Philips Is Revolutionizing Urban Farming With New GrowWise Indoor Farm

Kristine Lofgren writes: With arable land dwindling and the cost — both economically and environmentally — of growing and transporting food increasing, it's time to redefine farming. So Philips is creating a revolution with their new GrowWise indoor farm, which uses customized 'light recipes' in high-tech cells to grow plants that don't need pesticides or chlorine washes, and use a fraction of the water that traditional farming requires. The system can churn out 900 pots of basil a year in just one square meter of floor space, and bees keep things humming year-round for farming that is truly local, even in the middle of a city.

Comments

So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Sowelu]

Serious question. (And yes I know they contain carbon.)

I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed, which isn't so great for environmental preservation. This stuff on the other hand, doesn't need pesticides or anything. Seems very hippie-friendly, but on the other hand they aren't going to help out bees or whatever. Not sure how expensive it'll be, but with this kind of space efficiency (and quite likely better quality output) sure I'd pay the 'organic' markup for it.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[drinkypoo]

It's organic so long as everything you use is on the USDA organic list, because the USDA has control over the label now. It's not cyclical so it's not truly organic farming, but it's low-impact so who cares.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Adriax]

Currently I'd bet yes, this meets the necessary requirements for Organic. But expect that to change.
Just as debeers made it so you can't call a synthetic carbon crystal a Diamond, you can expect a push to require Organic produce be dirt planted and have sunlight access as the main photosynthesis source.

They can suck it for all I care. Farms like these could be deployed pretty much anywhere and make the vast majority of your grocery store produce Locally Sourced.
Screw early harvests, forced ripening, and breeding for transportation resistance. These all year farms could supply perfectly ripe tomatoes with actual taste to them.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Environmentally friendly: space efficiency vs toxicity. The massive dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico, which is both an environmental disaster and a food disaster, is due in large part to over-use of fertilizers to increase space efficiency thru the central US. So which is worse environmentally (and I'm not asking this as an "I know the right answer"; I have my opinion but it's at best ill-informed and I think this is an interesting question): using X-percentage more space to grow the same food, or having more massive impacts on local and remote ecosystems?

Captcha: grower

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[trout007]

Most likely not. For consitency they are going to most likely use synthetic fertilizers. I highly doubt they are going to be using compost tea.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Adriax]

Overfertilization is an issue because farms can't economically control the runoff from their farm.
That's not an issue here as the hydroponic system fully contains the water.

Infact it is much more economical, with a system this size, to recycle the water as it finishes a run through your system instead of dumping it. A good amount of nutrients stay unused. So you scrub out the waste, fix the nutrient imbalances, and send it back through the system. That's why these guys claim as low as 5L of water for a kilo of tomatoes, instead of the 30-60L for other greenhouses and 214L for standard farming (from a quick google search).

Re: So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you may still have to pay monsanto for the seeds.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Organic is all going to depend on the nutrients you feed the plants. Aeroponics, that's hard to do organic in because the typical organic nutes clog the sprayers. But at an industrial scale they can probably do it easier than home growers can. But there are other hydro options to do organic with. They could do aquaponics and have fish to eat too, while not having to introduce any man made fertilizers. Yes Virginia, your plants would be fertilized by fish shit and piss as that point.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Nethemas the Great]

I don't know what all the inputs are, such as fertilizer, nor how they'd match up to prevailing organic specifications. However, "organic" isn't a baseless marketing concept. The goal is to produce wholesome, nutritious, food without destroying the environment. Adherents believe that modern agriculture--with Monsanto style pesticides/herbicides, GMOs, petroleum derived fertilizers, etc.--is destructive, unsustainable, and ultimately produces lower quality food. On face value this project sounds like it's in keeping with the goals of organic farming even if certain details would need to be modified to be pedantically adherent.

BTW: there is such a thing as organic hydroponics

Re: So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Applehu Akbar]

You can plant any seeds you want in one of these, Monsanto or otherwise. The real problem is that as soon as you walk out of Home Despot with one of these kits, the DEA will will be following you home to shoot your dog, slam your kids into foster care, and steal your cash. You know, just in case there might be anything suspicious about your choice of seeds.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[JoeMerchant]

So, I'm all for grow local, but when there's sun shining right outside - this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me... unless you are a company that sells grow lights.

For anyone who has access to actual solar radiation, seems like hydroponic with a glass roof would be a better way to go - less carbon emissions (loading on the power grid), less equipment to manufacture, maintain and ultimately dispose of: how many pounds of electronics and plastics per pound of Basil grown? Sure, these systems could last for 20 years, but will they in real life, or will they be used like an annual gym membership?

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Red Flayer]

What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle? Do you mean crop rotation? Or something else entirely?

Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Serious question. (And yes I know they contain carbon.)

The use of the term has always bugged me too.

I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed[...]

That sort of stupid and misleading statement bugs me even more. You mean chemically fertilised crops have higher yields (short-term) than non-chemically fertilised crops - but then you extrapolate from that dodgy premise to the conclusion the cropping areas for identical yields are smaller. A misleading conclusion given that it implies land area required for cultivation is less - by overlooking all the land area required to make and get the fertilizer there in the first place.

they aren't going to help out bees or whatever

How does it not "help" bees? Perhaps they have little harnesses suspended from guide-wires so the bees don't have to fly? And whatever do you mean by "whatever"?

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

You can expect a push to require Organic produce be dirt planted and have sunlight access as the main photosynthesis source.

Why now? Indoor farms with artificial lighting have been getting "organic" certifications for a long time.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've access to good dark soil, lots of sunlight, plenty of water.

I've grown carrots to seedlings inside, then transplanted them outside. Of the 12 seedlings, 2 have survived. 9 were destroyed by the neighbour's little cunt of a cat. The fucker rendered the 2 survivors unusable, because he shit in the garden right on the seeds.

So I planted another batch of about 30, this time in another garden, and covered it. That was three months ago, nothing has germinated.

In fact, of the last few batches of carrots I've planted, I've got eight carrots. Eight. More than 100 plants, eight carrots.

Unfortunately for me, the previous owner of this property didn't maintain it. The hedge has grown out of control and leaches nutrients from the soil for meters around, so I'm going to have to close up my gardens after this failed harvest, and then open some new ones further out. Last year saw chickweed take over every square foot of soil and grass.

Meanwhile, my basil plants inside are thriving. They're generating too much to use. I was drying some out and my dipshit partner threw it out. Next lot was drying out, this time I made sure to have her look at it, and repeat to me "Do not throw this out."

She threw it out.

Still, my house is a sun trap. If she hadn't bought a large dog without discussing it with me, I would have food plants growing everywhere inside.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[drinkypoo]

What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle?

That's the one

Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming

Yeah, that's what happens when you don't trademark something. That was the original idea. It makes the name "organic" make more sense, several senses in fact:

7.
characterized by the systematic arrangement of parts; organized; systematic:
8.
of or relating to the basic constitution or structure of a thing; constitutional; structural:
9.
developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth.
10.
viewing or explaining something as having a growth and development analogous to that of living organisms

Actually having a cyclical system is more "organic" by senses of the word which don't mean "on the USDA approved list" or "has a scary name"

Re: So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I guess lesbian relationships are complicated too.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[pi_rules]

Organic farming requires a number of things and not using pesticides isn't one of them. The reason they require more space is the organics tend to be less effective than synthetic pesticides so you endure more crop losses.

On the other side of the coin you can use totally organic OMRI certified pesticides but if your fertilizer isn't organic then your crop isn't organic.

Now to get really weird you CAN use an organic fertilizer and nothing but organic pesticides but still not be able to call the produce organic if the fertilizer used came from human waste. Yes, this is done in food production and you can buy human poop in bags commercial everywhere in the US. Milorganite is the oldest brand. MILwaukee ORGanic NITrogEn. It's sewage. Human poop.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Okian Warrior]

So, I'm all for grow local, but when there's sun shining right outside - this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me... unless you are a company that sells grow lights.

You have a point, but you also have to consider the context of comparison.

Plants grown outdoors face an array of problems that the farmer has to account for. Keeping insects off, keeping weeds at bay, keeping the plants watered and fertilized - all this comes at a cost to the farmer.

Indoor farming requires a more expensive infrastructure (the building, trays, and plumbing) but has great savings in some of the other areas. It's easier to keep weeds and insects out, for instance.

Of particular note, outdoors you can't recycle unused water or fertilizer, but this can be done indoors. Collect any unused water after the plants have drunk their fill, remove waste products, top off the fertilizer, and reuse.

So the economic question is this: is the extra money/effort spent on generating light compensated for by the savings in insecticides, roundup, fertilizer, and water?

I think the answer is probably "yes", given that LED lights are incredibly efficient. (Also of note: less of the environment is damaged by excess fertilizer and water drainage. Damaging the environment indirectly costs money.)

Then the next question is with the building: does it make sense to have big windows and use mostly solar light, and adjust as needed with indoor lighting?

Windows cost more than walls, they require extra heating and/or air conditioning, they're not as structurally sound, and the light isn't used efficiently in the 3-d volume; meaning, you can't grow corn on each story of a 5-story building, because the first layer will shade the ones below it. (And windows break, they have to be cleaned, they tend to leak, &c.)

It may be more economically sensible to grow corn in a 5-story warehouse close to a city simply because it reduces the transport costs. It also reduces the amount of land used - allowing more plots to go back to the wild.

And on top of all of this, researchers I've talked to are doing clever things with the light recipe they're giving to plants.

Some plants detect the reddening of the sun and "go to sleep" at sunset. By adjusting the light color, you can keep the plants growing 18 hours a day and then blast them with excess red light to get them to quickly go into night mode. This increases yield by reducing the growing period of their crops.

(A bunch of other experiments are really interesting, such as: hitting the crops with a particular frequency of light to cause their ripening flavors to go into overdrive, making a crop that is inordinately tasty.)

So in summary, we should do the economic experiment and see if it's viable, but in toto there's a lot to recommend indoor industrial gardening.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[smaddox]

Parent deserves to be modded up.

What ultimately matters here is economics. There is obviously a huge capital cost involved here, but it very well may be merited, especially for growing delicate species. And the more these systems are utilized, the more economy of scale will make it economical for more general applications.

I am a bit put off by the lack of costs in the article, but I guess that is to be expected from a press release. Since this is still in research stages, it is almost certainly not yet economical. However, if it is even within a factor of 10x of breakeven over a ~20 year time frame (including capital costs, but replacing the researchers' salaries with technicians'), then this could be a significant player in the future.

Re: So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

To qualify for organic you have to pass a certification.... And in terms of damage... How can you say organic is worse? All the crap you put to conventional farming lanfs does waaayyy more damage than using up more land..

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Khyber]

"Currently I'd bet yes, this meets the necessary requirements for Organic"

No, Organic certification forbids the usage of artificial irradiation.

Indoor lighting != natural radiation.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[JimSadler]

Actually since production prices drop the retail cost of the product should also drop in an honest sales economy. Think of the savings when a farmer knows that a failed crop is next to impossible. Also consider an organic farm on a house roof top. The insulating effect from either cold or heat can save the home a bundle. But best of all an organic, indoor farm can exist as a long wall that surrounds a community thus defining the community and effectively walling the area off from crime. We know that people do not do well when neighborhoods lack an identity. That single entrance community with multistory indoor farms surrounding it rules out armed robberies and drive by shootings almost perfectly.

Re: So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[JimSadler]

The system will tend to resist change. Any breakthrough that makes things better will almost always suffer harassment if not outright violence. Look at the treachery involved in trying to stop Tesla from producing cars.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've learned working in the garden center at Lowe's (surprisingly a retail job I don't totally fucking loath), hydroponic stuff like this can also be planted in vermiculite, which is a hydrous phyllosilicate mineral that is great at holding water.

This way you don't even need to fuck around with soil and deal with the everpresent fungal and bacterial infections that it can bring. I read that a large amount of hydroponic stuff is grown totally with vermiculite. cool stuff..

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Jeremi]

So, I'm all for grow local, but when there's sun shining right outside - this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me... unless you are a company that sells grow lights.

Very true... it's hard to compete with a fertile field in a nice climate, if you have access to one. I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious applications in locations where viable outdoor environments aren't available, though -- e.g. in space, or on Mars.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Plumpaquatsch]

"Currently I'd bet yes, this meets the necessary requirements for Organic"

No, Organic certification forbids the usage of artificial irradiation.

Indoor lighting != natural radiation.

Indoor lighting == non-ionizing radiation. Irradiation == ionizing radiation (usually, and most certainly here).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Khyber]

Many White LEDs use a UV base. Some utilize UVB, in part due to how we have phosphor blends tuned to work with the UVB emissions that come from fluorescent lamps.

So some do emit ionizing radiation. Also, with this kind of setup, one would be foolish to not employ UVB LEDs and UVC germicidal gas lamps to ensure essentially zero pest problems ever.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Adriax]

Yup. The growing medium just needs to be structurally supportive, non reacting, and in some hydroponic setups, capable of holding a little bit of water.
The only personal experience I have is with an aerogarden unit, and the seed pods for that are just plastic sponges. Though I have read about using ceramic beads, coconut fiber, or even just clean gravel if you're cheap.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[kamapuaa]

No no no no no no no. You underestimate the costs of the new, and over-estimate the costs of the old.

The cost of electricity equivalent to sunlight is quite high. The cost of 5 story warehouses close to a city is high.

Sunlight is free. Water is cheap. Farmland in the middle of nowhere is cheap. Roundup is cheap/environmentally friendly.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[minimum]

No, gross majority of white LED's use blue (so called royal blue, 450nm) as a base. Both, emitter and conversion to yellow are more efficient that way.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[m.alessandrini]

Given the pollution in the air of most cities, I don't know if urban farming can qualify as "organic".

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[delt0r]

Organic crops use pesticide and herbicide. How do you think its not covered in fungus and worms? Because they asked nice?

Organic is the current bullshit that has all the truthiness of homeopathy for rich city people.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[delt0r]

Citation required. Really show some proof that organic is any more Wholesome (Whatever the fuck that means), nutritious and more sustainable than modern farming.

