1. Farmers are using chemicals in bulk, they pick them up in 110-240 gallon containers that include a meter and a pump which are then returned to the dealership. The number of 2.5 gallon containers of old has been greatly reduced
2. He talks about finer and finer sprays. But there is a huge problem with that and it's drift. Drift over on a neighbors crops too often and your insurance carrier will cancel you.
3. I am not certain of the percentage but a fairly large percentage of pesticides are applied by commercial pesticide applicators, often part of a fertilizer company or grain elevator. These commercial applicators must be certified and are held to much higher standards than farmers.
4. He also talks about a positive and a negative charge or what is called electrostatic spraying. This has been around a fairly long while. It's had some success applying fungicides but not that much for other uses.
5. Lastly he speaks about what he calls vertical farming. People have been building these vertical farms for a number of years. I've yet to see the numbers work out so they can make a profit. It's often a high value crop like fruit or vegetables. For example tomatoes out of season where people in an East coast city are willing to pay 2-3x as much at say a Whole Foods. Funny but you never see a follow up story on these farms.
Can't read the article properly, for some reason, but I can comment on this:
1. Smaller containers have some advantages, which is correct measurement, washing and disposal. I still use 200 l barrels of herbicide, because I require more of it. Everything else comes in 5-10 l containers. Preferably in liquid/gel form to avoid spillage or drift.
2. Absolutely. I'd add that depending on the pesticide, different droplet size mean different effectiveness. Normally, 3-5 bar for herbicides (larger droplets), 10-15 bar for insecticides, and 15-20 bar for fungicides (smaller droplets). There are also different rate anti-drifting beaks one should choose.
3. I apply my pesticides myself. I had training, but coming from STEM helps a lot. Many farmers do not do well with measurements, simple proportions or pH scales.
As for vertical farming, there is an interesting video debunking it by some professor of agriculture. In essence it boils down to the fact that the 1000w of light applied per square meter by the sun dwarfs all of the other inputs.
Unless we suddenly gain some form of near unlimited clean energy it doesn't make sense (except for some very limited circumstances like expensive micro-greens for classy restaurants)
I think these experiments are meaningful and fascinating for research purposes, but they will never be more efficient than nature. The solution to food security is not to re-engineer the farm, but to return food production to people, because the most dangerous thing we can do is to consolidate our food production into the hands of a few ag-tech corporations.
Granted, I'm talking about a cultural shift and you can't force people to enjoy gardening, but there are some people who are doing incredible experiments in urban farming which is still mostly low-tech. Even though he is an extreme example, Rob Greenfield shows what is possible with a typical 1/8 acre city/suburban lot. He is currently experimenting with growing/foraging 100% of his diet in a city.
The biggest shift will be to convince people that turfgrass lawns are the one of the biggest waste of resources in the modern world, and a silly cultural relic.
What a cool idea. I'm encouraged everytime I see projects like these and I realize that there's a massive movement towards sustainable agriculture in small spaces.
Might need to ship all the extra people somewhere. I understand most of the arable land is already used for that purpose by extremely efficient (whatever else you might think of them) megafarms.
Rob Greenfield's project only works because nobody else wants to forage the city and he says he farms yards of some people who don't do it themselves.
The problem with megafarms is that they are not sustainable long-term. Such intensive agriculture pulls nutrients from the soil faster than they can be replenished - year after year after year. So farmers have to supplement more and more with chemical fertilizers, and the soil effectively becomes little more than a hydroponic medium. Potassium and phosphorous reserves are a finite resource to be mined.
I really like the idea of growing our own food and have intended to create some raised beds in our garden. I've started taking baby steps this year by growing some herbs. Turns out that's about 10x the effort I imagined it was going to be. I think I might have killed a good portion of them yesterday with the 38 degree heat.
It is a lot of work, but there is litterally an order of magnitude in time and energy you spend to get the same result, depending of your technic. And when you start, you usually do it the hardest way.
