Welcome to iGrow News, Your Source for the World of Indoor Vertical Farming
"Fresh Lettuce Even With Snow On The Ground"
CubicFarms is growing again
CubicFarms has completed its latest CubicFarm System near Edmonton, Alberta. Located in Weslock, AB, Swiss Leaf Farms founder and CEO David Pfaeffli is now selling his CubicFarms produce under the Thriiv Local Garden brand to a variety of stores and restaurants. Swiss Leaf Farm’s 14 machine CubicFarm System is capable of growing over a million and a half heads of lettuce a year, along with microgreens, basil and more.
Even though snow is on the ground, and temperatures are dipping below -20 oC, fresh, crisp, local lettuce and microgreens are now available.
David and Alyssa Paeffli and family in front of one of their CubicFarm Machines
DelFresco Pure installation has begun
Ontario CubicFarm customer Del Fresco Pure has completed their building, and 14 CubicFarm growing machines have been delivered to one of Ontario’s largest greenhouse operators. Del Fresco and CubicFarms are partnering together on several exciting projects and were recently together at the CPMA in Orlando where they featured a fully functional “Demo CubicFarm” complete with live produce. Passers by were memorized by the lettuce, basil, and microgreens growing before their eyes. The booth featured Del Fresco’s wide range of greenhouse crops, including strawberries. The ice cream machine was a hit and we featured Del Fresco strawberries and Cubic’s “Microbasil” as toppings.
Del Fresco expects to bring their CubicFarms grown produce to the Ontario market in the next 2 months, including lettuces and microgreens.
The Del Fresco Pure and CubicFarm Systems teams at the Orlando PMA
CubicFarms is working on its public listing on the TSX V
CubicFarms was approximately 40% owned by Bevo Farms, but in late 2018 that ownership was spun out as a one-time special dividend to shareholders. CubicFarms expects to be listed as a publicly traded company in the next month or so, making it one of the first publicly traded vertical farming companies.
For more information:
CubicFarms
1-888-280-9076
info@cubicfarms.com
www.cubicfarms.com
Publication date : 2/1/2019
Welcome To The Future of Farming In Australia
Just Days To Go Before The Start of Australia’s Largest Ever Agricultural Innovation Trade Fair
Australia’s largest ever agricultural innovation trade fair, GFIA In Focus Australia is set to kick off in Brisbane next Tuesday – and with some of the country’s top food producers in attendance, it’s a prime opportunity for farmers, growers and agribusinesses to learn more about the latest innovations in agriculture.
Part of a global series of exhibition and conferences driving sustainable food production and innovation, GFIA In Focus Australia takes place at Brisbane’s Convention & Exhibition Center from 27-28 November. Leading producers Mort & Co National Feedlot, Mighty Green and Sundrop Farms are just some of the featured guests, and for Cy Kovacich, owner/manager of Mighty Green, the event is a chance to share his experiences diversifying his sugarcane operation:
“The sugar cane industry is traditionally a monoculture – but with margins closing up through soil stress and other issues, my focus is on optimising soil health and finding production gains and economic savings through diversification, by growing other crops like rice, beans and soy. I’m honored to be involved, and to have the chance to hopefully inspire others through discussing my own experiences.”
Amongst the many innovative exhibitors showcasing the latest game-changing innovations and technology is Ceres Tag, who have announced they will be doing a live demonstration at the event, in what will be a world first for the GFIA. In the days leading up to the event, Ceres Tags will be tagging over 100 cattle in Townsville with their Smart Ear Tags, before live streaming their location, health and behaviour 1,000 kms away at the conference.
Guest speaker at the opening ceremony on the 27th November will be The Honourable Mark Furner MP, Minister for Agricultural Industry Development and Fisheries, Queensland. Mark describes the event as “a brilliant opportunity for farmers, growers and agribusinesses across the country to understand more about some of the latest innovations that can better support Australia’s agricultural industry.”
Tim Gentle, Founder, Digital Crusader and Educator of Think Digital will be the second guest speaker at the opening ceremony. He’ll be talking about the some of the immersive new technologies available for agriculture, including the most exciting advancement to date in the world of Virtual Reality – a VR Platform for Agriculture. “If you thought Virtual Reality is just for gamers, and Augmented Reality is to catch Pokemon Go’s, then think again,” he says. “In agriculture, immersive technologies will increase productivity, improve safety, enhance training and help you to communicate more effectively than ever before, and I’m excited to be able to unveil the details of this new technology at the conference.”
For Sales Director at One CMG Group David Stradling, the company behind GFIA In Focus Australia, the event looks set to be a game-changer for those involved. “We anticipate that this event will deliver huge business opportunities for ag-tech suppliers in markets expected to experience significant growth over the next few years,” he says.
The GFIA are giving away 2,000 free tickets – but with only a small number left, farmers and agribusinesses are encouraged not to miss out on the chance to attend this unique mix of exhibitions, conferences, innovation sessions and educational workshops.
To register your place at GFIA In Focus Australia before it begins, visit www.gfiaaustralia.com
Local Startup Making High-Tech Gardens Grow
JOSH MANDELL @joshuamandell
November 19, 2018
Babylon Micro-Farms has created an indoor growing system that allows customers to farm organic foods inside their home or business. Credit: Andrew Shurtleff, The Daily Progress
Babylon Micro-Farms has created an indoor growing system that allows customers to farm organic foods inside their home or business. Credit: Andrew Shurtleff, The Daily Progress
When Charlottesville’s Silk Mills building opened in 1895, it brought a new manufacturing business to a local economy that still was based upon agriculture.
Today, the building on Harris Street houses a team of “farmers” who build circuit boards and write code as they tend to their crops.
Another tenant, Babylon Micro-Farms, hopes to bring the technology used by large-scale urban farms to small businesses and individual consumers.
“We want to make advanced, controlled agriculture accessible to more people,” said Alexander Olesen, Babylon Micro-Farms co-founder.
(From left) Babylon Micro-Farms Will Graham, Graham Smith, Alexander Olesen and Sam Korn stand in front of a new indoor growing system. Credit: Andrew Shurtleff, The Daily Progress
Since its creation in 2017, Babylon has installed automated hydroponic systems at several Charlottesville eateries, including Corner Juice and Yoga, Three Notch’d Craft Brewery and Kitchen and the University of Virginia’s Observatory Hill dining hall. The company currently is finishing its most complex project to date inside the Boar’s Head Resort’s Trout House.
Dale Ford, Boar’s Head’s executive chef, said he expects the hydroponic farm to produce 300 heads of lettuce each week — enough for all of the resort’s dining locations.
“Putting together a small urban farm inside what we consider to be a legendary, iconic building for our property was a great combination,” Ford said. “The thought that we could grow produce from an heirloom seed and track the analytics and data from germination to harvest and tell the story of that food to our guest — that is pretty special.”
Olesen and co-founder Graham Smith built their first micro-farm for a social entrepreneurship course at UVa. That wooden, pool table-sized prototype has given rise to tall, transparent setups that can be precisely programmed to provide water and nutrients to multiple crop varieties at once.
Will Graham, Babylon’s director of marketing and sales, said the company ships pre-seeded trays and programs the micro-farms in advance to make indoor farming a “plug-and-play” experience for its clients.
Credit: Andrew Shurtleff, The Daily Progress
Many other companies are trying to capitalize on the efficiency and environmental sustainability of hydroponics. A handful of urban farming startups have attracted enormous investments this year.
BrightFarms, which operates a 250,000-square-foot greenhouse in Culpeper County, raised a $55 million Series D investment round in June. Gotham Greens, based in New York and Chicago, raised $29 million in an investment round this past summer.