This may save you some time. There is none, despite a few studies.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Barsteward]

It would help if you are using solar to power the LEDs. Water is only cheap in some places, California seems to be having a few issues with not enough water. The farmers are being blamed for taking most of it. If they could use this system in more places then it would save a lot. The cost of a 5 storey block may be high but if its full of layers and layers of growing food for 24 hours and day, 365 days a year, it will soon work out cost effective. Considering the amount of land you'd need to compare to the 365 day a year output of this hydro-led system, it would be more expensive to buy and prepare ready for crops. No weeding, no spraying etc, the advantages are enormous especially when these places are pretty much computer controlled.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Barsteward]

"it's hard to compete with a fertile field in a nice climate" you should watch a few of the youtube videos about these LED hydro places, you might change your mind

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[delt0r]

Organic fertilizer is made out of chemicals you know right? And how much space does it take to make that fertilizer. Yes they use fertilizer just as they use pesticide and herbicides. Its "organic" but don't breath in when they are spraying...... Or hope it has rained a lot before harvest....

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question. (And yes I know they contain carbon.)

I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed, which isn't so great for environmental preservation.

The thing about "in-organic" (non-organic?) crops is that they seem to use up a lot more water. It's all very well to produce so much more per hectare / acre, but if you're draining your local aquifer, that's not much of a "win" in many regards.

You can get pretty good yields with "organic" methods as well, at least at non-industrial scales:

Organic farming supposedly has yields ~25% less than conventional and thus is supposed to require considerably more land. One problem here is that comparative yield is a notoriously difficult quantity to measure. Of primary importance to the commercial grower is the yield of dollars at the bank, not the tonnage per hectare.

* https://thepompousgit.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/on-gmo-and-organic-crops/
* https://thepompousgit.wordpress.com/category/gardening/

Also remember that roughly 30-50% of all food that's picked gets thrown out and not digested (some countries are better/worse). That's a lot of wastage.

* http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste
* http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141013-food-waste-national-security-environment-science-ngfood/

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like there isn't room for artificial beehives. That's what the local greenhouse does anyway. They have paper hives for the bee pollination and hens keeping vermin off the plants.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Organic fertilizer is made out of chemicals you know right?

No shit?

And how much space does it take to make that fertilizer.

Do tell? References or it didn't happen.

Yes they use fertilizer just as they use pesticide and herbicides.

They? The Illuminati? The Jewish Conspiracy? The shape shifting lizard people? (did it make sense when you thunk it?)

Its "organic" but don't breath in when they are spraying......

The same could be said for your words - and, likely, your breath. I have no idea what you mean in relation to aquaculture (we don't spray anything).

Or hope it has rained a lot before harvest....

I hope it rains a lot any time. You don't get out of your basement much do you? Hint: farming is not like living in your parent's house. We have droughts - can't just turn the tap on.

Back to the subject: I don't like the label "organic" it dilutes the, IMO, original meaning of the word (carbon-based). "Natural" is problematic too (I've given the matter a lot of thought over the last few decades). I also note that what you propose is based on flawed logic and sophism (no doubt you argue simply to argue, and need for attention while you wait for puberty to arrive).

My original motivation for "organic" farming was lower energy usage while producing food for our consumption - not necessarily healthier. The commercial side is/was just to offset costs.

If asked what is better - to buy "organic", or "non-organic" - I'd hesitate to give an answer because it's not simple. Much of what is marketed as "organic" is bullshit (and I don't mean the "organic" kind). The price difference the market command leads to fraud.

If I have to generalise I'd suggest "buy what is in season from the location closest to the purchase". The tradeoff between the environmental harm of producing and shipping manufactured fertilizers, and their theoretical health problems - v.s. the loss of vitamins and beneficial phytochemicals due to time to market are the main factors.

The other major factor would be that regardless of the method of cultivation ("organic" or "manufactured fertilizer" - I'm leaving out pest control for the purposes of avoiding writing an multi-page post) - is that by buying local you have more chance of keeping the producer honest. The "organic" certification schemes are expensive (which is why the product cost more - production is actually cheaper), and thorough, but do little to stop producers from swapping in non-"organic" products. Buying local reduces that risk (it's also good for your local economy - a less debatable benefit). Regardless of the method of production - buying out-of-season produce - or produce from overseas is very likely "less healthy".

NOTES: there are no "super" foods. Biodynamics (like homeopathic medicine) is pure woo. Produce that has suffered insect attack is quite probably better for you. You can get "organic" certification for Monsanto crops. Simple is a synonym for dumb.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[delt0r]

I worked on "organic" farms. I grew up on a farm. And i really won't bother with you after that eloquent start to the conversation.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I worked on "organic" farms. I grew up on a farm. And i really won't bother with you after that eloquent start to the conversation.

OK. All farms are the same, I'm a prisoner of your opinion.

What was your point? Do you even have a point? (aside from the growth on your neck where other people have heads).

Thanks for your opinion. Whatever it was meant to be. (I'm guessing purposely obscure, or maybe you just had a hard time working).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No more nutritious" may be true. Still, the organic stuff tend to have more taste.

As for sustainable - old fashioned farming has worked for thousands of years. Low output but does not deplete the soil. Modern farming is not that sustainable - oil for fertilizers will run out before 1000 years, and phosphorus even earlier. Insecticides certainly do damage. Used to be birds dying from DDT, now it is bees dying off - and we need those even more than the birds.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

But as long as Jonny has a fresh ear of corn on his plate, who cares what the environmental and health impacts are over a few hundred years? We'll be dead, and it will be someone else's problem.

Re: So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are daft. Pesticides are killing the bees. No bees no himans.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Red Flayer]

Yes, but you claiming that it must be cyclical to be truly organic... well, "No true Scotsman..." seems to apply.

You are co-opting the term organic to mean something extra.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Jeremi]

"it's hard to compete with a fertile field in a nice climate" you should watch a few of the youtube videos about these LED hydro places, you might change your mind

I think I'll wait until I start reading about farmers going out of business due to price competition from indoor produce growers.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Khyber]

That's not how Cree is getting 300+ lumens per watt in the lab. :)

If you want REAL efficiency, you use high-energy photons. 450nm is nothing compared to 285nm.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[delt0r]

Organic farms use Insecticides. Fail.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

normally I'm really against organic crops

Presumably, until you get hungry. What exactly can be grown, inorganically, that is useful for human consumption? Do you grow and eat rock crystals?

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Coren22]

Are you always such an asshole, or are you just having a bad day? People are trying to have a civil conversation with you, and you bust out the insults. You may know more than the majority of us about aquaculture, but you don't have to be such a jerk whenever anyone has an opinion different than yours. It isn't always true that they are even talking about exactly the same type of farm as you run, they could just be talking about the normal ground based farms that many of us have to deal with.

In short, chill out and be civil or you won't last long here, no one wants to have a discussion with a jerk.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Nethemas the Great]

You didn't read what I wrote did you? I never made any declaration that organic has superior nutrition, nor did I for wholesomeness--which BTW is the characteristic of promoting health and well being. However there are plenty of studies that show evidence that the pesticides/herbicides and even some hints that certain of the genetic modifications are indeed produce food with harmful characteristics.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[drinkypoo]

You are co-opting the term organic to mean something extra.

Well, no, no I am not. Here we go:

"In the late 1930s and early 1940s Sir Albert Howard and his wife Gabrielle Howard, both accomplished botanists, developed organic agriculture. [...] In the United States another founder of organic agriculture was J.I. Rodale." OK, so now we have decided who might get to define terms, yes? Let us continue. "Howard observed and came to support traditional Indian farming practices over conventional agricultural science. Though he journeyed to India to teach Western agricultural techniques he found that the Indians could in fact teach him more. One important aspect he took notice of was the connection between healthy soil and the villages' healthy populations, livestock and crop. Patrick Holden, Director of the UK Soil Association quoted Howard as saying "the health of soil, plant, animal and man is one and indivisible." The maintenance of the soil is critical. Guess what they do with poop in India? Anyway, moving on. "To Rodale, agriculture and health were inseparable. Healthy soil required compost and eschewing poisonous pesticides and artificial fertilizers. Eating plants grown in such soil would then help humans stay healthier, he expounded." Now, where you do you think compost comes from?

Anyway, as usual, even a quick scan of Wikipedia would have proved my point. And in fact, that's what I did. But this idea was based on a conversation I had with my lady some years ago. She doesn't remember it at all, and I don't remember it very well, so I don't remember precisely what she stated at the time, so I had to go to WP. I didn't even use google. Why not quickly glance at the readily available materials which cost you nothing, before claiming that someone is wrong? While you're reading WP, you could also look up Biodynamic Agriculture, a sort of spiritually-guided precursor to organic gardening which is gaining traction today. I think some of their rituals are a bit hilarious, but the basic fundamental principles basically cover all the original founding principles of "organic" gardening. Agriculture is a cyclical system.

My understanding is that these days many if not most sewage plants are actually cooking their wastes for maximum methane production, capturing it and selling it or burning it on site for power production, where they used to try to minimize it and then flare off the unwanted product. The sludge is sold on for agricultural use. There's an "organic" version of this process known as Advanced Integrated Wastewater Pond Systems (AIWPS) which also produces algae, which can be used as a fuel feedstock... and clean water, even separating out heavy metals. And all it takes to make it is some piping. If you want to also capture the methane, then you also need some other goodies including a sheet of plastic, and you'll probably want a liner for catching the heavy precipitates, but there's not a whole lot to it. And of course, we could be making a whole lot more use of composting toilets, for example the Bason (sorry for PDF, but it's really the best link I know so far. Someday I will build one, and then I will make a nice page on it... even if it is full of shit)

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[jedidiah]

They don't use as much of it because they aren't using corporate monopoly seeds specifically designed to sell more chemicals made by the chemical company that owns the seed monopoly.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[jedidiah]

Basil also thrives outside. It grows like a weed. Plus spices in general are less prone to being eaten by your local vermin. They are really setting a low bar here.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[JoeMerchant]

> we should do the economic experiment

Absolutely agree... I'm sure that in today's (cheap oil) economy, it will be impossible to compete with the "grow it cheap in the boonies and ship it all over the country" model that we've been living for 50 years, but the experiment is worth doing, investigating the possibilities thoroughly, and hopefully coming up with some viable niches such as the "ultra tasty" varieties, etc.

It's especially worth doing the experiments to develop the tech and have a solid grasp on when it will make economic sense to do this for bulk crops like corn - oil at $200/bbl, probably not, oil at $2K/bbl, definitely (if you can still afford to build the warehouse....)

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[JoeMerchant]

One place where a fertile field in a nice climate has problems is with weeds, another is pests.

I can't help feeling that these small scale experiments are going to underestimate the problems of weeds and pests that will come if they scale up and start trying to feed major cities this way. The nuisance biologics may look different, but bad algae growing in the plumbing or on the light fixtures can be a real problem...

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Red herring FUD--organic done right outproduces toxic rescue agriculture regularly, with far fewer inputs. It is, however, more complex, so now that the countryside has been depopulated of innovators through agribusiness-oriented government policy, most of those remaining are the typical dumbasses who only know how to dump Roundup and chemical fertilizers and pesticides into our environment so they can get large quantities of shitty crops while fucking the world up for the rest of us. Furthermore, if this is hydroponics, it can't be organic, because organic agriculture is soil-based by definition, with complex interactions between organisms that still aren't fully comprehended. Let me know when you find anyone who is able to produce nutrient-dense, high brix produce via hydroponics. Go ahead and feel smug about "superior technology" while you eat your devitalized, tasteless "food" and wonder why your health is less than optimal.

Slashdot is great, but there seems to be more credibility invested in the scientific establishment than in actual science. Philips--bah. Just another Monsanto. Follow the money.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Are you always such an asshole, or are you just having a bad day? People are trying to have a civil conversation with you, and you bust out the insults. You may know more than the majority of us about aquaculture, but you don't have to be such a jerk whenever anyone has an

opinion different than yours.

There's opinions - which are fine, anyone over 30 holds the ones they deserve - and then there's bullshit posing as authority. You want to defend the right for people to spout bullshit?

It isn't always true that they are even talking about exactly the same type of farm as you run,

Then maybe they should qualify their opinion - just like you should specify what the fuck you are defending. If you don't like the tone don't read it.

they could just be talking about the normal ground based farms that many of us have to deal with.

In short, chill out and be civil

or you won't last long here

How do you fit your head through doorways?

, no one wants to have a discussion with a jerk.

Maybe you should re-read what your defending - then you'd come off as less of a patronising dick seeking the high moral ground to satisfy your superiority complex. If I offended someone and they think it's unfair - it should be them that responds.
tl;dr? You have tickets on yourself.
Manners are butter for those without bread - and the devil is a gentleman with honeyed speech.

Don't you have better things to do with your time than post to tell people you don't want to talk to them? It seems a bit redundant - maybe you should try eating your own dog food - and chill out?

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it contains carbon, it's organic.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[jwhitener]

This stuff on the other hand, doesn't need pesticides or anything

Indoor growing almost always has bug infestations, just like growing outside. Bugs find ways in, through vents, on people, etc.. and once inside they breed like crazy with usually very few predators to counter them.

I take my pepper plants indoor during the winters. Come spring, aphid always find a way inside. I usually buy lady bugs, but another grower might use pesticide.

I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed

That is completely untrue. Sure, some organic farmers do the whole crop rotation thing, planting stuff like clover in place of a food crop in a certain plot every other year, but that isn't how most people producing organic products do it. Most of them just use organic counter-parts to things like pesticide and fertilizer and nothing else changes. No extra land, no major differences in methods, etc.. For instance, http://www.bridgetownorganics.com/ . I'm selling that right now to farms that used to be non-organic, but wanted certain fields to be certified organic, so they replaced their non-organic sources of N with our product (not sure what they used for pesticide).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[jwhitener]

You have a lot of good points. But lower bug pressure isn't one of them. I take my pepper plants indoors to over-winter each year, and come spring, they always end up with aphids. And they are down in my basement, with no windows. I use a grow light.

I suppose it would be possible if you built it like a chip factory: air tight doors with increased indoor air pressure, all venting has fine screens, all people have to change clothes to enter the grow room, etc.. pretty expensive setup.

I think one other great point for indoor growing is as a means to eliminate food deserts in city centers and/or just to let city people learn to garden and learn to enjoy fresh food. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846 Community gardens, shared space, or even rented space, would be great for some buildings. Think if a sky scraper turned a floor or two floors into indoor growing areas. They could sell the products, or rent the space to the city or people, etc..