I agree. For a beginner, the first year is almost always disappointing. But after several years of trying and learning, you may be shocked at the abundance you can produce. I'm grateful for all the authors and youtube-ers doing some incredible and crazy projects that I can learn from
Herbs are a fantastic place to start, and there are tons of medical benefits for consuming them regularly. I chew fresh mint and basil every day instead of gum
Depending on your climate, you might enjoy mushroom cultivation. It's very low-effort and climate resistant to grow shiitakes or winecaps if you have some shade in your garden
And how much space do you need to grow all of that for 2 people for 365 days in a year considering that only some of it can grow year round in many places.
I don't think the average person should expect or try to. But there are people who produce tonnages of produce on a 1/10th acre (granted, these are in California and Florida with year-round growing). The person in my parent post talks about how he was able to grow 300 lbs of sweet potatoes on 200 sqft of yard with very little effort and input. I think the most important thing is for people to realize how much, 30%, 50%, 80% of their diet they could hypothetically produce. It is also great motivation to transition one's diet away from processed food to vegetables.
I don't believe any of these ideas should be an all-or-nothing venture but if individuals can take back just 10% -20% of their diet from unethical agri-business, it's a MASSIVE win for health, self-reliance, environmental awareness, and community building
That’s very true for calorie dense foods like wheat, potatoes, rice, etc. It’s less so for other plants like lettuce which have a short lifespan, don’t store or transport well, and have significant risks for contamination as they are eaten raw.
Essentially vertical farms would be limited to 0.01% of food production, but could be profitable.
I stumbled across some interesting history related to this when doing a research paper in college.
Basically, because of a huge apple crop failure in the Santa Clara Valley, as well as having recently laid railroad crossing the area (this was in the 1800’s), apple growers in the Pajaro Valley (between Santa Clara and Salinas) began shipping their apples to markets farther away than usual. This eventually boomed into a global scale thing, with Pajaro Valley apples being sold in New York, then London, and even places like South Africa.
After developing a successful global distribution model, growers in Washington state took notice. Apples were shipped on northern rail lines after the growing season in Fall. No ice needed.
Soon, other industries followed (Salinas Valley lettuce included). This blossomed into the global food system we know today.
Tl;dr: Money in proto-silicon valley was used to start up the global food system
Near noon sun is angled closer to 90°, but in higher latitudes it's a lower angle. For example at noon it's 60° on first day of summer in Berlin and 30° at 7am when it's at 0° east. So it may be possible to have a building that would be longer on EW axis and narrower on NS axis. With possible shift for every floor allowing some flexibility.
Is it all for nothing? I imagine such building could be closer to city centers, but would have to face sun at premium. Maybe even integrated with regular buildings from south side?
In theory we can get a lot of efficiency by converting wavelengths plants cannot use wavelengths plants can use. However after accounting for all the system losses it is really hard to make up the difference. This assumes too that you use the best available solar panels, which are generally only in labs, real world solar installations are generally less efficient (just the chlorophyll vs solar cell number). Most of the losses in photosynthesis still exist either way as well.
It's a description of how China does farming at scale. Some interesting points: seafood farms (floating in the sea) instead of fishing, sensible sustainable (or "sustainable") cycles (e.g. fish -> fertilizer -> mulberry trees -> silkworm -> fish) (they also need aerators so the fish don't suffocate, and solar panels to power the aerators), massive amounts of greenhouses (including in places where it was previously impossible to grow vegetables due to climate), drip irrigation (Israeli technology for growing vegetables in the desert, saves a lot of water), returning farmland to the forest (to prevent mudslides).
> You know that most Tibetans historically only eat yak meat, milk, cheese, and bread? They couldn’t grow anything in such a harsh climate. Only monks could have the luxury to eat vegetables. Now it is the solid proof that the Chinese government didn’t just destroy temples in Tibetan culture but helped them eat vegetables and fruits.
Rye, barley, and certain amaranth species are better suited for brutal climates and inferior soils. Tibet mainly grows a strain of barley adapted to the poor agricultural conditions, AFAIK.
