Desert Farming Experiment Yields Good Initial Results

Taco Cowboy writes "For the past year or so, a tiny scale farming experiment in has been carried out in the desert field of Qatar, using only sunlight and seawater. From the article: 'A pilot plant built by the Sahara Forest Project (SFP) produced 75 kilograms of vegetables per square meter in three crops annually (or 25 kilograms per square meter, per crop)' If the yield level can be maintained, a farm of the size of 60 hectares would be enough to supply the nation of Qatar with all the cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, and egglants that it needs. 'The project will proceed to the next stage with an expansion to 20 hectares, to test its viability into commercial operation.'"

Comments

Why those vegetables?

[ArcadeMan]

Why were those vegetables chosen instead of others? Why not radishes, etc?

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm taking a swag here but alot of middle eastern/mediteranian food uses those things in abundance

Re:Why those vegetables?

[FlyHelicopters]

What is wrong with those choices? Frankly, they sound good to me...

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Frobnicator]

Why were those vegetables chosen instead of others? Why not radishes, etc?

Probably because all of those vegetables can be grown in a similar climate as each other, all of them have very similar growing techniques where the plant can be placed in a wire cage or mesh that supports vertical growth.

Each of those plants have broad leaves, can be cultivated to thrive in lower water, and can be cultivated to require a relatively small footprint.

When you are going to grow a bunch of water-loving plants in the desert, you are going to want tall self-shading structures. If you look at their greenhouses in the article you can see that vertical space is available but horizontal space is a premium.

I happen to live in a desert and have grown three of those four plants for decades. They grow well together.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[upuv]

It has to be commercially viable. So choose stuff people want.

This is about growing food people will consume. If in the same shoes I would choose the same crops. Not because they are the most efficient, not because they are the best for you. But because it's the income that will allow the plant to continue to grow food. Local food.

And it's that last two words that matter most. Local food. As in the amount of oil used to transport the food from a far off land is drastically reduced.

Even if the crops are not the best source of nutrition they are still better for you in the long run. Simply because the cost in carbon and energy is so low.

And to top it off this is only the start. In the future when the tech becomes cheaper and easier to implement the market is easier for people like your self to grow a radish or 6.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[KritonK]

Probably because with these vegetables they will be in Mediterranean diet heaven. All they need is olive oil, but olive trees take time to grow. Olive trees would probably thrive in the hot climate, so they, too, could be included in the project in the long term.

According to the TFA they also produced barley (Greek salad with barley rusks—yum!) and salad rocket (for those who prefer their salad green instead of Greek).

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they also discuss fodder (animal feed), so it is not just about food people want. At least not directly.

I assume one of the reasons is that these vegetables are relatively pricey to ship, that is to say they're cheap to grow in comparison to shipping them.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Fallso]

Why were those vegetables chosen instead of others? Why not radishes, etc?

Are you mad? Radishes? You need a good frost to grow radishes!

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Joce640k]

Maybe the locals don't normally eat radishes and wouldn't know what to do with them.

Re: Why those vegetables?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're growing vegetables in wire cages? That's so cruel! I only eat free range vegetables.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[xelah]

They're not exactly high calorie. Perfectly reasonable choices in terms of growing nice food ('value creation' as they put it), though I can't help wondering if they'll get the mother of all red spider mite infestations. Arab countries have bought huge amounts of African farmland in attempt to gain some food security, and if you assume it's for that purpose instead then you might have expected different choices. Still not radishes, though.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . because you can make a popular Middle East meal with them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0mam_bay%C4%B1ld%C4%B1

Re:Why those vegetables?

[j-beda]

Local food.

And it's that last two words that matter most. Local food. As in the amount of oil used to transport the food from a far off land is drastically reduced.

Even if the crops are not the best source of nutrition they are still better for you in the long run. Simply because the cost in carbon and energy is so low.

And to top it off this is only the start. In the future when the tech becomes cheaper and easier to implement the market is easier for people like your self to grow a radish or 6.

But something like 86% or more of the energy/carbon budget for food production is at the point of production. Only 5% in some studies is used for transportation. Hey, every bit helps, but transportation costs (energy and dollars) are not particularly high for most foods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_miles#Energy_used_in_production_as_well_as_transport

With that said, these green houses are well situated to minimize heating costs (as compared to hothouses in the UK for example) and I would think that a greenhouse should be able to be more efficient in fertilizer use than regular farm fields. With solar power supplying desalination needs, they could be dramatically lower in CO2 than the alternatives.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are setting up a new industry you go with high profit, then someday when the business model is proven out and streamlined you can do something that is much lower profit.

As it is if they want high calorie they could buy a load of grain from the US for 1/100 the price they could grow in the desert. Vegtables on the other hand don't ship as easily as grain, so growing them locally would make more sense as customers pay a premium for the higher quality.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[txoutback]

Why were those vegetables chosen instead of others? Why not radishes, etc?

A plant's heat tolerance is surely a factor, too.

Re: Why those vegetables?

[brianerst]

That's why I think it's far more ethical to be a carnivore - I only eat things that have a chance to run away.

