Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
Vertical Farms Could Grow All The Wheat We Need
The global population eats a lot of wheat. It’s the most widely grown crop in the world, and it accounts for approximately 20% of the calories and proteins in the average human diet
05-08-2020 | Gizmodo
For years, vertical farming has captured headlines, including on this very website. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday shows the practice could revolutionize the world’s ability to grow wheat.
The global population eats a lot of wheat. It’s the most widely grown crop in the world, and it accounts for approximately 20% of the calories and proteins in the average human diet. As the global population grows, we’ll need more of it to sustain humanity. With arable land a premium, the new study looks at if vertical farming—a method of growing crops in vertically stacked layers—could help.
To find out, the authors created two growth simulation models of a 10-layer vertical farm set up with optimal artificial light, temperatures, and carbon dioxide levels. They found that the simulation could yield up to a whopping 1,940 metric tons of wheat per hectare of ground per year. For context, the current average wheat yield is just 3.2 metric tons per hectare of land.
It makes sense that the authors would be looking into this now. Globally, one in nine people already face hunger, and the problem could become more acute as the population increases. The world could have to produce more than 60% more wheat to account for population growth. That won’t be easy; rising temperatures and other changes in growing seasons driven by the climate crisis are lowering crop yields around the world.
The new study offers an insight into how to address some of these problems. But right now, scientists are only offering simulations. Actually bringing these massive wheat crop yields to fruition would come with massive challenges.
For one, vertical farming is wildly expensive. It requires massive amounts of energy to work, especially because unlike traditional farming, it requires artificial lighting systems. The authors say their simulated systems would provide a light intensity for the crops 30 to 50% greater than directly overhead sunlight. Watering systems and technology to ensure optimal temperature and air quality conditions in these indoor environments would also be costly—not to mention energy-intensive. Depending on how the systems are powered, that could be a problem for the climate. Previous research shows that powering these systems could require vastly more energy than our current high-emissions food system.
“No one has ever attempted to grow food crops under artificial lighting that’s as strong as sunlight, much less strong, for the simple reason that it would require too much energy,” Stan Cox, a scientist and plant breeder at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, said in an email.
The new study’s authors note that recent innovations in solar energy are lowering the costs of electricity and lighting is becoming more efficient, but note crops grown this way are still not likely to be economically competitive with current market prices of agriculture. Cox found that to be an understatement.
“A decade ago, given the amount of light wheat plants require to produce one pound of grain, I calculated that growing the entire U.S. wheat crop indoors would consume eight times the country’s entire annual electricity output,” he said. “That was before recent advances in lighting efficiency. So, hey, maybe it would now use up only four to five times our total electricity supply! For one crop!”
Innovations in automation, the authors note, could further lower the costs of vertical farming. That may be true, but in our current economic system, that could be a problem for farmworkers, who are already seeing their pay get cut. For these reasons and more, vertical farming has been a controversial topic in agricultural and environmental circles.
The new study’s authors note that there are also many unanswered questions about growing wheat in indoor facilities. It’s not clear, for instance, what the nutritional value and quality of indoor-farmed wheat would be, or what diseases could arise in such facilities.
Though their projected crop yields are exciting, even if vertical farming does work, it can’t be the only solution to our agricultural issues. Other systemic changes, including reducing food waste, moving away from meat-centric agricultural systems, diversifying crops, and improving soil health, should also play a role.
“Under specific circumstances, and if the energy cost and profitability issues can be resolved, indoor vertical wheat farming might be attractive,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the outcomes described here may contribute only a relatively small fraction (yet to be determined) of the global grain production needed to achieve global food security in the near future.”
By Dharna Noor
Source: Gizmodo
Photo by Science in HD on Unsplash
Vertical Farms Could Grow All The Wheat We Need - But At A Cost
For years, vertical farming has captured headlines, including on this very website. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday shows the practice could revolutionize the world’s ability to grow wheat
July 27, 2020
For years, vertical farming has captured headlines, including on this very website. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday shows the practice could revolutionize the world’s ability to grow wheat.
The global population eats a lot of wheat. It’s the most widely grown crop in the world, and it accounts for approximately 20% of the calories and proteins in the average human diet. As the global population grows, we’ll need more of it to sustain humanity. With arable land a premium, the new study looks at if vertical farming—a method of growing crops in vertically stacked layers—could help.
To find out, the authors created two growth simulation models of a 10-layer vertical farm set up with optimal artificial light, temperatures, and carbon dioxide levels. They found that the simulation could yield up to a whopping 1,940 metric tons of wheat per hectare of ground per year. For context, the current average wheat yield is just 3.2 metric tons per hectare of land.
It makes sense that the authors would be looking into this now. Globally, one in nine people already face hunger, and the problem could become more acute as the population increases. The world could have to produce more than 60% more wheat to account for population growth. That won’t be easy; rising temperatures and other changes in growing seasons driven by the climate crisis are lowering crop yields around the world.