You can process almost any powdered food item flour into something resembling bread, if you expend enough effort on it. You can make bread with cricket flour. Even meatloaf could be considered a type of "bread", if you massage the definitions long enough.
But I'd guess that Tibetans mainly eat barley bread. Rye and barley aren't as good as wheat is for making leavened breads, but they can make a loaf that isn't entirely brick-like, if the baker keeps a good sourdough starter and it gets a lot more rise time.
In all seriousness, you can make "bread" from damn near any grain if you're persistent enough and grains of various types (and small fruits, i.e. berries) can grow basically anywhere. It's large fruit and vegetables that tend to require easy mode to grow (which makes sense since they spend proportionally more resources growing that the fruit they produce). I'm not sure what's native to tibet but I assume they have some sort of wheat-like grass that can be farmed and provides grain for bread.
Well, the did CCP dismantle the Tibetan theocratic state. A state that practiced serfdom and slavery. Possibly not out of the kindness of their hearts, but results do matter.
And replaced it first with a authoritarian state that strived to be communist (i.e. collectivization, banning private businesses, etc.) but is now simply authoritarian. Optimal? Of course not. Are Tibetans discriminated against in their own lands? It seems so. Is the typical people worse off than before? Only if you have a rather odd world view and definition of "worse off".
We have a massive number of those greenhouses here in The Netherlands too. Fruit here is fairly cheap - it's cheaper to cook yourself than it is to buy read meals as long as you get the portions right and cook whatever is in season.
I can't understand how people can still think that technology is somehow going to save us from bad agri practices.
The rise of permaculture/regenerative agriculture practices are some of the revolutions in 'farming' that I believe are what are going to be the basis for people producing food that are reasonable going forward. Cooperating with nature instead of fighting it is continually being proven to be the best practice for growing food from a environmental and deliciousness perspective.
Every time I see an article about farmers having some kind of trouble, their crops are one massive monoculture. It's not natural, it's not sustainable, it's destructive for the environment, and that party is going to be over in the future. Go look at the permaculture forests that people have established and you'll be shocked at the production, lack of work required (after some years, of course), and complete lack of chemical/nutrient input.
Was recently driving in the midwest US, hadn't been there in years, and at first the farmland seemed nice, but then as it went on for hours of driving, as far as you could see, just plowed fields forever, for monoculture crops, with minimal to zero habitat for wildlife... it became very ominous feeling, realizing that this is millions of square miles, nearly as industrial as a Houston refinery zone...
People believe technology will solve the day because it has every time single time so far. As we get better and better it looks like divorcing from nature is going to be the best approach.
We are going to make to growing all our food in giant box farms.
The simplest and most glaring issue is the Sun itself. Only a few hours a day for plants. Water is a massive issue! Huge swaths of the earth have very limited rainfall or access to fresh water. Factory farms can make efficient use of its water supply rather than watching the ground soak it up. Pesticides can be used sparingly when the whole environment is controlled.
I'm willing to bet that within 30 years a very large chunk of food grown to eat directly (strawberries, avocados, oranges, etc) will be box farm grown and the transition of wheat and corn will have started.
"Only a few hours a day for plants."
About half the day is decidated to sunshine, give or take. It's been this way for ... since plants.
"Huge swaths of the earth..."
Don't grow there. Don't live there. People don't live in volcanoes for a reason. It's too inhospitable. OTO, you could import your goods via plane/copter/whatever if you're brave. Good on you.
We're already able to grow tropical fruit 1,500 feet up in the freezing Alps with no (artificial) chemicals/fertilizers/pesticides and effective (natural) water management. Can't imagine it will be much more difficult in growth friendly places.
Yes, Sepp Holzer! It's refreshing to see other people, especially among the HN demographic, to know of work like his and permaculture in general given the general obsession with specific myopic forms of technology (like to whom you're replying here); i.e. I still see permaculture as a kind of technology, just a different kind than what most modern conventional farms use.