Beanstalk, another indoor farming startup founded by UVa graduates, participated in the Y Combinator accelerator program this year.
While Beanstalk hopes to disrupt the wholesale market for produce, Babylon Micro-Farms is targeting individual restaurants and health-conscious consumers. The company is scheduled to unveil a residential model of its micro-farm in December, with an estimated starting cost of $3,500.
“When we looked at the industry, we saw that it was confined to massive commercial industrial operations and small DIY kits,” Olesen said. “That doesn’t make any sense, and it reflects the problems of the larger agricultural system.”
Babylon Micro-Farms soon will sell its own produce at local farmers markets and groceries. It has donated greens to the Blue Ridge Area Food Bank.
“We grow hundreds of crops and experiment with all sorts of rare varieties and herbs that you can’t get in Charlottesville,” Olesen said. “If we say it’s that easy, why wouldn’t we be doing it ourselves?”
Leading Agribusiness Groups Throw Their Weight Behind Australia’s Largest Ever Agricultural Innovation Trade Fair
GFIA in Focus Australia is fast becoming a much-anticipated event within the agricultural community – and with some of Australia’s leading trade bodies recently announcing their commitment to the upcoming exhibition, it’s set to be one of Australia’s most exciting business-to-end-user sector trade fairs in the 2018 calendar.
REGISTER HERE
Nine of Australia’s key agribusiness member organisations have now pledged their support for the show, a satellite edition of a series of fairs that run internationally, driving sustainable food production and innovation. Promoting it as a great opportunity for agri-food professionals to freely attend the exhibitions and adjoining conferences, the organisations include Agribusiness Australia, Queensland Farmers’ Federation, AgForce Queensland, Irrigation Australia, Growcom, Passionfruit Australia, Queensland Olive Council, Society of Precision Agriculture Australia and Northern Territories Farmers Association.
Tim Burrow, CEO at Agribusiness Australia welcomed the collaboration:
“Our mantra is to advocate, to be inclusive and to spread knowledge, with the sole aim of advancing agri-business for the national good. A stronger agri-business sector benefits not only our communities, but also our nation’s financial and cultural wealth, and this event will no doubt be invaluable in creating new business opportunities, advancing knowledge and supporting greater collaboration.”
For Travis Tobin, CEO at Queensland Farmers’ Federation, the upcoming fair aligns with QFF’s key strategies. “In representing the interests of peak state and national agriculture industry organisations, we engage in a broad range of economic, social, environmental and regional issues of strategic importance to the productivity, sustainability and growth of the agricultural sector. With our mission being to secure a strong and sustainable future for Queensland farmers, GFIA In Focus is a great opportunity to learn more about developing sustainable farming for the future.”
The Australian edition takes place at Brisbane’s Convention & Exhibition Centre from 27-28 November 2018, and organisations like these, which represent tens of thousands of corporate agri-businesses, farmers and growers across the country will now be involved – a move which it’s anticipated will greatly extend the exhibition’s reach and influence.
With the world’s population expected to increase from seven billion to almost nine billion by 2040, the Global Forum for Innovations in Agriculture (GFIA) was born with the belief that continuous innovation in agriculture is the only way to sustainably feed us all.
To support the Australian Government’s ambition to increase our agricultural output to a $100 billion industry by 2030, the Queensland Government is committed to growing agriculture as one of the ‘four pillars’ of the state’s economy. However, as David Stradling, Sales Director of One CMG Group, the company behind GFIA In Focus Australia explained, government’s efforts alone will not achieve the target:
“Unlocking agriculture’s growth potential requires a collaborative effort from all levels of government, industry, researchers and vested interest communities. In the face of continued drought and calls to raise productivity, farmers, growers and agribusinesses will increasingly need to implement more sustainable technologies.”
“We see GFIA In Focus Australia as a prime opportunity for farmers, growers and agribusinesses across the country to learn more about the latest innovations in agriculture,” he continued. “We’re pleased to have nine of the country’s most influential agri-business member organisations on board for this unique event.”
David described the exhibition as the beginning of a progressive long-term strategy to create opportunities that strengthen and support Australia’s agricultural industry. “We anticipate this event will deliver huge business opportunities for ag-tech suppliers in markets expected to experience significant growth over the next few years,” he said.
The two-day show features two world-class showcases of leading-edge technology in precision and smart farming on one side of the Convention Centre’s Grand Hall, and on the other, an exhibition of suppliers in technology for controlled environment and protected cropping. The events are supported by their own dedicated conference and side-event programs, and visitors will have access across the entire event.
GFIA are giving away 2,000 free tickets for November’s In Focus exhibition to food producers, policy makers and investors. Visit www.gfiaaustralia.com to register your attendance, or for further information about exhibiting at GFIA In Focus Australia.
Event details:
GFIA In Focus Australia
27 November 2018: 09.00 – 18.00
28 November 2018: 09.00 – 16.00
Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre
About GFIA
The Global Forum for Innovations in Agriculture has emerged as a global authority on sustainable food production, driving innovation through exhibitions and conferences across the globe. GFIA exhibitions have welcomed more than 25,000 visitors, and worked with over 50 international partners to showcase innovative products with a proven benefit to the agricultural industry. Their conferences offer stakeholders pioneering forums and marketplaces to foster meaningful dialogue, collaboration, recognition and action between regional food producers, buyers, innovators, policy makers and investors.
Tim Burrow, Agribusiness Australia
Peter Smith, AgForce QLD with David Stradling, One CMG Group
Travis Tobin, Queensland Farmers' Federation
Australia: Sustainable Agriculture In The Spotlight At GFIA In Focus
The Global Forum for Innovations in Agriculture (GFIA)
Will Take Place On November 27-28 In Brisbane
The Australian government is pushing for agriculture to become a $100 billion industry by 2030 – and with the Queensland Government aiming to double the state’s food production by 2040, the leading authority on sustainable food production and agriculture is hosting an event in Brisbane designed to showcase sustainable growing practices and new agricultural technologies.
The Global Forum for Innovations in Agriculture (GFIA) In Focus Australia event will take place on November 27-28.
Exhibiting the latest sustainable ag-tech innovations and technology from suppliers across all types of food production, it’s set to be Australia’s largest ever agricultural innovation trade fair.
The event will place a particular focus on ‘growing sustainably’ and ‘unlocking new technology’, with more than 2000 delegates expected to attend from across the Asia Pacific. Featuring two adjacent exhibitions, the first will present Controlled Environments & Protected Cropping, and the second will focus on Precision Agriculture and Smart Farming products. Within ‘Controlled Environments’, exhibitors will promote the latest greenhouses, system integrators, control systems and hydroponic, aquaponic and aeroponic systems – and the ‘Precision Agriculture’ sector will cover everything from data analytics and modeling to harvesting and irrigation equipment, seeding and planting equipment and GPS systems.
A high-level conference programme will also run during the event – and for David Stradling, Sales Director of One CMG Group, the company behind GFIA In Focus, the event is “a rare opportunity to learn from agriculture food producers, policy makers and investors about the latest innovations and technologies for smart food production.”
Among the confirmed exhibitors will be multi-level indoor growing company Vertical Farm Systems, who will showcase their fully automated technology for growing commercial crops all year round, in any climate or location. Executive Director & Design Engineer John Leslie described the new system as the next generation of indoor growing solutions built for profitability more than spectacle.
“Over the past 9 years we have refined the system automation to achieve the best return on investment yields we have seen in the sector. Of the 28 system sizes we supply, our smallest uses only 500 square metres of floor area, yet the 20 tons annual harvest rate is the same as 8 acres of prime agricultural land. The bioponic live microbe based growing system delivers a major reduction in water use, with zero chemicals, pest issues or crop losses, and it can be installed in very close proximity to the end user – all of which is fantastic for sustainable farming.”