Also, as population rises, growing in towers may end up complimenting traditional farming. The sears tower is 4,560,217 ft, which amounts to about 9 acres of possible farming surface. But that is only the floor space. I bet each floor could hold multiple racks. tomatoes, 2 racks. Corn, one rack, potatoes, 6 racks, etc..

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'?

[delt0r]

Oh my god. Go and work on a farm and see what its really like. Conspiracy much? Shesh the corporate seed monopoly whatever.. Guess how much we bother storing seed for next season. You don't cus its sooo bloody cheap to buy stuff that is practically pregerminated. And its not the seed that determines how much spray you need. Its how many/much pests/fungus you have.

Often organic certified pesticides and herbicides require more since they are less effective.

Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Irate Engineer]

The new 234m facility, one of the world’s largest, will concentrate its research to optimize growth recipes for leafy vegetables, strawberries and herbs.

Hmm, what kind of herbs ?

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[WillAffleckUW]

The new 234m facility, one of the world’s largest, will concentrate its research to optimize growth recipes for leafy vegetables, strawberries and herbs.

Hmm, what kind of herbs ?

Depends on which state or province.

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Archangel Michael]

Very Unstable Herbs!

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Basil." It's for, like, "basil" man. It even says so, like, in the summary, man.

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[msobkow]

I thought "Basil" was the dealer's name... :P

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Jane Q. Public]

Hmm, what kind of herbs ?

I think it's fair to assume, at first anyway, that it will be used less to grow 900 pots of basil, than 900 basils of pot.

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[johanw]

I don't think so, this is in the beginning much too expensive for that. You loose the equipment if there is a police raid so you try to limit the equipment costs as much as posible. That is why LED lights are not used very much in that sector too. They usually tap power illegally before the meter so more power consumption is no consideration (as long as the power lines are able to handle it).

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

More herby solutions can be found as can be seen from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02vzssm

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking high?

Everyone uses LEDs to grow pot now.

Re:Growing Herbs in the Netherlands?

[Agripa]

Hmm, what kind of herbs ?

Does it matter? You may still be arrested for possession of marijuana if caught with a baggy of them. Hydroponic equipment is only good enough to justify a SWAT raid.

lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.

I'm a big fan of urban farming but... the real trick with that is going to be using the "sun" to grow stuff.

Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.

So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about. Large insulated ground to ceiling windows facing south in the northern hemisphere and north in the southern hemisphere... with the idea that the whole sun facing portion of every building be filled with plants.

Permaculture is something that has to be looked at and ideally looked at from the context of urban gardening. Most food producing plants are bred for maximum production with maximum sunlight. Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded. And that has to be taken into consideration with the sorts of plants you choose to plant.

Then you've got hydroponics... which is a great idea for indoor farming because you have fewer issues with insects and can control things a little more tightly.

Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Mr D from 63]

So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about.

Where are we gonna put the solar panels?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[ArcadeMan]

What about using sunlight everywhere you want? Shouldn't we be able to do rows upon rows of farming using light tubes?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[TWX]

Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.

I don't think that you're correct. Food production and the supply chain is the most important part of a society after access to potable water. Places where land is hideously expensive want to maximize the yield per acre, and if they can get the energy production cost along with the equipment cost down below what it costs to do it the old-fashioned way, and can also improve the consistency of the resulting crops, they may well be on to something. Think of places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and probably a whole slew of others where this would be economically viable even with the need to build structures from the ground up to do it in, where an interruption to the current food supply chain would have devastating results to the populace.

Don't forget that the sun provides more wavelengths than the plants use. Generating only the wavelengths that the plants use should mean energy efficiency.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

places where land is hideously expensive don't produce crops.

And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs.

As I said, throw a green house on top of the buildings... and consider turning the inside of the buildings themselves into duel use production. That will give you something viable.

This LED grow light concept?... no.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

Solar doesn't work for urban settings. You might as well go nuclear if you have that kind of population density.

The Suburbs can go solar. In urban areas its a waste.

The virtue of the urban gardening is that you can at least use it as a luxury good and you create more green space which might make people happy. With solar... All it is going to produce is electricity and there are better ways to do that for a big city than to put panels on teh roofs of large buildings.

It would work okay in Los Angeles... and sort of sprawly place. But in a proper urban setting?... pointless.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

Light tubes would need to carry a significant amount of the sun's energy. They generally don't. And if you're talking about a big building which is what we're talking about because we're talking about "urban" farming... how are you going to light pump down 5 floors with any effectiveness much less 20?

The best you're going to do is a green house on the roof and a if any side of the building actually gets real sun... maybe you can do farming on that side of the building if you're careful about what you plant.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

This LED grow light concept?... no.

I know, right? What are all those scientists, engineers and business experts at a huge multinational corporation thinking? If they only had you on their payroll, they could avoid blowing up the company on this harebrained scheme.

Why don't you send Phillips your resume and a cover letter outlining the idiocy of their project? I'm sure when one of their hiring managers checks into your background, you'll be placed on their board of directors. Problem solved.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[GerryGilmore]

As someone who as - in the past - grown pot indoors under lights and outdoors, there's no comparison. Growing outdoors, for every 10 seedlings, you're lucky to get one healthy plant - and it has a 50/50 chance of being a male, hence worthless. Indoors, you start with 10 seedlings and get 10 plants. The same 50/50 ratio of male and female, but you've got 5 instead of .5. Next, factor in the insect and animal damage outdoors and then the bud rot at harvest time, and indoor farming is far, far superior. Not sure about corn, but - fuck that! I can buy any type in the store I want. :-)

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would work okay in Los Angeles... and sort of sprawly place. But in a proper urban setting?... pointless.

Last time I checked, there are very very few places in the US that are "proper" urban settings. The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place". Perhaps you should re-think your assumptions.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[JoeMerchant]

You know, a big part of the appeal of "indoor farming" is that there aren't (m)any bugs inside. But, if you start growing massive amounts of foliage inside the building, sooner or later you will also be dealing with insect infestation(s).

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

If you do hydroponics then that's less of an issue. Most of the bugs need the soil. And the ones that don't can be dealt with by hitting them with some safe pesticides.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Firethorn]

That's what cellular construction would be for - the bugs get into one room, or maybe one building. You then do the equivalent of nuking that area, repairing whatever was broken that let the bugs in before hitting it with whatever's necessary to kill all the bugs, their eggs, etc... Then you restock/reseed.

But seriously, I've seen what they do in these rooms - they wear the same sort of clean-room gear people working in chip fabs wear.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Light tubes would need to carry a significant amount of the sun's energy. They generally don't. And if you're talking about a big building which is what we're talking about because we're talking about "urban" farming... how are you going to light pump down 5 floors with any effectiveness much less 20?

Those technological hurdles are already on their way to being solved.

The best you're going to do is a green house on the roof and a if any side of the building actually gets real sun... maybe you can do farming on that side of the building if you're careful about what you plant.

Assuming that technology grinds to a halt, then yes, a green house on the roof is probably the best we can expect.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

You weren't paying attention.

My examples had people growing inside. I was talking about green houses and stuff.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[JoeMerchant]

> the same sort of clean-room gear people working in chip fabs wear.

Yeah, that's gotta be more efficient than overalls and a flannel shirt, riding a tractor in a field...

People who think we're running out of farmland need to go to Nebraska, any part really, but Western Nebraska in particular. Just look at Google Earth to see what I mean.

I think people believe that plants just grow themselves, and they do, but there are so many things that can and do need attention in any kind of farming, that's the true cost of the food: the services of the farmer and the people who manufacture and maintain the farming equipment.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Firethorn]

Yeah, that's gotta be more efficient than overalls and a flannel shirt, riding a tractor in a field...

The places I'm thinking about humans don't go into much at all, most of it's robotic.

And while it's more expensive 'right now', consider the expense of growing crops in South America to ship up to the USA.

The economics of it is complex, to say the least. What it amounts to is that you're spending 200+ times as much per acre, but you're getting something like 100 times the productivity, lower shipping costs, and less ruined product by the time it reaches the stores.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

The US isn't the only place in the world and even if we do restrict our attention to the US, there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia).

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[pi_rules]

If you do hydroponics then that's less of an issue. Most of the bugs need the soil. And the ones that don't can be dealt with by hitting them with some safe pesticides.

I would disagree. The only greenhouse pests that need soil are fungus gnats and thrips. Fungus gnats can be taken care of by drying out the soil but even when left to run amok don't really cause serious damage. Thrips need to be killed though.

Meanwhile aphids, spider mites, broad mites and whitefly don't need any soil at all and they can cause some serious damage right quick. Good luck taking down most of them with "safe pesticides." Don't get me wrong, most of them can be handled safely but I wouldn't want them near my food at all.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[smaddox]

GaN-based LED's have only been commercially available since 1994, and only recently at a reasonable efficiency and price. Using LED's is quite different from using tungsten filament or gas discharge lamps (aka flourescent lamps).

As mentioned previously in these comments, plants only absorb a small fraction of the solar irradiation. For example, chlorophyll, the dye molecule used by many plants, only absorbs significantly in relatively narrow bands of the blue and red, corresponding to 2% of the total solar irradiant power.

It turns out that the bandwidth of these absorption peaks matches quite closely with the bandwidths of blue and red LED's operating near room temperature. Thus, even with 20% efficient LEDs the total power-to-plant-product efficiency can likely approach 100%. If you replace the plants with standard 18% efficient solar cells, you could feasibly have several layers of plants powered by the same footprint, although at a greatly increased capital cost.

If you add in the improved control over germination and growth afforded by an enclosed and highly-regulated environment, the economics might begin to make sense, especially considering the long lifetime of color-pure LED's (much longer than phosphor-converted LED's).

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

" For example, chlorophyll, the dye molecule used by many plants, only absorbs significantly in relatively narrow bands of the blue and red [wikipedia.org], corresponding to 2% of the total solar irradiant power."

WRONG.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/...

This is why you should never, EVER rely upon Wikipedia, people.

Guess why HPS lighting works so well for growing weed and other crops despite being extremely heavy in green output? It sure isn't the piss-piddly amount of red and orange coming from it, nor is it the huge amount of IR.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

We can just irradiate the crops with UVB and UVC light for pest control. LEDs and fluorescent tubes make that pretty easy to do.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

"And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs."

Sun = ~93 lumens per watt.

LED = ~220+ lumens per watt.

Try again when you're actually educated in the subject, okay?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

... *golf clap*

That was actually pretty funny.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Jack Griffin]

"And if you have ANY interest in doing this efficiently, then you'll use the sun and not LEDs."

Sun = ~93 lumens per watt.

LED = ~220+ lumens per watt.

Try again when you're actually educated in the subject, okay?

And what is the kwh cost for the Sun's energy compared with LEDs?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the US isn't the only place in the world. It is, however, the biggest market in the world. Just because you can rattle off a few high density urban areas in the US doesn't prove squat. The fact is the vast majority of population centers in the US are "sprawly" places.

BTW, thanks for proving your inability to resist replying to ACs. We all knew you wouldn't be able to show any discipline with regard to your stupid, ill conceived sig.

Re: lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet if we farmed almonds using the techniques I pioneered for medical pineapple we could get the water use down 89% compared to dumping it on the ground in 115F heat.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[HiThere]

It's not clear that using sunlight to grow things is the best approach for urban farming. In fact, unless you are doing rooftop farming it probably isn't.

The real question is, "have they solve the energy problem?" The reason this approach hasn't worked before except for suppliers to real gourmet restaurants is that it's too expensive. Largely this means it uses too much electricity. As a result, it's only been viable where you need extreme freshness.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

Nothing if you solar power the facility, like several hydro production facilities I've designed and helped construct have.

Re: lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think desert, Saudi Arabia. Think about places where desertification is occurring

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[swb]

I don't know what you can and can't grow with this technique (grains, corn, soybeans may be an issue), but doesn't the lack of shipping (ie, using what you grow within a 10 mile radius) factor into the larger aspect of energy efficiency?

It would seem that shipping produce thousands of miles, often in refrigerated shipping systems, would use more energy than LED lighting.

The problem of course is competing against the ship there-eat--elsewhere economic model now.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

Not really, the modern supply network is actually very efficient. People talk about how we import stuff from china being ineffcienty not realizing that we use big cargo ships that burn what is effectively industrial waste.

Those big cargo ships only burn fuel that has any other market besides as cargo ship fuel in the last 400 or so miles when they're coming into port. And that is only near countries like the US that will not permit cargo ships to burn that type of oil in their territory. So the ships burn the basically free sludge oil all the way until they get close... then shift over to something legal in US waters... then shift right back to sludge when they leave our territory.

And even if they didn't burn sludge the fuel cost of a big ship like that is a great deal less than you'd think. They're extremely energy efficient.

And that's just an example. The rest of the transport network is generally very efficient. Its why you get fruit from South America all year round that is cheap.

Seriously. If you're ACTUALLY serious about growing some serious food... then you need to make the cost of the lighting as close to ZERO as possible.

Sunlight is free. So that's one way to hit zero. Imagine a city of greenhouses. Every building a bubble of glass where the temperature under the glass never fell below freezing. We could do that and if anything lower our energy use. And every part of the bubble exposed to a reasonable amount of sunlight could support crop plants. And even the shaded areas could support shade plants.

Alternatively... duel use lighting. This is what I do in my own home in places I want to grow plants but don't have the lighting to do it. I have a 10k lumen LED grow light... 6500k... it isn't the blue/red LEDs because it has a duel use. My intention is to light a room with it in addition to making some pepper plants really happy.

Now that light is on for 10-12 hours out of every day. So I can't claim to have neutralized the energy usage entirely. I'm not in that room for even half that time the light is on. But an urban city might be able to make that claim in its power budget. There are city lights for example that run all night. Maybe instead of blasting the light onto a street, they could illuminate grow beds and those grow beds could reflect enough light to light the area. My grow light is able to do that quite easily in the room it is in. The lighting in the room is a bit odd because the grow light is optimized to light the plant rather than the room. It does light the room completely.

