Vertical Farms Fail: Checkout Ground News Today! ground.news/twobit
Vertical farming, once hailed as the answer to global hunger and sustainable agriculture, saw a massive influx of investment, surpassing 2 billion dollars in 2022. By 2023, the market had skyrocketed to over 5 billion dollars, marking a significant milestone in the journey towards urban food production. So why is this innovative tech FAILING. Join us as we explore the fall of vertical farming and the challenges it faces. Subscribe and hit the notification bell to stay tuned for more insights into the cutting-edge innovations shaping our world!
》》》SUPPORT THE SHOW!《《《
Join our Newsletter! geni.us/TwoBitWeekly
Become a Patron! geni.us/TwoBitPatreon
Buying a Tesla? geni.us/GoTesla
》》》OUR PARTNERS《《《
Protect Yourself Online: geni.us/deleteMe
》》》GOING SOLAR?《《《
Save 50% on Solar Panels ⟫ geni.us/SolarSteals
Energy Sage for Solar ⟫ geni.us/EnergySage
》》》COMPANY OUTREACH 《《《
Sponsor A Video! sponsors@twobit.media
》》》CONNECT WITH US 《《《
Twitter 》 / twobitdavinci
Facebook 》 / twobitdavinci
Instagram 》 / twobitdavinci
00:00 - The Rise and Fall of Vertical Farms
00:51 - The Hype: Billions Invested and Unicorn Startups
02:15 - The Promises of Vertical Farming: High Yields and Sustainability
04:19 - The Reality Check: Why Vertical Farms Are Failing
06:24 - Understanding Vertical Farming Technology
07:45 - The Costly Truth Behind Vertical Farming
08:56 - Vertical Farms Biggest Achilles Heel
12:57 - Challenges and Opportunities
what we'll cover
two bit da vinci,vertical farm,rise and fall,Farming,Failure,Engineering Failure,Farming Fail,Vegetables,Lettuce,Hydroponics,aeroponics,Vertical,Farmland,Cost of Farming,City Farming,Crops,Billion Dollar Disaster,Groceries,Urban Farming,Organic Farming,Sustainable Farming,Saudi Arabia,NEOM,The Line,Germany,Aero Farms,Crop Yields,Seasonal Farming,Pestecide Free,Agricuture,vertical farming,vertical farming progress,vertical farming failure, Why Vertical Farms WORLDWIDE Are FAILING
Checkout Ground News Today! ground.news/twobit
ROFL $5? gtfo, .79c to $1.59 per pound depending on the type. half that at farmers markets on the weekend. North east ohio here
NUCLEAR POWER
no bro you need AI and robots this leaves out the higher costs and raises the maintenance slightly,and since we are in the beginning of the AGI era,these projects are destined to succeed. also you can search for fruits in hydroponics like grapes,it has been done successfully.
Where I live, Vancouver, we grow a lot of blueberries. The local blueberries are sold in Japan. Meanwhile, the local supermarket sells blueberries from places like Morocco and Peru.
All I want to know is , where are all these financial backers ? and why are they giving funds to people that have zero idea on how this works ?? I mean , , does everyone just want to starve??? Sad.... Just saying, the right person can and will make this work ... Organically! & Cheaply!
I come from the Dutch greenhouse industry. Dutch greenhouses produce about 10X of what is possible on the best open-air farms. Such greenhouses are probably at the pinnacle of cost-effectiveness. Besides, crops like tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, zucchini, melons, and pumpkins, are already grown vertically in these greenhouses. They grow vertically because it's relatively easy to lead their growth vertically. Lettuces and other leafy greens and herbs can be automated a great deal on a horizontal plane. In low-light conditions, one can add lighting. I think vertical farming is one step too far in automation and complications with humans. Perhaps further automation with AI and humanoid robots could be the path to success. Fun fact: greenhouses grow the most pesticide-free produce. They do this by adding natural predators of pests into the greenhouses. Unfortunately, it's more difficult to control fungal pests, but it can be done.
One problem with greenhouse and vertical farming is the heavy use of plastics in the equipment, and the often much higher level of microplastics in the crops compared to conventional farming. New research is coming out almost monthly on the body-wide negative side effects microplastics have.
That was an interesting read thanks
Thing is about all this is that they arent the staple crops. These sorts of alternative methods need to be good at growing stuff like wheat and rice otherwise you are just growing salads.
@@2drealms196 nicely said and the source for that is what that dutch or european greenhouses come often with higher level of microplastics ? Remember: In the EU much more is forbidden in the agriculture industry and there the treatment agreement has never been signed . American citizens living in the EU realizse that quite often and quickly cause the water is smelling and tasting different, their skin feels much better cause the recognice that and they check the product for ingredients they see much of american ingredients forbidden in the EU.
Accurate. Good synopsis.
I got laid off a vertical farm project last month. I was the lead designer, but even though I was able to save millions of dollars on lighting and other parts of the system, the business side had no idea how to make this project profitable. We would have to sell at exorbitant prices to make it work.
Didn't your close location to the city made an impact on your cost? I always thought vertical farms would win with decreasing prices on the consumer end and outsell the traditional farms until this video.
@@ali-g as said in the video, transportation savings weren't enough to offset additional costs that wouldn't be present in a greenhouse or conventional farming. Electric power for lighting and HVAC costs a lot. Then, you need to hire people who know how to use this equipment, and that's also more expensive. You need to think about how to retrieve produce from the higher layers which is also not obvious. Some simple elevators and manual picking is just not fast enough to process the required volume.
@@waisetsubunsho7934 wow. Thank you for the answer. Do you think these vertical farms will overcome the problems you mentioned? Do you worry that lack of funding act as a kill switch for the industry?
I ran the numbers when we were looking, we had an abandoned big box store and state grants and still couldn't find a way to make it profitable. Urban land/buildings are expensive, living in a big city is expensive. My farm is located in a southern state on super cheap land not in a city, it is still expensive to operate a farm.
that is because, like with a lot of these green initiatives, it isn't about actually producing the goods at comparable prices, it is - skim as much as possible while on the upwards trend, when the investor and grant money is flowing in, and you skim via super expensive equipment, expensive design plans etc, where you can fake high added value, I see 150k$ robot there in that video doing what, servicing 100 plants? and this is not just vertical farming, same exact thing is with wind and other stuff, and the hope behind all of these is that they will grow large enough quickly enough to become "too big to fail" and then will have subsidies from government to stay afloat, because "they can't fail", "too important to fail" and so on, and that then becomes a burden on the tax payers that is the whole scheme, same scheme just different levers is present in higher education, but some recent data falsification and peer review fails are threatening that house of cards also
My D&D group had a recurring gag character who would try and sell you on his vertical farm idea whenever he showed up in a campaign.
🤣🤣🤣
Hello, the main problem that got most vertical farms/indoor farms to go out of buisness here in Quebec is that most of the people that start that kind of buisness know literally nothing about plants and don,t even inform themself. My teacher went to a conference about it for fun with some of her specialists friends and she told us that it's actually insane how most of them don't know jack shit and don't even take notes and plant mesurements. The main issue that she saw is that most of them forget to add Co2 in their indoor farms which makes them unable to compete during summer (cold climate) because of their really low yields per plants. Also, to make this profitable, you have to hire professionnals to optimize the light input.
Most people don't know the chemical equation for photosynthesis, and that CO2 really IS plant food, NOT pollution. They think that food comes from supermarkets, not farmers. They read "fear porn" MSM headlines about climate catastrophes and don't bother learning the actual facts that climate is getting MILDER, NOT more extreme. LOW temperatures are increasing, NOT high temperatures or extreme weather. Average temperatures are increasing because of the low-temperature rise.
I have a veggie patch and I take notes*. Maybe if there was an adjacent mushroom production project that can feed the plants CO2(g) while the plants supply O2(g). Throw-in some adjacent aquaculture for water-filtration. Would work better as a cottage/medium scale operations maybe. *frustrated fmr PhD student 😅
68th 👍
Sounds like the issue is companies relying too heavily on outside investors coupled with piss poor planning at ground level.
Not even close. The companies which went bankrupt just couldn't turn a profit at those locations. Thats the entire point of the video.
The high tech entrepreneurs who start vertical farms are techies not farmers, they are not accustomed to the financial realty of farming.
Sun is free, electricity for lighting is not, so only indoor farming here in Lancaster, CA is approval last week of another indoor pot grow farm.
@@rrmackay the financial reality of this is very different from farming.
@@donaldkasper8346I wonder what the cost of doing a shit ton of this if they ever figure out that deep geothermal that really runs deep enough to create steam. Like could we just dig one of those and hook it up to Miles upon square miles worth of area and then make money off excess energy too. Like if that energy cost could come down it would be game changer. Plus I get sense it takes less to manage.
Dude, my vertical farms are tested extensively in Minecraft before I ever realize that I won't build them IRL
haha brilliant!
you made me laugh out loud literally
lol, i was going to say that the only place for vertical farms is minecraft - you beat me to it
My biggest reason for playing minecraft is to create technological aberrations that aren't feasible in real life due to the sheer amount of cost or ethical violations required for it.
😂😂😂😂 i myself not only used vertical farms but i developed a pretty efficient way to build them in survival 😂😂😂😂 i go at it with an algorithm like a printer lol... i ended up having them banned from most servers i played on lololol
vertical farming is done big time here in the Netherlands. The Netherlands is the biggest exporter of flowers. Most flowers don't grow on fields but inside of big greenhouses on multi level platforms that rotate each day so the flowers get enough light. Nothing in this cycle is done by humans, everything is done automatically, even the planting of bulbs is done by robots more and more. the only part where humans are still involved is picking and packing of the flowers after they've grown. Many people talk about pests and funguses etc. It's true these are big things and can bankrupt an entire company. That's why there are many extremely strict hygienic rules. When u enter greenhouses you need special clothing (like those white cloth onesie suits) and there's multiple stages of disinfection of hands, arms and shoes. You CANNOT enter these facilities with food that carries the deceases, for example you can't enter tomato greenhouses with tomatoes/paprikas (even those insta soup packs are forbidden) and some other food that's that might contain deceases. It is also not possible to travel between different greenhouses in one facility. The facilities also use things like doors, high and low pressure areas and vapor screens between parts to make it even more difficult for pests to spread.
only viable with a high value crop like cut flowers
Do they? I've only ever seen single rows used, simply because that allows each plant to get the maximum amount of light.