One CMG Group Sales Director David Stradling described the significance of the event for Australian agriculture.
“GFIA In Focus is intended to help Australian agri-businesses share knowledge, so we can continue to develop sustainable farming into the future. There are some incredibly innovative technologies and practices out there, and we’re excited to host what’s going to be an inspiring and highly informative event for attendees.”
For more information:
www.gfiaaustralia.com
Publication date : 9/20/2018
KSU Farm To Install Growing System, Expand Crop Production
Hydroponics is a method of growing plants without soil and exposing the roots to a mineral nutrient solution. Amhydro, the company installing the new system at KSU, referred to hydroponics as “the future of food” on their website.
SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2018 CAMAYAK
In an effort to increase crop sustainability, KSU will be implementing a hydroponic system on its Hickory Grove Farm. Photo credit: Andres Lopez
Kennesaw State is currently installing a new hydroponic growing system on its Hickory Grove Farm to increase crop production sustainably.
Hydroponics is a method of growing plants without soil and exposing the roots to a mineral nutrient solution. Amhydro, the company installing the new system at KSU, referred to hydroponics as “the future of food” on their website.
Hickory Grove farm, managed by the School of Culinary Sustainability and Hospitality, produces over 20,000 pounds of produce that are used at KSU’s two dining halls, Stinger’s and The Commons, according to KSU’s website.
“The farm wanted to branch out to provide a wider variety of leaf crops,” said Amhydro Vice President Joe Swartz. “The culinary school and dining commons were more in the need for lettuce and greens, so the director chose to install a Nutrient Film Technique leaf crop system to provide a practical educational curriculum as well as food for the school system.”
The construction of the new Amhydro NFT leaf crop growing system began on Thursday, Sept. 13.
“It is a closed loop, recirculating system so that all water and nutrients that are supplied to the plants is captured and recirculated so that nothing is wasted,” Swartz said.
Nutrient-rich water continuously flows down the channels, past exposed plant roots. Any unused solution is captured at the end of each channel, funneled back to a reservoir and automatically remixed for nutrient balance and recirculated with the help of a pump, Swartz said.
This system will allow the farm to grow a wider variety of pesticide-free crops such as lettuce, basil, mint, cilantro, kale, chard, chives, arugula and more, Swartz said. The NFT system will also allow crops to grow at a steady and consistent quantity all year round.
“In traditional field agriculture, the entire crop matures and is harvested in a very short period of time known as harvest season,” Swartz said. “Hydroponic production allows the grower to schedule out a weekly amount of production so that the crops available are consistent from week to week.”
Compared to soil-based farming, hydroponics produces predictable quantities and quality for higher crop yields and profits, produces ten times the crops per area, reduces pathogen risks by growing crops without pesticides or manure and reduces transportation costs by growing in or near urban centers, according to Amhydro.
Heavy use of pesticides has been reported to cause several adverse health effects ranging from mild allergies to cancer depending on the extent and duration of exposure,according to a research study done in 2017 by the International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology.
When farming with soil globally, portions of the nitrogen-filled fertilizers, along with eroded sediments, inevitably wash into waterways such as rivers, lakes and the ocean where it causes “dead zones” from eutrophication, according to Livestrong.
This is a process whereby nitrogen feeds an algal bloom, but when the short-lived algae die, decomposing bacteria then consume most of the available oxygen, suffocating aquatic life, according to Livestrong.
Additionally, Livestrong states that use of artificial fertilizers in place of animal or “green” manure can eventually deplete soils of organic matter, making them lose their ability to hold water and more subject to erosion.
“Hydroponic systems use approximately 90 percent less water than conventional agriculture so that it places much less stress on the environment,” Swartz said. “This type of system also supplies all water, nutritional and environmental conditions conducive to year-round crop growth. This means that you can locate farm production in areas such as cities that were not traditionally suitable for farming.”
Swartz said they plan to have the NFT system ready for planting in the next few weeks.
People Don’t Buy Products, They Buy Better Versions of Themselves
What Apple, Samsung, and Starbucks learned from Pepsi
What Apple, Samsung, and Starbucks learned from Pepsi
Photo by John Fornander on Unsplash
The year was 1957, and Pepsi — like many of the youth at that time — was dealing with an identity crisis. Despite efforts from marketers, Pepsi was being outsold by its biggest competitor and perpetual market leader — Coke — by a factor just shy of six to one, even as it was selling at half of Coke’s price. It wasn’t the product that was lacking, it was that Pepsi’s brand ethos — indecisive and directionless — was a fragmented shell of what it would need to become to take on Coke.
At the time, Coke was unrivaled, having succeeded in convincing the American public that they’d captured everything good and wholesome about American life within the murky confines of a glass bottle. This clear transcendence of the competition was not unlike Apple’s; like devotees react viscerally to a green speech bubble in iMessage, so too was it that, to anyone who embraced the deeply American traits of exceptionalism, community-mindedness, and of course, Santa Claus, consuming anything other than Coke would’ve been considered heresy.
Coke even affiliated itself with Santa Claus. Photo by Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG/Getty
In 1963, Pepsi hired a young advertising executive named Alan Pottasch to address the issue. Pottasch’s task was, to put it gently, difficult. He was to reinvigorate a brand competing against one of the most successful of all time, a product that not only outclassed Pepsi in every consumer-driven category, but was also — chemically — nearly identical. And so Pottasch made a decision that would later become iconic — as he put it, “…to stop talking about the product, and start talking about the user.” Here is Tim Wu in his book, The Attention Merchants, on the decision:
[Pottasch] thus conceived of marketing Pepsi without reference to its inherent qualities, focusing instead on an image of the people who bought it, or should be buying it.
For the first time in history, a brand decided to promote the type of user that purchased a product as opposed to the product itself. Beyond that, Pepsi promoted the idea of an entirely new generation, one free from the manipulative, consumerist messages being perpetuated by the mass media. (It was, after all, the 1960s.) This group would come to be known as “The Pepsi Generation.”
The Pepsi Generation was revolutionary because it was the first time a brand convinced people to purchase their product by focusing on the type of person that doing so made them. No generation before had ever so vocally longed to transcend themselves — to escape the consumerist mindset and achieve truly independent thought — and thus Pepsi’s message, drink our product and do exactly that, reached the perfect group at the perfect moment.
Here’s Wu quoting Pottasch on the success of the campaign:
“For us to name and claim a whole generation after our product was a rather courageous thing,” Pottasch would later remember, “that we weren’t sure would take off.” But his intuition would prove correct. “What you drank said something about who you were. We painted an image of our consumer as active, vital, and young at heart.”
Over the next decade, Pepsi — as a result of the Pepsi Generation campaign — gained significant market share on Coke. And while the campaign was revolutionary, the recipe for its success was simple. As Wu points out, “Desire’s most natural endpoint is consumption.” In other words, the campaign simply reimagined what people desired. This generation longed to escape consumerism, and the fact that Pepsi convinced them to do so by embracing it — purchasing a Pepsi, after all, is about as consumerist as it gets — is a testament to the genius of the campaign. Those who bought in and became a part of the Pepsi generation were searching for a new way to feel, rather than a new beverage to drink. Pepsi’s genius was that it found a way to be both.
The profundity of the Pepsi Generation campaign is twofold. First, its success reinvigorated a brand on the verge of being knocked out in an early round by one of the greatest competitors of the 20th century — Coke. Second, even decades later, it is nearly impossible to find a brand that has not used the strategy Pepsi pioneered: selling not a product, but a better version of ourselves.