The new study offers an insight into how to address some of these problems. But right now, scientists are only offering simulations. Actually bringing these massive wheat crop yields to fruition would come with massive challenges.
For one, vertical farming is wildly expensive. It requires massive amounts of energy to work, especially because unlike traditional farming, it requires artificial lighting systems. The authors say their simulated systems would provide a light intensity for the crops 30 to 50% greater than directly overhead sunlight. Watering systems and technology to ensure optimal temperature and air quality conditions in these indoor environments would also be costly—not to mention energy-intensive. Depending on how the systems are powered, that could be a problem for the climate. Previous research shows that powering these systems could require vastly more energy than our current high-emissions food system.
“No one has ever attempted to grow food crops under artificial lighting that’s as strong as sunlight, much less stronger, for the simple reason that it would require too much energy,” Stan Cox, a scientist and plant breeder at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, said in an email.
The new study’s authors note that recent innovations in solar energy are lowering the costs of electricity and lighting is becoming more efficient, but note crops grown this way are still not likely to be economically competitive with current market prices of agriculture. Cox found that to be an understatement.
“A decade ago, given the amount of light wheat plants require to produce one pound of grain, I calculated that growing the entire U.S. wheat crop indoors would consume eight times the country’s entire annual electricity output,” he said. “That was before recent advances in lighting efficiency. So, hey, maybe it would now use up only four to five times our total electricity supply! For one crop!”
Innovations in automation, the authors note, could further lower the costs of vertical farming. That may be true, but in our current economic system, that could be a problem for farmworkers, who are already seeing their pay get cut. For these reasons and more, vertical farming has been a controversial topic in agricultural and environmental circles.
The new study’s authors note that there are also many unanswered questions about growing wheat in indoor facilities. It’s not clear, for instance, what the nutritional value and quality of indoor-farmed wheat would be, or what diseases could arise in such facilities.
Though their projected crop yields are exciting, even if vertical farming does work, it can’t be the only solution to our agricultural issues. Other systemic changes, including reducing food waste, moving away from meat-centric agricultural systems, diversifying crops, and improving soil health, should also play a role.
“Under specific circumstances, and if the energy cost and profitability issues can be resolved, indoor vertical wheat farming might be attractive,” the authors conclude. “Nonetheless, the outcomes described here may contribute only a relatively small fraction (yet to be determined) of the global grain production needed to achieve global food security in the near future.”
Staff writer, Earther
Lead photo: Wheat being harvested in an open field. It could be a thing of the past someday. By, Christopher Furlong (Getty Images)
It’s Not Just Meat: Covid-19 Puts All Food-System Workers in Peril
Stan Cox on Building a More Humane, Robust Way of Putting Food on The Table
By Stan Cox
June 10, 2020
Covid-19 outbreaks are now reaching far beyond the meatpacking industry. Migrant farmworkers in fruit orchards and vegetable fields, long the targets of intense exploitation, are seeing their health put in even greater jeopardy as they’re pushed to feed an increasingly voracious supply chain in pandemic-time.
The crisis has come to a produce farm in Evansville, Tennessee, where every one of the 200 farmworkers has tested positive for the virus, with harvest season about to get underway. With the pandemic rolling on unchecked, the fragility of the entire US food system and the vulnerability of its workforce is coming into stark relief.
Eliminating that fragility—a result of the industry’s single-minded pursuit of profit—will require shifting the priority to the lives of the people who produce our food, the landscapes where they live and work, and, ultimately, to resolving the global ecological emergency.
Southern New Jersey, for example, is seeing hundreds of migrant farmworkers become infected with the virus.
According to WHYY radio in Philadelphia, many of the 20,000 to 25,000 seasonal workers who arrive in South Jersey each year to harvest fruits and vegetables sleep in cramped dormitories and eat in crowded cafeterias. Yet state guidelines allow farm managers, if they find their operations shorthanded, to keep infected workers on the job; they can forget paid sick leave.
As in meatpacking, confined workplaces of all kinds are being hit hard. A complex of hydroponic greenhouses in upstate New York was an early focus of coronavirus spread. A single Southern California city, Vernon, has seen outbreaks in nine food facilities processing coffee, tea, frozen foods, deli meats, seaweed, baked goods, and other products.
A state “pandemic strike team” deployed in mid-May to help long-term care facilities in Washington’s Yakima Valley quickly redeployed when they found even more dire situations on the valley’s farms and in food processing plants. It had gotten bad enough that workers there have been walking out on strike over lack of health safeguards.
The town of Immokalee, which lies at the center of the most intensive winter-vegetable growing area in southwest Florida, now has the densest concentration of Covid-19 cases in the region.
We’ll no longer have access to every type of fresh vegetable and fruit any day of the year. Eating what’s in season will make a comeback.
State officials say that’s largely because of increased testing. But medical researchers beg to differ. They see fertile ground for the coronavirus to flourish in the densely packed buses and vans that take workers to the fields, as well as in worker housing, which consists mostly of mobile homes, each with numerous occupants.
