Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
US (IA): Removing Seasonality by Rolling Out Multiple Farms Throughout The State
“We want Nebullam Farms to be available in every city throughout the US, so we can fulfill our mission of creating access to reliable and local food for everyone, year-round,” says Clayton Mooney, founder of Nebullam
By Rebekka Boekhout
July 6, 2021
“We want Nebullam Farms to be available in every city throughout the US, so we can fulfill our mission of creating access to reliable and local food for everyone, year-round,” says Clayton Mooney, founder of Nebullam.
Over half of the Nebullam team is comprised of Iowa State University Alumni. Today, Nebullam HQ and its Nebullam Farm 1 in Ames, located in the Iowa State University Research Park. At the end of this year, the company will be launching Nebullam Farm 2, which will be in another location in Iowa.
Clayton Mooney, founder
Tomatoes as a cash cow
The company’s staple food is Red Butterhead Lettuce. Next to that, Nebullam grows Red Oakleaf lettuce, pea shoots, micro radish, broccoli sprouts, and cherry- and slicer tomatoes. “What we grow comes from direct feedback from our subscribers. Tomatoes are a great example, as we started trialing them in mid-2020, delivered samples to chefs, produce managers, and subscribers,” notes Clayton. He says that their feedback helped to bring the tomatoes to market 3 months earlier than expected, which has continued to add to Nebullam’s revenue. Now, the company is looking at peppers, cucumbers, strawberries, and spinach, which are subscriber requests.
Read the rest of the article here
For more information:
Clayton Mooney, founder
Nebullam
c@nebullam.com
www.nebullam.com
Farmers Already Forced To Abandon Crops As Additional Water Restrictions Loom
Bringing into focus some of the California crop losses caused by the 2021 drought, Western Growers has released a series of videos called “No Water = No Crops”
By Tom Karst
July 12, 2021
Bringing into focus some of the California crop losses caused by the 2021 drought, Western Growers has released a series of videos called “No Water = No Crops.”
The videos feature three California farmers who talk about the losses they are suffering this year.
“This is one of the most difficult decisions I’ve had to make in a long time,” Joe Del Bosque of Del Bosque Farms, Firebaugh, Calif., who sacrificed his asparagus field that still had five years’ productivity left, said in one video. “Seventy people are going to lose their jobs here. Next year, there will be no harvest here. Those 70 people lose two months of work. It’s a very difficult hit for them.”
Another video features Ross Franson of Fresno, Calif.-based Woolf Farming.
“Around this time of year, we’d normally be prepping for harvest,” Franson said in the video.
The farm has started knocking down almond trees in its 400-acre orchard, he said.
“But due to the dire drought that’s going on in the state of California right now, we made the decision to pull these trees out simply because we didn’t have the water to irrigate them.”
“These trees are all dead, and they shouldn’t be,” Jared Plumlee of Booth Ranches said in one video. The company produces citrus in Orange Cove, Calif., and destroyed 70 acres of trees because of the drought.
“It’s just a shame. This block had probably 20 years of productive life, and we were forced to push it out.”
Western Growers president and CEO Dave Puglia said in a news release that the future of agriculture in California is being compromised by the regulatory uncertainty of water deliveries to farms.
“Is that really what you want? Do you want a bunch of dust blowing through the center of the state interrupted by fields of solar panels, which don’t employ many people?” Puglia said in the release.
“It is a question that needs to be posed to Californians, generally, and their political leaders. Is that what you want? Because that is the path you are on.”
Lead Photo: Joe Del Bosque of Del Bosque Farms, Firebaugh, Calif. points to a melon field that was plowed under because of the drought.
An Action Plan To Ensure Food Security In Kashmir
In Kashmir valley, where most farmers own less than an acre of land, any Government policy related to land acquisition, especially for “development projects”, needs to take into account the fragile mountainous environment and climatic conditions as well. At a time when the agricultural land is shrinking day by day and population on rise, what is the future of agriculture in Jammu & Kashmir especially the Kashmir valley?
By Dr Raja Muzaffar Bhat
July 9, 2021
The majority of the farmers in Jammu and Kashmir are officially recognized as marginal farmers because of very small land holdings. The agricultural landholdings in J&K was estimated at 0.55 hectares during the agriculture census 2015-16, but unofficially this is much smaller (around 0.45 hectares ). In Kashmir valley, the size is even smaller. During the 2010-2011 agriculture census, the average size of operational land holdings in India was 1.15 hectares. This figure was lower, at 0.62 hectares in Jammu and Kashmir. Districts in Kashmir valley had even lower landholding sizes than the state as a whole. Kulgam 0.39 hectares Anantnag 0.39 , Shopian 0.56, Pulwama 0.48, Srinagar 0.31, Budgam 0.43, Baramulla 0.51, Ganderbal 0.37, Kupwara 0.51, Bandipora 0.48. These figures again came down during the 2015-16 census. I have written in detail about it in past.
In Kashmir valley, where most farmers own less than an acre of land, any Government policy related to land acquisition, especially for “development projects”, needs to take into account the fragile mountainous environment and climatic conditions as well. At a time when the agricultural land is shrinking day by day and population on rise, what is the future of agriculture in Jammu & Kashmir especially the Kashmir valley?
World population by 2040
The world's overall population is expected to increase by another 2 billion by 2040. Feeding such a large population will be the most challenging task ? Scientific studies show earth has lost one- fourth of its arable lands over the last
50 years only? India has a huge population. Urbanization and industrialization is shrinking its agricultural land. The Vertical farming is the solution to these challenges. This type of farming is an innovative way of maintaining our agricultural practices. In India, vertical farming is mostly polyhouse-based farming. Poly-house farming is a protected way that gives higher productivity and yield of vegetables and fruits across India. Increasing food demand due to a growing population along with ever decreasing arable lands poses one of the greatest challenges for us. Many believe that vertical farming can be the answer to this challenge. It is believed that vertical farming is the future of agriculture. For a place like Kashmir it is indeed the solution to ensure food security in future
What Is Vertical Farming ?
