The following are the illustrated conceptual framework of vertical farming....
Now this article from CBC Canada, ``Is it an elegant solution to pressing problems related to the food supply, or another example of putting too much faith in technology?
``That's a tough question to answer. But what is clear right now is that vertical farming is in its infancy.
``The idea is to grow food inside buildings — not conventional greenhouses, but multi-storey buildings, quite likely in cities — in closed ecosystems using hydroponics rather than soil, and without the use of pesticides.
``So far it has only been tried on a very small scale. Paignton Zoo in South Devon, U.K., for example, is growing produce to feed some of its animals.
``But advocates of vertical farming — notably Dickson Despommier, a Columbia University professor of public health — envision towering gardens in the heart of a city. Despommier, who is working on a book on the idea, sees vertical farming as part of the answer to global warming, water shortages and inner-city health problems.
The key arguments for vertical farming are these:
- Conventional farms waste water. Despommier says irrigation accounts for 70 per cent of worldwide water use, and much of that is wasted as runoff, but because it's contaminated with silt, pesticides and fertilizers, it can't be captured and reused. Vertical farms would grow crops hydroponically, in a water-and-nutrient solution, or perhaps aeroponically, using a mist of nutrient-laden water. The approach could grow the same crops with as little as 10 per cent of the water used in traditional agriculture, Despommier argues.
- Vertical farms would make it easy to grow food without chemicals. There is growing concern about the environmental effects of pesticides and fertilizers used in traditional agriculture. Some see organic farming as the answer, others argue organic farming can't deliver the yields necessary to feed the world. But vertical farming would virtually eliminate the need for pesticides because air coming in could be filtered to keep pests out, and whatever fertilizers were used could be kept within the system and out of lakes and rivers.
- Growing fresh produce in cities would make it more accessible to poor city-dwellers. As a public-health professor, this one particularly interests Despommier. "It's very difficult to find fresh produce in inner cities," he said, so people who live there tend to eat less nutritious foods. "The data is overwhelming," he added: If healthier food is available, people will eat it.
- Growing food close to where it's eaten would reduce transportation needs, which would cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Reduced use of fossil-fuelled farm machinery would also help cut emissions.
- Vertical farms would improve air quality in cities by consuming carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen.
``All this sounds too good to be true — and some people argue that it is.
``The arguments against vertical farming aren't as numerous as those for it, but one of them in particular stands out: Urban land is just too expensive for vertical farming to be commercially viable in cities."
This last statement appears to be reading present conditions into the future. Should a food crisis erupt, this equation will be radically altered-farm lands will likely be more expensive than urban lands.
Vertical farming seems designed for nations that lack agricultural lands than addressing a food crisis. That's why it is technology dependent.
As how will vertical farming impact the world today, Grant Buckler of CBC writes, ``We have never suggested that it will replace conventional agricultural systems," Bradford says.
``And whatever potential vertical farming has, it won't be realized overnight. Even Despommier, probably its most enthusiastic proponent, says the idea could take 50 years to take hold — but he does expect some significant experiments in the next couple of years."
Bottom line, we can't seek salvation from vertical farming should a food crisis emerge.