(And this is Slashdot, so a reply of "Including your girlfriend?" doesn't apply...)

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Immerman]

>With that said, these green houses are well situated to minimize heating costs

I suspect heating costs is not high on their priority list - they're in a relatively low latitude (25*) coastal desert, heat is unlikely to be in short supply, the greenhouse is almost certainly to retain moisture. In fact they're not even using solar power for desalination, except indirectly - from TFA:

At one end, salt water is trickled over a gridlike curtain so that the prevailing wind blows the resulting cool, moist air over the plants inside. This cooling effect allowed the Qatar facility to grow three crops per year, even in the scorching summer. At the other end of the greenhouse is a network of pipes with cold seawater running through them. Some of the moisture in the air condenses on the pipes and is collected, providing a source of fresh water.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Greyfox]

No one eats radishes or knows what to do with them.

I don't know about cucumbers, but given some tomatoes and eggplant and you're well on your way to a nice stew. Just add some goat, onion, garlic, cumin, salt and pepper and you'll feed the family for a week!

Re:Why those vegetables?

[thelovebus]

Do you really think the amount of oil used to transport vegetables (even multiple years-worth) is greater than that used to build those greenhouses? The great cost in shipping a bushel of tomatoes a few thousand miles isn't wrapped up in the oil, it's the logistics/storage/refrigeration/etc.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[interkin3tic]

On the what people want, that's fair, but I think what people end up wanting in terms of food is driven more by what people have to sell than you're giving credit. Advertising and creating demand. Americans didn't have an unusual craving for corn and high fructose corn syrup until someone realized that corn subsidies meant corn was really cheap to make.

If you make foods that can be grown cheaply in the desert, I'm sure someone will come along and find out how to make people want to eat it. And you can likely make foods already well suited for the desert cheaper than you can foods that are not, like a tomato.

Re: Why those vegetables?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That's so cruel! I only eat free range vegetables.

I've tried to eat free range vegetables. The quality of the output varied, though. Some of them were very laid back, but many were severely depressed due to the lack of cages.

Re: Why those vegetables?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(oops...s/eat/grow/)

Re: Why those vegetables?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Just remember: vegetables aren't food. Vegetables are what food eats.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[rhsanborn]

Cucumbers and eggplant are a significant source of pretty much zero vitamins and minerals. I wonder if they are particularly robust in the scorched soil because they require relatively few nutrients ... ?

Re:Why those vegetables?

[taiwanjohn]

Although I fully support and applaud this effort, this is not the only way to get the job done. Permaculture design can achieve similar results with much smaller inputs, as described in this video.

The most important concept of permaculture is water management. If you only get 8" of rain per year and it all comes within a 3-week window, you'd better have your land "sculpted" to optimize retention of water on the surface for as long as possible. Such improvements last for generations, and continually add fertility and biodiversity to the land.

If we seriously applied these principles worldwide, we could make the entire globe flood-proof and drought-proof in less than a decade. Seriously.

For example, check the before & after photos in Green Gold or in this TED Talk by Allan Savory. These amazing transformations happen in just a few years. Imagine what would be possible over the long term.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[mcgrew]

I don't believe I've ever tasted egglant before...

Re:Why those vegetables?

[jedidiah]

If you have to cool it to transport it, then that's part of the transportation cost. The energy to cool something doesn't come for free. The fact that it costs a tremendous amount of energy to cool stuff doesn't alter the basic problem except to make it more dire.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Dyolf Knip]

I make a ratatouille that is to die for.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[HiThere]

IIRC, it has more to do with the plant's salt tolerance. If a thin brine will work, it's a lot easier to use sea water than if you need to remove almost al the salt.

Some of those vegetables I haven't heard (or don't remember) reports about, but I've previously heard of successful experiments in growing tomatoes in salty water.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[arcite]

To make Baba Ganoush, fattouch, tabbouleh ect... oh god I'm hungry now.

Re: Why those vegetables?

[Em Adespoton]

http://www.arrogantworms.com/music/carrot-juice-is-murder-2/

Re:Why those vegetables?

[Em Adespoton]

This kind of project also helps mitigate erosion and desertification, which is a major bonus for the region.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[tibman]

Sea-water probably brings in quite a bit though.

Re:Why those vegetables?

[pnutjam]

I never ate radishes growing up and found the slightly eye watering tang off putting. As an adult I have found there is little better, for snacking, than baby radishes with some sort of dip. I'll have to try guacamole.

Radishes have a hard to describe meatiness to them that makes them very satisfying to bite into and makes me feel full.

Re: Why those vegetables?

[Reziac]

+1 steak :D

Economics

[captainpanic]

I am very curious about the economics of this type of farming. (Note, I am not necessarily a skeptic). The cost of the water is obviously a driver to make sure the maximum amount of water is recycled. I wonder if they use hydroponics?

Greenhouses are used at large scale elsewhere with a lot of success. The Netherlands has a large area of greenhouses to produce tomatoes and peppers (and a lot more). There, the water is not a bottleneck, but sunlight is. So, lamps are used. I guess that is just as costly, showing that the economics of a greenhouse are not necessarily a problem.