And because it's an LED... power usage is about 100 watts for about 10k lumens.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

"Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind." Why? you just need empty spaces for tiers of hydroponic racks, a water feed, electricity for the LEDs and water pumps, they generally all come with a building (depending on the building type) You can only get a fixed amount out of 1m square on a farm but with this system you could have 3 tiers of 1m square. When you are only supplying local, you don't need monster farms that are susceptible to being damaged from freak weather patterns. its never going to replace farms but if you live in an area where you can only grow for part of the year, its going to be very useful.

"This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing" there are a few greenhouse farms in the UK testing these systems out and they can now grow tomatoes all year. Visit youtube and check some of the reports on the success of these LED farms

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

You need to read the article - https://www.youtube.com/user/P... is worth checking out and so is this http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-... - produces 10,000 heads of lettuce a day in a 25,000 square foot (roughly half a football field) indoor farm. just in case you don't want to go to this page about the farm, here is a quote from it.

"To that end, the farm uses 17,500 LED lights spread across 18 cultivation racks, each towering 16 levels high. Combined with tightly modulated temperature and humidity levels within the grow room, this system has already shown significant advantages over outdoor farms since coming online earlier this year: Produce waste has been cut from 50 percent of a harvest to just 10, productivity per square foot has increased 100 fold, and water usage has been slashed to just 1 percent of what a conventional farm would consume."

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

"This LED grow light concept?... no." i think you'll find the answer is YES - http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-...

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

Agree to install nuclear power for the city and your idea becomes more practical. Frustrate such installations and it doesn't.

You can grow food all year around in greenhouses as it is without any of that nonsense. You're English? Have you ever heard of Kew Gardens?... You know... the Royal Botanical garden? You're talking about doing something that the Victorians did more efficiently with glass and steam boilers.

The trick to 4 seasons green houses is to build the green house so you don't even need to run the boiler. Geothermal heat is a big thing that people should be dealing more with at this point. the temperature in the earth is something like 56F or so degrees everywhere all year around. Which means in the winter... at night... you can exchange air in the green house through the ground and effectively get 56 degree air even if its 20 degrees outside the green house.

Once the sun comes up, even in the winter... most green houses will have no problem self heating just from the sun. In fact, most green houses in the winter during the day will have to vent heat.

I've seen some green houses that instead of venting in the winter will instead pump air from the top of the green house into a network of pipes under the green house to effectively sink the heat in the ground under the green house. So when the sun goes down, the heat sinked during the day, radiates through the ground back into the green house... enough that it stays above freezing.

Obviously you want a back up heating system. But if everything is properly designed it shouldn't be required more than once every few years and only for a day or so. The rest of the time simply running some fans to push air around should be enough.

Another idea is to use solar water heaters. A large tank of water is sometimes heated to near boiling using solar water heaters and then water is circulated from that tank when temperatures drop too low.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

I'm not saying it again... this has grown tedious. I'm not comparing your LED scheme to outdoor growing. I'm comparing it to greenhouse growing.

Even so, if you want to compare against outdoor growing... yes, location matters for outdoor growing as does season. But if agricultural land is not that expensive and if you are a competent farmer than the seasons don't bother you.

Outdoor growing remains the most efficient.

That said, I personally prefer greenhouse growing because it is less labor intensive and has duel use benefits in that you can merge a green house with a home which lets you send the waste heat from your house into the green house while the green house can give you an all seasons indoor garden.

Ideally you want to set the green house up so that you sit out there and read... or have dinner with family amongst the plants. That is, not just have it be an industrial green house but be a real part of the home. More of a manicured garden with a roof and climate control.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

We'll see. Some of these projects you're showing me smell of advertising campaigns to sell over priced LEDs more than anything. I mean... here's another question... why would I buy LEDs from these people when their cost structure is probably not competitive with cheaper LED manufacturers that are really selling the same product?

I've put together some LED arrays before. It isn't hard... and the LEDs are idiotically cheap if you source through ebay.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

Wrong... you have to factor the cost, maintenance, depreciation, and subsidies of the solar facility.

It is the opposite of free.

Solar remains one of the more expensive ways to produce power.

I'm all for it in theory... In practice, I often have problems with it. Mostly in that there is a lot of graft in that industry since nothing has to even break even. Its all riding high on a bubble of very very heavy subsidies.

Something a lot people don't get is that big business LOVES the environmental movement at this point. Why? Because they can build all sorts of stuff and so long as its green... they can inflate the cost structure and get long term tax breaks and subsidies.

Its why you're seeing companies like GE go all in for green projects. The profits are crazy when you're mostly selling to the government.

My ideal solar implementation is in suburban and rural areas where people own and maintain their own panels without subsidies. I'm less of a fan of the solar farms unless they can do so without subsidies.

Here someone will point out that other energy industries get subsidies too... you have to compare them as a ratio to each industry. The difference is like a 100 to 1... they're not comparable.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

Just because you can rattle off a few high density urban areas in the US doesn't prove squat. The fact is the vast majority of population centers in the US are "sprawly" places.

That would be fine, if your comment mattered. It isn't the number of high density urban areas that creates the market, but the many millions of people in those spots. I didn't rattle off a few high density urban areas, I rattled off a few large markets.

BTW, thanks for proving your inability to resist replying to ACs. We all knew you wouldn't be able to show any discipline with regard to your stupid, ill conceived sig.

I'm not Karmashock, but maybe he's got a really good point.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would think it would work to fill the area with CO2 and just asphyxiate the bugs. It isn't like the CO2 would harm the plants. These places seem to be fairly automated so flooding the area every few months would just be part of regular maintenance and make it clear to all employees that this will happen on the last Sunday in every month with only 30 days a 3:00 AM or something like that so that they know not to be there.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

"Wrong... you have to factor the cost, maintenance, depreciation, and subsidies of the solar facility."

Far, FAR less than the cost of the tractor you would need to harvest a flat field of land 8 times the size since you didn't bother going indoor vertical farming.

Maintenance? Deprecation? It's called a well-built system. My solar installs are guaranteed and warrantied for 50 years of no-fuss usability. Payback time - 6 months to a year.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[3.5 stripes]

Dual use, you're not using it to grow plants and shoot the person who insulted your mother.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[3.5 stripes]

1. Grow feminized plants.. 100% female.
2. Look into spraying aspirin dissolved in water, it's salicylic acid, the same chemical plants use to indicate attack, and will help repel pests and mold quite well.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[3.5 stripes]

From what I can tell, having grown under both, it has more to do with the single centralized source (as opposed to distributed) of photons which have much better penetrative power..

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

Do you have any information to support that position?

Because I'm pretty sure people have been farming in muddy fields with the economic input of some cowshit and manual labor for tens of thousands of years.

We do things outside because it is the cheapest method.

you've got free sunlight... agricultural land is CHEAP. You build away from anything else... why do you think some factory space near a city is going to have remotely comparable realestate prices to some field in the middle of Iowa or Kentucky or wherever? You find cheap land with good sun, good soil, and access to water... and you farm it. We have a massive... and very efficient agro business sector. I don't know why you think they're this incompetent at their jobs that they wouldn't do things in the best possible way.

I think this sort of thing makes the most sense for small growers... home growers... maybe specialty growers that can get a higher price. But the economics can't work out if you're selling your products to a canning plant or something. And that tells you that you need that higher price to remain viable.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Coren22]

When the aquifer in Nebraska dries up, all those farms will turn into dust.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

"Do you have any information to support that position?"

Which COUNTRY/CONTINENT would you like to contact and ask about my production systems? Morocco? Yemen? UK? Eastern Australia? Hong Kong? Japan? USA?

I can give you contact information to any of those. It's my job as a GLOBAL research director.

"Because I'm pretty sure people have been farming in muddy fields with the economic input of some cowshit and manual labor for tens of thousands of years."

Yep, they have, and it's very, VERY inefficient and wasteful.

"We do things outside because it is the cheapest method."

Not even close. We can drop water, land, and nutrient usage by UP TO 99% versus land methods, depending upon crop.

"you've got free sunlight... agricultural land is CHEAP. You build away from anything else... why do you think some factory space near a city is going to have remotely comparable realestate prices to some field in the middle of Iowa or Kentucky or wherever? You find cheap land with good sun, good soil, and access to water... and you farm it. We have a massive... and very efficient agro business sector. I don't know why you think they're this incompetent at their jobs that they wouldn't do things in the best possible way."

Free sunlight which plants are terribly inefficient at absorbing. Agricultural land which requires huge machines to maintain and harvest. Then you forget the damage that most farmers do - planting the same crop which inevitably makes the field useless for that crop without proper crop rotation, which costs money because a different crop to replenish your soil might bring in far less yield and money.

Then you say Agro business - that's for cattle and livestock, not HORTICULTURAL, which is for plants. And no, it's NOT efficient at all. They are incompetent at their jobs. Oprah wasn't just taking jabs at the beef industry for no fucking reason.

"I think this sort of thing makes the most sense for small growers... home growers... maybe specialty growers that can get a higher price. But the economics can't work out if you're selling your products to a canning plant or something."

When you can produce the same crop at equal to or less than half-price of current traditional farming methods, your supposed economic lesson falls apart.

Try again. There is a BIG reason the world is moving towards this sort of production - quality, consistency, reliability, fewer pest problems, and MUCH MORE.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[jedidiah]

Chicago? Are you kidding? Chicago sprawls through several states. It's much more like Los Angeles. I bet Phily is the same way too.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

info from the US would be the most easily audited... you can provide your cost calculations.

If any of it appears valid then I'll personally start farming this way... no really.

I've low expectations of your ability to validate anything so I'm not checking with the bank to see what kind of loan i can get. But... hit me with your info.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[JoeMerchant]

A lot of Western Nebraska grows without irrigation - just relying on rainfall. Yields are lower per acre, but land is cheeeeeeep.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't rattle off a few high density urban areas, I rattled off a few large markets.

Well then it's your comment that doesn't matter, because GGGP's contention is about the suitability of this tech is based on density. In any event, your original statement:

"even if we do restrict our attention to the US, there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia)."

makes no mention of markets, large or otherwise. You specifically use the phrase "dense urban centers".

I'm not Karmashock, but maybe he's got a really good point.

I'd say it's kinda hard to tell the difference between you, given how you're trying to re-write your words. Maybe you should hang out at a site that allows you to edit your posts. You might be better able to hide putting your foot in your mouth.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

"I'm not saying it again... this has grown tedious. I'm not comparing your LED scheme to outdoor growing. I'm comparing it to greenhouse growing." - it beats both if you pick the correct crop to grow.

"Outdoor growing remains the most efficient." - i don't think it does if you pick the correct crop, can you crop 10,000 lettuces a day in 25000 sq ft outside?

i agree with you about home greenhouse scenario but if i had enough space, i'd have both because i'd want 365 day growing capability

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

of course its not hard. they've worked out the best color lighting for each type of crop to get the best from it so once you know that, you can build to your hearts content.

Yes, it is being promoted by Phillips who make LEDs but they are not the only supplier. Its a pretty good idea to showcase other uses for your products.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

i think most of the industrial greenhouses already pump a certain amount of CO2 into them.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Barsteward]

yep, these LED greenhouses are using hydroponics, its an efficient way to get economies of scale

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outdoor growing remains the most efficient.

Except that GP just cited an example of an indoor farm using led lighting where "Produce waste has been cut from 50 percent of a harvest to just 10, productivity per square foot has increased 100 fold, and water usage has been slashed to just 1 percent of what a conventional farm would consume." You must have a very strange notion of the meaning of "efficient".

I know you're not big on reading things that don't conform to your per-conceived notions, bet here's another example of the undeniable success of Philips' led tech. Guess what? It's in Chicago.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of these projects you're showing me smell of advertising campaigns to sell over priced LEDs more than anything.

One of the signs that you're losing an argument is when you start in with your lame conspiracy theories.

I mean... here's another question... why would I buy LEDs from these people when their cost structure is probably not competitive with cheaper LED manufacturers that are really selling the same product?

First, did you even read TFA? Phillips (and GE for that matter) are marketing specialized LED systems designed for vertical farming. They aren't trying out new uses for their commodity products.

Second, why don't you try naming ONE other competitor to Phillips/GE in this space. When you're done with that, give us some data on their cost structure for these products compared to GE/Phillips. If you can't, then STFU.

I've put together some LED arrays before. It isn't hard... and the LEDs are idiotically cheap if you source through ebay.

I guess that's why you're running around this thread poo pooing this promising new technology. You got some LEDs on ebay and your little project didn't pan out for you.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

Well then it's your comment that doesn't matter, because GGGP's contention is about the suitability of this tech is based on density.

And I rattled off a few large markets that achieve that density. Game, set, match. I don't care that the markets only cover a modest fraction rather than all of the US's population.

makes no mention of markets, large or otherwise. You specifically use the phrase "dense urban centers".

Now, you know that I intended all along to imply the existence of the markets.

I'd say it's kinda hard to tell the difference between you, given how you're trying to re-write your words. Maybe you should hang out at a site that allows you to edit your posts. You might be better able to hide putting your foot in your mouth.

I imagine you have that trouble with everyone. Just because we disagree and I have elaborated at your request doesn't mean that I'm rewriting my words or even trying to. I simply filled you on why I wrote what I wrote.

And really, this is why having an account is useful. I could then read your account name and decide for myself whether it was worth the trouble to respond to you.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[SMTB1963]

... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.

I can't find any pot growers on youtube using wavelength tuned LEDs to grow weed in a vertical farm.

Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.

The facilities used for vertical farming are frequently abandoned factories or unused warehouses. Building modification costs are negligible.

Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded.

Using wavelength tuned LED systems in vertical farms eliminates those factors.

Then you've got hydroponics...

Growing plants without soil is a lot more expensive that growing plants with soil.

Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.

They're not just thinking about selling their product, vertical farms with LED lighting are already in operation around the world. With Phillips recently demonstrating a 68% efficient LED, vertical farms will become commonplace as costs decline and technology improves.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I rattled off a few large markets that achieve that density. Game, set, match. I don't care that the markets only cover a modest fraction rather than all of the US's population.

LOL, game, set, match? Try not to be such an adolescent. In any case, in response to

very few places in the US that are "proper" urban settings. The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

your wrote

there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia).

Now, if you really think that listing a few big cities in the US somehow refutes the claim that the US is overwhelmingly dominated by sprawl...well, there's probably not much that can be done to help you.

Now, you know that I intended all along to imply the existence of the markets.