When it comes 2 selling food, competition is ferocious. Coming from someone whos family sells honey and olive oil in farmers markets and small shops.
Here in the Netherlands they introduce bees and other insects inside the hydroponic systems to hunt the pests that eat the plants. no insecticides are used.
wow, im a little curious how that works.
@@godzillal123321I watched a documentary quite a while ago about it. They use beehives indoors to pollinate the plants, then move them outdoors after they have done their thing after a while. They introduced Ladybugs and Lacewings into the environment that would specifically hunt the mites and other little plant feeders that might infect the plants. Bees can get territorial during their pollination (which is essentially gathering food for the hive) when they come across insects that are closer to their own size and can sting (Not their main function though).
I imagine they use a lot of praying mantises. Ladybugs and some species of wasps are also very good. I had wasps in my garden in NM and could walk around with them flying around me and never got stung.
@@godzillal123321 The process called Nature! And works a lot better than the chemical options since pests don't develop a resistance to being eaten as well as not having to worry about the food being contaminated.
"Here in the Netherlands they introduce bees and other insects inside the hydroponic systems to hunt the pests that eat the plants." Still, it is much more climate friendly to put some cows on a pasture (which is a REAL ecological system and not a fake one you are trying to "create"), manage these in a regenerative manner and eat the healthy red meat!
I have a friend who worked in one of these places. They specialized in leafy greens and were doing well. The entire place was wiped out with a fungus infestation that they couldn't get rid of. He said that in nature the insects would have kept it in check by eating it but indoors, with no bugs, it just ran wild. The whole building was infected and could no longer be used for farming. I think it's a warehouse now. the other thing he mentioned was that the lighting they used, while great for the plants, wreaked havoc on his moods and mental health. The spectrums used might be nutritious for plants but they can be very bad for people.
Indoor operations tend to be very humid without heavy ventilation, which is a much higher energy and equipment cost than lighting. Dark, buzzing, and humid. Not a great environment for your average human.
I can only imagine. That weird purple was abrasive just coming out of my phone screen.
One of the reasons why my vertical farming company went out of business was due to a mite infestation that devastated our last crop that could've gotten us out of the water and proven financial viability. But we pretty much lost around 4000 various herbs and leafy greens, and to restart a batch like that (germinating/sprouting) would've taken months, which wasn't an option. It's a really tough industry, and before you are fully able to properly automate things, it's very labor intensive, to a point where our small team was completely burnt out. I'm still hopeful for the industry, but things will have to be improved drastically. Imo, it can be done.
A farm with athlete's foot. How bizarre.
@@sementhrower420 Sounds like vertical farms need sci-fi style decontamination airlocks and donning disposable sterile clothing to cut down the risk of insect and fungal infestation.
Vertical farms seemed like a brilliant idea if you have zero experience in horticulture and growing/propagation. Otherwise we've known for decades they're terrible ideas unless you absolutely need the space. In reality it's so much cheaper and more efficient to just grow where the growing good and ship it to places that can't grow, not exactly complicated lol.
You never heard of tariffs have you?
First video from you I watched love the style immediately subscribed👍🏽
What is most surprising to me is the fact that investors didn't see this coming. It's not rocket science to calculate profit. It shows that most rich people and investors are just humans with more money in their pockets.
it's just the standard investment thinking that company will do what it is supposed to do and not being a bonzi scam that just presents itself well
@nogamenolife7940 As soon as he mentioned the tech bros at the beginning I knew where it was going.
They're trying to reinvent the sun. It's literally free. The stupidity of these people.
No it shows that people who support these green initiatives don't have common sense
What gets me is he mentions Neom "the line" Saudi Arabia as if it's a possibility. Vertical farms are still viable in theory with things like labor cost, and energy being resolved you can potentially bring a profitable farm to market. There is no engineer on the planet who thinks Neom is actually a possibility within the next century. It's a dictators pipedream.
I was the lead designer in a vertical farming company in Canada. (once upon a time...) We were focused on Cannabis Exclusively. The only crop with high enough end value to justify the labour and capex expenditure according to our math. We were repeatedly asked to grow vegetables by investors and the like... The math never worked.
but the only reason of high price on cannabis if it is legal, very strict regulations and high taxes. If you won't regulate it price will drop, because cannabis is same plant as onion or tomato.
@@Smolandgor Onion and tomato are very different plants. Onion is an alium, tomato is a nightshade.
@@josephmoya5098 tomato, cannabis onions, cucumbers just grow like any other plant you can find on a farm. If cannabis won't be regulated it's price would be very low.
@@Smolandgor It's actually easier than tomato as there are basically no natural parasites that attack hemp.
Even cannabis isn't going to be a long term industry. The biggest cost is the equipment cost and labour. As these costs come down overtime which they are. People will just grow it themselves. I have a friend who sells hydroponics equipment to end consumers specifically for growing weed. You can buy a kit and have a small growing operation in your own basement. If the cost comes down for equipment and it's sufficiently automated where you don't need skilled labour. Your typical stay at home mom can buy a kit and just run the automation cutting out the middle man. I'm more excited for this outcome above anything else.
I'm considering indoor farming myself. My calculations are based on the price of electricity vs buying food from the store, but even then the profit would come solely from using the waste heat of the lamps to heat the house.
let us know how it goes, and good luck :)
Another reason growing that way doesn’t always pay off, most veggies and fruit grown that way taste like watered down garbage. Tomatoes, berries, peppers, etc. will all have their taste affected by environmental stressors. A tomato’s taste is at it’s peak when it hasn’t been watered for several days and you pick in the middle of a sunny day because that’s when it’s sugars are the most concentrated. Whereas a cucumber will taste best picked before the sun hits it for the day. Soil, sunlight, pests, etc all play a vital role in the taste and quality of your food. It’s frankly impossible to fully mimic nature’s design.
This only show how the technicians and the managers are completely unprepared to manage the VF (or the hydroponic farms) There is no technical reason you can not find the right "recipe" to get maximum taste from the crop. There are, for sure, books and articles written about it and with data to back them and use. The big problem I see in this is "too much, too fast, too early". The proper way to develop the industry is to do how Elon did, rapid prototyping, testing, rapid failing early. Because it is a completely new way to do things. Money don't solve technical problems not already solved. You need brains and time.
honesty my hydroponic leafy greens blows every grocery store available green out of the water its not even close
Not saying I disagree with your statement about environmental factors playing a part in quality, but imagine someone 100 years ago saying "there's no way we can connect the entire world in a metaphysical network to transmit any kind of information imaginable, that's crazy talk and impossible"
It is quite clear that soil bacteria are essential. At a recent talk at the NIH, a plant biologist asked, "How many other species contribute to growing an apple?" The expected answers were like, bees, and other pollinators. The correct answer is, "we don't know how many". The underground ecosystem is large.
Just gut flora,,,
Yes, when you try to replace nature with tech, derived from limited, mechanistic consciousness, trouble is bound to ensue....
This isn't entirely wrong but hydroponics have existed for a long time and are effectively soiless growing methods. Realistically, something like vertical farming would be neccessary if we ever want to produce food supplies outside of earth.
Where the fuck are you pulling that from? That has nothing to do with this video!!
It never sounded like a good idea. It sounded like the BS you see on YoutTube and Ted Talks. Most of that garbage is for the Google generation that is so gullible they believe any gobbledygook they see online while distrusting all the real world experience being lived around them. Replacing soil, sunshine, and fresh air with plastic and fake light is the same as "saving the environment" by cutting down old growth forest to put up barely wind turbines that kill birds by the millions. The hubris of the Google brain-rot thinking they know more about everything bring wave after wave of failure.
I know homesteading and small community in the mountains of VA and Oregon and they use vertical farming. They aren't scienctist, they just used the free info on the net and make their food all year round. They mainly feed themselves, and sell some at farmers market. They use renewable energy and collected/recycled water to power equipment etc. Now imagine an America where every neighborhood employed Vertical Farming to feed that neighborhood all year round instead of trying to make MBA's rich. There are food deserts all over urban areas that need leafy greens, mountain community that don't have greens all year unless they pickle it. There's a whole other aspect, the human aspect of vertical farming to address
If you have access to sunlight, you can go with a well managed (recycled) plastic greenhouse with automatic irrigation for a fraction of the cost. No need to overcomplicate
Its a good approach and in some climates, really makes a difference. Big factor is heating and more so electricity. If you can tap cheap resources then you are good. Also competition - so vertical farms would be suited to environments in which hard to grow anything so imports are expensive. Vertical farm growing green all year would do well in Alaska, Iceland....area's with no direct competition and also cheap energy available.
In the city, rooftop gardening makes more sense. You have the building's warmth, less chance of certain insects, and can harvest rooftop water as well. Your market is there, it reduces certain costs whereas vertical farming is just a huge amount of costly conventional farming. Many rooftop projects use polycropping to boost natural fertility and avoid other problems.
That is a great point. This subject should not be about profit. It should be about reducing food costs, healthier food, CO2 offsetting at the problem, and better mental health of being connected to growing. In the urban environment, the focus should be on planning and design that enables more gardening ability. Design in property, building, town layout etc. can focus on more plant growth with little extra effort or cost.
@@PaulGrayUK This, strangely enough, is kind of what I've been thinking of whenever vertical Farms enter the chat; areas with a lack of arable land but have cheap energy.
Another point that should get put in here somewhere is that 1. national exchange with countries with cheaper labor and few safety / health regulations 2. agricultural exemption, which I'm pretty aure could not apply to a building (I had ag exempt land, was required to prove at least 10 acres of land and x number of "animal units" on a chart that's available on usda 3. farming subsidies of several levels. On the largest scale is corn and soybeans getting a check for real money from the government for selling their corn and soy at prices LOWER than the cost of GROWING them. Elsewhere there are special privileges available to farmers (lines of credit, a special grant money for farmers and ranchers that helps pay for or completely pays for fencing, or a greenhouse, among other directly related items). I also had an Ag/Timber card, that allowed me to buy many of my supplies for the farm tax free--animal feed, paint, building materials, etc) Agriculture in the US is very far from a level playing field. Local / sustainable / organic farmers face much the same battle against the very established conventional machine, in that they are frequently too small to qualify for the price reductions or special treatment. Inner-city farms, small family farms, large "gardeners" cannot compete with this in many ways. I think growing in buildings in cities must suffer the same fate.