Re:Economics

[thegarbz]

The arab countries never really worried about energy efficiency in the past. The problem there is every drop of drinking water is effectively sourced from desalination. The town water in Qatar tastes absolutely crap and even the hotels typically provide 2L bottled water bottles in the rooms (can't wait to hear the complains from the upcoming world cup).

This creates a very interesting problem for farming in the desert which looks absolutely fascinating on Google Maps

Check out the green irrigation circles dotted all over the place.

Compared to that this is almost more of a traditional farming method.

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Dutch greenhouses exist mainly to capture heat, not sunlight. They're still burning quite a bit of natural gas to heat them. (Side benefit: the CO2 can be dumped in the greenhouse itself, to improve production). But the controlled environment leads to high quality vegetables - few pests can get in, weather isn't a major influence, etc - which means you can sell at a premium.

Heat capture will be a bit bigger issue in these desert greenhouses. I'm surprised how low they are. I'd expected them to build higher, have the heat rise, and evaporate sea water there.

Re:Economics

[captainpanic]

Good point. The glass structure is to capture heat and contain the CO2. Still, the lamps are a major cost - but admittedly only would require a lamppost, and not an entire greenhouse.

Re:Economics

[FriendlyLurker]

"We" already are starving and overpopulated**. This research project is sponsored by companies operating in a very rich country - has potential to alleviate starvation and in the third world, but it is unlikely that will happen in our lifetimes. The evidence so far strongly suggests that we now live in a "winner-take-all" world economy, where technological advances do not filter down and only serve to deepen the inequality both within a countries population and between countries. Your stand on the environment one way or the other has nothing to do with that...

** in some areas

Re:Economics

[q.kontinuum]

Dutch greenhouses were the first in the world to create the fourth aggregate state of Water. (No, not superfluid, plasma - talking about the tomatos :-))

Re:Economics

[divec]

My father remembers sending food parcels in the 1970s from the UK to relatives in mainland China. Now, starvation is almost unknown there. Yet, China was a more equal society in the 1970s -- virtually everyone was extremely poor.

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact. Supposition. One guy's theory. Supposition.

The BBC just ran a piece on how population growth is slowing, global inequality has been reduced from a stark binary proposition to a continuum, and rates of global literacy are skyrocketing, just for a bit of contrast there.

Re:Economics

[clickety6]

The Netherlands has a large area of greenhouses to produce tomatoes and peppers (and a lot more).

The trouble with greenhouse-grown produce from the Netherlands is that the taste of the vegetables are a pale imitation of what they should taste like.For instance, Dutch tomatoes are watery and bland compared to garden grown tomatoes. Maybe it's because they are picked too green so locally growing could help?

Re:Economics

[FriendlyLurker]

Some cherry picking going in that BBC article. Here is a better link. Here is the data.

Conclusions

The problems of extreme poverty and population growth (may well) have been solved.
Climate change is still a massive problem (which we must therefore try to solve).
Excessive per-capita resource consumption in rich countries must now be reduced.

Re:Economics

[reboot246]

"Excessive per-capita resource consumption in rich countries must now be reduced."

And that is where the "making us miserable" comes in. Try to deny it now.

Re:Economics

[Vintermann]

Yes, this is a classic investor trap, which has been covered before on Slashdot. I seem to recall another story about seawaterfarms dot com on slashdot, but I can't find it. Anyway, you can see that page in the Wayback Machine and see how it didn't exactly go anywhere.

The big rusting tank they talked about that supposedly gave valuable micronutrients to the plant, maybe says something about the seriousness of the project.

Re:Economics

[FriendlyLurker]

if you have a starving and overpopulated population **IN SOME AREAS** - as the link I gave shows we defiantly do - then just because other (richer) areas overproduce food that goes to waste does not change the fact that some areas are starving due to overpopulation. Fix the distribution/tech gap problem to solve this inequality then yes we would not have any starving/overpopulated areas anymore.

Re:Economics

[Quila]

I guess the excessive per-capita economic output in rich countries can be correspondingly reduced?

Re:Economics

[3.5 stripes]

Your right to not be miserable is trumped by other people's right (squared) to not be miserable.

Re:Economics

[Kjella]

The Wordpress blog's conclusions at least, in reality the last problem is the same as the first problem. We use so much energy and resources because we can afford to, if "the rest of the world" had money to compete for those resources we'd have to cut back. And despite what the Greens feel like we do recycle and care about emissions and pollution but we also like our cars and huge houses and big screen TVs and air condition and holidays in exotic places. We're not going to stop until we can't afford to, anyone who thinks the first world is going to voluntarily live like the third world is seriously deluded. Next month I'm going on a long vacation flight and I really want this vacation, I can afford it and no amount of eco-babble is going to make me sorry for the CO2 burn.