You mean now that you've changed the meaning of your original statement? OK! But...I still don't see what "markets" have to do with urban sprawl in the US. Perhaps you can make up something new so we can have an understanding of what you intended to imply this time.

I imagine you have that trouble with everyone.

Nope, just people who have trouble with logic and the ability to write clearly.

And really, this is why having an account is useful. I could then read your account name and decide for myself whether it was worth the trouble to respond to you.

Well I suppose you've shown a reason why me signing up for an account is good for you...what is it I get out of it again?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US isn't the only place in the world and even if we do restrict our attention to the US, there are a number of dense urban centers (eg, New York City, Chicago, and Philadelphia).

Citing a few examples of dense urban centers in the US doesn't mean the country as a whole isn't predominated by sprawl. Unless you're the one who's dense.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"info from the US would be the most easily audited."

Not even fucking close. Most aren't using such an advantageous setup like I've designed.

"If any of it appears valid then I'll personally start farming this way... no really."

You're five years behind already at minimum. Get on it or shut the fuck up.

"I've low expectations of your ability to validate anything so I'm not checking with the bank to see what kind of loan i can get. But... hit me with your info."

Most banks won't talk to me because I make ZERO money for them and all the money is made for those using my technology. So at that point and time, it's all up to you, because the banks are PROVEN to not want to look out for your well-being.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, let me go ahead and put you in a proper place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6bTSJVLCVI

Deuces/Discuss.

You sure you wanna argue with someone that does this across the planet?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

You wrote earlier:

The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

As I demonstrated, that is not true. There's at least 5% of the US (in the areas I mentioned) which lives or works in areas with much higher population density than suburban sprawl. A counterexample trumps a universal assertion.

Further, we haven't even discussed that the vast majority of the US by land area doesn't even have the "sort of sprawly" population density of suburban sprawl. By the argument you've put out before, that means we don't need to consider any sort of high density technology at all. After all, most of the US is farms, wilderness, and water.

You've also genuinely engaged in the sort of "re-writing" that you futilely accuse me of. Perhaps you recall this rewrite of a few replies ago:

Yeah, the US isn't the only place in the world. It is, however, the biggest market in the world.

You are ignoring 80-85% of the world's economic activity and around 95% of the world's population by brushing off the rest of the world.

In addition, when bandying around claims of "biggest market", we need to consider biggest market for what? For example, I think we can all agree that the US probably will be punching well below its weight for urban farming due to the moderate sprawl of most of the US population. China, Japan, and the EU won't. I would consider each of those regions taken separately bigger markets for urban farming than the US.

And one doesn't need hundreds of millions of customers in order to successfully install and operate an urban farm. If urban farming is practical, then it'll be practical on the very ample US markets I already mentioned, which have around 10-15 million people in total. If it isn't practical, then it doesn't matter if the market is 10 million people or 350 million people.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

Every city sprawls to some degree. That doesn't mean that the urban centers have suburban population densities.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

Citing a few examples of dense urban centers in the US doesn't mean the country as a whole isn't predominated by sprawl.

Most of the US is predominated by much lower population densities than suburban sprawl. And I was replying to a universal assertion not a predominate one:

The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

Now we see that the assertion was false.

And really, we don't need everyone on board with urban farming in order for there to be a market for it. For example, not everyone surfs, yet somehow there are plenty of surfboard businesses out there. It'll depend on how profitable these urban farming businesses are (which in turn depends on the pricing of the products they sell) as to how large a market will be needed to sustain them.

For example, there's been a lot of joking about "herbs" and "basil" (namely, the marijuana plant) in this discussion. But in a high population density area where marijuana is legalized and hypothetically for sale at current legalized marijuana prices, then an urban farm would easily be supported - that is, it should be able to command a high profit per area/volume used.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If any of it appears valid then I'll personally start farming this way... no really."

Would you accept us being on the BBC as proof?

"I've low expectations of your ability to validate anything"

Understandable. Only large-scale companies have the ability to pay the 'real' research journal publications. How about you come talk to me, get your questions answered, and go home with technology that will demonstrate exactly how my research works? A 55 gallon tank for regular fish takes about 250W of Metal Halide...

I've got equivalent PFD using 60W LED+ fan blowing thru a hollow heat sink. At equivalent CCT - ~5500K.

I really suggest you see for yourself before using numbers currently available. Would you like my address? I'll post it here for you and anyone else that would like to come see. My prior post history shows that I'm not scared to put my address out there to prove a point. In fact, I think a prior post already has my current address in it.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Forty Two Tenfold]

This is why you should never, EVER rely upon Wikipedia, people.

[...] in STRONG WHITE light [...]

This is why you should read more carefully.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, check this out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o9LiRIRSgI

Yup, even local yokels can do this easily.

OMFG the captcha - redneck.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Khyber]

Hrm, for some reason, despite being logged in for this session, /. forgot my cookies.

Anyways, the offer still stands.

Let's just get it out of the way.

4555 Pine Street, Unit 4-C
Riverside, CA, 92501

Come on over. I should have my new medical marijuana test grow underway by then, if you do actually show.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote earlier:

The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

As I demonstrated, that is not true. There's at least 5% of the US (in the areas I mentioned) which lives or works in areas with much higher population density than suburban sprawl. A counterexample trumps a universal assertion.

Do you honestly think no one notices that you lopped off the first part of that quote (which I didn't write, BTW)? There was no "universal assertion" in the original claim, it was and is clearly qualified. What a clumsily, transparent attempt at trying to turn the original claim into something it's not. Let's remind you of the actual quote in it's entirety:

...there are very very few places in the US that are "proper" urban settings. The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

Listing a few large cities doesn't refute the above argument, and that's all you did. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Now you're trying to say that you refuted an argument that clearly was not made. Not only that, you're posting that BS elsewhere in this thread. Pretty weak, dude. Weak and dishonest.

[sumpthin sumpthin... density technology... sumpthin]
[sumpthin sumpthin... "re-writing"sumpthin]
[sumpthin sumpthin... brushing off the rest of the world... sumpthin]
[sumpthin sumpthin... install and operate an urban farm... sumpthin]

More lame attempts at misdirection. You can continue to tack all that shit onto your replies, just don't pretend I've debated any of it with you.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

I don't doubt you can do that in your room in your apartment. I have a large pepper crop in my home that is largely kept healthy by an LED array I built.

However, I wouldn't pretend my pepper garden is commercially viable.

I bought 10 dollars worth of organic pesticide today. Mostly strong smelling plant oils... my house sort of smells like peppermint mixed with garlic right now. The point is that what do you think my peppers will ultimately be worth when it comes time for harvest? I might get something between seven and ten pounds of peppers this year. Total up what I spend keeping the peppers happy every year and it would be MUCH cheaper to just buy fresh peppers from the store.

I can't compete with commercial operations and that is without counting my personal labor into it because I count it all as entertainment.

My home is full of edible perennials. But do you know what portion of my diet is sustained by all this stuff? Less than a percent of a percent. And my house is FULL of edible plants.

It gets better though because I've even tried the whole sprouting thing. I got pretty good at it. I still bake sprouted wheat berries into my bread, I have sprouted mung beans in my stir fry, and when I make sandwiches... I use alfalfa sprouts.

But it makes up a relatively tiny portion of my diet. Practically everything I eat comes from the store just like everyone else.

And even if I were growing enough just to feed myself... and using canning and freezing to preserve large harvests so I could have something to eat when something wasn't being actively harvested... it would both consume all of my time and I really doubt I'd be saving any money because I'd be spending as much or possibly more on stuff to keep the garden going... and then because that's not bad enough, I can't promise that the quality of those crops would be consistent.

Look... I went through this explanation so you could get past the purity tests and grasp that I would like all these things to work. I really would.

The problem is that in so far as I understand the numbers they do not.

I think you can make green house growing work for tomatoes in certain markets where tehy can't grow them for large portions of the year. But that is assuming SUNLIGHT.

I'm not counting weed here because that is a product that is only so valuable because it is mostly illegal. It is artificially expensive. If it were fully legalized the Tobacco companies have been gearing up for YEARS to jump on that bandwagon. Imagine fields of planted weed that go on for MILES.

When agro business really gets serious about that the price of it is going to crash so hard that these closet pot farms aren't going to make any more sense economically than my pepper plants. You can still do it... but you'll be doing it for fun like me.

To really produce commercially you need ACREAGE. You think stacking your crops on top of each other and bathing them in little beams of LED light is going to get you parity but you don't appreciate how much cheaper it is to just till the earth, jam seeds into it, then spray water over the top... Miles upon miles of crop land that way of whatever you want to grow.

Look at a Hawaiian pineapple farm. you can't compete or green house that competitively.

Tomatoes you might get away with because they're really iffy plants that are damaged easily by almost anything and every pest imaginable likes to eat them. So you green house them because they're nature's sissy. but even then I wouldn't buy those LEDs and then pay the electrical bill to power those things when I could just use the sun to do it. If you live really far north or really far south and you can't get decent sun... then you're not in a good location to grow that crop.

As to growing things on other planets. The economics and logistics of that situation are not comparable. You can't truck in fresh supplies every week if you're on mars. On earth though... you can. And often as not that is the most efficient way to do it.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

You put in the vertical qualifier like it is difficult to stack shit on top of each other.

There are plenty of pot growers that use "wavelength tuned" LEDs to grow pot.

Give me a fucking break. In fact... just fuck me. That comment was so painfully annoying in its obtuseness that I deserve a blowjob just to take my mind off f'ing dumb that vertical qualifier was...

As to abandoned factories... go turn Detroit into the salad bowl of America then... what are you waiting for?

I don't want to hear about the fucking blue and red LEDs anymore like that is some kind of recent innovation. That has been going on for ages.

As to hydroponics being more expensive than soil... not as expensive as fucking LEDs. But that sure isn't stopping you is it?

As to costs declining... Sun light is free... good luck with your cost structure competiting with that. Here you're going to say "but in this urban factory blight area"... I'm sure... but you're not competiting against farms in other fucking factories. You're competiting against a sunny field some where with an unobstructed view of the sky, long clear days, good irrigation, and of course a global transit system that can move that produce anywhere in the world pretty damn cheaply pretty damn quick.

I am literally fucking sitting here chopping up a pineapple that was grown in Hawaii. I believe it cost me 4 dollars. Have fun with your revolution sport. I rather suspect the Empire will surprise you with a fully operational agro business battle station. :D

https://youtu.be/ZuPe-ly0BHM?t...

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[SMTB1963]

You put in the vertical qualifier like it is difficult to stack shit on top of each other.

I didn't put in the vertical qualifier, the referenced articles did.

There are plenty of pot growers that use "wavelength tuned" LEDs to grow pot.

None of them appear to be on youtube.

Give me a fucking break. In fact... just fuck me. That comment was so painfully annoying in its obtuseness that I deserve a blowjob just to take my mind off f'ing dumb that vertical qualifier was...

You really shouldn't let yourself get so easily upset.

As to costs declining... Sun light is free... good luck with your cost structure competiting with that. Here you're going to say "but in this urban factory blight area"... I'm sure... but you're not competiting against farms in other fucking factories. You're competiting against a sunny field some where with an unobstructed view of the sky, long clear days, good irrigation, and of course a global transit system that can move that produce anywhere in the world pretty damn cheaply pretty damn quick.

Vertical farms have been up and running profitably in countries across the world for some time now.

I am literally fucking sitting here chopping up a pineapple that was grown in Hawaii. I believe it cost me 4 dollars.

You're a clever guy. Perhaps you could figure a way to use that pineapple to relieve some of that pent up sexual frustration you frequently experience.

Have fun with your revolution sport. I rather suspect the Empire will surprise you with a fully operational agro business battle station. :D

How'd the Empire in your Star Wars reference turn out? Weren't those high and mighty dark side douchebags taken out by a small force of teddy bears?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

I'm not upset so much as disappointed.

I asked for a US source to back up your position. I got a vague puff piece about someone doing it in the UK instead which wouldn't even be meaningful anyway... there was no information in it to audit the economics.

What I suspect with these things is that they get a lot of subsidy money or they charge a lot more at the market for the produce. That means they're not competitive.

If you have to get money from the government and you need to charge your consumer more than you're not selling the same product... and it could be argued that you're more in the business of getting welfare than you are in actually producing anything.

I want to know what they're spending on things and what their output of produce looks like. I can compare that to a standard agro business farm sitting in an open field under the sun. And then... apples to apples... we can see if your concept is competitive.

It won't be. But I'll keep an open mind and look at the data if you ever get around to posting it.

Alternatively... I can look it up for you and then post the information in black and white here.

Your choice.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[SMTB1963]

I'm not upset so much as disappointed.

I asked for a US source to back up your position. I got a vague puff piece about someone doing it in the UK instead which wouldn't even be meaningful anyway... there was no information in it to audit the economics.

What are you talking about? When did you ask for a source? To back up what position?

Your response appears to be directed at someone else - but I'll go ahead and make a few comments anyway.

What I suspect with these things is that they get a lot of subsidy money or they charge a lot more at the market for the produce. That means they're not competitive.

Your suspicions of subsidies are pure speculation. Furthermore, if a farmer can charge more for his produce at the market, how is that not being competitive? Hasn't the market determined his product is superior to the competition, or at least price-competitive?

Besides, all sorts of farm products and producers already get subsidies, including your agrobusiness Death Stars...does that mean they aren't competitive? Does that mean they're on welfare?

If that is the case, isn't subsidizing vertical farms leveling the competitive playing field?

... we can see if your concept is competitive.

It won't be. But I'll keep an open mind and look at the data if you ever get around to posting it.

It won't be? Sounds to me like you've already got your mind made up. Hardly the posture you would expect of an open mind.

Alternatively... I can look it up for you and then post the information in black and white here.

Actually, I think it would be an excellent idea for you to do some research on your own. You probably won't have to speculate as much, and you can provide some outside data to back up your positions.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the US is predominated by much lower population densities than suburban sprawl. And I was replying to a universal assertion not a predominate one:

The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

Now we see that the assertion was false.

Nice slight of hand trick on that quote. Now you see it, now you don't...well done!

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Karmashock]

If you have to charge more to make ends meet then you're providing a luxury good and not a staple.

Staples have to be competitive with the bottom line.