Here’s a kind of vertical farm nobody ever thought to call a vertical farming. On one plot of zucchini that I personally managed and redesigned in an operation that had many fields and multiple farms of zucchini and other squash and cauliflower. We planted to 12 inch spacing instead of the usual 18”. Watering was with drip irrigation and gypsum block sensors indicated proper watering. The field was north facing and very steep, the steepest of all plots on the ranch, with coastal heavy clay soils. Initially I had to water for nearly 5 days continuously to get the sensors to indicate a properly wet soil. The close spacing caused the zucchini to grow straight up like a small papaya tree instead trailing over the ground like a vine, which is normal for zucchini. These plants continually grew straight up over a long summer season and were eventually very uniformly 7+ feet tall, that’s VERTICAL! We had to bring in more bees 🐝 for pollination because the foliage was soo thick! At about 4 feet tall we saw nutrient deficiencies and started fertilizing with a complete combination of nutrients that had been used for years with fruit trees in those soils. I always made sure the zucchini were properly water and never allowed to wilt even slightly. The zucchini fruit grew straight out at the base of the plants and often never touched the ground for their entire life. We picked and packed the fruit into a redesigned box that was much stronger and 40% larger than the standard, because the standard vegetable box we found to be breaking the zucchini and poorly ventilated for cold storage. The production with the larger box on this field was 1200 boxes per acre, a new record for all the fields on the farm even with the much larger box, and would have easily been 2000 if we had brought in more bees earlier in the season. Poorly shaped fruit were not allowed in the pack. That year was the last year of this farm operation because the wealthiest partner in the operation saw this success as a great threat to his management of the operation and his own farm operating separately that had cooler storage and sales for our fruit. He admitted that we were profitable, but claimed problems that were not real, and production would have been so much greater the next year he had to shut us down immediately! This was a great embarrassment for him, the success of my radical growing system was the opposite of all the practices that he used in his farming operations.
Plants are amazing things. I have seen watermelons weighing 10lbs growing on a fence 3' off the ground.
That’s really fascinating! It’s a shame you couldn’t continue the operation, it makes me a bit jealous as a horticulture student that you got to experience that haha. Is there more information you have on this?
I plant melons, pumpkins, and cucumbers the same way and get way more produce per foot. It's also mildew-free since the leaves can stay dry. I'm amazed how much weight vines can hold - each vine can easily support several pounds of food with proper vertical bracing - they also adapt well, with climbing vines being much tougher than ground-based cousins. So far I've only done it with smaller varieties that weigh 2-5 lbs, but I'll be scaling up as an experiment. Any fruit on a trailing vine can be grown on a trellis.
My method is not harvesting the entire spinach plant. I leave two small leafs and a year later it still produces a harvest every week on the same plant. It cuts the time from seed to harvest in more than half (not to mention labour costs). Many plants can do this. Works best in hydroponics.
The “burn” included millions in salary for the founders.
My thoughts exactly. This was a borderline scam from the start. I'm sure a bunch of the first generation of CEOs and Bosses, made plenty of money before getting out.
same scam over and over again in the tech "industry": IoT for energy savings, renewables, basically behind every "this changes everything!" youtube video for a new "planet saving" technology/startup
But that's the main goal of any company targeting the "ESG" scam ("environmental, social, governance" metrics rather than profit). Extract subsidies into managment's pockets as long as possible, then fold, create another scam. With friendly support of your government who milks you, the taxpayer.
They just had WAY higher fixed costs than greenhouses while producing not much more than greenhouses. It never made sense for vegetables, maybe for medicinal plants or drugs that are worth a lot more.
@@danlorett2184 My thoughts exactly ! The thing is, it was blindingly obvious right from the start that this was a very expensive idea. A normal greenhouse in all normal climates provides almost all of it's light for free, from the Sun (perhaps with some artificial light boosting during certain seasons) and a normal greenhouse provides most of its own heating, free from the Sun (again, with some supplemental heating, depending on the seasons and location). The idea of providing ALL the light for plant growth by using ELECTRIC POWER, even with energy efficient LEDs is clearly a losing idea. Yes in places like Antarctica, there can be a case made for growing some small amount of fresh vegetables and fruits like strawberries, to supplement stored bulk food products, for the staff during the Winter when normal food supplies cannot be transported in. Yep, this was a scam from the start I reckon. Just so the first generation of bosses and CEOs could score some big paydays, and then disappear.
I am an old farmer who people I knew in the press used to tell me these ultra-expensive high tech operations would put us all out of business! Ha, ha, all they had to do was look at greenhouse operations and see what happens over the years, eventually greenhouses are almost always overwhelmed by plant debris which causes insect pest infestations that can become permanent! Cleaning up the mess the plants leave behind is ultimately what kills the operation by incurring high labor costs from pest control. There is also this weird thing that happens in farming where the top people become convinced fertilizers are magical elixirs resulting in over fertilizing and under watering, so those highest paid most educated agricultural workers often give very BAD advice and or the head managers/owners won’t listen to good advice. Most farms don’t know how to do what is the most basic thing, properly watering 💦 of their plants, and this failure results in plant disease, when this happens farms then respond by spraying insecticides which absolutely shocks the plant killing fruit production! The high cost of these reactions to poor watering eventually puts the farmer out of business and the farmer believes he failed because of plant disease. When plants are under watered they become weak and sickly, they will begin to fruit very early while they are still very small because they are dying, these plants will become diseased as they age. The farm manager sees the disease and responds with insecticides which shocks and ends fruit production early and finally kills the plant. Then next season that manager increases fertilizer in his fields believing it will cure his disease problems. The increased fertilizers in the soils increases salts in the soils and actually reduces productivity in the soils and leaches into the ground water 💦 making the irrigation water more salty. In the summer some years rains will occur only adding small amounts of water 💧 to the growing season, the manager believes this water 💦 is inconsequential but can cause a tremendous bloom of growth in the fields very visibly a couple of weeks later, because rain waters have no salt in them and temporarily leach the salts from the soils increasing production. The farm manager will often credit this bloom to his excessive fertilizing and his fertilizer salesman will do his best to reinforce these mistaken beliefs! Then the farm manager begins to behave like a drug addict constantly adding more and more fertilizer and insecticides believing that is what causes the beautiful blooms he sees some years, but his costs continually rise and his soils become infertile from too much fertilizer salts in the soils, causing the farm to gradually go broke. The solution reduce your field sizes and irrigate frequently, DO NOT FERTILIZE UNTIL THE PLANTS BEGIN TO SHOW NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR LEAVES, likewise do not listen to the fertilizer salesmen. When applying insecticides use only the insecticides that show the least toxicity to the plants, pests are never as bad for well watered plants as toxic pesticides can be. Farm managers should never become obsessed with having fields clean spotless of insects and weeds keeping fields too clean requires applying too many very expensive and toxic pesticides to crops, soils, and farm workers. Farms that supplement their incomes with outside investment will often become obsessed with creating pleasing appearances for investors, these practices should be discouraged, heathy plants naturally attract lots of insects and weeds will grow because there is water and low salts in the soils, this is natural!
Wish I could copy this post
wow great analysis, it looks like farmers need the tools to make more decisions based on evidence linking cause and effect. a scientific approach if you will.
I think the problem is in most western countries the farms are funded by loans from banks. and too high taxes on the land, your income, etc. You need a certain minimum yield for it to be even viable.
Thank you very interesting post. "NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES IN THEIR LEAVES" How do I spot these?
This problem is not just farms, its in every industry there is. A bad manager can kill any business, and we have way too many bad managers, often assigned through family connections or bribery. I work in IT and from the couple of companies I worked in I found a trend that managers are in 1:6:3 ratio (1 good manager for every 6 average managers for every 3 bad managers).
In the late 1970s in my father’s and his partner’s greenhouse business they decided to produce a new product and built 2 very large cutting edge technology greenhouses. His partner said it was designed by a genius teenager 😅! It had a boiler heating system that pumped water 💦 through pipes in twin rails for each row that held pallet sized racks with rollers on them for plant 🪴 containers so those racks could be moved around down the rows after delivery with a fork lift. And it had power controlled vents in the roof and ends which were all controlled automatically with small circuit board controllers. But it was basically very similar to my home that I own now that heats with water 💦 pipes in the floor and many homes have this but people don’t really like anymore because it doesn’t warm all that much during a cold 🥶 winter. It’s a system that has a lot of problems but will heat the house a little, reliably, if I don’t push it too hard and give it yearly maintenance, which I have learned to do myself. I saw this greenhouse right after it was first built and then went off to University, two years later I saw it again and it looked like it had barely been used and 1/4 of one had racks of seedlings 🌱 in it but all the rest of the 2 greenhouses were empty. I didn’t ask because it would have been very rude! I was rushed outside and told, “We do it this way now!” So for the first time in many years of this greenhouse operation they were using cheap hoop PVC greenhouses that are just half circle ⭕️ arches of 1 inch PVC pipe with white plastic tarp over it, so you can walk through it, and they had young citrus trees inside and they said these greenhouses are the best because they get the HOTTEST, so these small trees will fruit and that was what sells in the retail market! The old and new greenhouses were a big waste of money! 😮 If they had designed their growing systems first, responding to how the plants respond to their cultural practices then they could have built their growing system around what worked initially, instead of having wasted all that money 💰and time on CRAZY ASSUMPTIONS! Those hoop greenhouses are easily collapsed and moved out of the way so a big tractor could come in and disk the plant wastes into the sand, and then the greenhouses can be put back up again. This and all the news in this KZhead are very disappointing to me because I see a culture that has lost its MIND 😮 INDEFINITELY, where did that thing go? It’s on your shoulders, I think, oh thank you! We plan incredibly expensive systems like we think we are GODs and know EVERYTHING and then they don’t work at all! And the rational thing to do ALWAYS WAS, first document every fine detail of the requirements to grow the desired crop and then build everything around that. But that’s not what happens, build a system and force the biology to cope with the system, so the plants never grow well, is what we do. How can we possibly survive on a distant planet 🌎 if we don’t know how grow anything? Sooner or later some company will find a way in space to make a lot of money and everyone and everything will start dumping into space to copy that new thing! It ALWAYS works that way. But if we can’t even learn how apply science 🧪 in practical way, which is all I did with my growing system, then people will go into space to do business and then quickly starve to death! 😢 People who first sold shovels to the miners in the gold rush made more money than anyone else and the miners stole from each other and killed to get control of the best mines!