Like they're pointing out, people are getting literate. People are getting educated. People are getting better health. People spend less time child-bearing. The rest of the world is trying very hard to take over the first world work and bring down the wage equality between them and us. And of course we hate it, you can see people frothing at the mouth if I mention outsourcing here. But I totally understand the employees who of course would like to undercut a westerner and make a lower, but locally still a very good salary. With the world becoming far more connected you are going to get a lot less screwed just for being born in a third world country and you are going to get much less of a free ride for being born in a first world country. The differences are still huge of course, but there's poor and there's illiterate, seven kids, bad health poor.

Re:Economics

[richtopia]

I think I've seen these circular farms before... that is right, they are in Arizona: https://maps.google.com.au/maps?q=32.930174,+-111.924419&num=1&t=h&vpsrc=0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&z=13&iwloc=A

Re:Economics

[LynnwoodRooster]

The world's countries with highest population density are all amazingly wealthy, and have very low rates of starvation. Compare that to the countries leading in poverty who overwhelmingly have low population densities - no overpopulation issues. It's not overpopulation that's the issue - it's distribution of what the world provides. And that is almost always a political issue - it's best for those in control of the starving masses to KEEP them starving, and as such maintain control...

Re:Economics

[246o1]

I guess the excessive per-capita economic output in rich countries can be correspondingly reduced?

We don't create more natural resources, oil, pH-balanced seawater, or clean air in rich countries. We are just (generally) more effective at turning the resources we have into desirable things. Which makes it easier for us to consume more resources. Your implication is completely wrongheaded.

Re:Economics

[Quila]

We produce more, we consume more. I see a balance here.

Re:Economics

[JDevers]

You might want to look at that list again. When you eliminate the city-states at the top of the list, the top nine are Bangladesh, Palestine, Taiwan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Lebanon, Rwanda, India, Haiti. Taiwan, South Korea, and The Netherlands are obviously doing OK, the others though are not exactly what I would call "amazingly wealthy." Over a quarter of the world's population lives in those listed places and I would hazard a guess that they account for a pretty substantial amount of the poverty too.

Re:Economics

[triffid_98]

I believe I have an answer to this EXACT problem. (RIP Sam)

I'm just trying to help, do what ever I can for people. Like the world hunger thing, the USA for Africa. isn't that great did you guy's hear the song? Nice song isn't it. Beautiful. I'm like anybody else on the planet I'm very moved by world hunger. I've seen the commercials, those little kids starving. And I think god how cruel you know. You see a little kid out there and I know the film crew could give this kid a sandwich You know the kids not out there filming a letter from home on a Betamax eh? There's a director five feet away going "Dont feed him yet! get that sandwich out of here, it doesn't work unless he's hungry". But I'm not trying to make fun of world hunger if fact I think I have the answer. If you want to stop world hunger, stop sending them food. Don't send these people another bit folks. You want to send them something, you want to help? Send them U-hauls. Send them U-hauls, some luggage, and send them a guy that goes Hey, we've been driving out here every day with your food for the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here, through the desert and it occurred to us that there wouldn't be world hunger if you people lived where the food is! Get out of the desert! You live in a fucking desert! Nothing grows out here! Nothings gonna grow out here! Come here you see this huh? This is sand. You know what it's going to be in another hundred years from now? It's gonna be sand!" "Get your kids, get your shit... We'll take you to where the food is! We have deserts in America, we just don't live in them ass hole!"

Re:Economics

[cusco]

Riding a bus instead of driving a Lincoln Navigator and eating chicken rather than veal is not "miserable". You need to get some perspective.

Re:Economics

[thegarbz]

Indeed. Circular farming isn't limited to Qatar, though it is a feature of a desert. This is what you get when you plant stuff where water does not normally fall. You need to plant in an area of constant irrigation and one of the cheapest ways to setup constant irrigation is in a circle. Not the best use of land though.

The key difference between Arizona and Qatar is the water source. I bet those farms draw water from the local river. That makes them much more energy efficient than the ones in Qatar.

Re:Economics

[sgtrock]

"We" already are starving and overpopulated**.

"we" are not. In fact, only a small portion of the world now faces starvation, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa.

The evidence so far strongly suggests that we now live in a "winner-take-all" world economy, where technological advances do not filter down and only serve to deepen the inequality both within a countries population and between countries.

Again, alarmist babble with little basis in fact. The truth is that the technological revolution of the last 200+ years has extended the average lifespan worldwide from around 30 in 1800 for most people to well over 70. Even the poorest people have seen average life expectancy go from 30 to about 60.

Is everyone where they need to be? No. But let's stop with the Chicken Little imatation, shall we, so we can concentrated on the remaining problems? This scientific research/engineering project is exploring one of those ways to extend benefits to exactly the groups that need it most. Why not just evaluate the feasibility of the project, both economic and environmental, on its own merits?

Thats neat

[JeremyWH]

Thats pretty amazing actually. Good experiment.

I've been toying with Solar desal for awhile.

[upuv]

It's really good to see some one follow through on this. This is excellent.

