25 replies to this topic

[CyberMisterBeauty]

The timeline says that global warming will make agriculture almost impossible many parts of the world and million people will die from hunger.At the same time,it says that by 2025-2050 vertical farming in skyscrapers will begin to appear in many cities.I was wondering if these huge vertical farms buildings could replace traditional farming,who will fade due to droughts,flood and soil pollution and erosion.They say that as the production of food would be indoors,many types of food could be produced without huge problems.I wonder if in every city have a vertical farm,this could perhaps eliminate hunger,what do you think?

[Logically Irrational]

It could potentially solve it in the larger, more developed cities. I remember watching something on TV that talked about how 15 (I think) vertical farms could take care of the needs for New York City. I could be wrong on the number, and I don't remember the height, but the point is that it could be done without taking away any significant amount of real estate space. Of course, this is speaking of major, first world cities. When you get into places like Lima, or Mumbai, or Nairobi, it is much less certain. I have no doubt that these will be built there eventually, but cities in less developed regions, especially the third world, will be much slower on the uptake. I doubt that these will become widespread enough, even in the first world, in order to avoid the real food shortages this century. Most of the food, at least for the next 40 years, will still be traditionally grown I think.

So, to answer your question directly, yes vertical farms (along with GM crops and in vitro meat) could solve hunger further down the road. As far as solving it in time before things get really bad? I don't think so. I think things have to get bad first, and then vertical farms will get adopted quickly by the countries that can do so.

[CyberMisterBeauty]

Hmmm...that makes sense,after all,when this technology arrive mainstream it will be expensive and will consume much more energy than convensional agriculture.Furthermore,if we have enough land to produce food(expanding it by deforestation),most producers won't see a real nessecity to replace it with skyscrapers,realizing that it will be very expensive to built them and maintaining them.At first time I think these buildings will be only available in the most important city centres(like Tokyo,New york,Beijing,and perheps Sao paulo).

But with the evolution of climate change and global warming,many farmlands will be transformed into deserts,and with this tendency the only solution will be vertical farming,don't you think?And with the tendency of most people living in cities,these vertical farms maybe became commonplace,since I think probably food production and distribution will be much easier,efficient and cheaper in urban areas than importing food from farmlands...I think this will probably happen after 2050-2060...

[Raklian]

We're at the point where we examine this technology's feasibility and whether there is enough profit to be made after expenses. There aren't many interested investors because the profit margin in operating vertical farms isn't where they want it to be. I'm sure after just a few more breakthroughs that will reduce cost overheads in operating those vertical farms, the profits get big enough to attract investor money. We just need to get this point before it becomes widespread.

[tornado64]

Vertical Farming has the potential to solve many problems. Agriculture is the single biggest producer of CO2, with more than all transportation of cars, planes,ships, etc. together. Agriculture destroys a lot of nature all over the world, with vertical farming we could rebuild a lot of destroyed forest etc.
Vertical farming could tremendous reduce the use of water and pesticides, produce healthier food and this with the highest efficiency.
As I know, there is just one company yet who is farming in buildings. It's a Japanese company producing salad.

[Logically Irrational]

If we do it right, vertical farms could help agriculture turn into a carbon sink as well.

[tornado64]

Yeah, I think vertical farming is something really important. If we would turn the whole agriculture in vertical farms that would have a really positive impact on the world. Vertical farming is more sustainable than any other agriculture. This is something I'm really interested in. If you would ask me what is the single best thing to fight climate change, I would say turn most agriculture into vertical farms is one solution. It would lower the negative influences of humanity on earth.

[Guyverman1990]

Not just hunger, but also the need to take up Earth's fertile land.

[MarcZ]

I don't think vertical farming will alone solve hunger, another pressing issue fast approaching is peak phosphorus which is required for most of the fertilizers we use to grow plants, and this is non-renewable. So we could still have food shortages in the future maybe not due to global warming, but certainly due to phosphorus shortages if we don't start conserving more of it.

[tornado64]

Vertical farming uses no fertilizers, herbiscides or pesticides... I think vertical farming is a solution and could make food a lot healthier at the same time.

[MarcZ]

Vertical farming uses no fertilizers, herbiscides or pesticides... I think vertical farming is a solution and could make food a lot healthier at the same time.

How does that work then? If you don't have phosphorus nothing is going to grow to sustain mass agriculture, it's required in all living organisms to make up DNA.

[tornado64]

Vertical farming uses no fertilizers, herbiscides or pesticides... I think vertical farming is a solution and could make food a lot healthier at the same time.

How does that work then? If you don't have phosphorus nothing is going to grow to sustain mass agriculture, it's required in all living organisms to make up DNA.

I don't know how it works exactly but they use hydroponics...

[MarcZ]

Hydroponics still requires the use of a nutrient solution, thus if there's no phosphorus there's no adequate nutrient solution.

[Logically Irrational]

Hydroponics still requires the use of a nutrient solution, thus if there's no phosphorus there's no adequate nutrient solution.