Vertical farming is the practice of producing food on vertically inclined surfaces. Instead of farming vegetables and other foods on a single level, such as in a field or a greenhouse, this method produces foods in vertically stacked layers commonly integrated into other structures like a skyscraper, shipping container or repurposed warehouse. Using Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) technology. This modern idea uses indoor farming techniques. The artificial control of temperature, light, humidity, and gases makes producing foods and medicine indoor possible. In many ways, vertical farming is similar to greenhouses where metal reflectors and artificial lighting augment natural sunlight. The primary goal of vertical farming is maximizing crops output in a limited space.
Firstly, the primary goal of vertical farming is producing more foods per square meter. To accomplish this goal, crops are cultivated in stacked layers in a tower life structure. Secondly, a perfect combination of natural and artificial lights is used to maintain the perfect light level in the room. Technologies such as rotating beds are used to improve lighting efficiency. Thirdly, instead of soil, aeroponic, aquaponic or hydroponic growing mediums are used. Peat moss or coconut husks and similar non-soil mediums are very common in vertical farming. Finally, the vertical farming method uses various sustainability features to offset the energy cost of farming. In fact, vertical farming uses 95% less water.
Vertical farming in J&K
As discussed above the agricultural land holding in Jammu & Kashmir is very less. The government is in the process of acquiring more and more agricultural land for highways and transmission lines. More than than 800 acres of highly fertile agriculture land is being acquired for the Srinagar Ring Semi Road project. Budgam alone is loosing more than 600 acres of vegetable, paddy and orchard land (4800 kanals). Right to Fair compensation act which is applicable in J&K post article 370 abrogation is not applied as the 2017 notification has become null and void due to efflux of time. Dozens of villages in Pulwama, Budgam, Srinagar and Ganderbal are affected by the land acquisition process for this project. We already lost a lot of agricultural land during construction of Qazigund – Baramulla railway line. Due to urbanization a lot of paddy fields were converted into housing colonies around Srinagar, Budgam and Ganderbal districts. Shopping malls, hospitals, schools have come up on agricultural land. Have we ever thought about our future generation ? Will people in Kashmir valley be able to grow vegetables or paddy in 2050 ? No not at all. What is the solution? Why are our agri –scientists and researchers not coming forward and guiding people on vertical farming?
Advantages of Vertical farming
Vertical farming has a lot of advantages. However, there are some challenges as well. The advantages are listed below :
Preparation for the Future:
In the next 30 to 35 years around 70 % of the world population is expected to live in urban areas, and the population growth will demand more food. The efficient use of vertical farming may perhaps play a significant role in facing such challenges.Year-Round Crop Production:
The vertical farming ensures to produce more crops from the same square footage of growing area. In fact, 1 acre (8 kanals) of an indoor area offers equivalent production to at least 4-6 acres of outdoor capacity. According to an estimate, a 30-story building with a base area of 5 acres can potentially produce an equivalent of 2,400 acres of conventional horizontal farming. Additionally, year-round crop production is possible in a controlled indoor environment which is completely controlled by vertical farming technologies. This is indeed a very useful technique for a place like Kashmir in view of shrinking farm lands and harsh winter months. Vertical farming allows us to produce crops with 70% to 95% less water than required for normal cultivation.
Production of Organic Crops:
As crops are produced in a well-controlled indoor environment without the use of chemical pesticides, vertical farming allows us to grow pesticide-free and organic crops. Indoor vertical farming can significantly lessen the occupational hazards associated with traditional farming. Farmers are not exposed to hazards related to heavy farming equipment, diseases like malaria, poisonous chemicals and so on. As it does not disturb animals and trees inland areas, it is good for biodiversity as well
Challenges
Difficulties with Pollination
Vertical farming takes place in a controlled environment without the presence of insects. As such, the pollination process needs to be done manually, which will be labor intensive and costly.
Labor Costs
As high as energy costs are in vertical farming, labour costs can be even higher due to their concentration in urban centers where wages are higher, as well as the need for more skilled labor. Automation in vertical farms, however, may lead to the need for fewer workers. Manual pollination may become one of the more labor-intensive functions in vertical farms.
Conclusion
The constant shrinking of agriculture land is a big challenge at global level as discussed above. For a place like Kashmir valley the shrinking of agricultural land due to urbanization and population growth will lead to food crises in future. Vertical farming is the only hope now and our agriculture scientists, universities and research institutions need to shift their focus on vertical farming....
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts, analysis, assumptions and perspective appearing in the article do not reflect the views of GK.
Lead Photo: Why are our agri-scientists not coming forward, and guiding people on vertical farming?
Videos: Freight Farms - Container Farming
To learn more about how to get started with your own Freight Farm go to Freight Farms, or to inquire about a pre-owned Freight Farm Container go to iGrow News
FREIGHT FARMER SPOTLIGHT: PATRICK STOFFER
In a lot of ways, Patrick Stoffer isn't your average 28-year old. To start with, he is a hydroponic farmer, but perhaps even more unusual, he is roommates with a 90-year old, Harrie, just one of the members of his community he is passionate about serving. Patrick lives at Humanitas Independent Senior Living Facility in Deventer, The Netherlands. In exchange for room and board, Patrick spends time with the residents, who help him grow, harvest and prepare the fresh produce from his Freight Farms operation, Grow Local. To learn more about how to get started with your own Freight Farm go to Freight Farms, or to learn more about pre-owned Freight Farm LGM container, got to iGrow News.
GROW FOOD HERE: SPRINGDALE, ARKANSAS | VET VEGGIES
4 STEPS TO GROWING IN OUR CONTAINER FARM
FREIGHT FARMER SUPPORT
MEET THE FARMERS AT AGORA GREENS
2015 LEAFY GREEN MACHINE BY FREIGHT FARMS
INSIDE A SHIPPING CONTAINER VERTICAL HYDROPONIC FARM
INTRODUCTION TO THE LEAFY GREEN MACHINE
FREIGHT FARMS X KARMA FARM
THE STORY BEHIND FREIGHT FARMS
INSIDE THE LEAFY GREEN MACHINE
New York City’s Best Urban Farms
When most people think of urban farming in New York City, they picture a bearded Brooklynite picking kale from atop a warehouse while drinking a home-brewed beer. And while that person does exist, there are a lot of other farms in this city that don’t fit the stereotype
From Bushwick to the Bronx, these 17 urban farms provide fresh food and green space for their communities
By Jessica Dailey and Amy Plitt
April 19, 2019
Eagle Street Rooftop Farm | UIG via Getty Images
When most people think of urban farming in New York City, they picture a bearded Brooklynite picking kale from atop a warehouse while drinking a home-brewed beer. And while that person does exist, there are a lot of other farms in this city that don’t fit the stereotype.