I've been toying and drawing up plans for very low maintenance solar desal for years. All the same basic components as this. But they have taken a few steps further than I was thinking. I had not worked in humid air as a means of watering plants. It really solves a lot of issues with condensing the water.

Problems like biomass build ups and the effort to clean it. Now that effort is productive as it is harvesting food not just cleaning sludge off the walls.

I really like it.

I had wind to pump salt and fresh water up hill. So that I would have a reserve of each at all times. That way wind could be used to build kinetic energy and store it as raise water mass. Salt water of course to feed the evaporators and to flush waste back out to sea. Fresh for obvious uses.

Something I have struggled with is a solar tracker that would allow a mirror to stayed focused on a water pipe to heat it to near steam to accelerate the evaporation. Something that does not actually require elctro-mechanical input.

Re:I've been toying with Solar desal for awhile.

[c0lo]

Something I have struggled with is a solar tracker that would allow a mirror to stayed focused on a water pipe to heat it to near steam to accelerate the evaporation. Something that does not actually require elctro-mechanical input.

Have you considered a solar trough?
You can get the sun's elevation and adjust the angle of your trough once every 3-4 days; after all, your pipe is not going to be a hit-or-miss-thread so doesn't need to stay exactly in the parabola focus.

Re:I've been toying with Solar desal for awhile.

[upuv]

I have considered the trough. But there is so much lost solar radiation this way if you don't have some tracking in place.

Basically I get more solar heat transfer if I just have a glass cover over a shallow pond that is painted black. I just don't get the temperature high enough to create a more efficient evaporation. It's just ends up being slower at a lower temp. Which then results in more biomass growth. I'd like to have close to boiling to hinder algae and such in the solar collector system.

So I'm stuck with a lot of labour with either method. However the construction costs are much lower with the black pond method.

I have been tossing around some ideas on how to automatically adjust the angle using struts that expand and contract with heat. Just need to find the right balance of expansion and contraction I hope to cause the system to angle itself as the sun passes overhead. My current thinking is something like a shock absorber filled with gas. A gas shock could cause contraction or expansion of a joint when cooled. So somehow tying the heated sea water into the system to control it's own angle.

Re:I've been toying with Solar desal for awhile.

[upuv]

Not hot enough. Basically the same as my black pool.

But thanks for another site to for research.

Re:I've been toying with Solar desal for awhile.

[Coppit]

I had some kids in a class I was teaching invent an umbrella that used a closed system of two connected canisters, one on each end. The liquid inside (I forget which) was chosen so that when heated it became *more* dense, causing the sun-ward side to be heavier, turning the umbrella toward the sun. It seems that sort of passive system is possible, if you wanted to go down the invention road. :)

Re:I've been toying with Solar desal for awhile.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was something called the solar eyeball invented about 30 years ago. Nothing came of it.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4807576&tag=1

Perhaps look how they did that then. Gosh I'm old. And I used to be able to remember stuff. What now?

Not just "sunlight and seawater"

[93 Escort Wagon]

The article doesn't really talk about the plant culture at all - "sunlight and seawater" is what they're using to maintain a favorable climate for the plants in the greenhouses.

It's still pretty cool tech, though.

Re:Not just "sunlight and seawater"

[fatphil]

As the study's being run by fertilizer companies, I'm presuming there are some chemicals involved too.

Re:Not just "sunlight and seawater"

[AttillaTheNun]

Yeah, "The Qatar plant—which is supported by Qatari fertilizer companies Yara International and Qafco"

If one really wants to discuss the possibilities behind "Greening the Dessert", Geoff Lawton is blazing a far more promising path:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzTHjlueqFI

That yield seems very high.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in agricultural research (cropping) and I'm a bit curious about those yields. Working on a single crop, that's 250 ton/hectare. For most crops in heavy clay soils the best you can hope to achieve is 8 - 12 (maybe 15 if you're *really* lucky). Now again, that's for crops, not vegetables, but I find it hard to believe that vegetables could yield over 20 times as much. Is this right? Is the weight mostly water? Are they able to grow year round with all the heat? I still find it hard to believe as even if you could get 5 harvests a year (and I'd be surprised if they got more than 3) that's still 50t/ha/harvest.

Re:That yield seems very high.

[3.5 stripes]

They got three crops, they have tons of sunlight, and using moist air to keep the plants hydrated is a great idea (especially since plants under intense sunlight tend to keep their stomata wide open), they are saying the yields are equivalent to those in europe.

Re:That yield seems very high.

[Anonymous Coward]

The vines of these crops are indeterminate, and will flower and produce as long as you take care of them. 12 or 18 months is the typical cycle though. They go though and harvest every day. You can't have indeterminate grains as harvest would be a nightmare. And yes all of thos crops are something like 85-90% water.

Re:That yield seems very high.

[argStyopa]

Agreed. As a farmer by descent (family's occupation, not mine) that number seems unreasonably high.

Even if that yield is accurate, my next concern would be the sustainability - the amount of nitrogen you'd have to add to the soil to sustain that would be incredible but I guess runoff's not an issue if everything's being held in a closed system.

Just seems very "something for nothing" to me.

