Comments
[deleted] t1_iub4gq9 wrote
[removed]
TheFocusedOne t1_iucnwqv wrote
There is a guy in Alberta who grows veggies year round in a arena-sized greenhouse that uses only sunlight and solar blankets at night as a means of heating.
pinkfootthegoose t1_iudjf09 wrote
did you read what you said? Use solar panels to run LEDs so plants can grow.
I think they are talking about insulated green houses to make the growing season longer for vegetables. It's nothing fancy.
Genocode t1_iucf8lf wrote
Indoor agriculture would also massively relieve water usage, normally you'd need 60L of water to grow 1KG of Tomatoes, but with proper management and indoor agriculture it only takes 4L
pkennedy t1_iub53ov wrote
It's not economical for things like wheat, but many other foods could demand a higher cost while reducing delivery times and product loss. Things like greens being extremely fresh and being within possibly a few minutes of the local vendors.
greenman5252 t1_iud95nd wrote
Local grocery stores being locked into distribution networks and supply chains completely negates any advantage of food being produced locally. The only way my produce could make it into my 1 mi away store is to be trucked to their distribution warehouse 85 mi away.
420trashcan t1_iuf7026 wrote
Wheat isn't a thing we really need to worry about growing in the winter. It's fresh vegetables that will really make a difference.
deminion48 t1_iucoktc wrote
We have a massive area with greenhouses as far as the eye can see next to my city. It is very ugly, I must say. And on Google Maps it is not a nice sight as well. Besides, they are highly automated, but many still need a lot of labour for the picking of the fruit/vegetables. For that they need cheap labour, and they are often exploited, not good either. Benefits are year-round production, very high yields, and low water needs. Drawbacks are the the relative costs, energy use, labour exploitation, and ugliness.
Blondefarmgirl t1_iud6gi2 wrote
Oh and light and air pollution. Bye bye starry nights.
Blondefarmgirl t1_iud6d24 wrote
Don't forget stink from the mountains of rejected veggies behind them.
Outrageous_Apricot42 t1_iubwhdm wrote
This requires enourmous amounts of cheap energy which we dont have.
Shamino79 t1_iucyv0m wrote
Greenhouses no. Those purpose build bunkers with LED lights everywhere yes. I have no idea why that as a viable concept is even a thing. But greenhouses that let the sun in to do its thing are already economical and beneficial for production. Which is why they are used extensively.
popdivtweet t1_iubhflc wrote
Domes, we're destined to build lots and lots of domes.
_SpaceTimeContinuum t1_iub0xfb wrote
Vertical farms will be a necessity for our survival as climate change starts destroying farmland and drying up water sources.
[deleted] t1_iub5pan wrote
[removed]
Blondefarmgirl t1_iud87ms wrote
They destroy fertile farmland to build their greenhouses then throw alot of food away. They add to pollution they burn whatever they can to heat as cheap as possible such as bunker oil. They add to light pollution. They are not a good solution.
isleepinahammock t1_iucnhnt wrote
Indoor? Yes. Vertical? Not so much. There are a lot of gains that can be made by moving to indoor farming, but there's no reason to make that indoor space a tall multistory building. Indoor farms are something for single-story warehouses on cheap land on the outskirts of cities, not tall skyscrapers in the middle of a downtown.
king-of-boom t1_iudunjb wrote
I found this quote interesting. Min-max'ing the stats to get the tiniest bump to production.
>“On each floor we can breed 1,270 pigs,” says Yuanfei Gao, vice-president of Yangxiang, the company that built the farm. “But in the future with the design of the new buildings we plan to have 1,300 pigs per floor.”
_SpaceTimeContinuum t1_iudabx1 wrote
>there's no reason to make that indoor space a tall multistory building
Yeah there is. Efficiency. We have a limited amount of land. We have a growing population. You can farm a lot more acres in a multi story building.
[deleted] t1_iub6gjv wrote
[removed]
Dont__Grumpy__Stop t1_iub2b7h wrote
Take note rural America.
[deleted] t1_iub5te0 wrote
[removed]
Blondefarmgirl t1_iud7iph wrote
In my beautiful farming community filled with century farms, the factory greenhouses are encroaching. They cover fertile agricultural land with cement and plastic. They burn the cheapest fuels to heat like bunker oil and pollute our air. They dont care how ugly they look or how their constant lights bother their neighbours. They had to be forced to put up curtains to cover the light and its not a 100 percent solution. The stench travels for miles from the marijuana operations or from the mountains of rotting vegetables beside them. They make living near them unbearable. They also use alot of resources. Constant power upgrades for them and since they are zoned agricultural the municipality ends up paying to support them. Truck traffic is going to end up killing the local town as it not has a super highway down the centre. I know this is nimby but you should live near them then decide how you like it.