From a 19-year-old garden in East New York to a cooperative farm on a formerly vacant South Bronx lot, every borough plays host to at least one urban farm, and we’ve mapped 17 of the most notable ones here.
GrowNYC Teaching Garden
Governors Island
New York, NY 11231
Governors Island has partnered with GrowNYC on this 21,000-square-foot urban garden, which is filled with vegetable beds made from recycled materials. The garden is open for visitors to check out on weekends, and hosts occasional workshops and events.
Iwan Baan/Courtesy West8
The Battery Urban Farm
State St &, Battery Pl
New York, NY 10004
At the tip of Manhattan, one acre in the 25-acre Battery Park is dedicated to growing more than 100 types of vegetables. All of the food is harvest by NYC students, and donated to school cafeterias and food pantries, and resident turkey Zelda keeps everyone in line.
Shutterstock
Riverpark
450 E 29th St
New York, NY 10016
Many restaurants in New York City get their produce from the local Greenmarkets, but few grow it themselves. Riverpark, however, does. Located in the Alexandria Center, the farm uses 7,000 milk crates as grow beds. The farm provides food to Riverpark from spring until fall and grows more than 100 types of vegetables.
John Lamparski / Getty Images
Harlem Grown
118 W 134th St
New York, NY 10030
This urban farm, founded in 2011, aims to educate Harlem’s kids about agriculture, and does so through a variety of programs—there are volunteer opportunities, internships, and a summer camp. The farm has two locations: one on West 127th Street, and one on West 134th Street.
La Finca del Sur Community Garden
110 E 138th St
The Bronx, NY 10451
A group of Latina and black women living in the South Bronx banded together to turn an empty, abandoned lot on 138th Street into a farm in late 2009, and La Finca del Sur was born. The farming cooperative is an official nonprofit, and in 2014, the farm—where owners grow vegetables for personal use—helped launch the South Bronx Farmers Market.
Randall's Island Urban Farm
Wards Meadow Loop
New York, NY 10035
On Randall’s Island in the middle of the East River, 40,000 square feet of land hosts hundreds of plants in 80 raised beds. The farm, which has a great view of the Hell Gate Bridge, is maintained by GrowNYC and the Randall’s Island Park Alliance.
Brooklyn Grange, Long Island City
37-18 Northern Blvd
Long Island City, NY 11101
Brooklyn Grange’s flagship farm is not located, as one would assume, in Brooklyn. It sits on top of a 1919 Long Island City warehouse, and at 43,000 square feet, it’s one of the city’s largest rooftop farms. This commercial organic farm opened in 2010 and grows tens of thousands of pounds of produce every year, but it also hosts events, like tours and yoga classes.
Photo by Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Eagle Street Rooftop Farm
44 Eagle St
Brooklyn, NY 11222
Before building behemoth farms, Brooklyn Grange founder Ben Flanner co-founded the Eagle Street farm, the first rooftop soil farm in New York City. Today, his co-founder Annie Novak still runs the 6,000-square-foot farm, which is located atop a Greenpoint warehouse owned by Broadway Stages. The farm sells its produce at an on-site market, and delivers to local restaurants.
North Brooklyn Farms
320 Kent Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11249
North Brooklyn Farms was previously located on the Domino Refinery development site, but moved to a more permanent space on Kent Avenue and South 4th Street once construction on that mega project began. The farm hosts community dinners, educational programs, and sells the produce at a farm stand.
Oko Farms
104 Moore St
Brooklyn, NY 11206
Located in Bushwick, Oko Farms is an aquaponic farm, meaning that in addition to fruits and vegetables, its owners also cultivate freshwater fish. (Curious about how this works? They host workshops on aquaponics.) Oko recently partnered with Dabar Development Partners and Thorobird Real Estate, in partnership with the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development to bring fresh food and urban farms to a low-income housing project that’s in the works in Bed-Stuy.
Brooklyn Grange, Brooklyn Navy Yard
63 Flushing Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11205
Two years after opening its first farm, Brooklyn Grange more than doubled its growing power by expanding with a 65,000-square-foot farm in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, moving the title of the world’s largest rooftop farm from Queens to Brooklyn. Together, the two farms produce tens of thousands of pounds of vegetables every year.
Phoenix Community Garden
2037 Fulton St
Brooklyn, NY 11233
Many community gardens dedicate space for produce, but the Phoenix Garden in Brownsville fills its entire 20,000-square-foot plot with edible plants. There’s a grape arbor, a large gazebo, and a rainwater harvesting system, and the garden produces about 2,000 pounds of vegetables every season. A portion of the output goes to a local soup kitchen across the street.
East New York Farms
613 New Lots Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11207
East New York was one of the first neighborhoods in New York City to experiment with urban farming. The first seed for the idea was planted in 1995, and three years later, the first actual seed was planted in the ground. Today, the community-run farm provides produce to 17,000 people each year.
The Youth Farm
600 Kingston Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11203
A one-acre youth farm run by the High School for Public Service grows vegetables and flowers for the community while teaching students about agriculture and food justice.
Whole Foods Market
214 3rd St
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Gotham Greens runs the 20,000-square-foot garden atop the Gowanus Whole Foods, in which they grow 200 tons of organic, non-GMO produce with hydroponic techniques. Much of the produce is sold right downstairs in the supermarket.
Shutterstock
Red Hook Farms
560 Columbia St
Brooklyn, NY 11231
Formerly known as Added Value, this community farm in Red Hook is one of New York City’s older urban farms. It started in 2001, and every year, the 2.5-acre plot produces enough vegetables for a neighborhood CSA.