Re:That yield seems very high.

[Anonymous Coward]

Vegtables like tomatoes in greenhouses can be very productive. Here in the Netherlands, they get 42 kg/m2 per year, which is 420 metric tonne per hectare. This is pretty advanced stuff though, In Almeria, Spain, the other big Greenhouse concentration in Europe they get about 10-12 kg/m2, a lot less.

Source:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/cv284

Re:That yield seems very high.

[jabuzz]

A little Googling shows that the Tylka F1 tomatoe variety does 155 to 180 tonnes per hectare (70 - 80 tons per acre). With a harvesting period of 4-6 months with maturity 75 days after planting. So only need two crops a year to get a 250 ton per hectare yield which makes it look perfectly feasible to me. If you really work in agricultural research you need to sack yourself!

http://www.syngenta.com/country/ke/en/products/Vegetable%20Seeds/Pages/Tomatoes.aspx

Re:That yield seems very high.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also like to know on what substrate thy grow the plants. There isn't much soil there to begin with. My guess is that they need a constant input of synthetic fertilizer. This basically means the crops grow on sun, seawater and _oil_.

Re:That yield seems very high.

[Whorhay]

Isn't the nitrogen needed primarily for the formation of the leaves and vines? These plants would only really need a lot of nitrogen in the initial growth phases. Once they are fully grown they would need relatively little nitrogen to keep producing harvestable fruit.

Re:That yield seems very high.

[as.kdjrfh sxcjvs]

Could be an input of locally-sourced humanure instead of Haber-Bosch N. I should think a hot dry place would be a good place for controlled composting.

Arable Soil

[Anonymous Coward]

This tech seems to only addresses the issues of water and heat, not arable soil. It doesn't say either way explicitly, but the fact it was funded by fertilizer companies leads me to believe as much. So this could mitigate some of the impacts of climate change in costal drought-stricken regions, but won't address the nitrogen crisis.

Does anyone know how arable deserts in the middle east or africa are if they were irrigated? Are they mostly untapped reserve of nutrients, or a bunch of sand?

Re:Arable Soil

[spiritplumber]

Mosty a bunch of sand. The Sahara is a different story, though, so this would work well in Algeria, Libya and so on.

fertilizer?

[dutchwhizzman]

How will they fertilize this? Are they using desert ground, or are they just using the location and using fertile ground or hydroponics? I know that Australia's attempt to irrigate desert ground to grow crops turned whole regions so saline that even desert plants won't grow there anymore.

Re:fertilizer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it seems like a serious missing detail.
They could use solar energy to extract nitrogen from the atmosphere.
Perhaps there are microorganisms in sea water.

Salinity problems in Australia are caused by large amounts of salt in the ground coming to the surface due to land clearing and irrigation, but not irrigation on its own.

Re:fertilizer?

[ddt]

It's a common misconception that you need fertilization. If you plant the right crops together, they feed each other the nutrients and take care of nitrogen fixation. The catch is that with intermixed crops, it can become more difficult to harvest your crops with bulk thrashers, but robotics and image recognition can come to the rescue on this front.

Re:fertilizer?

[Inda]

That's bollocks.

Plants need NPK plus about 14 other elements. Where's the PK coming from if you don't feed?

Re:fertilizer?

[upuv]

It was sponsored by a fertiliser company.

Re:fertilizer?

[upuv]

The are using desal water from evaporation. Very low in Salts. If not zero. They are also in a green house not open field. If the soil gets contaminated with salt they can simply dump it into the sea. Which would not be a bad way of sinking some carbon come to think of it.

In Australia water the desert just results in evaporation of the water. Which leaves behind salt on the land. It was not well thought out.

Clearly different methods of bring green to the sand.

Re:fertilizer?

[biodata]

There isn't a worry here about salination of the soil because the salts end up in the evaporation columns. I saw a lo-tech version of this described a couple of years ago at the UK Plant Sci conference, and this project sounds like an outgrowth from that - they also described the effect on the land outside the greenhouse, with spontaneous growth of native desert flora due to the increased external humidity. The experimenters used a greenhouse with a cardboard wall on the upwind side - the sea water soaks up the wall and is evaporated into the greenhouse by the wind, leaving the salts in the cardboard. After a few years the cardboard wall is a very rigid mineral-rich material that you can use for building structures like sheds.

Re:fertilizer?

[Ginger Unicorn]

Yes, don't forget t.

Re:fertilizer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Brawndo. Where else?

Re:fertilizer?

[AttillaTheNun]

Same place the chem-ag fertilizers get it from - the soil. Who fertilizes the forests?

The parent poster is referring to plants known to be nutrient accumulators. They cycle nutrients from the soil into their leaves, making them available to other plants as they die off.

Re:fertilizer?

[3.5 stripes]

Plenty of nasties grow in hydroponic solutions, anyone using hydro has to include sterilization as part of the yearly cycle (and often many times a year)..

Re:fertilizer?

[3.5 stripes]

Also plants like clover sequester nitrogen from the air in underground nodules.