Consider Apple. To be an Apple user — at least in the era of Jobs — was to “think different.” Critics might laugh at that characterization of an Apple user now, given the homogeneity and ubiquity of Apple products, especially among the wealthy. But those critics would miss what Apple didn’t: people don’t buy products because of what those products do, they buy products because of what they can do — or what they imagine they can do — with them. This idea even permeates Apple’s retail strategy. Apple employees will never show you how a product works, rather they will let you use it, forcing you to familiarize yourself with the product, yes, but more importantly, yourself in its presence. A diverse range of product options to choose from, after all, will never be as captivating as a homogenous product that turns you into a superhero — and Apple has the latter in spades.
The silhouette is nothing if not an invitation for you to imagine yourself in the context of the iPod. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty
Samsung learned this the hard way, dogmatically focusing as they did for the longest time on promoting the features of their products, as opposed to the person you could be by using them. Now they avoid talking about the speed of their processors or the depth of the blacks in their screens because 99% of people don’t care; what they do care about — selfishly — is what they will become — “makers, directors, creators,” in the words of Casey Neistat — if they use a Samsung product. The message? Be like us. The solution? Buy a Samsung.
Samsung even reworked Pepsi’s initial genius, realizing that it is as powerful to portray the person people aspire to be as it is to portray the person they aspire not to be — in Samsung’s case, the brainwashed Apple user who never makes the switch. The consumer who finally does is the one Samsung shows in their commercial, “Growing Up,” the better version of the “Apple Sheep,” portrayed leaving behind those who foolishly opt for the iPhone, the clearest among them a scowling man with the iPhone X’s trademark “notch” etched into his hairline. The message? Don’t be him. The solution? Buy a Samsung.
Samsung’s “Growing Up” ad.
Itis far from just tech companies, though. Adidas and Nike both do it, the former with a similar line of thinking to Samsung’s, and a similar list of influencers. Starbucks does it by crafting beverages like the Unicorn Frappuccino, a drink that famously and unsurprisingly “looks better than it tastes.” While a poorly-flavored but photogenic drink wouldn’t have sold in prior generations, to this generation — our generation — it does. Why?
Similar to how Pepsi understood they would never compete with Coke on product alone, Starbucks understands that in 2018, it is less about the drink itself than it is about who the drink makes you — on Instagram, and thus in real life. And regardless of what you think about us millennials — narcissistic, selfish, vain, outspoken — one thing is abundantly clear: as a result of social media and the Internet, our generation is more conscious of how we are perceived — by friends, family, colleges, jobs, hell, even people we’ve never met — than any other generation, ever.
Social media is well-understood to be contributing to identity politics, but I’d argue it’s contributing to something deeper: identity paralysis. This condition is one in which we have a forced awareness of how everything we say and do — even the seemingly inconsequential, like the shoes we wear, or the airline we fly — reflects on us. It follows that our generation would also be uniquely drawn to brands that make us feel how we want to feel about ourselves, even as how we want to feel about ourselves is often nothing more than how we want to be perceived externally. Like Starbucks with the Unicorn Frappuccino, we prioritize external perception over just about everything else. The social media market, where we live now, demands a focus on visible characteristics — which are, by their very nature, external — from designer drinks, yes, but from individuals, too.
Given all of this, I propose that analysts routinely overlook how people feel in the context of a brand when considering the value of a company. This “statistic” isn’t discussed on earnings calls and there is no way to measure it on a balance sheet. But perhaps that’s because it has only begun to matter; Pepsi, after all, was the first company in history to market itself by promoting the image of consumer that drank it, as opposed to the product itself — and that was only 50 years ago. Since then, consumers, aided by social media, have become far more conscious of who they are in the context of the products they use than even Pepsi could’ve imagined. In this society of ultra-conscious consumers, successful brands will be those that make consumers feel the way they want to feel about themselves.
How To Start An Aquaponics System
Bacteria are the magic in an aquaponics system that converts the fish waste to a near perfect plant fertilizer. In this article, we de-mystify the process of establishing a beneficial bacteria colony in your aquaponics system.
Takeaway: Bacteria are the magic in an aquaponics system that convert the fish waste to a near perfect plant fertilizer. In this article, we de-mystify the process of establishing a beneficial bacteria colony in your aquaponics system.
The process of establishing a beneficial bacteria colony in your aquaponics system process is often called system cycling. I will talk about cycling with fish.
You will also understand what you can do to make the process less stressful for your fish and your plants, and what you can do to speed up the process.
Cycling In Aquaponics
Cycling starts when your fish (or you) first add ammonia to your system. Ammonia (chemical formula NH3) is a compound made of nitrogen and hydrogen.
It can come either from your fish or from other sources that we will discuss in the next issue. Ammonia is toxic to fish (more on this later) and will soon kill them unless it is either diluted to a non-toxic level or converted into a less toxic form of nitrogen.
Unfortunately, nitrogen as found in ammonia is not readily taken up by plants, so no matter how high the ammonia levels get in your fish tank, your plants will not be getting much nutrition from it.
The good news is that ammonia attracts nitrosomonas, the first of the two nitrifying bacteria that will colonize your system.
The nitrosomonas convert the ammonia into nitrites (NO2). This is a necessary step in the cycling process; however, nitrites are even more toxic than ammonia!
But again there is good news because the presence of nitrites attracts the second kind of bacteria we require: nitrospira.
Nitrospira convert the nitrites into nitrates, which are generally harmless to the fish and excellent food for your plants.
Once you detect nitrates in your water and the ammonia and nitrite concentrations have both dropped to 0.5 ppm or lower, your system will be fully cycled and aquaponics will have officially begun!
Importance of Testing Tools for Aquaponic Systems
Cycling typically requires four to six weeks to complete. With this is mind, as you proceed you need a way to tell where you are in the cycling process.
Specifically, you must monitor ammonia, nitrite and nitrate levels as well as pH so that you know that all these elements are in range, or if not, that you know that you may need to take corrective action.
This is also the only way that you will know when you are fully cycled and ready to add more fish (or your first fish if you have been cycling with no fish at all).
Plus, watching the daily progress of the cycling process is fascinating and something you can only see through the lens of a test kit.
By the way, once you reach the point that your system is fully cycled, you will need to do much less monitoring than during the cycling process.
So, get through the cycling process and look forward to reaping the fruits (or should we say, the fish) of your labor.
To do their testing, most aquaponic gardeners use a product by Aquarium Pharmaceuticals called the API Freshwater Master Test Kit. This kit is easy to use, is inexpensive, and is designed for monitoring the cycling process in fish systems.
You will also need a submersible thermometer to measure your water temperature. Temperature affects both the cycling rate and the health of your fish and plants once you are up and running.
Cycling in Aquaponics: Adding the Fish
Ammonia is the ingredient that starts the cycling process. You must have some means to feed ammonia into the system so that you attract the bacteria that are at the heart of aquaponics.
There are two ways to introduce ammonia into your system: with fish and without (fishless). In this article, we talk about cycling with fish and tackle fish-less cycling in a future article.
Ammonia
I cycled my first aquaponics system using fish and I suspect this is how most people approach cycling. In some ways it is the easier of the two methods because there are no extra inputs. However, it is definitely the more stressful of the two options because live critters are involved.
The idea is to add fish on day one and hope that they make it through the cycling process alive.
The challenge is to get the system cycled fast enough that the ammonia concentration from the fish waste drops to a non-toxic level before the fish succumb from exposure to their own waste.