So you're competing with the general agro industry or you're not.

One... or... the Other.

if you're not then you're not replacing anything.

If you are... then you need to be able to make ends meet at their prices.

Again, I just bought a pineapple for 4 dollars that was grown in hawaii. You're not competing with that using urban growing unless you use the sun. None of this LED shit. You can't match their cost structure if you're maintaining all that.

As to subsidies being speculation... Every "green" project I've ever seen has only been viable because of subsidization. Its why the corporations LOVE the environmental movement. So much easy government money.

As to open minds... you don't know what having an open mind means. It doesn't mean not having opinions. It means being open to correction and change. I'm growing disinterested in your judgements the more your reveal how absurdly ignorant you are...

As to me doing research... I'll probably have to since I'm apparently the only one that knows how do it. You people are so tiresome.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have to charge more to make ends meet then you're providing a luxury good and and not a staple

So now you're moving the goalposts to staple produce. Fine. I'll take that as an admission you concede vertical farms can be profitable in the "luxury" produce market (whatever that means).

I'll also have to conclude that you consider lettuce to be a luxury product. Because that's what a lot of these operations are growing.

Again, I just bought a pineapple for 4 dollars that was grown in hawaii. You're not competing with that using urban growing unless you use the sun.

No one here is talking about pineapples but you. Do you really think you're proving anything by talking about a single fruit?

As to subsidies being speculation... Every "green" project I've ever seen has only been viable because of subsidization.

Anecdotes prove nothing.

Its why the corporations LOVE the environmental movement. So much easy government money.

I guess you concede that your agrodeathstars are also uncompetitive because they are on welfare. Good for you!

As to open minds... you don't know what having an open mind means.

Yeah, it means not having preconceived notions. You literally led off your sentence with an unequivocal "it won't". Looks like you are the one who doesn't know what the meaning of "having an open mind" is.

As to me doing research... I'll probably have to since I'm apparently the only one that knows how do it.

Then get on it. You're wasting everyone's time with your unsupported bloviations.

You people are so tiresome.

Speaking of tiresome, do you always have to start your paragraphs with "As to"?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

which I didn't write, BTW

Let us note that part of the reason for this thread getting to where it is now was some whiny snippet about why Karmashock never reads AC posts by someone who couldn't be bothered to check if they were replying to Karmashock and assumed I was Karmashock. Now, we see the number one problem with posting AC, no one can tell AC apart. An AC wrote that quote and an AC is verbally abusing me now. If you really were different from the previous AC, then you should have said something.

Do you honestly think no one notices that you lopped off the first part of that quote

You mean the weasel phrase "there are very very few places in the US that are 'proper' urban settings." that preceded the universal statement? I sure hope people notice, now that you've brought attention to it. Aside from the very very few cases where I fail hard, I always win these sorts of arguments. Heh.

Listing a few large cities doesn't refute the above argument, and that's all you did. You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Now you're trying to say that you refuted an argument that clearly was not made. Not only that, you're posting that BS elsewhere in this thread. Pretty weak, dude. Weak and dishonest.

Again, universal statements are disproved by counterexamples. And concerning someone's, possibly your, weaseling, these "very very few large cities" though few in number are naturally enormous counterexamples. We are speaking of a lot of people in these urban centers. It is dishonest to say there's only a few ("very very few" seems to indicate something much more scarce than just a few, doesn't it?) while neglecting the size of them.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

Universal statements, even those preceded by weasel phrases, are disproved by counterexamples.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

we use big cargo ships that burn what is effectively industrial waste.

Jesus, where do you get this stuff?

Bunker fuel isn't industrial waste, you fucking moron. Why do you continually pull shit out of your ass?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us note that par...

[sumpthin sumpthin...Karmashock...sumpthin]
[sumpthin sumpthin...AC posts...sumpthin]
[sumpthin sumpthin...[sniff] verbally abusing me...sumpthin]

More irrelevance. I guess the only difference this time is you tacked it to the beginning of your reply instead of the end. Nice work.

If you really were different from the previous AC, then you should have said something.

I did say something, and I said it immediately after you attributed the quote to me. Why are you whining about this?

You mean the weasel phrase "there are very very few places in the US that are 'proper' urban settings." that preceded the universal statement?

That's the one, alright.

Apparently you are unaware that arguments are rarely composed of a single sentence. Did you know that you have to consider an augment as a whole, without pulling language out of it in order to change it's meaning? Well now you know.

In the future, you should probably avoid taking pieces of an argument out of it's context so you can turn it into something it isn't. Now would be a good time to start. Continuing to try to make this argument just makes you look more foolish.

I always win these sorts of arguments. Heh.

LOL! Yes, you're very special.

Again, universal statements are disproved by counterexamples. And concerning someone's, possibly your, weaseling, these "very very few large cities" though few in number are naturally enormous counterexamples.

The only weaseling going on here is your sorry-assed attempts to show that a clearly qualified position is somehow really a universal claim.. If you really believe that this:

...there are very very few places in the US that are "proper" urban settings. The whole friggn' cuntry is a "and sort of sprawly place".

means "ALL urban areas in the US are urban sprawls", you would have made that stupid claim at the beginning. You didn't. You only brought it in after your other weak arguments failed.

Guess what? This new pathetic position of yours doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. The initial sentence of the post in question clearly sets the position that some US cities ARE "proper urban settings", so that qualifies the argument. Your insistence on saying the second (clearly hyperbolic) sentence trumps anything else in the post is just another sorry attempt at you clinging to a indefensible position.

But hey, if you want to continue to demonstrate your ignorance, I'm here for you!

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

ut hey, if you want to continue to demonstrate your ignorance, I'm here for you!

I'm not the one (or perhaps it's more than one?) posting a page full of crap every time.

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the one (or perhaps it's more than one?) posting a page full of crap every time.

Here's a fun fact: Number of words written (excluding quotes) in this exchange by:

AC - 785
khallow - 735

Looks like you're keeping up with the pace of crap just fine!

LOL, is this a demonstration of how you "always win these sorts of arguments. Heh."?

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[khallow]

I said "crap" not "words".

Re:lettice under LED grow lights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I said "crap" not "words".

If crap is measured by how many words are shoved into a page on completely irrelevant topics, then I believe you've won the crap war quite handily. If crap is measured by the weaknesses of your arguments - YOU'RE STILL A WINNER!

See, you actually did win something after all. Hold your head up high and be proud!

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

LED based hydroponics/aeroponics. That is all. Been doing this at home for a few years now...

Re:Nothing new

[viperidaenz]

Have you been tuning the wavelength to maximise growth and efficiency for each plant species?
Can you "churn out 900 pots of basil a year in just one square meter of floor space"?

Re:Nothing new

[Sulik]

I get the feeling he's growing only one specific type of "plant" for "medicinal" uses...

Re:Nothing new

[ihtoit]

a lot of dependencies in the answer:

How many plants per pot?
How old is each seedling before it is counted as a "plant"?
I can make an aragula seed shoot in two days. I'll be harvesting in three weeks. In one square metre I can have well over a thousand plants on the go. I've done this. How many plants can I produce in a year? How many seeds ya got?

Re:Nothing new

[Khyber]

I can guarantee you Philips hasn't been tuning shit. They've been stealing the wavelength blends from other people.

I could probably churn out more than 900 pots of basil (a pot being one container large enough to hold a multi-seeded rockwool cube.) In one square meter using an NFT system, you could easily fit 100-120 pots. 4-5 weeks until harvest time, 900 or more per year per square meter is typical.

I built a building in Texas that can do 3,000+ heads of lettuce PER DAY. 20 foot by 60 foot.

I can even do most of your 'superfood' grass crops without light at all.

And where does the nitrogen come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

The nitrogen comes from natural gas, no doubt.

At some point the lack of natural gas to make fertilizer is going to kill billions.

Fracking has helped to delay food shortages, but they're coming.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, if only there were a readily available source of nitrogen surrounding us at all times.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[ArcadeMan]

I knew it, I'm surrounded by assholes!

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nitrogen in the air is not readily available, it is chemically inert.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[garyisabusyguy]

The entire process is not entirely dependent on natural gas, just the Hydrogen that it can supply

The natural gas is used to supply the Hydrogen (H), while the Nitrogen (N) is pulled from the atmosphere to produce Ammonia (NH3)

The Haber-Bosch process has been implemented with Coal as the H source, which would seem to leave the door open for using Hydrogen Gas derived from Solar or Nuclear electric processes

I do not know what the 'buffer' is for Ammonium production and how many years lead time it would take to produce adequate amounts with hydrogen gas as a source

What I have seen is the fossil fuel companies attempt to wring every last dollar out of their investments before willingly losing market position, particularly to solar or nuclear power

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[ihtoit]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
http://blogs.publico.es/stramb...
http://tvoyavorkuta.ru/uploads...

Were you BORN that DUMB? Or did you have to sit an exam?

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Nitrogen in the air is not readily available, it is chemically inert.

Guess who failed chemistry.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[Applehu Akbar]

Nitrogen is nitrogen. The simplest way of getting agricultural N2 from air is to plant nitrogen fixers, such as clover. For a more entertaining scale of production, use the Haber-Bosch process.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen from natural gas is combined with atmospheric nitrogen to produce ammonia for fertilizer. Ammonia production alone consumes more than 1% of all primary energy, so it is indeed a concern.

However, the hydrogen need not come from natural gas. Water can be dissociated using nuclear heat or electricity. See more about Nuclear Ammonia, for a sustainable and efficient alternative. (The hydrogen can also be used to create other cost competitive synthetic fuels, which could displace fossil fuels entirely for transportation.)

Sadly, most "environmentalists" would prefer that we starve to death rather than embrace a technology capable of bringing prosperity to all of humanity with a minimal environmental footprint.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[khallow]

At some point the lack of natural gas to make fertilizer is going to kill billions.

Even if we ignore that most nitrogen in developed world crops comes from nitrogen-fixing bacteria, it's still going to be a while before methane becomes scarce enough that we stop using it for fertilizer. After all, methane is cheap enough now that they burn it for electricity!

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[HiThere]

Almost. Clover, beans, etc. cannot fix nitrogen. What they *can* do is host microorganisms that *do* fix nitrogen. But this doesn't happen automatically, and different plants host different fixing organisms, so you need to ensure that the proper host is innoculated with the proper fixer. If you buy plant seed this is usually (not always) already done, but it often comes with a coating of accompanying applied fungicides. Sometimes this is intentionally applied to prevent people from eating the seeds. (Check the history of Morning Glory seeds, I forget whether it was "Heavenly Blue" or "Pearly Gates".) Sometimes it's just because the most effective fungicides are somewhat poisonous.

Re:And where does the nitrogen come from?

[Coren22]

My house uses it for cooking and heat as well. What a waste.

It is nice and warm in the winter though.

It'll never work.

[Krishnoid]

After you go through that much basil, you'll have the munchies something fierce, and a small area like that probably can't grow enough food to satisfy you.

Oh, actual basil. Got it.

Re:It'll never work.

[Anonymous Coward]

You were thinking of oregano.

Heh, GrowWise

[neminem]

Urban farming, "GrowWise", definitely doesn't sound like "pots of *basil*" is exactly the right market for it. More like something else that also starts the same way, but has two fewer words.

Great timing for it, too, what with the burgeoning legalization movement all across the country (but, often, only for personal use, not for sale, making logistics difficult unless you are actually growing it yourself).

Re:Heh, GrowWise

[catsRus]

Order one of these for the home, yea right might as well call the SWAT team too.

Re:Heh, GrowWise

[Anonymous Coward]

Have the fire department inspect your setup. Grow vegetables for a year or 2 and your good to go

Man cannot live on basil alone...

[Narcocide]

Also, I'm pretty sure Home Depot sells at least half a dozen variations on this product already.

Re:Nice slashvertisement

[Sowelu]

If Slashdot dropped every article about an actual product (as opposed to news or science stories), we'd have even less content...

"Pot" unit

[Anonymous Coward]

So much is one "pot" anyway? Is that unit of weight? volume? altitude?

We should move towards more nuclear and solar

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had a higher output of electricity on the grid(and possibly update the grid some), we could make it cheaper to raise indoor crops. We could make it cheaper to refuel your electric car. You don't hear about nuclear being the solution to get off oil for cars, but in part it is. We should be smart about nuclear, and make a new plant every 10-20 years for research and technology purposes even if we're not making tons of them across the nation. And of course a wide solar adoption will be driving down the price of electricity too.

Re:We should move towards more nuclear and solar

[HiThere]

Doing it for research, with energy output being among the things studied, is something I'd support. The current system, though, is worse than nothing. It's setting up random time bombs all across the country. The older ones are just entering their critical period. The more recent ones weren't designed to last as long. Everything is being pushed to produce more power and last longer than it was designed to do. And there's no way to clean up when you shut them down.

OTOH, I don't expect a "China Syndrome", more many "Fukishima-like" incidents. With an occasional incident as bad as Chernobyl (though not through the same failure mode).

Until we can deal with the waste produced by reactors, they shouldn't be anything much more than research projects. Would a fast-breeded really consume all it's fuel? Perhaps that's the way to go. Perhaps some other design. Don't build twenty of a design that hasn't been well tested through decomissioning and cleanup. (Even then expect that you've missed some major problems, but that's no excuse not to do anything.)

Re:We should move towards more nuclear and solar

[Coren22]

We can deal with the waste from reactors, it is just environmental idiots and people afraid of proliferation that are holding back reprocessing. France reprocesses and sells power to all of Europe, but the US has laws against reprocessing that were put in place under Carter.

Re:We should move towards more nuclear and solar

[HiThere]

Have you looked at what they are calling "Clean up"? I believe that in Britain they actually filled one reactor building (not just the reactor) with cement. I presume they removed the fuel first. And it's still considered a hazerdous area and entry is forbidden to most people. That's not anything I'd call "clean up". And, IIUC, the US hasn't figured out HOW to close down the Hanford reactors, and is threatening to pollute the Columbia river right down through Seattle. If we need to evacuate Seattle that will be a fair inconvenience. There have already been minor leaks.

I'm not really convinced we know HOW to clean up a reactor site. Even cleaning up after a gas station is a real problem.