Snug Harbor Heritage Farm
1000 Richmond Terrace
Staten Island, NY 10301
A century ago, the area where Snug Harbor, Staten Island’s Cultural Center and Botanical Garden, sits was farmland, and the center pays homage to that history with a farm of their own. All of the fresh fruits, vegetables and herbs that the farm grows are sold at the Snug Harbor Farm Stand.
Qatar's Hydroponic Farms To Cover 100 Hectares By 2021
Qatar’s local hydroponic farms aim to further expand their operations in the next two years to reach 100 hectares in order to meet the growing demand for organic vegetables
A colourful display of fresh local vegetables at AgriteQ 2019. PICTURE: Joey Aguilar
March 22, 2019
Qatar’s local hydroponic farms aim to further expand their operations in the next two years to reach 100 hectares in order to meet the growing demand for organic vegetables.
"We are hoping to achieve this target by 2021 under our operations, management, and distribution,” prominent Qatari agriculturist and Agrico managing director Nasser Ahmed al-Khalaf told Gulf Times.
Agrico, a private Qatari agricultural development company established in 2011, is helping the country achieve self-sufficiency in food. It is currently developing other local farms and involved in a number of agri projects in Qatar.
Nasser Ahmed al-Khalaf at Agriteq 2019
AgriteQ 2019 attracted a large number of visitors. PICTURE: Shaji Kayamkulam
"We are now focusing on improving efficiency and increasing yields by building more greenhouses for farm investors with the use of modern technology," he explained on the sidelines of the Qatar International Agricultural Exhibition 2019, which concluded yesterday at the Doha Exhibition and Convention Centre.
The event, dubbed as ‘AgriteQ and EnviroteQ 2019’, brought together 90 local farms and more than 50 international companies under one roof, highlighting the importance of innovation in agricultural techniques, in addition to showcasing an array of new equipment and technologies.
“There is nothing to improve on our system (made in Qatar) but we want to increase the density per square metre, utilising the fertilisers and nutrients in a more efficient way to increase our production,” al-Khalaf said.
The Qatari agriculturist pointed out that the demand for organic fresh produce in Qatar rose dramatically due to people’s “high level of awareness” on the health benefits of organic foods.
Agrico currently exports products to Kuwait (1.5 tonne weekly by plane) and Oman, and it is also eyeing European markets.
“People might see Agrico in European markets this year. Why Europe? Because in the winter, they cannot produce vegetables and they cannot have this type of quality and not organic,” al-Khalaf said.
He added that the company received its US Department of Agriculture certification recently and it is on the process of applying for Global Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification to be able to export to Europe.
Agrico produces at least 10,000 tonnes of various vegetables such as cucumber, tomatoes, and mushrooms, among others, per day, according to al-Khalaf.
The company has also invested in aquaponics farming and will start raising organic chickens in Qatar early next year, he added.
Last updated: March 23 2019 12:32 PM
Here’s What’s Driving Energy Storage Markets — And How to Benefit
Energy storage markets are growing quickly, driven by regulations, demand charges, plus utilities’ need to integrate solar into the grid and avoid building new peaking power plants
March 1, 2019
By Lisa Cohn
Energy storage markets are growing quickly, driven by regulations, demand charges, plus utilities’ need to integrate solar into the grid and avoid building new peaking power plants.
By SergeyIT/Shutterstock.com
In fact, innovative utility-scale energy storage projects are popping up across the nation, with utilities and cities using storage to avoid building underground transmission, escape high demand charges from independent system operators and integrate more renewable power into the grid.
What’s more, used electric vehicle (EV) batteries are expected to drive battery prices down in the future, further boosting the market, said Peter Kelly-Detwiler, Northbridge Energy Partners principal. He was summarizing the messages from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Enterprise Forum’s event Feb. 27, “Energy Storage: New Business Models Fuel Rapid Growth.”
The forum aimed to advise startups about how best to thrive in the growing markets. One warning, Kelly-Detwiler said: Companies shouldn’t be too enamored of their technologies. They need to find markets for their products and be prepared to flex as markets change.
“They need to focus on where to play, how to work the markets and who wants to buy their products and services,” said Kelly-Detwiler, who moderated the event.
Role of states, FERC
Understanding the bigger picture means keeping up with leading state legislation, including efforts in California, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York.
Massachusetts, for example, recently committed to boosting solar-plus-battery energy storage for the grid in two decisions. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities focused on net metering for solar-plus-storage projects and also on the capacity ownership rights of projects.
The Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) is now accepting applications for its 2019 Energy Storage Tax Credit program, which aims to boost the use of storage by homes and businesses in the state. It was the first state to pass a bill allowing taxpayers to claim an income tax credit on energy storage.
Andin an important move, the California Public Utilities Commission on Jan 11 approved proposed rules allowing “stacking” of energy storage — using energy storage to provide multiple benefits and services. Resources can be compensated for their full economic value.
In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in Order 841 directed all grid operators to propose models for the participation of storage as a wholesale generation asset, said Kelly-Detwiler.
But these regulations — only a few examples of what’s happening across the country — aren’t the only market drivers.
Another opportunity is addressing the “duck curves” created by high solar production — in California, Massachusetts and elsewhere.
Many facility operators need increased resiliency, efficiently, and sustainability. Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) like wind, PV and energy storage can address these needs. Yet also introduce many other challenges. To learn how microgrids can help you optimize the integration of these assets, download this white paper.
“One April in Massachusetts, demand was higher in the night than in the middle of the middle of day,” said Kelly-Detwiler. “There are pretty good opportunities in these cases for storage to mitigate the intermittency of solar.”
In addition, utilities are beginning to embrace storage to help manage their grids, he said.
For example, both the municipal utility in Princeton, Mass. and Vermont’s Green Mountain Power use storage to mitigate demand charges from ISO New England, he said.
Martha’s Vineyard, an island off the coast of Massachusetts, is turning to storage to help reduce carbon emissions and avoid building or upgrading expensive underwater transmission lines, said Kelly-Detwiler. Eversource has proposed an energy storage project on the island that aims to reduce emissions from five diesel generators and help meet demand for electricity.