That's a really neat idea which I'm fond of, and it would certainly help with things like exploring other planets!
Sadly, I've looked into it extensively, and the costs are way too high in comparison with outdoor farming. There are a few niche scenarios where you can get it to work, but they have to be priced at the high end. Things would need to get horrifically bad with the climate before the equation would change much. Indoor farming also couldn't be done at nearly the same volume, and expanding capacity would be very slow.
I'm optimistic that in the long run, we'll find sources of nourishment which can be grown quickly in compact, easily managed closed-loop environments with minimal inputs... however, after the disillusionment of trying to find progress toward this end the real world, all I can say is we need a LOT more people working on it.
I work in agtech so I can speak to some of your concerns.
> people can still think that technology is somehow going to save us from bad agri practices
So one thing we're doing at my company is we're trying to de-commoditize agriculture. You're right in that the current agriculture practices are all about creating a baseline crop for the commodities trading market. The truth is that these practices vary from farm to farm, and there are quantifiable metrics you can track in crops. These crop qualities vary wildly and certain buyers of the major crops want different qualities. If we can turn our major crops from being treated as commodities, we can incentivize more sustainable agricultural practices that both create better crops for the economy and the environment.
> Cooperating with nature instead of fighting it is continually being proven to be the best practice for growing food from a environmental and deliciousness perspective.
Agreed. This is exactly what we're working on because we recognize that fighting the environment with harmful pesticides and herbicides has long-lasting residual effects on the soil and the economy.
> Every time I see an article about farmers having some kind of trouble, their crops are one massive monoculture
Are you referring to the fact that there are 4 major seed producers for 60% of the seed sales on the planet? [1]
The economics of a farm are such that, because of commoditization, the margins are so razor thin that the only way to turn a profit (which they aren't, because prices on major crops have plummeted in the last 4 years) is to have a highly refined process from the purchase of the seeds, to fertilization, to hydration, to transport. The whole process is streamlined in a way that doesn't benefit the end consumer. Again, there are people hard at work to break this bad habit. Even still, there is plenty of variability in the end result of those crops, which is why crop quality can vary wildly depending on things such as rain, nitrogen in the soil, etc.
A great primer on the lifecycle of a year in farming in the US is This Blessed Earth.[2] If you're interested in understanding the agriculture economy from a farmer's perspective, this is a must read.
If you have uBlock Origin installed you may not see this, but in the top-right hand corner there's the text: "In Association with Corteva Agriscience".
Thats weird, perhaps its a Geo thing. I'm in the UK and the BBC isn't allowed to carry advertising/advertorials in the UK. Presumably some of the content is also different.
This is a really interesting area and problem. When you factor in the extra food we need to produce to feed a population expected to hit 9bn people AND the increased demand for a more western diet from a growing middle class in places like China and India, we need some serious innovation in agriculture.
Have you considered indoor gardening? I've seen a few pics of fairly-dense setups over the years, might be enough to scratch your itch and work towards an eventual business.
1. Farmers are using chemicals in bulk, they pick them up in 110-240 gallon containers that include a meter and a pump which are then returned to the dealership. The number of 2.5 gallon containers of old has been greatly reduced
2. He talks about finer and finer sprays. But there is a huge problem with that and it's drift. Drift over on a neighbors crops too often and your insurance carrier will cancel you.
3. I am not certain of the percentage but a fairly large percentage of pesticides are applied by commercial pesticide applicators, often part of a fertilizer company or grain elevator. These commercial applicators must be certified and are held to much higher standards than farmers.
4. He also talks about a positive and a negative charge or what is called electrostatic spraying. This has been around a fairly long while. It's had some success applying fungicides but not that much for other uses.
5. Lastly he speaks about what he calls vertical farming. People have been building these vertical farms for a number of years. I've yet to see the numbers work out so they can make a profit. It's often a high value crop like fruit or vegetables. For example tomatoes out of season where people in an East coast city are willing to pay 2-3x as much at say a Whole Foods. Funny but you never see a follow up story on these farms.