We needed that experience, we may need those farms in future, like growing crops on Moon or Mars colony or closed environments like bunkers…
I could imagine a vertical farms being a public good too. If a place has ample energy but its citizens are having a hard time getting all of their nutrients, this could be worth the cost.
Been around farms and farming my whole life (not the only things I did in life, however). I knew from the very start of the news about vertical farming in the USA, that indoor farming costs too much in capital investment, overhead, and labor, to be profitable. Having an old green house on the farm as a boy and being a biology major at the university, taught me that controlling Pests and disease in a closed system is close to impossible. You would think it to be the other way around but reality is the opposite. Dr, O
I've seen videos on vertical farming. And what always strikes me is the huge up-front costs there must be. And how much produce they'd have to sell to recoup said costs. Maybe there are means to reduce the costs toward profitability. We'll see.
Right there you've stated the facts know by anyone that knows how to grow things.
Expected it.......for all the reasons mentioned here.
No predators flying and crawling around to eat the pests inside a vertical farm.
Doesn't have to be expensive. I'm building an aquaponics farm in basement. I'm spending more than I need to bc it's my first attempt and I wanted nice stock tanks to protect my fish. Spent $1200, but could've done it with $700. Even so, I expect my payback to be 5-6 months, once up and running. If if chosen the cheap way, payback would've been 3-4 months.
You overlooked a basic problem. By expanding too rapidly as investors chased instant profits, the supply swamped demand. Had the industry started small with few producers, matured best practices and skilled labor, then scaled up it would be more sustainable. Your point about location, arid regions vs wet ones, points this out clearly. A comparable industry is the EV industry, built on excessively exuberant expectations, is nearing collapse as China floods the market with cheap unreliable cars, and people find the five year cost including $0 resale value, this niche market will also collapse then rebuild along much more sustainable practices. There are numerous PhD thesis level topics for anyone interested.
That was my thought exactly. There are people that have taken vertical farming and made good money with it but they started out small. Instead these companies raised a bunch of capital then spent it all on outfitting large warehouses and then paid people top dollar to do a simple job.
So bascally it grow unnaturally and in a boom an bust cycle went to where this market should be more at naturally.
China petrol cars were unreliable. EV makers are doing better, but created too much competition. many provinces have now dropped subsidies and exemptions, because more cars on the road costs them money.
The thing is, startups need venture capitals. And they will invite as many venture capitals they can get. That created buzz, and then everybody wanted to take a shot.
Greed changes everything. Insane. It's a total win. So I'm gonna do it anyway. Run it off Arduino.
Have worked in the hydropic/horticulture industry on and off since the 90s and could see the ponzi scheme a mile away, so many factors not understood by investors. main one is the Sunlight to nutrient relationship. limited light spectrum can grow plants just not good ones....
I did some engineering for a vertical farm about that peak time you’re describing, helping them get airflow across the plant faces long after they built it - I should go see if they’re still around
Those companies failed because the investors wanted a quick ROI which doesn't happen in farming. They did mono-cropping which isn't the answer either. There is greater success with diverse cropping whether it be earth , vertical, or hydroponic growing.
That's not the case in Dutch greenhouse farming usually those greenhouses are mono-culture at any one time per greenhouse - they may have tomatoes in one and cucumbers in another etc; however broad acre yes crop rotation and diverse crops, companion planting etc helps with disease and pest mitigation.
Investors can be narrow minded and not big picture. What a shame. Grow a variety of crops instead of a monoculture and use different fertigation recipes for different plants! Grow more profitable plants too. Lm301b diodes and lm301h diodes are full spectrum and highly recommended for energy efficiency and Photosynthetically available radiation.
not true at all
Easy to say until you try to run a large garden!
Word….
When I was looking into hydroponics, I found mention of 'nutrients' being fed the plants. The nutrients come from a third party source. That destroys the whole concept of hydroponic farming being 'self-sufficient.' And yes, they always talk about growing lettuce.
I grow lettuce in one of those aerogardens for funsies and all I see is that thing loaded up with algae, all of my plants that are starting in my homemade dirt from my worm farm are growing normally and in a few weeks I’ll have them outside in the ground. Natural is better
I wonderhow they get those nutrient bottles
no large scale farming is self-sufficient, you always use outside ressources
@@chrisrageNJ LOL....sure. "Natural". Like mega farms using chemicals every month to keep that shit alive is natural. As if mono crops year after year is natural. Ever wonder how the hell they get massive amounts of corn from the same dirt year after year after year?? Here's a hint....it has nothing to do with "natural". and before you start in about how you grow enough for your own family just....don't. Most of us humans live in cities and simply can't do that. Mega farming and chemicals is the only way to get enough food for us all. Natural growing would lead to starvation for MILLIONS.
All plants need the same thing NPK and trace plus you can always use urine if you are so worried but you need a concentrated form otherwise why bother.
I think a lettuce is about £2 in london. However, everything from the supermarket is always old, weeks old... There's no point in eating vegetables that are old.... I enjoy eating, not sitting on the toilet. I might as well not eat ballast from the supermarket. How do carrots from the supermarket start rotting literally the next day when I bring them home? When i get a carrot from the garden it literally stays fine on the kitchen countertop for weeks. Any vegetable... eat it in less than 24-48h it was picked........
Thanks for the well provided information and an interesting topic! First time here on the channel. If one more video keeps my attention i'll subscribe
I tried a small vertical farm and cost me more than my conventional farm. Keeping the lights on buying the nutrients and water filters add up fast. But i transitioned to a vertical greenhouse farm instead and has worked well so far.
Two major problems. The first is tech investors. You want people who are actually knowledgeable about the intricacies of farming. Not a bunch of techies who expect near instant gratification. The second is that you need to grow stuff people actually want to eat. Growing nothing more than cow fodder is going to bore people's taste buds real quick.
Yeah and that's hard even to acquire. Because very few people actually know the answers of what actually contributes in the normal farming, not even farmers do because they just ... farm in the nature and it "just works". I mean, nature is already so complicated. Vertical Farming sounds like you're trying to take something Nature would do for million of years, and instead now you're trying to find out how and what nature has been doing it and evolving to fight or die for million of years. Like the cases with the fungus-building-infections I've been reading in the comments which in the nature would just not be a case, because nature has already "learned"/evolved on how to deal with it with millions of years of trial and error. Vertical Farming will literally be trial and error until we gather at least most of the problems nature has been dealing with already before us, for us. That just doesn't sound like a very "nice" investment for an investor that expects tomorrow or money within a decade. Especially in an ever more and more skeptical tech industry. Which means fewer and fewer money injections into that industry as for now it's supposed to just ... burn money until it gets so good and efficient and with good R&D that it doesn't have to burn money anymore.
Same problem with AI and robots, everyone’s a nerd and has no experience in dance or Somatics or humane sciences. That’s why robots have stiff chests and look and move like robots. I fear for the worst.
@@appletvaccount1364 yeah its as if you almost like taking something nature gives you for free, and you make it ... not free. Like, if nature could grow cars, for free, would we have car manufacturers? Why have .... plant ones?
Dude, that is an awsome cat
@@zero95lucky it looks cheezed
I researched farms and was very keen. It took no time to realise that they were a bad idea making low nutrition foods and open to all sorts of challenges including mold. I hate mold, rodents also chew, things like pumps break killing crops.
Why do they need all the LED’s anyway? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to use windows and well placed mirrors to try to utilize as much natural free light as possible?
Mirrors and plants dont go well together. End up wtih the light being too concentrated and burn spots in the plants. Same with water droplets on leaves it can concentrate the sunlight and burn a spot.
That's what traditional greenhouses are for. However vertical farms can produce at a rate several times higher than if you were only using natural light, and you can pack the plants more densely.
mirrors yes, but you need to use light defusers as well so the light scatters around the plants and not a focused area
I'm pretty sure mirrors cost more than LEDs do, if you look into it, LEDs are unfathomably efficient in providing light, so it makes sense that grows rely on them. The goal is to maximize plant density, and relying on windows would eventually constrain how big the operation can get.
@@raziphaz2219 LEDs use electricity, which mirrors wouldn’t. So even if they cost more up front it’s cheaper in the long run
Dirt is cheap in rural areas; the sun is free, rain is free, and the only costs are seeds, fertilizer, and planting/picking labor. Hard to compete with that just so you can label it locally grown year round.
pest control also.
Especially in Europe, where "rural" means "a 20-minute drive from the next city".
And transport is expensive, it would be ideal to grow where many people live to have day-fresh produce that need very little logistic.
You are not a farmer, dirt is cheap? Land is expensive and needs to be fertilized. Sun is free?, not in the winter. Only cost are seeds and feritilizer? thats a big cost. Then there is water usage and insectides that vertical farming addresses reduces. They are throwing money at a problem that needs to evolve. The cost of setup is high, Lets use abandoned buildings and owner operators with profit incentives.
@@jbird6609 Depends from location, land can be quite cheap. Those special nutrient mixtures are why hydroponics/aeroponics aren't widespread - while in nature bacteria, fungi, insects, etc. can extract nutrients from whatever fertilizer you use, such as manure, here you need them in ready to use form. You also need plenty of fungicide to combat diseases - because nutrient solution comes dissolved in water and sprayed on plants, there always will be high humidity, perfect for fungi.
I grow my lettuce hydroponically in my house, upfront cost was 250$ but now i don't pay anything, solar covers the lights and water pump.
250 sounds reall, really little, especially if you bought and installed solar panels and pumps. Either you spent much personal time repurposing junk other folks threw away and you got for free? Or there is some miscalculation in your claims. One new solar panel alone costs more, let alone mounting and running it. And we have not talked about hoses, pumps, large water containers - of which you need at least two - filters,the planting beds for the leafies, the electronics running the pumps ect. I am a friend of the tech and the movement. But claims such as yours sound deeply suspicious to anybody who ever tried that stuff. I´m guessing you forgot a lot of material investment, many hobbyists do. But that _"those old garden hoses I already had"_ -approach doesnt work in scaled economics. Or you dont really run a closed system at all. But still expose the plants to outside air, ground, biome and natural light, and the only thing "vertical farming" about your setup is the automated watering. That would possibly be doable for 250.