Energy storage is helping utilities in other areas of the country avoid building expensive peak power plants, Kelly-Detwiler said.
For example, Arizona Public Service has contracted with AES for a 10-MW/40-MWh storage system that will provide peaking capacity. Arizona utilities are grappling with changing peaks due to high solar penetration.
MIT Enterprise Forum Event, Photo Courtesy Chris Carleton, Chen PR
How rates drive energy storage markets
High demand charges are also boosting demand for energy storage.
In California, up to 50 percent of utility bills can come from demand charges, said Kelly-Detwiler.
Storage provider Stem is aggregating behind-the-meter energy storage to lower these charges, he added. Stem says it now has hundreds of systems up and running, many in California, where the high demand charges along with state incentives have created a large market for behind-the-meter storage. Stem is also building a 235-kWh energy storage system for the City of Huntington Beach’s Civic Center to help the city avoid demand charges. The system will work alongside 2 MW of solar.
Changing time-of-use rates are also boosting the market for storage, said Kelly-Detwiler. San Diego Gas & Electric has implemented time-of-use rates with peak prices as high as 50 cents/kWh, he said.
“The prices are so high, people are using storage to shift away from those hours,” he said. As a result, companies like Sunrun are adding storage to their solar offerings. During Sunrun’s third quarter of 2018, the company installed a record number of solar energy and home batteries, the company said.
“Demand charges and time-of-use rates are driving this,” said Kelly-Detwiler.
Used batteries to flood market, drive down prices
Used EV batteries are expected to start playing an important role in energy storage markets, driving down the price of batteries.
In Amsterdam, the Johan Cruijff Arena, a football stadium, employs used and new EV batteries to store up to 3 MW of solar power. The battery system also provides power to the grid.
“Used EV batteries still have 80 percent of their value when they come out of cars,” said Kelly-Detwiler. “Within a few years, we’re going to be flooded with cheap, useful batteries.”
With all these developments in energy storage markets across the country, startups need to keep their eyes open and adapt quickly as new markets open up, Kelly-Detwiler said.
“Startups need to understand the bigger picture, the context,” he said. “They need to pay attention to what’s happening across the country.”
Green Roof Ecology Students Design Projects For NYC Urban Rooftops
The fall 2018 Green Roof class projects were especially wide ranging and ambitious-and included two different green wall design proposals, a soil stormwater absorption experiment, a printed guide to common plants found on New York City green roofs, climate data analysis of microsensors installed on green roofs at both Brooklyn Grange and The New School, and a go-to all-purpose website about green roofs in the city.
Student green wall design for Vice Media headquarters in Brooklyn
FEBRUARY 22, 2019
For the last three years. Timon McPhearson, associate professor of urban ecology and director of the Urban Systems Lab, has been teaching a Green Roof Ecology class in which students collaborate to create civic engagement projects and conduct design and ecology research.
To conduct that research the class has partnered with Brooklyn Grange, the operator of the world’s two largest rooftop soil farms-and Vice Media headquarters in New York City. The class-which includes students from and Parsons School of Design and Eugene Lang College and is supported by Lang Civic Liberal Arts program —integrates design and urban ecology to innovate green roofs as spaces for improved social and environmental benefits. This course reflects The New School’s dedication to cross-disciplinary learning, design for social good, and real-world experiences. Among other benefits green roofs have vegetation that absorb storm water, provide insulation of buildings from heat, reduce noise and improve air quality.
The fall 2018 Green Roof class projects were especially wide ranging and ambitious-and included two different green wall design proposals, a soil stormwater absorption experiment, a printed guide to common plants found on New York City green roofs, climate data analysis of microsensors installed on green roofs at both Brooklyn Grange and The New School, and a go-to all-purpose website about green roofs in the city.
Architecture students Ross Myren and Antoine Antoine Vedel created one of those green wall design proposals as a site-specific design intervention for Vice headquarters in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn.
The duo dubbed their design the “gwaffle,” (Green Waffle) a waffle-shaped structure that they created after visiting the Vice rooftop, discussing with Brooklyn Grange, and studying the essential architecture and ecology issues necessary to build a design model.
“There was a big gap between the artificial controlled environment and the green roof and we wanted to blur the boundaries between those two spaces,” Vedel said. “We wanted to create social interaction in that space while providing environmental benefits and adding more vertical space. Its fluid and organic design brings continuity to the space, also while benefiting the environment.”
Vedel praised Vice as a great space because they already have green roof infrastructure. Although the Gwaffle was developed for Vice, he stressed that it is “a system whose dimensions and modules are adjustable to the customer’s wishes.”
www.greenroofsnyc.com, the website created by several Green Roof Ecology students, details the myriad benefits that green roofs have for city inhabits. The website also provides resources needed for an individual or organization planning to create its own green roof, including types of roof structure, labor commitments, and accessibility and FAQs on how to secure financing by the city.
“When we started the class the website, it was geared to the Vice rooftop and then we expanded it to all of New York City as a resource guide,” said Stephanie Kale, a student involved in the site’s creation. “It can benefit anybody who wants to improve air quality, increase energy efficiency and increase property value.”
McPhearson says that he envisions the website as a broader resource that is now being expanded as a media outlet of the NYC Green Roof Research Alliance.
Another class project was a design for an indirect green wall that would be made of stainless steel and created for the new Brooklyn Grange rooftop farm opening this summer in the Sunset Park section of Brooklyn. Students created a modular bench made of pinewood for the roof’s seating area.
“It was a great assignment,” said New School junior Jasmine Yee, one of the students who designed the indirect green wall. “I would love it if we could implement it.”
McPhearson says that every semester final class project output includes booklets, physical built prototypes, media materials and research reports and analyses.
“It’s exciting to see how this class continues to evolve as unique learning space that continues to expand beyond the university as a resource for design and ecological innovation the larger community of New York,” McPhearson said.
