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.
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.