@@user-un8tv1pp8mAlso that's like a couple thousand kilocalories tops.
And what nutritional value your lettuce has. Probably you didn't think about it at all. You are wasting your solar energy to produce harmful to your health product.
@@user-un8tv1pp8m , a 12v flo-jet pump run by a solar panel and sun for plants is still solar, and under $250.
@@user-un8tv1pp8m how much lettuce do you think this guy eats?
Great video, very informative and to the point.
2:09 There is nothing to be solved, this problem has already been solved, big-agro just don't want the fix to be applied. Permaculture, getting rid of 90% of chemicals... Also, farm land DO lose value as precious nutriments are washed away because of conventional farming practices. It might not be obvious today, it will soon.
is already obvious here in south america in soy plantations, the ground did already loose a ton of value and nutrients
I have worked for Kalera since 2018 as the Mechanical Design Engineer and later promoted to Maintenance Director while still having the engineering design responsibilities. The cost he showed for maintenance cost per year is over 10x greater than my budget. I can tell you for a fact, we sell a head of lettuce for way less than $4.50, we are competitive with the $2.50 for traditional ag, and we beat that price by a good margin for some varieties. We do that with our blue collar workers having much higher wages than workers in traditional ag where those companies lobby govt to pay their field workers below minimum wage.
that changes the entire basis of this video!
Is your experience representative of costs in the industry? It it were, then I'd wonder why the industry is not doing well.
The $2.50 wasn't the cost of production, but ~$2.60 retail (~$.90 cost). For Kalera? At the end of the day, what is the bottomline ROI for Kalera? As an eng., I'd have thought you'd lead with the numerics; not having done so suggests the answer.
Very interesting info, it would be great to see more numbers please.
@@edhuber3557 Dang, kinda harsh. I mispoke, we sell the lettuce at retail locations for $2-2.50 a head and that includes our hefty margin. We sell to bulk buyers for significantly less/head because there is much less packaging. Only looking at things through ROI is short sighted, but we are on a 3-5 year timeline from my understanding from the finance team. I thought I was leading with numbers after stating my credentials. I didn't include more because I thought the comment was already too long.
I remember watching a critical video about one of those "water from thin air devices", it was basically a dehumidifier. The critic pulled up the shipping costs of trucks. You can get an entire pools worth of water shipped to you for around $150 to $400 depending on how rural you are. The shipping of water was cheaper than producing it with electric dehumidification lol. Shipping is so insanely cheap even for super heavy loads.
Well, yeah. When you ignore the negative externalities, like public health and climate change, you can produce anything much cheaper than its true cost.
I am always annoyed when I see those "free water" ads. It's literally always just a de humidifier stuck inside a shiny futuristic looking case. Of course, nobody ever thinks about legionaries disease. Anyone dumb enough to drink from such a silly system is taking an enormous risk.
@@onecalledchuck1664 It's not about externalised costs, though, but about efficiency of transportation. With modern container ships, you still end up with shipping costs including all externalities of roughly 0.008 USD per metric ton per km, which is a shipping container from one end of the world to the other for a low monthly salary of shipping costs.
@@KarlKarpfen The negative externalities of moving something with a ship/train/truck are so much lower than using a gas car/ ev / horse / person. And the reason why we use these big centralized systems is they actually have a far smaller footprint than a distributed and smaller system. People just see it and get mad because it's concentrated into one place.
I plan on in the next few years starting a vertical farm but only as a by product of raising flat head catfish through Hydroponics in a greenhouse in my backyard, with Catfish on bottom and plants on top to purify the water and the catfish to create nutriant rich water through thier waste and a solar panel to run the small water pump in a closed water system. Only thing I am worried about is how to deal with pollinating the flowering plants in a closed system with few bees around these parts.
10:18 Electricity is not the most of the cost, but it still adds 0.44 $ to the total cost of production. 11:13 Adding 0.44 $ to usual 0.90 $ gives us almost 1.5x increase in cost. In general, vertical greenhouses should be compared with usual non-vertical greenhouses. I can not see any positive differences.
A major problem is that many places, like California, the open land farms do not pay anywhere close to the real cost on the water they use.
Truth! Labor costs are also probably not on par with minimum wage and regulations found in other types of businesses.
Maybe this is something you've been told. It's not necessarily true. The cost and value of urban residential water is mainly in treatment and distribution. Water for ag is mainly the cost of building & maintaining gravity-fed ditches. Groundwater is expensive, proportional to the power it takes to pump, farmers would very much rather use surface water when available. Surface water is very expensive to treat for your safe use, on the other hand. I'll also mention that water in March has a much different value than water in September. The former needs merely to be directed when rivers are high, the latter water has been held and stored behind dams.
@@timgerk3262 some one who understands! Thank you. Most urban people don’t understand the systems that keep them alive!
@@timgerk3262 When groundwater is used in a way that make the surface drop 15-20 feet and the farms really do not have take any cost then cost of water is very low. Permanent damage is done to the land when to much water is used. So much water is used from the Colorado River that the it no longer reach the ocean.
@bknesheim environmental damage is a separate, related point. Regarding the Colorado Delta, it would be good to keep up with current events. I half-expect to read something about saving Mono Lake next.
I grew HERBS hydroponically under LEDs for 5 years. Full spectrum lights were/are essential to maximize nutrient and flavor. Bugs indoors? Simple to add/spray with Silica which bugs HATE. There's more afoot here than what you are aware of
Why did you stop?
@@MrbfgrayLost contact with customers thanks to lockdowns
@@roberthart9886 I see, that's why I was arguing against the insane unscientific Authoritarian lockdowns from day 1. We'll be paying for it for decades. But it was reasonably profitable?
@@Mrbfgray Lockdowns were an 'experiment'... They now have data on what is needed, what happens, what it costs, how people respond etc. China redid it after the West opened up again. We're gonna see more of it (on a smaller scale).
@@MrbfgrayIt was a nice extra 3-500 per month
I have a friend who was obsessed with telling me that you can increase your food production by many orders of magnitude, but growing things outside vertically, on structures with multiple levels. I was like 'mate, think about it scientifically, there's only a certain amount of energy per m3 from the sun. Its impossible to amplify that. Wherever you build up in one place, you're casting shade in another.' He still persisted. If he thought it was that great, he should've done it himself.
What is the difference between hydroponic farming and vertical farming? A lot of people use these terms interchangeably.
Hydroponic means the growing medium is water, rather than soil. It can be done vertically, but traditionally it is done horizontally. It is usually done under artificial light, but doesn't have to be. Vertical means the growing spaces are stacked one on top of the other, with artificial lighting illuminating the "stories". They are usually hydroponic, but don't have to be.
I used to work in a supermarket and one day the boss told me "This is your lucky day, I'm giving you a promotion to Head of Lettuce"
Lettuce be thankful for humorous bosses!
@@thesilversnailslol
"Someday you'll become Cabbage Head!"
Lettuce celebrate!
Good One :-)
This also says something about how poorly paid fieldhands are for the traditional farming, assuming harvesters aren't used. The harvester definitely was a game changer to the farming industry.
We all say this but then enjoy the low prices at the store
This is exactly what I wanted to say. It really highlights the abuses that field hands endure for pennies. So many of them are migrants, so they have zero recourse. And as soon as someone says anything about illegalities, remember their employers are all too happy to use them for their cheap labor so until that changes, they will always be here. Someone else sort of hit on this point, but in my mind the answer is small scale community gardens, whether they are traditional or indoors.
Looks like a maintenence nightmare. Back to the drawing board. Who wants to pay €5,- for a lettuce. It solves non existing problems while exaborating the real problems.
productivity per hectare means nothing, there is almost unlimited unused land - but fresh water, energy, human cost, and tech costs are limited
This would work for a high yield green leaf plant that will ultimately end up being burnt for recreational purposes in states where it’s deemed legal.
Yes exactly, it really worked for growing weed, but trying to push the same logic on other low value vegetable is foolish!
@@ecoideazventures6417 it worked for weed because it's already very expensive because of it's recreational nature and how banned it is. Try doing the same with growing tobacco plants. People don't grow tobacco plants on their garden for a reason, it's not cost-effective. But people do grow weed because it's just very expensive and you can even resell it later because of its scarcity.
@@Another-Address Its not just recreational maaaan... I swear this shits medicine maaan, you can like eat it and stuff too like the part of the plant that we dont light up... trust me on this broo
Nothing can beat the natural mycelium-root symbiosis that happens in the ground.
Yes, after a few years I finally have mushrooms on my balcony, and the quality of fruits has gone up tremendously
We already beat it in aeroponic by making fruits which contains more vitamins. Pretentious loser.
The yields proved otherwise it was mainly labor cost beside you could easily inoculate the roots not a new concept.
@@southcoastinventors6583 yields are irrelevant, I'm talking about nutritional quality.
@@lambdasun4520 You can improve both using that methods since you control what is in the solution and as stated inoculate the roots or water but it easy to test for nutritional content. So non issue
Do you have sources or a reference document for the relative costs presented in the video?
Silicon Valley is great in creating problems to sell solutions, not so much in creating solutions to solve existing problems.
My wife and I have a rose nursery. Our newest greenhouse recycles the nutrient solution. The biggest challenge we have found is that the industry lacks experienced people to learn from. If you are lucky you come across some company reps that take on the challenge of finding the answers one needs. Any industry magazines only publish articles that do not offer specifics and many advertisers don't know their own products. University professors lack any useful knowledge depth, which means they turn out graduates lacking skills. I understand why these businesses go under. There are to many nuances that one has to recognize, this takes time, something bean counters don't offer.
I tend too agree with your comment on teachers with text book knowledge teaching students. Often the text books are written by tutors with as much knowledge as the students.
Probably need to look overseas for decent ag science programs. Some countries consider it more important.
The vertical farming concept is sound. The biggest reasons it has failed in execution so far is the VC mentality of "move fast, break things", and the overblown, unrealistic expectations that generated.
When actual farmers start using them it will be ok. Not when the clueless think it is an investment.
The concept is not sound. There is no way they will ever pay back the upfront costs unless lettuce goes to $50 per pound.
@@PeterSedessemm no? Costs TODAY are at $4 / head. Yes, that's amortizing Capex, but traditional farms do the same. They're not profitable in the first (several) years either. Not sure where you pulled that wild stat out. I do agree that lettuce alone is not the path forward. You really need to invest in high value crops with higher margins, especially if it's hard to deliver them year round somewhere.