Yeah, basil is nice

[fustakrakich]

And tomatoes can be grown in the city, but how can I make Urban Mozzarella? I don't think my landlord will let me keep an Italian Mediterranean buffalo in my studio apartment.. Maybe I can build a stall in my parking spot.

Re:Yeah, basil is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're joking, but you can still just purchase some whole milk and do the rest yourself with some cheap and readily available ingredients (You're on the internet; I don't think I need to provide the instructions to you myself). Really, though, the price works out to about the same as just buying the cheese directly.

Re:Yeah, basil is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Milk a woman

Re:Yeah, basil is nice

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Milk a woman

Not practical unless you are talking Kate Upton or a clone. But the clones are generally augmented and therefore not as suitable for milk production.

Re:Yeah, basil is nice

[Nethemas the Great]

Well look at it this way, if the growing of food crops migrated inward, you would still be reducing the load on rural land even if animal based production were kept where it was. I recall reading a few years back that Japan was experimented with vertical farming of cattle. I don't think even large animals production in an urban environment is entirely far fetched. Vertical farming whether plant, animal, or both has the potential to create a huge reduction in the footprint of agriculture. Waste, runoff, etc. can be capture and re-purposed/recycled. These massive dead zones at the foot of waterways would be a thing of the past, as would the need for things such as pesticides and herbicides.

Re:Yeah, basil is nice

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

And tomatoes can be grown in the city, but how can I make Urban Mozzarella? I don't think my landlord will let me keep an Italian Mediterranean buffalo in my studio apartment.. Maybe I can build a stall in my parking spot.

Remember the million dollar hamburger? The slab of meat they grew without a cow? Once they get good at it I suspect they can grow mammary tissue which can be used to produce milk.

uh... prior art?

[ihtoit]

There're lots of examples of prior art local to me, if anywhere else that has a mains electricity supply, and that's pot farms.

Here, they tend to explode as people use halogen lights at silly power densities (like 6kW/sq.m) and lag the shit out of their lofts in an attempt to conceal them from police helicopter FLIRs, then wonder why they catch fire.

Re:uh... prior art?

[Charliemopps]

There're lots of examples of prior art local to me, if anywhere else that has a mains electricity supply, and that's pot farms.

Here, they tend to explode as people use halogen lights at silly power densities (like 6kW/sq.m) and lag the shit out of their lofts in an attempt to conceal them from police helicopter FLIRs, then wonder why they catch fire.

That's kind of the joke here... their methods are 100% stolen from people who've been figuring out how to grow pot in their basements over the past 20yrs so they can avoid the police/criminals involved in normal marijuana transactions.

Re:uh... prior art?

[DigiShaman]

That was before LED technology.

I'm not much of a green thumb, but do certain plants respond better to specific wavelengths. And, is a halogen really needed for IR radiation?

Re:uh... prior art?

[Khyber]

Yes plants respond better to specific wavelengths. No halogen isn't useful for IR. What the ill-informed OP meant to say was Metal Halide or Pressurized Sodium lamps, not Halogen, but trying to be quick to making the connection to pot must've damaged the ability to think clearly and concisely.

Re:uh... prior art?

[Jack Griffin]

I'm assuming the Engineers at Phillips are aware of this and hence designing LEDs with the appropriate wavelengths for any chosen crop?

Re:uh... prior art?

[Khyber]

No, they're not. They're all over the board 'utilizing' every other person's light blend.

Glad I kept my other two high-performance general crop light blends to myself. They already took my 40/60 B:R lighting formula.

Re:uh... prior art?

[Jack Griffin]

You sound like you know the subject matter. Can you point me to a website where I can learn more about this?

Re:uh... prior art?

[Khyber]

No, because most websites regurgitate the same marketing bullshit.

If you'd like to know more, just ask me. I used to provide these services for Google (directly tested/vetted by them before being offered the position, too.)

Dwindling airable land?

[grimmjeeper]

Doesn't the government still pay farmers to NOT grow food as part of a subsidy program to reduce supply and thereby artificially raise prices?

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Charliemopps]

Doesn't the government still pay farmers to NOT grow food as part of a subsidy program to reduce supply and thereby artificially raise prices?

I'm a libertarian and hate subsidies, but having many farmers as relatives, feel I have to correct your misinformation.

Lets say the price of corn hits something insanely high like $10/per bushel.
You might think to yourself "I should get into this corn farming thing" and invest money in starting up a farm.
As you do that starting a farm is expensive. Equipment for farming corn is unique and can't be used for something like Peas. But the price of corn is so high, it's worth it.
After you harvest you get your money... whew! What a good investment! But by the 2nd year you realize a lot of other people had the same idea you did and they started corn farms as well. The market is glutted with corn, the price crashes to $1/bushel
But you notice Peas are selling really high so you switch to farming peas. It costs you a fortune for new equipment but you get your peas planted...
and 2 years later, you run into the same problem, everyone switched crops at the same time you did, Pea prices fall through the floor and you're trying to buy back your corn equipment.

This happened at the turn of the century a LOT. No individual farmer can be expected to accurately predict the price of corn the following season. So the feds do it for them. They offer a floor on the price of their crops, and they pay farmers not to plant. This stabilizes the market, prevents over-saturation and allows farmers to be more efficient. The cost to the government is actually a net profit because those wild swings in the market price cost them a lot of tax revenue.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Overzeetop]

You, sir, are no libertarian. Anyone can give things that don't affect them the finger, but the true test is if you can eschew logic even for things you DO care about.

So, for farming, the best libertarian course of action would be to allow the market to run its course. The smart farmers will grow a variety of crops, neither making a killing nor perishing. Some farmers will guess and go all in on the next big thing and we'll have a few billionaire bulb farmers from time to time, and a bunch of people will lose everything and become destitute, willing to work for the smart farmers for a fraction of what they're worth - a capitalistic utopia.

The current system really is just the government fucking with the natural, capitalistic order and stealing money from the common citizen to prop up the stupid farmers. A real libertarian would realize that.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[JoeMerchant]

I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course. The nature of the business has been encouraging specialization, and since everyone is out to maximize profits, that leads to overproduction of last year's overpriced crops, which become next year's glut production which don't sell for enough to pay the loans, so you get a bunch of banks owning farms and equipment. It's not healthy, and the next generation of farmers that step up at auction to try their hand have never been any better than the previous at predicting and dealing with market swings.

It would be really cool if we could run "sim-Earth" with pure philosophies and see what happens. Life being what it is, if any single philosophy from today became widely adopted and "took over the world" without adapting itself, the world would quickly spin out of control. What makes the world we have work as well as it does is the opposing forces of a variety of philosophies, none of which are suited to operating in total control.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Firethorn]

I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.

I tend to consider myself a moderate libertarian, but even I recognize that 'diversification' in this sense is expensive in that it wrecks your efficiency. As was mentioned earlier, a lot of the equipment that makes farming corn profitable even with lots of competition is extremely specialized for working with corn, but still freaking expensive, even if it can process tens, hundreds, or even millions of acres of corn a year. Seriously, some of those big harvesters are measured in acres harvested per minute.

Thus, in order to make a profit, you need to be as large and specialized as possible. The demand for staple crops - corn, wheat, rice, beans, and such is high enough to justify said investments year in and year out. It's a rather high amount of capital investment, so normally speaking you're only going to see fields expand at a limited pace year to year.

As a result, even 'diversifying' can kill your business as you're out-competed by the specialists.

On the other hand, having seen multiple meltdowns and supply shocks, I can tell you that I do NOT want to see this with food. It's bad enough that pork spikes because of some disease(last one I think was imported from China, killed 2/3rds of the piglets infected).

The problem is that while I'm philosophically against paying farmers not to farm, the situation is freaking complex, and any transition from the current situation to a more philosophically 'pure' one is going to have to be carefully planned. I can't give two shits about e-businesses, the housing market, or automobiles in the face of how bad a truly screwed we could be in a 'farming crash'. We have enough problems, real and potential, with our food as is.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Red Flayer]

I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.

First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.

Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?

Note: I am far from libertarian.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[JoeMerchant]

As a control systems engineer, I believe the market should be free to choose its direction, but not its rates of change.

If gasoline makers want to raise prices, they should be allowed to do that at their discretion, but, if they feel that they need to raise prices too quickly (more than 1% per day?) then there should be something in-place to penalize that - perhaps an increase in profits taxing for the coming 2 years? Prices need to rise 50% in 2 weeks, sure, go ahead and do that, but if you end up making an (accidental) increased profit as a result of your "over limit" price increase, you can pay back all of that profit increase and a penalty in taxes. Price gouging on cornerstone commodities isn't good for anyone but shareholders in the commodities sellers who are doing the gouging.

Same thing could apply in the farming markets, allow people to make choices, encourage them to invest and improve, but discourage rapid changes that could lead to a "farming crash." If people want to grow more corn this year, fine - sign up to grow corn. When corn growing is up by more than 10 or 20% (or whatever makes sense), put on some kind of damper to make other choices more attractive.

We all have "free will," the right to travel, assemble, etc., but if we all decide to go to Rhode Island on the same day, it's going to cause a problem or two. In the case of physical presence, the physical world has effective controls - limited rooms for rent, limited seats on flights, limited number of cars that can physically fit in the state, etc. People would back off and turn around before it got really bad like running out of food and water / sewage in the streets kind of bad. Unfortunately, economic games don't have this kind of feedback, so we get some pretty spectacular crashes, even with "good government meddling" to smooth out the worst of the shocks - especially with "bad government meddling" (i.e. 2005-2008 real estate market.)

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[JoeMerchant]

Maybe today we could back off and turn the whole market wide open again.

Back in the early 1900s, there wasn't enough freedom of information for even the smartest people to make good choices for what to grow in the coming season. The boom and bust cycles did happen, spectacularly, along with other interesting "discoveries" like the Dust Bowl. The government controls were instated and they have been working to maintain stability of food supply for the country. Maybe there's enough freedom of information, scientific weather forecasting, knowledge of pests and disease, etc. to get rid of those controls, maybe not... I don't think many politicians are ready to rock the boat in the name of an ideology, so we're not likely to find out anytime soon if Libertarianism would work in the modern farming markets.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[smaddox]

But then you're just slowing the market. When possible, it's better to dampen oscillations/overshoots than to reduce ramp rates.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Anonymous Coward]

Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the point of economic libertarianism?

The problem with this line of reasoning, is that those dumb farmers will also be dumb plumbers, dumb programmers, dumb whatever else they try and do when they fail at farming.

There isn't an infinite supply of potential farmers or any other trade to pull from, and the most intelligent people end up doing the most intellectually -or- financially rewarding jobs.

That said, what ought to happen (there is evidence this does happen, see New Zealand) in place of subsidies is that the farmers organise into growing cooperatives that regulate the price, by providing the same subsidies and supply protection that the government currently does in the US. Which is the same exact result, except that it provides price regulation without being a burden on anyone except the growers themselves.

This is the same thing as private auto insurance or home and contents insurance. It really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that the market can provide this service.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Anonymous Coward]

The smart farmers will grow a variety of crops, neither making a killing nor perishing.

Why does a "real" Libertarian assume that the aggregate costs of production will be covered by the market prices for this variety of crops? The farmer is throwing away economies of scale in order to diversify, so the unitary costs of production will be higher. As long as there are farmers willing to bet the whole farm on the next big thing, they'll undercut our diversified farmer to the point of being unable to recoup the cost of production.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[JoeMerchant]

I like progressive damping curves - let it run free in the "sweet spot" then progressively increase the adjustment back to the middle as you get further from ideal.

Re:Dwindling airable land?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a libertarian and hate subsidies, but having many farmers as relatives, feel I have to correct your misinformation.

In addition to what you were told - aside from not being a libertarian - one can use the futures market to sell crops in advance of actually growing them (in a manner of speaking, just as you can buy crops in fear of the price jumping too high). For a real farmer, you can lock in the price so that if corn drops, you make your profits on the futures you bought. If corn skyrockets, you make your money there. If corn does pretty much what was expected, you are out the cost of futures (which ought to be marginal).

Re:Nice slashvertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

But it was clearly placed by Philips. That's the problem.

900 pots of "basil" a year

[SuperKendall]

It's OK. I'm from Colorado, I know what you really meant.

Re: 900 pots of "basil" a year

[SuperKendall]

Sorry to anger you but I really meant nothing against the tech, just in for a simple laugh.

Re: 900 pots of "basil" a year

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to smoke some of that stuff you claim to be such an expert about and chill the fuck out. You should also start taking your assburger meds again while you're at it.

Solar panels and useful rooftops

[sjbe]

Where are we gonna put the solar panels?

How about on the roofs that don't have gardens on them? Not like we're going to put a garden on every roof. At some point there is really no excuse for not putting solar panels or gardens or something productive on rooftops.

Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway....

[Harlequin80]

Unless it's the ratty organic version it's all hydroponic already. And it is grown in greenhouses which are cheap and easy to build and can be put just about anywhere. Then for running cost you don't need to be running lights.

Even if you argue arable land was running out, which I also call bullshit on, there is cubic buttloads of crap land you can stick greenhouses on and grow your crops there at a fraction of the cost of running leds. This is what a basil farm really looks like - http://seedstock.com/wp-conten...

Now if we are talking corn or grain or sugar there is NO way you can get the density needed to put it in a building.

Re:Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway....

[cheesybagel]

The thing with the indoor farming is you can enforce a lot more consistent product quality as you control the whole system a lot better. It may also make sense in places where there is a lack of space to use sunlight like in densely populated areas (they also call this vertical farming for a reason).

As for sugar I suspect someone will find out a way to make it cheaper using a wholly chemical path eventually.

Re:Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway....

[Harlequin80]

I would call greenhouses indoor farming already, and I agree with you it is to control multiple factors. But farming in densely populated areas just makes no sense. You can build a transport network that connects your high value high density urban land with your low value crap land and build a gazzilion greenhouses for a higher yield and way less cost.

Even if you removed fossil fuels from the transport network and went all electric it still works out more efficient.

Japan does some crazy intensive farming in and around urban areas where you will see towns where the houses are surrounded on all sides by rice fields. But you can also see it would be cripplingly inefficient.

In the end however indoor farming of any kind, be it greenhouses or vertical in cities cannot produce the amount of food we require. We need to large scale farm with highly efficient machines crops such as rice, wheat, barley and corn. There is a reason we use massive combine harvesters.

Re:Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway....