There's still solutions for this.

http://www.treehugge...ually-work.html

If I have one complaint about the project, and the role of vertical farms in cities, it would be that Gordon did not think big enough. The creative leap that Gordon makes is to tie the vertical farm into the city's organic waste system, but there is a really good reason to put this in the middle of a sea of condominiums: It could act as a giant purification system. Imagine if all of those buildings had vacuum waste systems delivering organic waste, urine separating toilets to deliver phosphorus, gray water systems to supply the plants, which then return pure water through the dehumidifiers. It feeds the city and processes its waste in a closed loop.

Again, this is another reason why I think vertical farms in the short and medium term will only be able to solve hunger for certain, likely first world areas.

[SG-1]

Peak phosphorus won't kill us. It will make food more expensive, but problems do get solved even if we have to tighten our belts. The whole attitude of the world today is not going to stand for it which may drive us into an economic depression.

1930s vs 2012 and the difference is...people. We didn't do the "logical" thing by being thrifty.

[eacao]

There's still solutions for this.

http://www.treehugge...ually-work.html

If I have one complaint about the project, and the role of vertical farms in cities, it would be that Gordon did not think big enough. The creative leap that Gordon makes is to tie the vertical farm into the city's organic waste system, but there is a really good reason to put this in the middle of a sea of condominiums: It could act as a giant purification system. Imagine if all of those buildings had vacuum waste systems delivering organic waste, urine separating toilets to deliver phosphorus, gray water systems to supply the plants, which then return pure water through the dehumidifiers. It feeds the city and processes its waste in a closed loop.

Again, this is another reason why I think vertical farms in the short and medium term will only be able to solve hunger for certain, likely first world areas.

Where do people get the phosphorus in their urine from? From the food they eat. And there is a net loss of the stuff along the way. People eat crops, get the phosphorous from it, then urinate and some of the phosphorus (a very small per centage) can be used in the growth of more food. But there has to be an external input.

Phosphorous is what makes up our DNA, it isn's a fertilizer, it is a fundamental for life on Earth, and yes, we humans need it too amazingly enough.

[eacao]

Peak phosphorus won't kill us. It will make food more expensive, but problems do get solved even if we have to tighten our belts. The whole attitude of the world today is not going to stand for it which may drive us into an economic depression.

1930s vs 2012 and the difference is...people. We didn't do the "logical" thing by being thrifty.

Peak phosphorus is a concern because it isn't like oil where there is an alternative. We have to get the phosphorus back which we have already lost. When we use it, we dump it in the oceans where it diffuses across the planet. We don't have any kind of technology which can syphon it from the oceans. And before you say, "future technology will be able to solve it", yes, sometime in the very distant future mining the oceans will likely be possible, like anything else, it is not coming soon. The concentration of phosphorus in the oceans is minute and there is no technology devised to filter it.

Cutting down isn't a solution either. It can sure slow it down, and it isn't something we'll have a choice on - it's just something which is going to be taking place, but our population is enormous as it is. And it is growing. It's not just staying where it is so that we can cut our consumption and hope for the best, even while the phosphorus consumed per capita will drop, overall consumption will still be on the rise.

- The long and the short of it, peak phosphorus is a threat, don't underestimate it.

[tornado64]

I don't think we will run completely out of phosphorus, but maybe it will rare for some time. Later we can mine it from asteroids. Another reason why I think Planetary Resources is doing exactly the right thing.

[Logically Irrational]

Where do people get the phosphorus in their urine from? From the food they eat. And there is a net loss of the stuff along the way. People eat crops, get the phosphorous from it, then urinate and some of the phosphorus (a very small per centage) can be used in the growth of more food. But there has to be an external input.

Phosphorous is what makes up our DNA, it isn's a fertilizer, it is a fundamental for life on Earth, and yes, we humans need it too amazingly enough.

What you've said here is true. I didn't mean to say that vertical farming is a permanent solution. But what about this?
http://www.fertilize...-peak-phosphate

In response to a lack of up-to-date information, the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) carried out a study, World Phosphate Rock Reserves and Resources, that reassessed the phosphate rock reserves and resources of important phosphate-producing countries. This study, released in September 2010, concluded that [/background]global phosphate rock resources suitable for phosphate-based products, including phosphate fertilizers, were far more extensive than previously estimated. At current extraction rates, these resources would be available for several centuries.

Now, before you jump down my throat, I'm fully aware of the flaws of this report, since it just goes by total reserves in the ground, not by what can be recovered easily. But this isn't nearly as difficult as siphoning it from the ocean will be. And if the problem gets to be as big as it could, it's not like the technology to mine it will be researched just as slowly as everything else.

The main problem I think will not be physical, but geopolitical. The spread of phosphorus in different countries is not equal.

[MarcusAurelius]

My money is on vertical farming that incorporates aquaculture in massive amounts. Vertical farming has to proliferate everywhere before it has a chance of toppling world hunger. And it needs to happen in the most affected regions. Also, the most efficient vertical farms might not use natural unmodified flora but rather heavily GM crops for its produce.