@@gregkramer5588 That's the problem. The people doing this are either people looking for a quick cash grab or idealists who have no clue what it really takes to grow a crop successfully.
People get all twisted up about lettuce. Lettuce, lettuce, lettuce. Y'all know the reason you see lettuce so often in material about this is because it grows fast and is therefore a good proof of concept crop to test a system out relatively quickly, right? No one is realistically trying to grow 10 stories of just arugula. Lettuce also is a good QC organism in that it shows signs of issues quicker than other crops, so you can adjust and correct quicker.
Dope, ty for the info.
thanks for the report and data backed insights. I had no idea.
As they used to say about the gold rush: the one who makes the money is the one who sells the shovels. I was looking at this tech for home gardening. If a solar roof can power your house, then why not have your house produce your veg as well? With good planning you could raise enough for your household in the space of a closet.
you must have a very large closet or a very small family.
@@edmondgreen7970 small family. But when you plant vertically in grow tents, you can stagger the planting so that you are always having a continuous harvest of something. With outside ground farming you have to stick to seasonal harvests
@@colleenforrest7936 wouldn't that make you the sucker buying the shovels in the form of all that equipment? Like the companies selling the fancy greenhouse tech did selling to these startups. They're definitely still in business selling to the already profitable greenhouse industry which is the same shit as vertical farming with about half the operating costs.
@@evongunnar pretty much, that's why I tend to cobble my stuff together from more affordable stuff. I may still be buying the trowel, but at least it's less expensive than the shovel :D
@@colleenforrest7936 Build a winter greenhouse instead of a vertical farm. Make that greenhouse a part of your house so you can sit in nature even in winter with snow on the ground.
In a major retail outlet, Tesco, in England, one Iceberg lettuce costs 79p. That's less than a dollar. Specialty bagged 'organic' lettuce leaves cost £12 per kg or about $6 per pound, at the same shop, but that's really an extreme case. Lettuce bought at local markets cost less than 79p. Weights are not specified for whole lettuces, but the market-bought ones are significantly larger than those at major retailers.
Yes, I buy a pack of 2 whole Romaine lettuces for about the same price as a little packet of ready chopped vertical farm raised lettuce that would possible garnish 4 sandwiches. Those Romaines, on the other hand, will last 2 weeks in sandwiches every day. Everyone is watching their money here in the UK, much like the rest of the world I dare say, so few people have money to burn on 'supporting' a company that wants to make a quick return on its investment. I don't need to tell you that if you bought a farm, you wouldn't see a return on your investment for quite a while.
Who needs lettuce.....??....just go out side and grab some dandelion leaves for free!...
@@Jonny_The_OrganismDeduct the labour cost, your time is not free.
@@benlewis4241 I agree...and at only certain times of the year..
The problem described here is a business process model problem not a vertical farm problem. Although I'm confused by the Blue collar expenses. How is that high? Does a vertical farm need more blue collar workers or less? If less, then what's with the high cost? If blue collars cost more, then they're not blue collars.
can they use greenhouses with clever stacking and mirrors to reflect sunlight for maximum coverage?
I know that here in Montreal there is a company renting big factory rooftops and reinforcing them to install their farms and apparently, it is a great success, and at last count they had 5 huge installations.
See if they are there in 5 years
A success would mean they produce enough vegetables and can sell it to justify that huge infrastructure cost. They won't.
It is still in development but it does have its niche potential uses. Arid climate, survival shelters from nuclear where sunlight is not accessible, space exploration/ potential terra forming once we figure out how to create or adjust the atmosphere we will need breathable oxygen. It all comes down to initial investment and cost reduction since money decides what is feasible.
How much of our tax dollars have paid for this success?
I’m surprised they went for outdoor rooftops that far north.
I started a small scale vertical farm in 2016. I started with the most profitable crops: herbs and microgreens. But there’s only so many herbs and microgreens high end restaurants need that are willing to pay a small premium for more intense taste and special variations that are harder to source from conventional suppliers. Selling b2c is way harder because it’s still more expensive than the grocery store. After doing this for a year, I realized this was not the future and quit. Every vertical farm operator should know that even leafy greens are not profitable when doing simple opex en capex calculations It’s a shame the marketers and operators are dishonest about the profitability of these operations.
In The Netherlands we have like a farm who is very successful. Automated and vertical farming. Export around the world. Growing and make’s. €50.000.000
In Europe I guess subsidizes of the transport and agricultural sectors play in
@@wesstein17what is the company called? I worked closely with the now managing director of Growy. But I know Growy won’t survive without their largest shareholder subsidies (municipality of amsterdam) they’re not doing anything different than other vertical farms except that they have a good relationship with high end restaurants in the netherlands.
@@wesstein17 The major red flag for me is that you do not mention their name. Other commenter as well tried to pitch a company they've even been working for as Design Director, until comments below made the note that the company they're talking about has filled for chapter 11 - bankruptcy. Like, every "successful vertical farming" story i've read in the comments, has had their pitfalls.
Vertical farms are power-hungry. And to stack things vertically, you need an initial investment into a shit ton of iron or steel. Also, if you don't automate the farm, you need tons of folks to get the food out of those racks. But automation is harder in vertical farms. Ground farming: Buy ground, get truck, go wroom wroom!
As a professional greenhouse gardener, all the principles of vertical farms are sound. But the images you see of those facilities always looked like total overkill for producing salad that would sell for very little. It really should have viable applications. Either to produce plants that are very expensive, or to produce fresh greens in places where delivery would be even more expensive. For antarctic research stations, or even future space stations or moon bases, this really is the way to go. Because those places don't have to sustain themselves with the sales of their food products. But for producing a significant portion of the global food supply, this never looked like it could be feasible.
They should have done vertical farms in places with no fertile land, like deserts, or with little land in general, like remote islands. Where produce is super expensive. It's a great idea, but their biggest mistake is how badly they choose their locations.
The thing there, is that you don't have people with expertise usually, which vertical farms require because of how tech-y they are. or you have them but you must pay x10 more for each one. So .... cost would be around the same.
Yeah let me just get all those white collar workers to live in a shack in the middle of the desert or a remote island. No biggy.
You'd need to transport the product then, which would be a significant cost. Urban area makes the most sense for these facilities to be in.
@@calmbeforethecorryexactly the opposite. The comment says that it should be grown somewhere where agriculture on land doesnt work too well. It didnt say that it should be sold somewhere else. Basically choosing places with weaker competition. Sure it would have some other problems, but not as pointless as doing all this somewhere where local agriculture is already doing great
The thing is that the no fertile land or deserts have very few people living there. The market is simply not big enough to invest in vertical farms. The only suitable place for investors to pour money to build them is only the city. Any other remote place will discourage them from building them.
How many acres of solar panels are needed for each acre of vertical farm?
Don't need acres at all. Geothermal providing for heat pump energy, solar and wind providing for other energy needs. Just depends on the scale of buildings. Folks I know used multiple shipping containers
if you don't have access to geothermal energy then what? Yes, vertical farming can be made to work on a small scale for a family or two with a limited diet, but try the system to feed a city of say 5 million. Also they are not effective for tubers or root vegies and more importantly they can't grow Wheat, Chickpeas, Barley, etc = no bread. but you won't get any way because of solar farms. How cost effective are the container crops. If they are doing it for fun fine! When I go fishing it usually cost me twice as much to catch a fish as it does to buy one at the fishmonger, the cost isn't important. @@katanaridingremy
Site it correctly, and you can attach the panels to the roof and walls of the main building, more solar panels as a roof over employees car park, maybe stick a couple of turbines at the edge of the car park. Since some people have already experimented (and succeeded) with making miniature turbines to fit in downpipes from gutters, there's another unexpected source of power that could be tapped. Oh, and that rainwater could be diverted into tanks so it could be used in the plant itself, filtered for watering.
@@katanaridingremyAnd in areas where rain is more plentiful than sunshine, companies or individuals could make better use of hydroelectrics. All around me, there are streams, a river, springs and 2 small waterfalls, and that's a pretty normal state of the land where I live. We simply do not do enough with what we have available to us (we honestly don't need to be on the grid at all in my neighbourhood). It's the fact that we all know that everything is unnecessarily more high tech than it needs to be these days, and that we would all be at the mercy of a nerd with a laptop than a real engineer.
All these are assuming any of these are possible. which for a vast majority of cities. None of them are. Poor air quality and constantly rainy days. There are no rivers or No where to even put any type of hydro electric and If geothermal was even an option there would be a powerplant, which there is not. You and the first guy are assuming perfect condition, which is stupid and only hurts these projects because people then think anyone can do and and no the cant. It only works in very few areas that may not even Have the infrastructure built in the first place.@@Debbie-henri
Could one create a system to refract sunlight, then channel the blue and red ends into a grow-room, and the other bits to light something else? Would look cool I bet, at least.
Here in Peru. The "gucciest" of heads of lettuce in the most upscale place is about $2. Most, however will be in the $0.50 to $1 range.
Same in South Africa, $0.50 to $1 range.
Reminds me of growing up in Humboldt County in the 00s where you would see a vertical farming on a small scale. Growers would try and pack as many plants in a room as possible and create elaborate watering and lighting systems to accommodate. Essentially each "farmer" became a construction worker, electrician, and plumber to create their own grow rooms. Economics worked heavily in their favor though because they could sell at $4,000 a pound.
Then when it went legal in Colorado and those 4k house growers went away because they were terrible at all those trades. I worked in the business building commercial grows. House growers had one chance to open thier mouth. 90% of the time they were told to keep quiet or go sit in thier car until thw adults were done. First guy we were doing a HVAC unit for literally dropped his jaw when he realized we were talking in thousands instead of hundreds.
The good old days
And now that $4000 is $400
Here's my current grocery store prices: $1.64 - head of Iceberg Lettuce $2.58 - Organic Iceberg Lettuce $1.94 - Romaine Lettuce. No way in the world would I pay 5x that amount
Well, yeah, of course, because you wouldn't have to pay 5 times more, only 3 to 4 times...
Of course, Americans would never consider paying farm labor an actual living wage. We are so spoiled, not having to pay a greater part of our incomes on the food that keeps us alive. But that is only by exploiting the desperate circumstances of the people that grow the stuff. Only the desperate would work so hard for so little return. Some day we will look back on all of this in shame.