Baldor Foods Sourcing Ugly Produce From Local Farms
August 08, 2018
Baldor Specialty Foods, the premier ingredient source for NYC’s top chefs and one of the largest produce distributors in the Northeast, is working with two local farms, Hepworth Farms of Milton, NY, and Satur Farms of Cutchogue, NY, to bring second cuts and aesthetically imperfect produce to market. Baldor plans to expand the service to additional farms in the near future.
Launched as the Imperfect Produce Program, the initiative creates a market for the perfectly good and nutritious, locally grown produce that would otherwise go to waste.
“Virtually a third of a farmer’s crop never makes it to market because of oddly shaped or cosmetically blemished items that the food service industry routinely rejects,” said Thomas McQuillan, Baldor’s vice president of strategy, culture and sustainability. “With this new program, we’re working with two local farms, Hepworth and Satur, to sell their surplus, irregular — but perfectly nutritious and delicious — select produce items to our customers.”
Currently, Hepworth Farms is supplying freshly picked, but aesthetically imperfect, zucchini, peppers, eggplant, cucumbers and tomatoes to the new program. Satur Farms is supplying second-cut kale and a kale spinach mix. Baldor makes this completely safe, usable and locally grown produce available to its network of restaurant owners, top chefs and institutional food suppliers.
“Baldor’s Imperfect Produce Program is a win-win for everyone,” said TJ Murphy, Baldor’s chief executive officer. “Our farming partners will waste less and sell more and by doing this we’ll build a stronger regional food system
Curated From:
Foreign Beef Can Legally be Labeled “Product of U.S.A.” It’s Killing America’s Grass-Fed Industry.
How rampant mislabeling puts America's grass-based cattle producers out of business.
How rampant mislabeling puts America's grass-based cattle producers out of business.
July 16th, 2018
by Joe Fassler
CULTURE ENVIRONMENT FARM POLICY SYSTEMS
Last month, in a petition formally filed with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), two advocacy groups made a stunning claim: Your American grass-fed beef might actually come from overseas, even if it’s labeled “Product of U.S.A.”
Those two groups—the American Grassfed Association (AGA), which offers the country’s leading “grass-fed” certification, and the Organization for Competitive Markets, a watchdog group that fights corporate consolidation in the food industry—point out that a massive regulatory loophole allows companies to falsely, and yet legally, claim their imported beef comes from our pastures.
The trouble began in 2015, when the Obama administration’s USDA rolled back Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef and pork products, allowing meat to be sold without disclosing its home country on the label. But that decision, which angered many American ranchers, has further muddied the waters in a way no one quite anticipated. Under the current rules, beef and pork products that are shipped to the United States and processed further here, can be labeled “product of U.S.A.,” even if the animal was raised a continent away. That means a steer slaughtered in Uruguay and broken down into steaks at a meatpacking plant in Colorado is technically American meat—even if it isn’t.
Photograph by simarik (iStock), graphic by NFE
That’s a huge issue for American grass-fed producers, who are now finding themselves undercut by foreign competition. Allen Williams, a 6th-generation rancher and founding partner of Grass Fed Insights, a leading consulting group on grass-fed beef, says U.S. producers owned more than 60 percent of the domestic grass-fed market in 2014. Then came COOL repeal. By 2017, American ranchers’ share had plunged to just 20 to 25 percent, according to an industry analysis by the Stone Barns Center for Agriculture. Today, Williams, who consulted on the Stone Barns report, says American producers claim only about 15 percent of the grass-fed market—and that share is rapidly shrinking.
Ranchers attribute the decline directly to COOL repeal. The fact that foreign companies can pass their imported beef off as American, they say, has made fair competition impossible.
“The very idea of labeling beef in a grocery store ‘product of U.S.A.,’ when the animal never drew a breath of air on this continent, is just horrible,” says Will Harris, owner of White Oak Pastures, which produces its branded line of grass-fed beef in Bluffton, Georgia. (Harris is also on AGA’s board of directors.) “I don’t begrudge importers or producers from other countries selling to knowing consumers that want to buy that imported product. But I’m appalled at what the deception has done to the economies of our membership. It has moved the needle from grass-fed beef producers being profitable, to being a very break-even—or, if you’re not careful, a losing—proposition.”
But though pastured beef often isn’t as American as it looks, a question remains: How much does it actually matter? I found myself wondering how much we mean to prioritize domestic purchasing when we spend a little more to buy grass-fed, and whether the product’s country of origin makes a meaningful difference. Are grass-fed steaks from Australia all that different from those raised on a ranch outside Austin, Texas? I wanted to know whether we we should stop handwringing about geography—or if misleading labels somehow betray the grass-fed ethos, and amount to a profound abuse of consumer trust.
Grazed and confused
If Williams is right that only 15 percent of the grass-fed beef is raised domestically, you wouldn’t necessarily know it just by strolling through the grocery store. On a recent trip to Trader Joe’s, I inspected a package of “100 percent grass-fed organic ground beef,” looking for clues about its origins. The casual observer could be forgiven for mistaking that product for American meat. The splashy consumer-facing label features a USDA organic seal, a USDA inspection sticker, and, in smaller print, the phrase “processed in USA” alongside Trader Joe’s corporate address in Monrovia, California. Of course, foreign beef can still be certified USDA organic and all imported meat goes through USDA inspection. But this product features not one but four allusions to the U.S. on its label. The average shopper wouldn’t be crazy to assume it’s coming from here.
Flip the package over, though—to the side few people read up close—and the label tells a different story. In small, no-frills font, below the freeze-by date and above the safe handling instructions, are the words “Product of USA, Australia, and Uruguay.” That phrasing would seem to suggest that Trader Joe’s ground beef is a blend of beef from American, Australian, and Uruguayan cows—an arrangement that might surprise some customers, given what the front of the package says. But even thatreasonable assumption may not be accurate. Trader Joe’s may only be buying Australian and Uruguayan meat that’s then ground at a facility in the U.S.—enough to qualify as American in the eyes of regulators. It isn’t really possible to tell.
Joe Fassler
If Trader Joe’s and other grocery brands were really selling meat from cows raised in this country, you’d think they’d make a bigger deal of it.
