If I understand correctly, this 'aquaponics' solution:
* does not require arable land, because the plants grow on containers filled with stones through which water constantly circulates;
* uses an order of magnitude less water than traditional agriculture, because the water is constantly recycled back from a nearby fish tank, and because the rock layer prevents water from evaporating;
* allows plant density (i.e., number of plants per unit of area) an order of magnitude greater than traditional agriculture, because plant roots don't have to work as hard to find nutrients, so they grow straight down;
* does not attract traditional bug pests or weeds, because there is no wet soil to attract them;
* makes plants grow much faster, because they're getting a constant supply of nutrients fed through the water recycling system; and
* is also an inexpensive fish-farming solution!
Unless I'm missing something big, this solution looks BRILLIANT to me. All it needs now is for a talented entrepreneur to come in, find an early-adopter market for it, and turn the technology into a standardized product that can be sold at scale.
Indeed, the economics of hydroponics would suggest that it should already dominate commercial vegetable production. The main reason they're not, is because municipalities greatly undervalue water, and because agriculture is so highly subsidized and so it's hard for hydroponics to compete.
1. Underselling water
Municipal water prices set by local government greatly undervalue the actual rarity of water. With so many aquifers running out, and rivers stretched to the max, especially in the west, I'm surprised there could be this much myopia on an issue that is clearly far more serious and immediate issue than energy. Right now the only pressure to reduce water use seems to be on consumers (watering policies, low-water use appliances), but they only use 11% of it.
2. Subsidized agriculture.
This is a more well known issue so I don't think I need to repeat it here.
The real question is whether aquaponics can create higher quality food than organic produce, which is not subsidized. Subsidies are also unsustainable in the long run. The major costs in aquaponics are in the technology, which will inevitably get cheaper. If aquaponic agriculture truly represents an order of magnitude improvement in water use and space use, and can produce better food, it's only a matter of time before not even subsidies can keep traditional agriculture economically sustainable.
This is just what I needed to see after the front page of HN was dominated by bullshit about Surface and iPad mini. Finally, technology used to make something other than toys for bored rich people.
Yes, hydroponics produces the best possible quality food that can be made. Being a closed system, it also doesn't require pesticides so it's essentially organic anyhow.
You are correct that Organic produce is the obvious immediate competitor. I wonder if hydroponically grown good can be labeled as organic. it could certainly come with no label at all.
As to whether there's a marketing benefit to actually being labeled as hydroponically grown, I've no idea.
As for subsidies, I assume that Organic food takes advantage of all of the same subsidies as non-organically grown food.
Is water used by hydroponics really "used"? As far as I can tell, aside from "loss" to evaporation and water used in part of the mass that makes up the fruit you send out, nothing should really be wasting water.
It seems likely that lost water due to evaporation with this type of setup should be a great deal less than water lost with traditional farming (spraying water with things like center-pivot irrigation machines should cause much more evaporation. I mean, come on... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Irrigatio...), and water lost through fruit mass is irrelevant.
Yes, my point is that Hydroponics use very little water while traditional agriculture uses a large amount. If water were actually as expensive as it's scarcity, Hydroponics would be more competitive.
I've attended a class with Eric Mandu as part of Workshop Weekend a year ago. He's awesome.
For the semi-amateur, aquaponics is actually pretty tough to start up. Of course you need your initial equipment investment, but mostly getting a stable system is finicky and takes time. The longest part is getting your "live rock" fully active, i.e. nitriting and nitrating bacteria in the stones that convert the fish waste into stuff the plants can use. You essentially have a metastable system that takes a lot of supervision and some chemicals to setup, kinda like keeping a swimming pool clean, except you want just the right ratio of bacteria.
Furthermore, at his scales you can't monetize the fish. A possible choice of fish would be Tilapia, but at those scales it isn't worth it, but more importantly you can't cultivate those without a special license: IIRC they're considered invasive species in California. Maintaining such a license requires way more investment than what's possible at his level.
Anyhow, aquaponics are pretty awesome, but aren't yet economically viable compared to standard agriculture in most places* and there are legislative and economic issues that make it tough to kickstart. I hope Eric's work increases awareness and carves a path.
AceJohnny2: thank you. Figuring out how to build standardized aquaponics systems that are self-stabilizing (e.g. by using inexpensive sensors and Raspberry-like computers to monitor and regulate all elements), and finding cost-effective ways to deal with the regulatory issues you mention, are the kinds of challenges that ambitious entrepreneurs must overcome to be successful.
The question I would ask at this early stage is really about the odds of finding product-market fit: if a startup can figure out how to make a standard, modular, legal, self-stabilizing aquaponics unit that is easy to install and maintain, is there a sizeable market for it? I suspect the answer is yes.
All it needs now is for a talented entrepreneur to come in, find an early-adopter market for it, and turn the technology into a standardized product that can be sold at scale.
A very commendable effort, but I'm not sure you will find product-market fit by targeting homeowners as early adopters, because most homeowners are extremely busy and therefore happy to pay for the convenience of a grocery store and last-minute takeout food. (I'm speaking from personal experience: I don't have the time or desire to install and manage something like AutoMicroFarm in my home, but I routinely pay for online grocery delivery and take-out food.)
The two early-adopter markets I would explore first are: (1) restaurants/hotels, who are always interested in "fresh produce at 10% of the cost" and are always looking for ways to differentiate from competitors ("our produce is fresher because it's grown in-house with hydroponics"); and (2) large grocery stores in urban areas, who will have the space and staff to install and manage AutoMicroFram and are also always interested in fresher produce at a lower cost.
I suspect that if AutoMicroFarm is packaged as a standard product (e.g., the same modular box for everyone) that truly delivers value from day one (e.g., the box is delivered with grown plants of the buyer's choosing) to these two market segments, you would get much faster adoption.
PS. Obviously this would require a meaningful amount of venture capital.
Thanks for suggestions. We're targeting gardeners as early and mid-term adopters, of whom there are quite a lot in the US. However, we certainly are keeping an eye on the commercial markets you mention. The biggest problem that I see is that for those markets, you need quite a lot of produce to start replacing a large percentage of their fresh plant offerings.
Hydroponics (similar) has been around for a long time and is used professionally for most flower grows, as well as in Brooklyn for lettuce, also in space and in countless indoor marijuana grows! Still automating the sensors is a big step forward... next step is to auto-balance pH and nutrient counts in response to sensor measurements.
* does not require arable land, because the plants grow on containers filled with stones through which water constantly circulates;
* uses an order of magnitude less water than traditional agriculture, because the water is constantly recycled back from a nearby fish tank, and because the rock layer prevents water from evaporating;
* allows plant density (i.e., number of plants per unit of area) an order of magnitude greater than traditional agriculture, because plant roots don't have to work as hard to find nutrients, so they grow straight down;
* does not attract traditional bug pests or weeds, because there is no wet soil to attract them;
* makes plants grow much faster, because they're getting a constant supply of nutrients fed through the water recycling system; and
* is also an inexpensive fish-farming solution!
Unless I'm missing something big, this solution looks BRILLIANT to me. All it needs now is for a talented entrepreneur to come in, find an early-adopter market for it, and turn the technology into a standardized product that can be sold at scale.