@@argusfleibeit1165 WTF are you talking about? Most food in America is grown by corpos. Where are the slaves being worked to death? The real overworked and underpaid are the Americans you are shaming into paying 5 times for food! Your words and attitude are the opposite of what you claim to want.
@@argusfleibeit1165 So how much do you pay your farmers where ever you live? FYI, there's a lot more people getting paid than the farmer. Furthermore, how in the world are you going to ask the lower wage earners who can barely pay for their rent to pay 3x more for their food?? I sincerely doubt you actually know any farmers because if you did you would know they don't do it for the money. PS. Most of the food we grow here in the US goes over seas to help keep prices down world wide. Maybe instead of bashing us, you ought to say "Thanks!"
Excuse me-- I am not bashing farmers. I am discussing our economy, and how some people have to work really hard, and get barely subsistence wages for that work. We also have a situation where the wealthiest can literally be making millions of dollars a day, and probably don't have to do any work at all to keep it rolling in. SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. We have been "lucky" (?) that we have a steady stream of desperate migrants, legal or illegal, who are willing to take these back-breaking jobs. We do have artificially low costs for food-- AT THE SAME TIME the majority of workers are in no position to be able to pay more. Everything is very screwed up economically, and we seem to be stuck with a government that has no intention of making things better. Thank you for being a farmer. I couldn't do that job, and I know it. I also couldn't work in the local chicken processing plant, or pick peaches, and have to constantly move to find more work. I'm a low fixed-income disabled retired person. But I still have it better than so many people. I don't complain for myself. I complain for the people who are too stressed out and poor to go on social media and agitate for better conditions. Nobody ever speaks for them. But they matter too.
Interesting. I have a degree in horticulture, and amusingly way back in higschool, I totally did a project on what wavelengths plants preferred. The use of lettuce here.. makes sense, but also really doesn't. Lettuce is really easy to grow, so it makes 100% sense to use as the staple... the problem is lettuce is real easy to grow, and cheap, thus not cost effective as stated. Lettuce are cold weather crops that dont need much light, and can withstand cold temps, for extended growing seasons. Greenhouses in general extend growing seasons, via heating, and allow shade or lights to cut down on light, or extend daylight as needed. like, corn has a very specific daylight requirement to produce. 6-8hr days might be required for some. 180 days for corn. other plants require cold periods. daffs/tulips for example, need a cold period to bloom. got to put them in a fridge to force them, if you dont' have a natural winter. so, the obvious here is.. high value crops with very specific growing conditions. strawberries. tomatoes. coffee. vanilla. Other fruits out of season. I'd still be confused why the blue collar cost is so high. regular greenhouses don't have costs like that.
11:03 3.77$/lb here in Korea. Apparently VF seems to be not enough to feed 8 billions. But I actually expect VF to be competitive as the sun, clean water, fresh soil become scarce, in the near future. I hope it would never happen, but we should still prepare for it.
I grew up on a small farm where we ate what we raised and grew. In high school I was in the Vo-ag program and was made fun of. I was in FFA and teased for that. The skills I learned from vo-ag and FFA have helped me my entire life.
Ag is the MOST IMPORTANT job. No food, no people. Modern society has their ideas twisted.
like feeding dead cow to cows ... all the bad habits and produce was blessed by the ag schools ...
Interesting, Those who were laughing at you missed something they'll get confused why the cash kept on draining once they're got laid off and overall have less satisfying activities in later year too. I would dedicate a floor in my dream home/office just for growing edible plants & fruits in a larger scale
I remember in my own high school the FFA students were somewhat ridiculed as “hicks” or “rednecks”. Being somewhat of an outcast myself, I’m happy to say I didn’t really participate in that ridicule. In more rural areas it isn’t frowned upon at all. BTW, For those outside the US, FFA = Future Farmers of America.
Unfortunately, too many people think that food comes from supermarkets, not farmers, and despise all those "deplorables" in "flyover country".
They are countries that invest heavy in vertical farming. Singapore sees it has a way reduce their dependency on imported food (about 90%), and they remember the food shortages they had in the past due to their limited farm land. That being said, in the documentary I saw on vertical farm in Singapore, they where much more optimized than the own shown in the image (though, I would guess those are old filler image). For example, the plants where on vertical carousels that rotated vertically, making it even denser.
For most of my youth there were greenhouses and hothouses, terms that were used all the time. Hothouses were plant 🌱 sanctuaries that were built with clear glass, greenhouses were built with clear or white plastic and I believe not sure whitewashed glass was also called a greenhouse. Greenhouses did not endlessly heat up they had a low upper limit of heat, hothouses were very hot and could just keep getting hotter during hot days and there are all sorts of simple physics that clearly explains why this happens. Then global warming started to emerge as a concern and the term hothouses during that time and after was never heard again!😮 During that time of emergence of concern over climate we heard about the green effect all the time, scientists chose this metaphor very carefully, as they always do with metaphors. Why didn’t they use “HOTHOUSE” to describe CO2, methane, and other compounds concerning atmospheric chemistry? Today in all media and scientific publications CO2 and especially methane is talked about as having the characteristics of a hothouse gas, not a greenhouse gas, yet they NEVER give up on calling them greenhouse gases? Up until around 2013 scientific papers about climate change showed climate scientists were obsessed with “forcing”, what does that term refer to? Forcing means that the very large water vapor cloud that exists over the tropics in the tropical climate around the entire Earth 🌍 at the equator and north and south of he equator, forcing refers to that vapor cloud going further north or south than it had ever been seen before, which would have been solid proof that global warming was happening. But after the climate satellites 🛰️ first went up they had expected to see forcing and did no, and they continued to look for a few years after that in the climate data from satellites 🛰️ but NEVER SAW IT! So they STOPPED LOOKING or even talking about FORCING. And now they want to convince us that soon it will start getting hotter and keep on getting hotter endlessly, while they still rant and rave about, greenhouse gasses?😮 This doesn’t make any sense, SCIENTISTS DO NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY, scientists would have changed the metaphor long ago and started using “hothouse gas”, IF THAT WERE THE TRUTH! THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, this is manipulation!
if labor cost is the highest expense. I think because they are still in researching phase but when the process of maintaining becomes automated and standardized im sure the farm will not need many experts for labor.
It's always interesting when you find a KZheadr that makes two times speed sound normal
Who would have thought that growing food in the dirt with real sunlight was easer??
it isn't. you don't grow food. you raise your food!
Brawndo has the electrolytes plants crave
Its the vertical aspect which has not done well, indoors greenhouse style farming is going very strong
Looking at plants like wheat and corn in the industrial world they are grown with barely an energy gain to society. Vegetables are even worse but we need them and apparently it pans out. But overall we live due to other energy inputs and we don't worry too much about the energy return of farming. This lets me think that adding more technological scaffolding to farming may not work out well especially if energy costs rise. Interestingly it was low skilled workers who contributed heavily to cost, in a sense this is one way of finding out that society doesn't work right.
@@kti5682 "Vegetables are even worse but we need them" What for? To poison yourself with that shit?
The problem overall sounds like companies tried making it extremely high tech. And it worked until funding ran out. I think that going back to basics, and simplicity might give the industry a second wind.
I need to figure out how to handle vertical farming but still pulling sunlight. I know if I'm going cannabis yields outside are literally 10 times or can be 10 times what they are inside I know that could not be conducive to earn a profit farming inside
I am frustrated by the idea that this world continues to value things based on how excited investors are about it. No matter how many times it bites them, they still feed the next promising beast, and then suddenly starve it when they get scared that it needs more development to work well. Time and time again, the fact that this happens seems to be a large part of why we struggle with innovation.
Youre backwards. Innovation happens cause investors charge in and risk huge amounts of resources on things that dont have a natural abililty to attract it. This gives so many things the resources to innovate when it wouldnt have been possible before. It drives some things to be successful (there are hundreds of things around each of us that prove this) and fails in other projects.
@@tealshift2090 No he's not wrong, he's complaining about this current system and how investors short-term goals for profit is missing the reality that innovation takes time, dedication, and expertise. Real innovation often takes place in universities with grants, or a passion project/hobby with open collaboration. A billionaire throwing money at a problem might get lucky, but all experts have blind spots. Our current business method of everyone has to work on secret projects for propriety reasons is holding progress back. Also only doing things that will be profitable isn't great either- like there are plenty of safe drugs that are past their patent life , and have potentially other uses that are seen in lab trial, but won't because they still need human trials that cost money, and investors won't see a profit because the patent is over they can be made cheaply by any competitor company.
Vertical farms are a niche market. Why should we sink more money in it, when in the end no consumer will pay more for it.
@@istvanczap3004 while it's not too useful now it will be in the future probably pretty far future because of overpopulation, if you can grow food on less land that means more housing space. It also might be useful for moon/mars bases and space stations/habitats
Investment does not work if you lose money.
I grew up farming, there's more to growing plants than the raw data we now understand. I have tasted hydroponic and aeroponic strawberries, it is a regrettable experience. Maybe the soil biology (fungus, bacteria, yeast, etc) is more important than we know. Maybe the 'struggle' of nature make things taste better. As people we become stronger and better because of adversity in life, plants need the work of reality to become the best plant. Even if the cost were the same, flavor would go to nature raised.
I think most people aren't as picky, but there may be some truth to what you say here.
You are certainly right, and the joy of picking something oneself is also important, whether homegrown in one way or another. Most people in urbania haven't had much of this experience.
The first time I read about vertical farming, probably in the 90s, the scientists stressed the necessity of controlling access to the farm, much like computer chip manufacturing. They also imagined the buildings in a pyramid shape to catch natural light, and housed fish in the bottom to get nutrients for the plants. Has any of that been done at any of these places? I'm not saying they did it wrong. It sounds like choosing more high dollar crops would have helped some, but were these ideas dropped for some reason?
I produce lettuce in Zimbabwe and producer prices range from USD0.10 (when market is flooded) to USD0.50. Consumer price ranges from USD0.25 to USD1!
The problem is that we have to much food not getting to enough people this is a distribution issue not a production issue
💯 but the world is run on greed and power
@@wawaweewa9159 Greed and power is a by product of Capitalism. Capitalism has produced greed and power since it's inception. Socialism is the regulation of Capitalism and provides safety nets for its citizens. China who's economic system is a hybrid economic system of socialism and capitalism has a thriving vertical farming industry. A for profit system like the US has it's downsides.