Gerardo Chavez, speaking for the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, which has long pushed for the rights of the area’s migrant labor force, told a local TV station, “This is not something that happened just because. It happened because people there are poor, they live overcrowded. They travel to work under not very safe conditions many times, and that makes them the perfect place for Covid-19 to spread.”
The “farmworker paradox”
The current public-health crisis in food production and processing has grown directly out of the drive for profit. In recent decades, the overriding goal of the agriculture and food industry—a sector whose pace and production were once strictly dictated by the seasons and the weather—has been to turbocharge profits by maximizing output per hour per worker.
It doesn’t have to be like that. In a system motivated by nutritional goals rather than profit, a much more widely dispersed workforce producing at non-exploitative rates of output could easily produce enough food to meet this country’s needs.
Instead, under the protection awarded to businesses producing essential goods, the industry is loosening the screws of exploitation only slightly, further threatening the health and lives of workers and their families.
This treatment of an essential workforce is in keeping with what the economist Michael Perelman has called the “farmworker paradox” in which he asks, “why those whose work is most necessary typically earn the least” (in pandemic-time, we can add, “…and are most compelled to risk their lives and their families’ lives.”)Done right, localizing vegetable production would not reduce the total output.
The paradox exists, observes Perelman, because of the circular logic of capitalism. Economists argue that farmworkers earn low wages because they are not highly “productive”; that is, collectively, they generate low profit per worker. But that’s because everyday food sells cheap, and it’s cheap largely because many of those who produce it earn near-starvation wages.
Now workers are forced to risk infection by a debilitating, often deadly, virus in order to keep production costs down and profits up.In contrast, coronavirus infection rates have been low so far among the older, largely white independent farmers who produce staple foods like wheat, oats, rice, and dry beans. But their protective isolation in sparsely populated areas of the country has come at a terrible price: the decline of small family farms and the consolidation of land into fewer and fewer hands over the past four decades.
Such rural areas—where depopulation of the countryside and small towns has meant a withering of local economies, culture, and health care—are now highly vulnerable to the pandemic when, inevitably, it reaches them.
Reversing the destruction
The changes needed to reduce the vulnerability of the food system and its workers to infectious diseases have already been needed for decades on humanitarian and environmental grounds. Addressing the climate emergency, in particular, requires such deep changes.
The imperatives are clear:
Abolish feedlots and other confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Convert the tens of millions of acres now being used to grow dent corn and soybeans (for feeding confined cattle) to pasture and hay production, and eventually, perennial food-grain/pasture crops. Then cattle can eat what they were born to eat: grasses and forage legumes.
Break up the meat-industry behemoths and ban foreign ownership. Decentralize meat production and processing and regulate much more strictly for health and safety.
Such measures would result in better but smaller national supplies of meat and poultry. No problem. Deep reductions in consumption of animal products—especially feedlot- and CAFO-raised meats—have long been needed for nutritional and ecological concerns, most prominently their heavy climatic impact.
For fruits and vegetables, reduce the velocity of production in fields and factories to a humane, ecologically supportable pace that can meet the highest standards for workers’ rights, safety, and economic security. Grow those crops close to the populations who will be eating them—as much as possible in backyard or community gardens and greenhouses.
Done right, localizing vegetable production would not reduce the total output. Vegetables currently occupy only three percent of national cropland, so they could easily be dispersed among myriad small plots of land in every state, every community.
What we’ll no longer have, however, is access to every type of fresh vegetable and fruit any day of the year. Eating what’s in season will make a comeback.
Adaptation will be necessary. In northerly regions, vegetables can be grown in simple, inexpensive, unheated greenhouses almost year-round (a practical alternative to the fanciful idea of urban “vertical farming,” which envisions raising crop plants indoors without soil, under artificial light—that is, in botanical intensive care units).In summer and fall, home and community canning operations could make locally grown produce available all year, as they did in the war years of the 1940s. That would diversify the northerly vegetable diet in winter and spring.
Supplies of staple grain and bean crops, in contrast, come to us from hundreds of millions of acres across vast swaths of rural America. Only a tiny fraction of that production could be localized, but that’s not a problem. Those crops (and products like flour that are made from them) are dry, have long shelf lives, and can be efficiently shipped to every part of the country by rail.
More near-term policies could come through federal legislation. It has been proposed that farmworkers’ right to organize should be guaranteed, and a path to citizenship should be available for all essential workers who need one; there should be opportunities for farmworkers to become independent farmers; and rural transportation and communication systems need improvement.
Now is the time to build a new, more humane, more robust food system on the ruins of the one that has failed us. This nation can have an ample, nutritious food supply without exploiting and endangering the people who produce and process it
Stan Cox is a research fellow at The Land Institute and the author of The Green New Deal and Beyond: Ending the Climate Emergency While We Still Can (City Lights, 2020).