Trader Joe’s organic grass-fed ribeye steak also prominently features USDA’s organic and inspection seals on the front—as well as the phrase “Product of USA” in small font on the back, by the nutrition facts. But are the company’s grass-fed ribeyes really produced here? Or are they just processed here? It’s impossible to tell from the label alone, and Trader Joe’s had not responded to my requests for clarification by press time.
The Trader Joe’s scenario is a good example of how products can follow the letter of the labeling law and still be misleading. But other brands have done more to take advantage of this legal ambiguity—and some are downright deceptive.
Bubba Burger
Bubba Foods’ marketing would suggest that its beef is born and raised in the U.S. A look at its affidavit to the USDA suggest otherwise
Bubba Foods, a Jacksonville, Florida-based company whose products are sold by major retailers like Walmart, Kroger, and Wegman’s, puts its American-made claims front and center. The label on the company’s grass-fed ground beef displays a prominent “Product of USA” banner, complete with an American flag—and, if that wasn’t enough, the proud phrase “Born & Raised in the USA.” But paperwork filed with USDA, obtained by the American Grassfed Association and shared with me, suggests the product may not be American at all—at least, not in the conventional sense most shoppers would understand.
Any producer who wants to sell a commercial grass-fed beef product has to file an affidavit with USDA’s Food Standards Inspection Service (FSIS), laying out the agricultural practices it will use and submitting an example of their product label. Bubba’s affidavit includes several details that caught my attention, considering the aggressive nationalism of its label. A nutritional analysis describes the product as “import grass-fed” beef. It also includes an import record from Australia, noting that an “Australian National Vendor Declaration” will certify the product’s grass-feeding regime. The final 20 pages of the document lay out the specifics of Australia’s Pasture-Fed Cattle Assurance Standard, a program that isn’t available in other countries.
Bubba Foods initially assured me the company would answer my questions about the discrepancy, but did not provide more information after multiple follow-ups. At this point, the opacity only furthers my suspicion that the company is passing off its Australian grass-fed beef as a “born and raised” U.S. product—with the U.S. government’s blessing. (Bubba’s affidavit also contains a copy of its product label, which regulators presumably viewed in all its chest-thumping patriotism.) No wonder eaters are confused.
By now, it should be obvious that misleading—and, in some cases, overtly deceptive—labels are out there. But we still haven’t established whether any of this is a meaningful deception, materially speaking. Does anyone really care if their grass-fed beef comes from America or Australia—and, if not, should they?
Eating American
In his work as a consultant, Allen Williams and his clients have spent millions of dollars trying to pin down exactly what compels shoppers to buy grass-fed beef. His findings suggest that (relative) locality is a huge selling point: A desire to support America’s rural economies is one major reason people spend more to buy grass-fed. The preference is so clear that Williams believes virtually all of the products with fine-print “Product of USA” claims are really imported. If Trader Joe’s and other grocery brands were really making the effort to buy meat from cows raised in this country, you’d think they’d make a much bigger deal of it.
Charlie Bradbury runs Grass Run Farms, an American-raised, grass-fed beef brand owned by JBS, the world’s largest multinational meatpacker. He tells me that JBS—which has long sold grass-fed products from Australia and elsewhere, and marketed them as such—acquired Grass Run Farms because so many customers asked for specifically domestic grass-fed beef.
“The fact that the cattle are born and processed in the U.S. is an important reason people buy this product,” he says. “These cattle generally do come from smaller, family-farm operations. They [shoppers] believe the animal welfare is improved [in that context] and so, since our job is to sell beef, we’re trying to produce a system that fits in with those concepts.”
Will Harris offers some insight into why demand for American grass-fed is so strong. Over the years, he’s learned that customers buy White Oaks beef for three primary reasons: environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and to support rural economies, in that order. (Health considerations are a factor, too, but not in the top three.)
Each of these main drivers has a strong local emphasis, he tells me. If someone wants to help improve the environment, they’re likely to want to do so in their own backyard first. Those worried about animal welfare are more likely to feel assured by local products, with a farmer they know by name and a ranch they can visit, than by a product from a continent away. Finally, anyone buying grass-fed to support the local farm economy is certainly going to privilege domestic product. In Harris’s view, it couldn’t be any clearer—when buying grass-fed, Americans explicitly prefer that it be American.
But say you’re the kind of ethically minded meat eater who just wants to do what’s best for the planet in general. Does it really matter whether your burger comes from your local farmers’ market versus a ranch in Australia or Uruguay?
That’s harder to say.
Photograph by dustypixel (iStock), graphic by NFE
“If we are comfortable with the assumption that grass-fed beef is indeed more environmentally friendly than CAFO beef—and this depends quite a bit on your method for calculating environmental costs—then the real environmental impacts of grass-fed beef products have much more to do with how they are produced than where they are shipped from,” Caitlin Peterson, a PhD student in ecology at the University of California, Davis, told me by email. That’s because shipping beef across the ocean in a storage container is an incredibly cheap and efficient transportation method that doesn’t require much energy use or generate much pollution, even if it does rack up so-called “food miles.” Agricultural methods, she says, matter far more in general than transportation distances.
The trouble is that it’s very hard to get information about a given grass-fed producer’s practices. No government I could find legally defines a “grass-fed” standard. (The U.S. did, beginning in 2007—but ultimately revoked its standard in 2016, citing USDA’s inability to properly enforce it.) Though a few respected third-party certifications exist—the American Grassfed Association’s “Certified Grassfed” label is considered the gold standard by producers—ranchers can claim their product is grass-fed without independent verification. To use the term on products sold in the U.S., meat companies must only file an affidavit with USDA explaining how their grass-feeding program will operate. They can use an existing certification, or define their own protocols. As a result, practices vary widely, and quality control is difficult.
“Grass-fed is all over the map,” says Rick Machen, a professor and livestock specialist with Texas A&M University. “It could be a 700-pound calf right off the cow up to a 14-year-old cow that’s lived out its productive life. And within those there are all kinds—some are supplemented, some are 100-percent grass-finished. There’s a wide, wide, wide array of pre-harvest production systems, and technically they’re all within the bounds of what can technically qualify as grass-fed.”
