 

[Widdekind]

I see several advantages to the concept. First, the food base is not subject to the dangers of a rapidly changing climate. There is far less waste, because the food is produced where it is consumed. No need of pesticides, because of control of the environment.

what about plants that already grow well in cities. For example, admittedly thinking "outside the plant pot", ivy already exploits both horizontal and vertical city surfaces -- is ivy edible ??

or, could both wheat & potatoes be planted, in the same field, one growing above, and the other below, ground ??