Re:fertilizer?

[Khyber]

"Plenty of nasties grow in hydroponic solutions, anyone using hydro has to include sterilization as part of the yearly cycle (and often many times a year).."

Psssht, not even close. We've got inline UV and O3 purification on any decent system, and it's moving into home units.

Re:fertilizer?

[3.5 stripes]

So you've moved sterilization into the works, you haven't eliminated it.

That said, I grow organic, I really don't like hydroponics, or oil based ferts (or pesticides), so I'm probably a bit biased.

Re:fertilizer?

[Khyber]

"That said, I grow organic"

Ouch, you fell for the marketing.

Just as a protip, if you're using any sort of artificial irradiation (eg not sunlight) you're not organic at all by USDA definitions. Most people that grow indoors or even in light-supplemented greenhouses don't realize this.

Yes, the organic certification is pure marketing, and has no basis in science. Science only recognizes one definition - contains carbon. Organic got usurped because 'All-Natural' couldn't command the price premium in the market nor make enough licensing money for the USDA.

Not to mention most 'organic' nutrients are gathered from dwindling resources and shipped way around the globe, totally negating any real benefit. You could've gotten the same results from a carefully-controlled application of sea salts (look up SEA-90) without causing nearly as much environmental damage, and it's available in massive quantities across the planet, easily obtained, and is more balanced than most other commercially-available fertilizers.

Re:fertilizer?

[rubycodez]

or they put massive amounts of shit on it. don't underestimate the power of shit to make plants happy. note: at your grocery market, "organic" == "someome dumped shit on it"

Re:fertilizer?

[mattack2]

I think organic food is a big waste of money (no scientific evidence it's any healthier)...

But when is "artificial irradiation" being used? I suspect the same people who waste money buying organic are the same ones that freaked out over irradiation. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have so many food contamination issues. (i.e. if the food was irradiated, it would be healthier and not have e. coli, etc.)

Re:fertilizer?

[ApplePy]

Hmm. I grow my vegetables organically -- or "organically" as the case may be, because I don't particularly go by the USDA's useless standard, which is more aptly termed "swapping inputs" and isn't really a method or a science.

I'm not sure what marketing I'm falling for, though. Can you explain it? I don't buy anything. I don't buy fertilizers or compost or chemicals or herbicides or adjuvants. I don't even buy seed unless I want to try a new cultivar; otherwise I save my seed. So what am I being marketed?

Perhaps you consider me foolish for choosing the "organic" label on the things I do buy at the store? I am, and have always been aware that the label means little, and that there may be only a marginal improvement.

At that point, it's more about what I want to support with my money. Do I want to support farms that use atrazine and glyphosate? Or farms that use somewhat safer alternatives? In the big agriculture world, yeah, that's the difference. But in my mind, it's an important difference. I'd rather my food dollars NOT go to the guy spraying methyl bromide all over the place -- you know, so my grandkids will still have a planet left someday.

Re:fertilizer?

[Khyber]

"But when is "artificial irradiation" being used?"

Go ask any moron cannabis grower that grows 'organic.'

Re:fertilizer?

[Khyber]

"Do I want to support farms that use atrazine and glyphosate? Or farms that use somewhat safer alternatives?"

Half of those 'safer alternatives' destroy the earth far faster than atrazine and glyphosate.

" I'd rather my food dollars NOT go to the guy spraying methyl bromide all over the place -- you know, so my grandkids will still have a planet left someday."

You'll kill your planet faster with those organic methods. Quit falling for the marketing, it's a lie. There's no scientific basis for any 'organic' claims and your buying into it thinking it's 'better' somehow is BS, sir.

I do this for a living, globally. UK, Australia, Morocco, Japan, China, and many more countries.

Re:fertilizer?

[ApplePy]

You do what for a living? Travel around and tell lies? Name me one organic-allowed input that is more dangerous than atrazine or methyl bromide. Frankly, I don't care what it is you do for a living. A liar is a liar, and a guy doing a bad job is doing a bad job. It sounds like your income is somehow tied to something that is not allowed by even the lame USDA organic standard. I feel for you. It must suck to constantly be doing the wrong thing because you need your paycheck.

Frank Herbert smiles from beyond

[Xtense]

"To the people whose labors go beyond ideas into the realm of 'real materials'- to the dry-land ecologists, wherever they may be, in whatever time they work, this effort at prediction is dedicated in humility and admiration."
        âFrank Herbert

Not accounting for the usability of this exact piece of science in a practical setting, we will develop further. I salute you guys, you're the thankless people who are doing actual work making this world a better place. Thank you.

Re:Frank Herbert smiles from beyond

[evilviper]

you're the thankless people who are doing actual work making this world a better place. Thank you.

And now they've disappeared in a puff of logic.

Easy improvements here

[Anonymous Coward]

What they really need is a droid who speaks the binary language of moisture vaporators.

A noble effort, should be repeated

[Camembert]

This is a great initative that could be be beneficial and hunger suppressing in multiple sandy countries in northern africa and the middle east. As long as the country borders on the sea. Sadly this leaves out Mali, Niger and a few more landlocked piss-poor countries in the regio.