I strongly recommend that you don't stock to your tank's mature capacity (1 lb. of adult fish per 5 to 10 gal. of water) but to less than half that.
You might also want to consider these fish as sacrificial and perhaps use inexpensive fish from the pet store.
They are likely more tolerant of ammonia than the prized game fish with which you may ultimately envision stocking your tank. Also, do not feed these fish more than once a day and then, only feed them a small amount.
Fish excrete ammonia through their gills as a bi-product of their respiratory process. Without dilution, removal or conversion to a less toxic form of nitrogen, the ammonia will build up in the fish tank and eventually kill the fish.
In addition, ammonia continually changes to ammonium (NH4+) and vice versa, with the relative concentrations of each depending on the water's temperature and pH.
Ammonia is extremely toxic to fish; ammonium is relatively harmless. At higher temperatures and pH, more of the nitrogen is in the toxic ammonia form.
Standard test kits measure total ammonia (ammonia plus ammonium) without distinguishing between the two forms. You will need to monitor your tank water daily during cycling for elevated ammonia levels.
If those levels exceed the levels on the charts provided, you should dilute through a water exchange by pumping out up to one-third of your tank's water and replacing it with fresh, de-chlorinated water.
Adjusting the pH of an Aquaponic System
During cycling with fish, you should try and keep your pH between 6 and 7. The range does not go below 6 because most fish prefer slightly alkaline water and few fair well below 6.
The range does not go above 7 because of the ammonia toxicity issue described earlier (higher pH readings suggest higher ammonia concentrations). So how do you keep pH in such a tight range?
The first rule is, whatever you do to adjust pH in aquaponics, do it slowly! Fast, large pH swings are very stressful on fish and will be much more of a problem than having pH that is out of range. Shift your pH no more than 0.2 per day and you should be fine.
The safest way to do this is to use diluted phosphoric acid. Don't use citric acid as it is antibacterial!
If you need to raise pH, alternately add calcium hydroxide-also known as hydrated lime or builder's lime-and potassium carbonate (or bicarbonate) or potassium hydroxide (pearl ash or potash).
Typically, you will be trying to lower pH during cycling, and then once your system is cycled you will probably notice that the pH will fall and you then need to switch to keeping it up. You will probably find that it is easier to increase pH than it is to decrease it. The
ideal pH of a mature aquaponics system is 6.8 to 7. This is a compromise between what the plants prefer, i.e., a slightly acidic environment of 5.5 to 6.5, and what the fish and bacteria prefer, i.e., a slightly alkaline environment as we discussed before.
Why Fish Hate Nitrites
Nitrite is to fish like carbon monoxide is to air breathers. The nitrite will bind with the blood in place of oxygen and keep the fish from getting the oxygen it needs.
Fish poisoned with nitrites die of what is called brown blood disease. If the nitrite levels in your tank rise above 10 ppm while you are cycling your system with fish, you should do a water exchange as discussed above.
Adding Plants to Your Aquaponic System
I recommend adding plants to your new aquaponic system as soon as you start cycling.
Plants can take up nitrogen in all stages of the cycling process to varying degrees, from ammonia, nitrites, and nitrates, but they will be happiest when cycling is complete and the bacteria are fully established because so many more nutrients become available at this stage.
When plants are first transplanted, they focus on establishing their root systems in their new environment.
You may initially see some signs of stress-yellowing or dropped leaves-and you will probably not see any new growth for a few weeks. This is fine.
Adding plants to your system right away lets them go through the rooting process early on and readies them to start removing the nitrogen-based fish waste from your aquaponics system as soon as possible.
I recommend adding some Maxicrop to get your plants off to a good start during cycling. Maxicrop is derived from Norwegian seaweed, is organic and is used primarily as a growth stimulant, especially to enhance plant root development.
It is extremely effective at giving plants a leg up after being transplanted into your new aquaponics system, is absolutely harmless to the fish, and probably beneficial for the bacteria.
You can find Maxicrop in garden centers, hydroponic stores and online in both liquid and dry form.
While there are no hard and fast rules about how much Maxicrop to add during cycling, I recommend about a quart of the liquid product for every 250 gal. of water. It will turn your water almost black but don't worry; this will clear up after a week or so.
Speeding up the Aquaponic Cycling Process
Cycling is in some sense akin to any hunting activity that uses a lure. We start by putting out the ammonia. This attracts the Nitrosomonas bacteria which in-turn produces nitrites.
The nitrites attract the nitrospira bacteria that produce the nitrates that are harmless to the fish and delicious to the plants. These two beneficial nitrifying bacteria are naturally present in the environment.
As I stated earlier, this process will take four to six weeks if done with fish, or as little as 10 days to three weeks if done fishless.
But what if you could speed that up significantly? What if instead of waiting for the bacteria to show up to the party, they actually are part of the party to begin with? You can do this by introducing nitrifying bacteria into your aquaponics system.
Adding Bacteria to the Aquaponic Garden
While there are many ways to do this, they all boil down to two basic strategies: use bacteria from an existing aquaculture or aquaponics operation or from a nearby pond, or instead, purchase bacteria from a commercial source.
Good sources of beneficial bacteria from existing systems are ranked here, starting with the best:
- Grow media from an existing aquaponics system
- A high-quality nitrifying bacteria product
- Filter material (floss, sponge, biowheel, etc.) from an established, disease-free aquarium.
- Gravel from an established, disease-free tank. (Many local pet and aquarium stores will give this away if asked.)
- Other ornaments (driftwood, rocks, etc.) from an established aquarium
- Squeezings from a filter sponge (any pet and aquarium store might be willing to do this.)
- Rocks from a backyard pond with fish in it
Managing Water Temperature
Water temperature dramatically affects cycling speed. The optimal temperature range for the water is 77 to 86°F. At 64°F, bacteria growth slows by 50%. At 46 to 50ºF it decreases by 75%, and stops altogether at 39°F. It will die off at or below 32ºF and at or above 120°F.
Water Temperature
pH68°F77°F
6.515.4 ppm11.1 ppm
7.05.03.6
7.51.61.2
8.00.50.4
8.50.20.1
Cycling with fish is the most widespread and straightforward of the cycling techniques, and it certainly works. However, it is stressful to your fish and therefore somewhat stressful for you. Next month we'll go over another technique called fishless cycling that uses pure ammonia to cycle your system. Either way, it's time to get up and grow!
Written by Sylvia Bernstein
Sylvia Bernstein is the author of Aquaponic Gardening: A Step by Step Guide to Growing Fish and Vegetables Together. She is also the former president of The Aquaponic Source, and the co-founder and past vice chairman of the Aquaponics Association. Before discovering aquaponics, Slyvia was the vice president of marketing and product development for AeroGrow International. Full Bio
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.
From Farm to Fork: The Regulatory Status of Non-GMO Plant Innovations Under Current EU Law
A new article on the latest plant breeding methods will be published on the next issue of BIO-SCIENCE LAW REVIEW.
The existing EU regulatory framework, when considered holistically, provides efficient guarantees that every stage of the agri-food supply chain, from lab to fork, is subject to constraints and obligations dictated by harmonized legislation, each providing various degrees of scrutiny, risk management and control, sanctions and remedial action.
Comparisons between the existing non-GMO legal framework with the GMO legislation or with any other authorization regime based on a full pre-market risk assessment are, by definition, of little practical relevance, since such regimes aim to address potentially serious risks, which, as the SAM Note clarifies, have not been identified in the case of Non-GMO NBT Products.
In the absence of any such concrete, identifiable risk induced by (the use of NBTs for) Non-GMO NBT Products and in view of their non-distinguishability from CBT products, the protection of human/animal/plant health and the environment should thus be considered to be adequately ensured and Non-GMO NBT Products should not be treated differently from products resulting from CBT.