@@creamone the only thing that is thriving on socialist countries the the death count
A few years ago Kirsten Dirksen did a piece on a year round commercial underground greenhouse in Nebraska. They grew citrus among other things. It is heated by thermal mass.
Pit greenhouses. They are doing those in Siberia. Fascinating concept.
i saw that piece, super cool, oranges in snow
One correction. "logistics are optomized and add very little to the end price" The current number for produce delivered to groceries is that ~70% of the cost you pay in the store is transportation and logistics. So it does add a significant amount.
The whole concept doesn't make sense. When I lived in DE I used a combination of square foot and 4 season gardening. In a 20x40 ft plot of raised beds, I grew every vegetable I ate for the year plus gave 600 lbs of produce per year to the local food bank. My inputs were mostly kitchen scraps and rainwater, and I kept pests under control by creating areas for beneficial insects and predators. Outside the initial setup and at harvest times, the labor involved was about 20 mins per week. Initial capital for setup was around $300 (I recycled a bunch of materials) with *maybe* another $50 per year after. If HOAs and municipalities would open up green spaces to small agriculture, every city in the US could be fed by the surrounding suburbs, and every small town could feed itself. It will never happen though, 'cause the right people won't be making the money.
This never made sense to me on so many levels. You have to pay for the building and the lighting and all the nutrients that would have come from the soil. You lose the mutualistic bacteria and fungi that help plants thrive. You also lose the natural pollinators. Growing crops in soil with natural rain and sunlight is just so much simpler. Where indoor gardening makes sense is for high value highly perishable crops. We are talking about fresh herbs and some berries. Growing some of these inside of increasingly empty office spaces in major cities could produce highly desirable fresh product directly to consumers as well as create a desirable indoor greenspace.
The total cost of production of vertical farms is just much higher than conventional farming, simple as that.
Yeh it strikes me that most aqua & hydroponics are done pretty much exclusively manually; whereas ironically, most soil farming is massively mechanised. There needs to be robotised/mechanised aqua-hydroponic vertical farms systems developed for medium to mega sized urban sites; such as abandoned areas of urban dereliction, like Detroit & Chicago.
Have you priced good quality farmland and machinery lately? It's crazy expensive.
That and the majority of the people trying to do this aren't farmers but idealists
@@pixelrancher - YEH “pixelrancher” your right to point out the high up-front costs of contemporary ‘big agriculture’ type farmland/equipment but if you add in all the subsidies that western government, finance & banking systems give to the biggest farmers. You just got to conclude that from the 2nd World War onwards farming monocultural crops with the biggest of tractors/harvesters ect has lead to the biggest gains in productivity & surest consistent long-term profits. The largest farmers have also tended to benefit from consistent & guaranteed profitability economically built in; from the subsidies for particular crops (corn-fructose/ethanol & ..bioFeed inputs into biodiesel &petro-carbons/soya-soyaMeal/wheat/ … ect), to the massive finance options for the really big farmers to purchase equipment. Simultaneously often there has often been huge subsidies in a similar vein for; the first batch of big farmers to NOT farm certain types of land, or maybe turn it into (log bearing) managed woodland, develop it into solar/or/wind-farms ect.. There’s always been policy bias that helps & favours the current status quo, where in typical 20th & 21st century farming scenarios - big inputs, results in near guaranteed big outputs. The degree that this is more about the effects of policy or alongside it or outgunned or merely aligned with it; the ongoing galopeing developments of technology; is an intricate point.
Cost of production will be directly related to the processed used for farming. It's not that vertical framing is inherently costly, just the process that these venture capital backed startups utilized was too costly to be competitive. The cost of operating a process should not be a surprise, so seems that costs at some level where improperly researched, or misinformation relied on.
Last week here in Germany i bought a head of lettuce for 1.1€. During summer the price is usually below 1€.
Now I wonder what it would cost to start a new traditional farm. The initial cost of buying land, silos, tractors and so on must also be gigantic. I can't imagine that a few LEDs should cost more than a tractor. Do any of you have any idea?
To quote Geoffe Lawton (well known Permaculture teacher): In order to be sustainable we need to create a surplus. We create a surplus when we create good soil (and even transform dirt into soil - as they did with the Greening The Desert project in the Dead Sea region of Jordan, that Geoff supports). Another way to create a surplus: managing water with earthworks, like ponds, trenches that soak in heavy rain (swales), irrigation systems that are built to last. Improving / creating soil and managing water are very important in permaculture. And creating food forests. A PC gardener or farmer starts seeing improvements in soil after 2 - 3 years, and after 5 - 10 years it starts becoming really good. (the conditions in Jordan were terrible, it was dirt / sand - but even there after 10 years they have good soil all over the property. One asset is the warm temperatures. If they have enough water and manage it well, soil life can be active year round. Another asset is the sunshine, plants can produce biomass year round (which can be composted to support soil life). A vertical farm would have to start doing large scale maintainance after 5 - 10 years. With good soil no repair is needed. On the contrary. There is yearly input needed (compost, cultivating cover crops, mulching, ... ), especially in the beginning, but that is not lost, nothing deteriorates or is worn out. Plants will need some resources like minerals, the content of the parts of a plant that are harvested and NOT composted again will be taken out of the system. So some minerals and elements must be replenished - at least partially. The art is of course to get as much as possilbe for free from underground, from the air, from wildlife like birds (that leave their droppings). If the food is eaten on the property the human waste can be recycled as well (so not much is lost - only that which builds the human body). Animals turn over biomass fast (into manure). That can be cows - or earth worms. Or small animals like chickens or rabbits. There are other processes (like composting) that return biomass to the soil, but they take longer - even with some effort and daily turning of the compost (so work) the composting lasts 18 days in Jordan (and that is with some help of the chickens). One goat or rabbit will do that for you in 1 - 2 days max. The gut of many animals is like a biorecator. Bacteria upgrade the gut content, they will for instance add nitrogen, carbon, and make some things easily accessible. The resources and their benign impact on soil life COMPOUND. Nothing to write off. Once concept of PC is to cultivate perennial plants, shrubs and trees. Better usage of SPACE, less work with planting. The general idea is to take advantage of natural processes and efficiences to be more efficient AND to manage with not too much manual labour. But monoculture and modern farming methods are not possible with that. Natural efficiencies and resources. Use of Sunlight (using height - for instance in agroforestry). Managing water: good soil stores more water, there are also earth works like ponds, swales and efficient ! irrigation systems. Mulching or growing cover / undercrops reduces evaporation. And it suppresses weeds. Rows of trees or hedges reduce wind pressure and thus evaporation. Trees - if grown right (forcing them to grow deep roots with ploughing so they will not compete with the other crops for water) - bring up water from deep below, the fungi in their root network distribute the water - also to the other crops. Green manure / cover crops bring up minerals. Certain plants can fix nitrogen. Covered soil does not lose as much nitrogen (it reacts with oxygen in the air, and gasses out). So that means no artificial fertilizer is needed (which needs a LOT of energy to produce). And phosphor is a very needed but rare mineral. If it is brought up from plants than one must not plunder the few existing deposits on the globe. Artificial fertilizer (as also used in vertical farming) must be easily solveable in water (or the plants - which are more or less on life suport in industrial farming) would not be nourished. No one helps them to take in naturally occuring minerals, industrial farming is bad for soil life. Soil life (moles, mice .... worms down to funghi and all microbes and critters in between) brings value for free (creating soil, making minerals available to plants, creating long carbon based molecule chains (humus). Humus can even enclose salts, even toxins. The substances do not vanish - but they become inert. Humus gives soil the ability to store water well etc. It is not even a large part of soil, but it transforms dirt to something magical Last but not least: good soil is an excellent carbon storage. Industrial farming reduces the carbon content of soil (it reduces humus, which holds a lot of carbon). Organic farming or less aggressive farming increases carbon / humus content of soil. It is so universal, that the carbon content is the nuber that shows the quality of soil. 4 - 5 % is already good.
What an essay! Next time make a video reply please. Lots of subjects you covered, but organic doesn't mean less aggressive: tilting destroys the _hummus_ you mentioned, since many fungi are wiped. Look into regenerative practices too. All research is important, soil is not convenient when producing in space stations.
TLDR
What? 5 to 10 years for results? But that goes against everything Silicon Valley talks about for how long it takes to set up an established industry Next thing you will tell me is most non-Silicon Valley industries move at a much slower pace than Silicon Valley, as that pace is kind of required to get meaningful results
I am actually skeptical of whether there is such a thing as sustainable farming. Organic farming is similar to farming prior to 1750, which had problems of its own including depleting soil of nutrients and the need to supply nitrogen with guano. It is possible that the a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is the only sustainable way to live, but I certainly do not want to live like one.
@@thetruthstrangerthanfictio954 it took humanity ~55ka to figure out agriculture--with us only having that tech for a small fraction of how long humans have been around (Only 10ka out of the 65ka of homo sapiens existing) This technology was created due to how often humans would eat themselves into near extinction. As back then, humans didn't have anything like XBoxen or Playstations or Nintendos to spent their free time. With it only requiring about 12hr/wk to get enough food to eat. So the only thing to do for the rest of the week was "make art" and "Screw" However, it took ~55ka for humanity to figure out how to successfully accomplish farming People act like agriculture is a really really easy thing to figure out. It is a skill, that needs to be learned, honed and heavily practiced. It merely looks like it could be "straight forward" via a mixture of arrogant dunning-kruger filed hubris and the fact humanity has been working on improving that skill for ~10ka. With a lot of that improvement being accomplished (for European based cultures at least) being done in the last 500a That being said--it is not unwarranted to suggest we might still have another 10ka to get it perfected
I learnt the lesson in late 1990s, that trying to mimic farming in a warehouse cannot win against growing the product in its natural area on acreage and then shipping it.
Growing up in a rural town around agriculture my whole life I kinda saw this coming. My town located on the old ICG railway was once the biggest exporter of Okra, Waxbeans, and strawberries. Now we only produce Corn, wheat, Soy, milo, and live stock. Why? Labor, you cant pay a person $7.25 an hour to plant, fertilize, irrigate, and pick strawberries for $2 a quart. Its very hard to turn any kind of profit in agriculture outside of cereal crops. The only way it could break even would be 100% organic and ship them 3 hours up the road to the ultra premium markets of Nashville.