Considering that, it’s hard to compare the environmental impact of domestic versus imported grass-fed beef in general. But if sustainability concerns are a wash, the domestic product really does fare better by one all-important metric: economics.
The price of grass
There’s a reason that imported grass-fed beef has come to dominate the American marketplace. It’s not because it’s a better product, necessarily. It’s simply cheaper.
Take Australia, for instance—the country that by far exports the most grass-fed beef to the U.S.—where virtually all beef production is pasture-based. Since cattle can graze year-round on the country’s naturally lush pastures, it makes far less sense to fatten them on grain. That makes the cost of bringing a steer to weight a much cheaper proposition—especially compares to many regions of the U.S., where grassland must be irrigated, or where cattle must be fed dried forage during the winter.
Though severe drought in Australia has complicated this picture in recent years, bringing the price of imported grass-fed beef closer to its domestic competition, the country has built-in advantages that have allowed it to undercut U.S. producers on price.
But Australia has an additional, and perhaps more significant, advantage. Grass finishing has been the standard for so long that it’s big business, and has been for decades. Cargill and JBS, two of the biggest meatpackers in the world, process a combined 49 percent of the country’s grass-fed beef.
A company like Greeley, Colorado-based JBS, which owns farms, slaughterhouses, and transportation infrastructure on multiple continents, and has accounts with major retailers and foodservice providers, benefits from economies of scale unheard of in U.S. grass-fed beef production. In the U.S., where grass-fed claims just 1.5 percent of the overall market, it’s mostly small producers working with small, independent processors and marketing their products themselves. More than half of America’s grass-fed producers sell twenty or fewer cattle a year, according to the Stone Barns report, and most of them are too small to access the country’s hyperproductive slaughterhouses.
This distinction marks perhaps the fundamental difference between U.S. and imported grass-fed beef. In America, grass-based production is an alternative vision supported by individual innovators and rooted in local economies. In Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, and other countries, it’s an established industry controlled by powerful global players.
“It’s a commodity product,” says Williams, speaking of imported grass-fed beef. “It’s produced off many different ranches, then harvested by the big packers. They’re the same guys that are the big packers over here in the U.S. It’s all aggregated together and shipped over here.”
If Americans are buying grass-fed as a way to support local foodways and bring dollars back to rural communities—and many of them seem to want to—that’s not happening when they’re fooled into buying imported beef.
For U.S. ranchers, switching to grass-fed can completely transform the economics of production. Williams says that the average American cattle rancher, someone who sells live animals to the big meatpackers churning out commodity beef, makes only about 14 cents of the retail dollar. “That way,” he tells me, “you’re working on razor-thin margins and any little economic hit can take you out of the game.”
Photo by gerenme (iStock), graphic by NFE
.But grass-fed producers selling directly via farmers’ markets can keep up to 85 percent of the retail dollar, according to Williams. And ranchers who run branded programs—paying a smaller, custom packer to process their animals, then selling that signature line of beef with the help of various retail partners—can reach thousands of customers while still keeping 25 to 50 percent of the retail dollar.
There are challenges, of course. Greenmarkets are a low-volume business—it’s hard to reach that many customers, even if the margins are significantly higher. And branded programs are a more expensive way to do business, with added costs related to marketing, distribution, and slaughter. Still, the margins improve enough to double or triple the income earned on every animal—giving ranchers a chance to make up for the increased costs of grass-fed production, mitigate their risk, and earn a sustainable living.
But now that the market’s been flooded with cheap imports, America’s grass-based ranchers aren’t thriving the way they’d hoped to. Though retail sales of grass-fed beef have soared—from $17 million in 2012 to more than 16 times that, $272 million, in 2016—American ranchers aren’t the ones reaping the benefit of all that increased demand. Harris and other ranchers attribute this directly to consumer confusion over labels. If we can’t tell the difference between Australian and American grass-fed beef—if both are labeled “Product of USA”—even a locally minded shopper is more likely to go with the cheaper product. The result, for ranchers who have spent heavily to transition or grow their herds, may be economic devastation.
Let’s go back to the petition that the American Grassfed Association filed with USDA for a moment. The organization believes that, if labeling law can be changed, ensuring that only truly American-raised beef is labeled that way, shoppers will start buying domestic grass-fed again, even if it costs more. If the choice between domestic and imported is made more apparent, grass-fed proponents like Carrie Balkcom and Will Harris think American grass-fed beef will have a fightning chance—that our rural communities will finally see the economic benefits of the standard they helped to build.
The fact that USDA is taking public comments on the issue suggests that the agency may be reconsidering things. And that could be a sign that significant change is on the horizon.
“As a U.S. grass-fed beef producer, I believe it is imperative that honest, transparent labeling is required for grass-fed beef sold in America,” writes Kay Allen, a Texas rancher, one of many producers who has commented publicly on the petition. “Not only does honest labeling protect American beef producers economically, it insures that WE, American citizens, control our own food supply.”
For those who want to see rural economies revitalized, the stakes are high. Labeled grass-fed beef is only about a $1 billion market in the U.S., tiny compared to the nation’s $105-billion conventional beef industry. But Williams points out that if the U.S. producers took back only 50 percent of the market—still down from more than 60 percent market share they enjoyed in 2014—it could send hundreds of millions of dollars into local communities each year. That would be a major departure from the current system, where profits from grain-finished domestic and grass-fed imported cattle flow primarily to large corporations.
“Instead of requiring just a handful of mega-feedlots to finish all this beef, we would need tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of smaller farmers and ranchers,” Williams says. “So instead of having one mega business, one major corporation, we’d be allowing thousands of small businesses, vibrant small businesses, to thrive. It would be a major boon not just to ranchers, but to local processors, and cold storage, and everyone who has a finger in this pie. Why would we not want to do that?”
The USDA is currently asking itself that same question. The agency will take public comments until August 17.
Bright Farms Takes Local Produce Model Nationwide With Hydroponics
It wasn’t too long ago when locally-grown produce evoked images of backyard gardens or roadside produce stands many miles outside of city limits. Now, the local produce movement has morphed into an urban-centered industry thanks to the rise of hydroponic greenhouses.