Ideally this would be combined with careful irrigation and planting strategies to stop the desertification (if that is a word). Such a more classic initiative worked well in one of these countries (I forgot which one), but a civil war destroyed all the good effort practically overnight, a shame.

Re:A noble effort, should be repeated

[Fjandr]

The US population growth is flattening, as are most other industrial countries. Education has turned out to be the most effective means of birth control. The least-educated segments of the population drive the vast majority of population growth.

Re:dodgy use of maths...?

[deroby]

75 kg/m2 per year
three crops annually as in : harvesting 3 times / year.
Thus, per crop = each harvest = 75kg/m2 divided by 3 = 25kg/m2

Re:dodgy use of maths...?

[upuv]

Did you see the size of the tomato's?

Huge like a child's head.

---
yah I agree. Seems a bit high.

Why not ask the Israelis?

[Lucky_Pierre]

They have the most experience in greenhouses and desert agriculture. Even the Navajo Nation is studying Israeli methods.

Re:Why not ask the Israelis?

[mi]

Hell will undergo a climate change before an Arab nation will openly admit, Israel is doing something — anything — worth studying and copying.

Re:Why not ask the Israelis?

[andyteleco]

Er... I don't see Qatar asking Israel for any help... nor Israel granting it

Gaddaffi did something similar in Libya

[ryzvonusef]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kufra#Agricultural_Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River

Re:Gaddaffi did something similar in Libya

[brianerst]

I forget all the details at this point, but I remember that the Israelis had a huge number of similar greenhouses in Gaza - thousands of them - that were responsible for something like 15% of total Israeli agricultural output. Fresh vegetables grow well in greenhouses. (Taste may be a different matter...)

By-products

[ThatsNotPudding]

I've never understood what happens to the salt (and a none-too-pure salt at that) from large-scale desalinization processes.

Let me guess: it's either dumped back in the sea or left as a slurry and pumped underground as they do in the oil patch.

Re:By-products

[3.5 stripes]

None too pure salt? Leaving seawater to evap for salt is one of the oldest and simplest methods for obtaining it.. and it's actually better for you (trace minerals).

Re:By-products

[Anonymous Coward]

There's money in sea salt.

Of course, if you only remove some of the water from the sea water, you just have a more salty sea water, which you can then push back into the ocean. It's easier to move salty water than sludge, and there's plenty more sea water to work with.

Re:By-products

[Khyber]

"Let me guess: it's either dumped back in the sea or left as a slurry and pumped underground as they do in the oil patch."

You could always just do a little basic research and look up SEA-90.

Excelsior!

[jbmartin6]

Mars, here we come! God help you.

Re:"Need" cucumbers, etc.

[3.5 stripes]

Eggplants rule, and are a staple of Mediterranean and Northern African cooking. Plenty of nutrients too.
 

The Mid West U.S. Should Take Note

[LifesABeach]

With their water sources drying up, where are the two largest pools of water planet earth located? Water purifiers on a grand scale, but better than dust storms I'd wager.

Re:Cost?

[Khyber]

You know, instead of sticking your head in the sand, you could simply do some research, and also look at the greenhouse itself to determine a few things.

Given size and design and tech, this probably cost half a million to make.

They must be stopped!

[fustakrakich]

As a crony capitalist, abundance is my archenemy. This will saturate and destroy the market that we maintain by creating shortages. How else can we sell refrigerators to the Eskimos?

Clever!

[whitroth]

I actually read the first paragraph or two of the original article (I know, that's *so* unslashdot), and that's rather clever: seawater over a grid to evaporate and cool, increasing the humidity.. and cooler seawater to cause some of it to condense... providing desalinated seawater.

              mark

not the first

[rubycodez]

there is a much more massive desert farming operation going on in California, tens of billions of USD in produce made annually.

What exactly is your point?

[arcite]

And 40-50% of ALL food goes rotten or is thrown away (from supermarkets or consumers fridges). Locally grown veggies can adapt to local demand, time to market reduces wastage. WIN WIN

Re:What exactly is your point?

[j-beda]

And 40-50% of ALL food goes rotten or is thrown away (from supermarkets or consumers fridges). Locally grown veggies can adapt to local demand, time to market reduces wastage. WIN WIN

However, most (or a large fraction at least) of that waste happens after it is purchased by the consumer. Local sourcing or non-local sourcing would make no difference.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/21-crazy-facts-about-food-waste-in-america.html
http://endhunger.org/food_waste.htm

I eat them and so do my chickens.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Radishes - both the bulbs and the greens - are just fine (though spicy) in salads.

Also: My chickens LOVE them, though they like grain, chard, bugs, and blueberries progressively better. (I'm not sure where mice and shrews fit into the hierarchy but I'm sure they'd be near the more-desirable end.)

A single large radish, tossed the flock, is the starting move in a game of chicken soccer. The radish quickly takes on the appearance of a soccer ball as they take enough bites to make it dotted red-and-white all over.