The opposite conclusion would not only raise serious concerns under the SPS Agreement but would essentially also mean that all non-GMO plant products on the market today must be considered inadequately regulated. Just as Advocate-General Bobek concluded in his Opinion in Case C–528/16,133 with regard to mutagenesis, that ‘one could hardly assume that a reasonable legislator could ever wish to state, en bloc and for the future, that something is safe to such a degree that it does not need regulating at all’, one can neither assume that all NBT-products should en bloc be considered to only yield products suspect of causing unacceptable risks.
Against that backdrop, it is submitted that both the precautionary principle and the specific safeguard clauses in horizontal and sectoral legislation can justify and sufficiently guarantee the adoption of stricter risk management measures if a previously unidentified risk arises.”
Chinese Supplier Provides Full System From Seed To Crop
Alice Ou, Eponic:
Chinese Supplier Provides Full System From Seed To Crop
“We offer a whole system for plant factories”, Alice Ou, director of Eponic tells us. “From seeding to the nursery, from grow control to an automatic harvest system”. At the Greentech in Amsterdam the Chinese company showed their system, and they showed up at the Cultivate in Ohio as well.
Eponic at Greentech 2018.
Eponic is a relatively new player in the horticultural market. For twenty years the company has been offering LED lights and control systems, which is a good basis. Now they’re focusing on hydroponic growing, in which light and control are also very important components.
“We wanted to develop a complete system that replaces most of the labour.” Alice shows a video of the system. “The construction is made of aluminum, which makes it light and strong. The lights are white instead of purple. They are suitable for every kind of plant because they light the whole spectrum. Also it is easier for the grower to see how the crops are doing.
The white trays we produced are light-weight. They are transported automatically over the rails to a lift that brings them down. We can adjust the system up to ten levels, so it can be used in large multi-layer farms.”
“We developed the system over the last two years and after intensive testing, it is ready to be put on the market. The first customers have already signed up. One in China and one in the US”, Alice says. “While the market for hydroponics is growing, as we see on events like Cultivate and Greentech, there are plenty of opportunities in the future.”
More information:
Eponic Agriculture
+86-756-5238758
info@eponicagriculture.com
www.eponicagriculture.com
Publication date: 7/20/2018
Author: Jobke den Hertog
Copyright: www.hortidaily.com
Smart Gardening Just Got A Major Upgrade: The Oasis Mini Ecosystem
Smart Gardening Just Got A Major Upgrade: The Oasis Mini Ecosystem
Aeroasis, an up and coming smart gardening startup based in Santa Cruz, CA, has just announced a major upgrade to their first Smart Garden, Oasis Mini.
The AgTech industry as a whole has been gaining serious exposure in the last 3-5 years. With disruptive offerings from many innovative companies focused on technologies ranging from commercial to hyperlocal, there is no doubt it is an exciting time to be a foodie (or a farmer). Never before have there been so many ways to grow food so fast and with so little labor, and with the application of AI in food farming our farms have never been smarter.
While commercial AgTech players have already seen a massive influx of venture and corporate capital, there is one segment of the AgTech market that is still in its infancy, and is ripe for disruption and exponential growth; Consumer ready, smart gardening appliances.
Oasis Mini Ecosystem is the first and only plug and plant, consumer friendly, 3+ chamber smart gardening appliance in development today. What this means for the gardener is multiple plant types can grow at once, in multiple climates, with no watering, feeding, or weeding necessary. For over 3 years, the Aeroasis team has worked long hours optimizing the growing experience and automation components for Oasis Mini, evolving the system through multiple design iterations and deep market research.
Aeroasis announced last week that Oasis Mini has reached its final design iteration. Oasis Mini, which began as a single appliance, has by popular demand developed into an ecosystem of modular, single chamber smart gardens that can be attached to one another to create a practically limitless multi-chamber gardening experience, tailored to the needs and wants of the gardener.
The Aeroasis team believes there is a serious need for a more modular, user focused smart garden that fits the needs of any home, school, or business. With over a third of US homes already growing food, and millions of people living in unsuitable climates for outdoor gardening, people are ready for a smart gardening system that can actually augment their home gardening experience. The Oasis Mini Ecosystem lets you design the smart garden that fits your gardening needs, whether that be a countertop herb/spice garden or a multi plant micro farm. Now anyone looking to try out smart gardening in their home can go to just one company for all their smart garden needs, from countertop to appliance.
The Aeroasis team plans to open a beta testing round for the Oasis Mini Ecosystem later this year, with a target launch slated for early next year. To stay updated or get involved, visit www.aeroasis.com and @Aeroasis on social media.
An Overview of Aquaponic Systems: Hydroponic Components
An Overview of Aquaponic Systems: Hydroponic Components
D. Allen Pattillo
Aquaponics is the union of hydroponics and aquaculture for a fast, efficient method of producing both plant and fish crops.
This publication discusses how an aquaponics system works, showcasing the model used at Iowa State University.
It provides information on construction and design, with photos used to clearly illustrate how the system works.
Pages / Length: 10
Publication Date: 03/2017 Download - Or Read it Here
Can CEA Growers Be Offered Better Lighting and Control Systems?
The Greenhouse Lighting and Systems Engineering (GLASE) consortium is bringing together industries and researchers from different sectors in an open platform to integrate advanced energy-efficient LED lighting with improved environmental controls for more efficient and sustainable greenhouse production.
Can CEA Growers Be Offered Better Lighting and Control Systems?
GLASE consortium is connecting different segments of the controlled environment agriculture industry to create new opportunities for technology development and commercialization.
Technologies underlying horticultural lighting and control systems are rapidly evolving providing academics and private companies new tools with value-added applications in controlled environment agriculture (CEA) facilities. The improved capabilities offered by new integrated lighting systems are expanding the market opportunities for lighting, sensing and control companies.
The Greenhouse Lighting and Systems Engineering (GLASE) consortium is bringing together industries and researchers from different sectors in an open platform to integrate advanced energy-efficient LED lighting with improved environmental controls for more efficient and sustainable greenhouse production.
GLASE addresses the following industries:
- Basic manufacturing: Large manufacturing companies serving a broader market beyond horticultural applications interested in serving the CEA market.
- Lighting, sensing and controls: Product and service companies providing greenhouse growers with systems and controls used for crop production and greenhouse management operations.
- CEA producers: All controlled environmental agricultural production facilities, including greenhouses, indoor farms and urban agriculture.
- Retailers: Food and ornamental crop vendors buying directly or indirectly from CEA producers.
- Auxiliary companies: A broad range of service providers, trade associations, government and private agencies, working to support the other segments of the CEA supply chain.
- Policy and regulatory: Public and private agencies developing horticultural lighting standards and regulations and energy rebate programs.
Led by Cornell University, the Center for Lighting and Applications Systems (LESA) and Rutgers University, GLASE is working with its industry members to de-risk technology development and accelerate market adoption. Identifying existing technology gaps within and across different industry sectors, GLASE members from the basic manufacturing and lighting, sensing and controls segments are exploring commercial opportunities based on similar and complementary technology.
Guided by both the needs of CEA producers and GLASE researchers’ findings new technologies will be validated through multi-phase processes from scientific proof of concepts to implementation in commercial greenhouses. The integrated areas of research ranges from the development of high-efficiency dynamic LED systems and spectrum/irradiance optimization based on plant sensing and environmental conditions to integrated lighting, shade, carbon dioxide (CO2), temperature, and humidity control systems. Click here to find the GLASE detailed research program
For more information, please visit the GLASE website at www.glase.org or contact GLASE executive director Erico Mattos at em796@cornell.edu.