Swineservant t1_iue6ogm wrote
Traditional farming won't hold up in the face of climate change. Can't just subsidize your way out of failed crops and climate change. I could make similar complaints about the noises and odors of traditional farms but that helps no one. Rural HATES change but change is a must.
Blondefarmgirl t1_iue8h3e wrote
We are using technology like drones to pinpoint the needs of the soil so we don't overuse fertilizers and use what is needed. So the fields have been producing better yields. My last crop of corn was a bumper yield. So traditional farming is modernizing to try to keep up with climate change. So it's doing just fine. Change does always happen but those greenhouse solve nothing.
r56_mk6 t1_iuf9fgw wrote
I was wondering how this would affect farmers.
flash-tractor t1_iug251n wrote
That's why agriculture stays in agricultural zoning, if you're living in agricultural zoning without running a farm- it's a choice.
Blondefarmgirl t1_iug49aj wrote
I live on my family farm. It's been in our family for over 100 years. We grow corn and soybeans. These are factories not farms. They involve lots of employees, warehouses, tons of truck traffic. They should be zoned industrial not agricultural.
Runaround46 t1_iubxenw wrote
Samsung just came out with a led (LM301h and LM301B) that blow the previous horticulture LEDs out of the water. We have the tech to do it we just need to implement it.
DICKASAURUS2000 t1_iucsy3a wrote
They came out with the 301 8 years ago
Shamino79 t1_iucz2v7 wrote
People are not implementing it because it’s insane to have to turn the sun into power to run lights in a dark room to grow plants. Why ???
looking_for_helpers t1_iudve78 wrote
Because you can't grow outside when it's - 20C
And water conservation
Shamino79 t1_iuf6bsv wrote
People have heated greenhouses in northern climates. They still make use if the sun.
looking_for_helpers t1_iuf7r6v wrote
There are more variables involved, such as very short days with the sun low on the horizon, the ability to run 24/7, the heat loss costs, security, abundance of cheap clean hydro-electricity, and a hundred other variables. Sunlight is one of them, and we can eliminate that as a production - limiting input.
The Canadian government used to grow weed in an old underground mine.
Shamino79 t1_iuf999s wrote
Weed used to get grown underground so no one could see it and was under lock and key. Don’t need that for lettuce and tomato. And I do get that greenhouses can use supplementary lights, insulation and heating to extend a season or control flowering. Taking it into a fully sealed building feels like it’s crossed a tipping point. Seems to me at some point food preservation and transport of canned goods could still be a good alternative.
looking_for_helpers t1_iufemoe wrote
There is not a single solution for all use cases, like energy sources, there are many.
flash-tractor t1_iug1mn8 wrote
Speaking from experience- it takes more energy to maintain a greenhouse than a well insulated building.
Shaddap_ t1_iudnd5d wrote
Water conservation.
Shamino79 t1_iuf5utr wrote
Climate controlled greenhouse. Still use the sun directly.
Shaddap_ t1_iugnt1p wrote
From the article that you didn't read:
"Amid rising food and energy costs and more frequent extreme weather events, experts and sector insiders say the indoor agriculture industry has the potential to feed Canadians more reliably and maybe more sustainably by using greenhouses, vertical farms and hydroponic technology to grow food even in the winter, in remote communities, urban centres and everywhere in between."
Shamino79 t1_iugv7nb wrote
Point very well taken. Was a bit triggered by the idea of indoor farming based on other articles I’ve read about vertical farming. Hydroponics in greenhouses is very well established and is a growing industry. And there’s nothing to say that writhing these facilities you couldn’t also get split levels with sun. And if there is an practical ability to grow something fresh that can’t be preserved in the middle of winter in extreme climates then it would be of benefit to those communities.
Runaround46 t1_iug2vwz wrote
Less chance of bugs so no need for pesticides
flash-tractor t1_iug1rbd wrote
Those are like 8 years old, but they're one of the best horticultural diodes in the world.
Runaround46 t1_iug2r7l wrote
Wow 8 years already. Still new though in the grand scheme of things.
[deleted] t1_iuauqpf wrote
[removed]
superpowerwolf t1_iub10dz wrote
People have been saying this for years. Build in rundown rural or urban areas, build indoor agriculture buildings that are multi-level. It ain't cheap, but with the way climate change is going, parts of normally arable land around the world will become flooded or affected by drought, or will be paved over by developers.
We need to invest in innovative ways to feed our population in our new world. Indoor agriculture, lab-grown everything, land-based seafood and ocean agriculture are the future.