Microfarm Startup Wins Pitch Competition
Microfarm Startup Wins Pitch Competition
Mike Platania February 22, 2018
Two food-based startups won a total of $11,000 Tuesday night at Randolph-Macon College. (Mike Platania)
A UVA-born startup focused on water-based gardening is set to sow more seeds after taking home $10,000 in a pitch competition this week.
Charlottesville-based Babylon Micro-Farms, which makes a Keurig-like appliance for growing produce, won Dominion Energy Innovation Center’s 2018 Pitch Competition, held Tuesday at Randolph Macon College.
Startups pitched to a panel of judges that included Virginia BioTechnology Research Park president and CEO Carrie Roth and Startup Virginia executive director Bryan Bostic. The $10,000 prize was provided by the center, an Ashland-based office and coworking space for startups.
Founded in 2017, Babylon makes a “micro-farm,” which grows produce through hydroponics, a gardening method using nutrient-rich water instead of soil as a base to grow plants. Babylon has set up micro-farms in some Charlottesville eateries and UVA dining halls.
Other finalists were TMI Consulting, a Richmond-based firm focused on diversity in workplaces, and AnswersNow, an online service connecting parents of autistic children with therapists. AnswersNow was part of Richmond-based accelerator Lighthouse Labs’ 2017 class.
In addition to the startup competition, three R-MC students also pitched for a $1,000 prize, provided by the college’s The Edge Career Center.
Veg Head Foods, a vegan food truck concept by R-MC senior Sheridan Skurupey, won the student competition, beating out tutoring service Meta Language and Northern Virginia United FC, a semi-professional soccer team.
The competition was the second startup pitch contest in the region in recent months.
In November, Capital One held a competition for Lighthouse Labs’ latest class at its West Creek campus. RoundTrip, a non-emergency medical transportation company, won the $5,000 prize. A few weeks later, RoundTrip went live in the Richmond market.
Pythium Root Rot on Hydroponically Grown Basil And Spinach
Pythium Root Rot on Hydroponically Grown Basil And Spinach
FEBRUARY 12, 2018 URBAN AG NEWS
by Neil Mattson for eGro (https://e-gro.org/pdf/E301.pdf)
Waterborne diseases that infect roots are a common production issue in hydroponic production. Several species of the water mold, Pythium, attack greenhouse crops. Basil and spinach are susceptible to economically devastating levels of Pythium root infection in hydroponics. In this article, we will present symptoms of Pythium infection and management strategies.
Many Pythium species, are generalists, meaning they can attack a wide range of plant species. Pythium aphanidermatum and Pythium dissotocum are two species commonly reported in hydroponics. Both species can produce zoospores, a mobile propagule that can propel itself through water.
Figure 1. Roots from basil growing in hydroponic rafts (deep water culture) exhibiting root discoloration from Pythium root rot. Photo: Neil Mattson, Cornell University
Symptoms of Pythium Root Rot
As Pythium infects and colonizes roots it can lead to a visible discoloration (browning) and decay of the root system (Figures 1 and 2). Overall root system development may be poor with few lateral roots or root hairs (Figure 1). Often the outer portion of the root (cortex) sloughs away leaving behind the inner part of the root (steele). This leads to the characteristic “rat tail” appearance of Pythium infected roots. The root system can eventually turn slimy and black.
Figure 2. Roots of baby leaf spinach growing in a Speedling tray in raft hydroponics infected with Pythium root rot. Notice discolored roots with poor branching. Photo: David de Villiers, Cornell University
Figure 3. Baby leaf spinach infected with low levels of Pythium root rot. Notice slightly discolored roots. No shoot symptoms are evident but overall plant size may be somewhat reduced. Photo: David de Villiers, Cornell University
Shoots of affected plants may not initially show symptoms of Pythium infection, however, the plants may be reduced in overall size (Figure 3). As the disease progresses, plants may become severely stunted and leaves may be chlorotic (yellow) which is often mistaken for a nutrient deficiency when it is really caused by poor root system development (Figures 4 -6). Plants may also wilt due to the inability of the root system to support plant water needs. At first, wilting may take place during only the hottest, brightest time of the day, but eventually wilting may become permanent.
Figure 4. Leaves of baby leaf spinach infected with Pythium aphanidermatum (A) are chlorotic and greatly reduced in size compared to uninfected control plants (B). Photo: Ted Alhanti , Cornell University
Figure 5. Hydroponic basil infected with Pythium root rot demonstrating chlorosis (yellowing) of leaves as well as stunted plants. Photo: Neil Mattson, Cornell University
Figure 6. Hydroponic basil showing varying degrees of plant stunting and chlorosis due to infection from Pythium root. Photo: Neil Mattson, Cornell University
Management
Once plants are infected, Pythium can be very difficult to control. Therefore the best approach to Pythium management is adopting a suite of practices that reduce or eliminate exposure to the disease organism, restrict its spread, and promoting environmental conditions that reduce disease proliferation.
Exclusion and Sanitation
There are several ways Pythium can enter greenhouse operations, including from: water (especially surface water sources), soil and plant residue from workers’ shoes, air-borne dust, greenhouse tools, previously infected plants/seedlings, and some container media. Follow good hygiene practices to limit entry such as: foot baths to sanitize shoots and boots, sanitization of tools, and inspection of new plant material prior to transplanting. If the water source is found to harbor waterborne disease a treatment system should be installed. Container media with organic matter (such as peat, coir, compost, etc.) can occasionally contain Pythium. Source materials from a reputable supplier with quality control procedures in place.
Because of the prevalence of Pythium it will be difficult (or impossible!) to completely restrict Pythium from hydroponic operations. Therefore, it is important to periodically sanitize surfaces that come into contact with plants or the hydroponic nutrient solution, such as: pond or NFT channel surfaces, irrigation tubing, tools, and carts or other receptacles used to hold plants or move them around. Sanitize containers or seedling trays before reusing. When sanitizing surfaces be sure to remove debris/organic matter first. Be sure to include inspection of plant roots in your routine IPM scouting practices. Toss infected plants at the first sign of Pythium. Don’t reuse growing media.
Environment
Environmental conditions that favor Pythium include excessively high fertility, waterlogged substrates (for example, in the seedling stage), low dissolved oxygen, and extreme temperatures. Injury to roots such as through mechanical damage, allowing roots to dry out, or extreme temperatures can provide an entry point to Pythium. Maintain a target root zone temperature of 68 to 75 °F (20 to 24 °C). Lower temperatures favor establishment of Pythium dissotocum and higher temperatures favor development of Pythium aphanidermatum. At Cornell University, we have found that use of a water chiller to reduce hydroponic pond temperatures to about 68 °F is an effective way to reduce, but not completely eliminate, Pythium aphanidermatum from ponds with baby leaf spinach. Low dissolved oxygen levels in hydroponics have also been reported to increase Pythium infection. Therefore it is important to ensure adequate aeration so as to achieve greater than 6 ppm dissolved oxygen and ideally saturated dissolved oxygen (about 8- 9 ppm O2) in nutrient hydroponic solutions.
Biofungicides
Biofungicides are microbial-based products that act to prevent disease development. Several commercially available products are labeled for control of root-disease of greenhouse vegetable crops, see the excellent e-Gro article on this topic here. Some of these materials are primarily suited for use in substrates (such as seedlings or larger plants growing in container media) while some are also meant for use in hydroponic nutrient solutions. Biofungicides should be used as a preventative control strategy before a problem arises (rather than as a curative). Always follow the product label, and be sure to check if a given material is registered for use in your state.
In summary, if you are growing hydroponic basil or spinach you will almost certainly come across Pythium. However, careful attention to your growing practices and sanitation procedures can limit this disease to an occasional annoyance rather than an annihilating nemesis.
References
- Penn State Extension. 2017. Pythium, online factsheet. Retrieved on January 23, 2018 from https://extension.psu.edu/pythium
- Raudales, R.E. and McGehee, C. 2016. Pythium root rot on hydroponic lettuce. e -Gro Edible Alert. Volume 1, Number 4. Retrieved on January 23, 2018 from https://e -gro.org/pdf/E104.pdf
- Raudales, R.E. and McGehee, C. 2017. Biofungicides for control of root diseases on greenhouse- grown vegetables. e- Gro Edible Alert. Volume 2, Number 7. Retrieved on January 23, 2018 from https://e -gro.org/pdf/E207.pdf
- Sutton, J.C., Sopher , C.R., Owen -Going, T.N., Liu, W., Grodzinski, B., Hall, J.C. and Benchimol, R.L., 2006. Etiology and epidemiology of Pythium root rot in hydroponic crops: current knowledge and perspectives. Summa Phytopathologica , 32 (4), pp.307 -321.
Publication date: 1/31/2018
A Growing Opportunity Has Dracut, New York Students Filling Salad Bar
A Growing Opportunity Has Dracut, New York Students Filling Salad Bar
By Amaris Castillo, acastillo@lowellsun.com
02/05/2018
A group of Dracut High School students in late November planted lettuce seeds at Justus C. Richardson Middle School in Dracut, which would produce food to be incorporated in the high school s salad bar. The students are also members of the school s Environmental Action Club. SUN PHOTOS / AMARIS CASTILLO
DRACUT -- A group of Dracut High School students in late November bent their heads over a row of soil press seed plates on a long table at Justus C. Richardson Middle School. Slowly and carefully, the teens (also members of the school's Environmental Action Club) planted the first set of lettuce seeds in each hole that, in time, would produce organic food meant for the high school's salad bar and prepared meals for students.
"It's been growing as hoped and expected, and they have harvested lettuce," Dracut High School principal Richard Manley said last week of the students' progress in the district's greenhouse.
Dracut High students are using the indoor grow technology through a collaborative effort between teachers, the middle school, and the Food Services Department.
(SUN / AMARIS CASTILLO)
The company that brought forth the technology is New York-based 2445 Organics.
According to Andy Maslin, the founder of 2445 Organics, this system takes the "ag farm back into the school" rather than a school busing students to a farm for the experience. It's the first time his company is branching into Massachusetts.
"This is allowing the farmers to become year-round sustainable and allowing the schools to grow their own foods year-round," Maslin said.
Maslin said his New England distributor, Todd Bard, CEO of EvanLEE Organics, worked to bring the opportunity to Town Manager Jim Duggan. Bard has previously conducted business with the town.
"It's a job creator. It's got agricultural and educational components to it, and I think it's a fantastic opportunity," Duggan said.
ColdPICK International Inc. & Ecarne Sistemas, A Cold Chain Equipment Provider Based in Mexico, Forming Chill Produce Inc.
ColdPICK International Inc., with its extensive background in engineering and packaging innovation, together with Ecarne Sistemas, a Cold Chain equipment provider based in Mexico, are combining their comprehensive expertise to form a new company - Chill Produce Inc.
Chill Produce will focus on helping to resolve the regulatory burdens, which have been mounting, on fruit and vegetable growers in North America. North America because operators of both companies have been involved with agriculture material handling system development in the USA, Canada, and Mexico.
ColdPICK designed, engineered and manufactured (under contract with an integrated berry company) the ColdPICK M1, a Mobile post-harvest pre-cooling system that can be located at the grow site to pre-cool 1,000LB of berries in an hour, to match the volume of berries a crew will pick per hour.
Ecarne has been facilitating the provision of large refrigeration equipment to the meat and seafood industry in Mexico.
The new company - Chill Produce provides cold chain material handling systems to the grower/ packer/shipper market. Systems which will minimize labor and energy costs and the regulatory burdens with which California is currently predominantly impacted (resulting in a competitive disadvantage with other states and offshore growers).
The fresh fruit and vegetable growers suffer from a broken immigration system resulting in changing regulatory burdens of minimum wage and overtime enforcement that will now be applied to agricultural jobs.
Energy rates vary by state and California ‘wins’ the race for the highest $kWh measured against other ‘agricultural’ states.
Chill Produce offers various post-harvest pre-cooling systems which will reduce both labor and energy costs
1. The variable Retention Time chilling tunnel, ‘VRT’, will reduce your cold chain material handling headcount over 50%.
2. Chill Produce Cooler Vacuum cooling chambers, ‘CPC’, will cool select produce cartons in 30-minute cycles with a capacity that ranges from 1,100LB to 22,000LB per cycle.
3. VERMAK tray design to increase pallet payload by adding an extra layer at the same height as male-female locking trays which improves revenue and reduces freight costs.
Both the VRT and CPC Vacuum Cooling Systems provide;
- Dwell Time Reduction by 25% to over 50%
- Lower Energy Costs
- Improved Quality
- Longer Shelf Life
- Less Cull
- Smaller Carbon Footprint
Contact Chill Produce; www.chillproduce.com
USA – Canada;
Gregory Smith; gregory@chillproduce.com
+1 863 581 7279
Mexico;
Abe McKee; abe@chillproduce.com
+1 956 242 0665
Scientists Are Trying to Grow Fruit and Vegetables on Mars
The UAE is launching a probe to Mars from Japan in 2020, making it one of only nine countries attempting to explore the planet. If efforts prove successful, UAE expects that man will set foot on the planet’s soil within the next 100 years.
gmutlu / istockphoto.com
Scientists Are Trying to Grow Fruit and Vegetables on Mars
Nov 16, 2017 | By Taylor Rock Editor
And it’s not to feed the aliens
To answer David Bowie’s burning question from 1971, “Is there life on Mars?” No — but soon, there very well could be. The United States Emerites is spending tons of money — over $5.4 billion — to experiment with growing fruits and vegetables on the red, desolate planet. The oil-rich country has been ambitious about colonizing on Mars and, naturally, people will have to eat when they get there.
The UAE Space Agency is using its location here on Earth as a test site for what could become the agricultural future for Mars. They say it’s not much different than the desert, as they’re both seemingly uninhabitable environments where it’s unlikely for plants to flourish.
"There are similarities between Mars and the desert," UAE Space Agency senior strategic planner Rashid Al Zaabi told the BBC. "The landscape of the UAE, the soil, are similar."
These out-of-this world efforts come in preparation for the end of an era for oil, the region’s biggest money-maker.
“There are 100 million young people in the Arab region. We want them to play a part in the future and take the region to the next level,” project manager Omran Sharaf told the BBC. “It’s about creating a post-oil, knowledge-based, creative-based economy. So it is important we become well-established scientific center. We have created many engineers, but not many scientists. This [Mars project] is purely a scientific mission.”
The UAE is launching a probe to Mars from Japan in 2020, making it one of only nine countries attempting to explore the planet. If efforts prove successful, UAE expects that man will set foot on the planet’s soil within the next 100 years.
Also — country singer Sammy Kershaw may want to change the lyrics to that song he wrote about his unfaithful girlfriend. (When they grow cantaloupes on Mars, I’ll come back to you.) Hang in there, buddy. But hey, speaking of music and places beyond human reach, here are 10 destinations you can’t travel to — because they exist only in song.