[serbanp]

The thing about food quality is that it's related not only to consistency but also to taste. In the name of efficiency, high yield and uniformity, all these industrial settings are squeezing out the taste from whatever they're producing.

Heck, the hydrophonically-grown butter lettuce I'm buying from Costco tastes like sh*t compared to something grown in real garden soil.

So no, this is not quality, unless we're talking about specialty plants, such as maryjane.

Re:Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway....

[jwhitener]

Now if we are talking corn or grain or sugar there is NO way you can get the density needed to put it in a building.

I must not be parsing your sentence correctly. Block after block of sky scrapers with each floor growing corn is way more dense than a field of corn taking up the same space. What did you mean to say?

Re:Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway....

[Harlequin80]

On second reading it's not quite clear what I meant.

What I meant was that you need such a ridiculous amount of those crops that there is no economical way you could farm it in a building no matter what level of density you managed to achieve.

Re:lettuce under LED grow lights?

[WillAffleckUW]

In some locations, we have underwater hothouses, due to a lack of arable land (e.g. mountain states and provinces in the West). In other places, there's not a whole heck of a lot of sun, so using the energy from nearby wind and hydro, you can easily run LED to grow plants in seasons where it might not otherwise be viable.

Buildings can be built to grow things. Here at the UW, we have many buildings with green roofs and green walls, and some have entire bioenvelopes.

This is extremely important for our future...

[MindPrison]

...in the future (now actually) we're going to have to produce at least 5 percent of the produce in our very own homes.

Apartments must be designed with indoor greenhouses as a part of the design. To keep it low on pesticides and insects, hydroponic farming is an essential technique, what Phillips is doing isn't new by any standard, but they're one of the worlds most important developers of lighting, we need more efficient led lights, we have to reduce the power usage and make the lights brighter, this can be done with new chemical processes. The future is bright.

I've been growing vegetables indoors for the last 5 years now, realizing that every person got to start ASAP to learn, because learning when we finally need it...is not going to be an option since learning to work with growing crops and produce comes with a learning curve just like everything else. Vegetables are living organics, it's not like learning to play the piano, so many factors comes to play here - and this is something any farmer will tell you...the learning curve is going to be there, you just can't become an overnight pro at this.

So folks, start growing your own produce now - even if it is just basil chilli and spices. I grow Tomatoes, Cucumbers and Paprika peppers in the summertime, try to grow spices all year around, and I'm getting better at it, slowly ...but I feel this is VITAL to our survival.

Re:This is extremely important for our future...

[chill]

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but WHY do you assert that everyone will have to produce home-grown produce? And how do you come up with that 5% number?

Re:This is extremely important for our future...

[thinkwaitfast]

5% of your food source is 100 calories per day. That's roughly 8 carrots, 1 apple, 3/4 of a potato, 1/2kg of tomatoes (1 lb), .5lb strawberries, 1lb cauliflower, 1lb cabbage or .7kg of lettuce every day. That exceeds the yield my neighbor is getting from his 10mx30m outdoor garden in Seattle where he grows all of these (only the carrots, lettuce and strawberries have been harvested so far).

Sticking to one crop (for simplicity), it takes about 5 months for a cabbage to mature (150 days), so you'd need to plant 150 cabbages in your apartment (cabbage plants are really big with extended leaves maybe over 1m^2) to keep a continuous supply of 100 calories/day.

Re:This is extremely important for our future...

[Khyber]

"but they're one of the worlds most important developers of lighting, we need more efficient led lights,"

Then you sure as fuck should NOT be looking at Philips. You should be looking at CREE. Cree holds the records for power LEDs. Philips pales in comparison. Within a year or so we'll have 300+ lumen per watt LEDs at 5250K CCT. Philips barely breaks 100 lumens per watt.

Re:This is extremely important for our future...

[Anonymous Coward]

CREE uses many technologies developed by Philips to get to that 300 lumen per watt. The current record is not the only thing that determines a company's contribution towards a technology.

Re:This is extremely important for our future...

[Anonymous Coward]

we're going to have to produce at least 5 percent of the produce in our very own homes.

Someone is either a vegan or failed reading comprehension ...

Re:indoor farming makes sense if you live outside.

[Narcocide]

What are you worried about? They waste their own money doing something stupid? They find out that you need an apartment with a good skylight or balcony to really pull this off well? They find out corn isn't actually a super-efficient all-purpose source of food and ethanol its advertised as by big agricultire? Or maybe deep down inside, the part about this that really bugs you that you can't admit to yourself is the nagging fear that "city folk" might learn to grow their own food and then the one last thing justifying generations of isolation and bigotry promoted by "country folk" will simply evaporate along with all of Monsanto's revenue?

Ready the..

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Spaghetti, Lasagna, Pizza and baked Mostaccoli/Ziti/Penne.
Seems they will grow plenty of Basil.

I do not think they qualified as 'organic'

[Taco Cowboy]

First of all, the term 'organic' means much more than 'no artificial pesticide'

What Phillips is doing in this 'Growwise indoor farm' is wasting more energy than it needs to --- plants do not need green lights, that is why their leaves are green colored

The lights which plants need are blue light and red light - depending on the type of the plant, the percentage of red light versus that of blue light changes

From the picture of the "Growwise indoor farm" we can see that the LED used inside the farm give out white lights, and plants can only use 1% of the power of white light

In other words, this "Growwise indoor farm" has a much larger carbon footprint than it needed be, and thus, it should not be considered as 'organic'

Re:I do not think they qualified as 'organic'

[smaddox]

Almost all of the pictures look like purple + red to me. There's one picture that looks like it has a fraction of white lights. However, most LED white lights are actually blue/uv + yellow.

Thus, you seem to be jumping to conclusions. If anything, you're point about plants only being able to use 1% of the power from sunlight suggests that they might be on to something.

Re:I do not think they qualified as 'organic'

[Khyber]

"What Phillips is doing in this 'Growwise indoor farm' is wasting more energy than it needs to --- plants do not need green lights, that is why their leaves are green colored"

Wrong.

http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/...

But you keep getting suckered by LED Marketing. Meanwhile, anybody who actually paid attention to real credible research within the past half decade+ knows better. Philips obviously doesn't have a clue.

Phillips not the first with harebrained schemes

[SethJohnson]

What are all those scientists, engineers and business experts at a huge multinational corporation thinking?

Probably they're thinking, "I really like this paycheck. The product we're developing has no chance of gaining traction in the marketplace, but that's my boss' fault for coming up with this idea in the first place."

Do you really think those people are going to argue with management that they shouldn't have a job developing this concept?

Re:Phillips not the first with harebrained schemes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they are half an hour down the road from Wageningen University, well known for its high-density / high-value industrial farming research, pretty close to Westland (big greenhouse / horticulture hub), and Philips started out as a lighting company, so they may actually know what they are doing.

Re:Phillips not the first with harebrained schemes

[SpankiMonki]

Do you really think those people are going to argue with management that they shouldn't have a job developing this concept?

The concept is developed, and the products have already been deployed in the marketplace. This technology is successful. Period. But feel free to continue to come up with more far-fetched scenarios about how entrepreneurs at mind-boggling successful corporations are a bunch of no-nothing rubes.

Philips isn't doing anything new.

[Khyber]

I love how slashdot sucks up to Philips advertising while forgetting their very own denizens that have been doing this LONG BEFORE Philips got into the game.

Let me tell you why the Philips system is a bad idea:

1. Of the Philips lighting I've tested - EVERY PIECE WAS FALSELY ADVERTISED. Under-specced in every aspect.
2. Of the Philips lighting I've had custom-specified - THEY STOLE MY LIGHTING BLENDS. Your heavy-blue lighting regimen for most leafy greens came directly from me, while everyone else was doing red-heavy lighting.
3. Philips has been trying to play the finance game with their lighting systems - dead giveaway to scams is when you need to finance something.
4. I've caught Philips fucking over two other clients so far, and I expect to find that they have fucked over several others as soon as that lighting that was sent to them gets shipped to me and dissected.

Do not get Philips LED lighting. They've been playing games with me and other people in the horticultural industry, stealing our ideas and designs.

Slashdot supports outright thievery with the publication of this 'article.'

Re:Philips isn't doing anything new.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your heavy-blue lighting regimen for most leafy greens came directly from me, while everyone else was doing red-heavy lighting.

The optimal frequencies have been studied independently. This is no longer an art. On all other things Philips, no comment since my Philips HD tv seems to be flickering so badly with a very specific HD content that I am unable to articulate anything worthwhile.

Re:Philips isn't doing anything new.

[delt0r]

Sorry you don't own ideas, nor the spectrum of light that make plants grow well.

Re:Philips isn't doing anything new.

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. Everyone who knows about LED grows, knows you get that cheap as shit SMT LED lighting strip. Super easy to install, super cheap, doesn't require any fittings, and has better fill factor than these stupid systems with large concentrated spot lights. You can buy LED strip light in bulk for under US$0.50/m.

Anyone that thinks you need to get rocket scientists from some legacy incandescent bulb manufacturer is never going to make money growing anything legal for sale. Might make money growing pot, but that's just because the margins are stupidly large because of government forces.

Sheet of thin plywood, can of white paint, a tube of glue, some chains and fasteners and a box of SMT striplight. Everyhing you need for the lighting side of a vertical farm. The hydroponics ain't much harder, though you need some formulas to figure out the fertigation rates.

Re:Philips isn't doing anything new.

[Khyber]

"Everyone who knows about LED grows, knows you get that cheap as shit SMT LED lighting strip"

Maybe if you're growing lettuce or mint could you get away with shitty LED lighting.

Anything that bears a fruiting body needs way more light than that shitty 5050 SMT strip is going to output.

Re:Philips isn't doing anything new.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else notice Khyber is starting to sound like a queer APK?

grow lights are the future

[penguinoid]

We're at the point that we can actually have solar powered grow lights for our plants and still have greater energy efficiency than just plain sunlight (because you can have the LEDs at peak plant absorption wavelengths). Plus it's easier to transport, easier to deal with climate variability, easier to deal with insects or pests, plants can be fed extra CO2, and you can have more usable light with less heat stress, uses less water, easier to harvest, doesn't contain dirt, and arrives at the market fresher. And on top of all that, you can trick the plant into thinking it is any season you want or even go with 24 hr lighting.

Minuses: It costs more, at least for now.

But don't be too surprised if the future has all farmland converted to solar panels and all farming under grow lights. It'll be great practice for space colonization too.

Re:grow lights are the future

[Karmashock]

Why go to all that trouble when you can get the same effect by putting your plants under glass?

Re:grow lights are the future

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? I mean, why did that guy go to all that trouble building that "automobile" contraption that was too expensive for anyone to buy? Didn't that moron know we could all just keep riding our horses?

Your insightful posts are why I come to tech news sites.

Bees, lol

[Anonymous Coward]

...and bees keep things humming year-round for farming that is truly local...

The bees were only at Wim Peter’s 60 acre farm, ya knucklehead!

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Depends on the daylength - not the method of illumination.

"Currently I'd bet yes, this meets the necessary requirements for Organic"

No, Organic certification forbids the usage of artificial irradiation.

Indoor lighting != natural radiation.

Indoor lighting == non-ionizing radiation. Irradiation == ionizing radiation (usually, and most certainly here).

Bullshit! Unlike what you pluck out of your arse I provide sources.

"Light: Use of artificial light is acceptable, although not in excess of the Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) of a summer day and should not exceed 12 hours of daylight including the artificial light."The Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production (EGTOP) was set up three years ago in order to provide technical advice to the European Commission.

FarmedHere in Chicago is artificially lit, and certified organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia Limited - no rule on artificial light for agriculture (aquaculture is limited to 16 hours a day and no sudden changes in photoperiod).

No restrictions on artificial light.

I'm a farmer. Our aquaculture production is herbs, yabbies and Murray cod - we're ACOS and NASAA certified as organic, which allows us to export to both the US and EU organic markets. Pisses me off no end when dickheads like you appoint yourselves "organic certification" authorities.

Put it in print with your name in it and we'll let the courts decide whose right. Until then it's your unqualified private opinion and you should clearly label it as such.

So the sun doesn't emit ionizing radiation? Hint: even without the massive holes in the ozone layer - it does. But go lay in the sun all day. Please. (arseclown).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Plumpaquatsch]

Take it up with the OP, if you aren't just here to stalk me. If you have a brain, it should be obvious why - I'm sure as hell are not going to explain, after I futilely tried to explain something quite obvious to you just a few hours ago.

Gotta sell fast.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those bulbs ain't gonna sell themselves.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Either put up of shut the fuck up - but no you slink away leaving a slime trail...

Take it up with the OP, if you aren't just here to stalk me. If you have a brain, it should be obvious why - I'm sure as hell are not going to explain, after I futilely tried to explain something quite obvious to you just a few hours ago.

Does not parse. What the fuck are you trying to say. You make the claim that artificially lit crops can't be certified then you blame it on someone else (cowardly - um, it was the big kid wot done it, and used my login!)
Then you claim you're being stalked (delusional++).
Then you claim you can't explain what you said. An appeal to sympathy for what? Were you born retarded? Had some sort of traumatic head injury that still enables you to spew stupid on /.? But when challenged you mewl "if I need to explain" - like we all are so dumb as to forget you made an unsubstantiated claim? Pathetic and text book guilty:-
'Excuse me, sir. What are you doing with that diamond necklace hanging out of your pocket?'
'I say, isn't that a purebred German shepherd dog you have with you"
(Even if the policeman is put off the scent, the dog won't be.)
That ain't a diamond necklace hanging out of your pocket...

Futile would be the most fitting epitaph for you (and likely all that'll fit on your gravestone).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[cayenne8]

Our aquaculture production is herbs, yabbies and Murray cod

What are "yabbies"?

The Real Innovator

[chazd1]

The real innovator in this space is www.aerofarms.com . The LEDs are not as efficient as you might initially think. Although you can vary the wavelength and duty-cycle easier than incandescents. Phillips and their billions will try to capture the market, but the true technology lies with aeroponic farming and going vertical. Enjoy your leafy greens.

To boldly go where no carrot has gone before.

[Charcharodon]

Who gives a shit about growing food in the city. I just don't want to be stuck eating only potatoes on Mars.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

What are "yabbies"?

Colloquial name for any freshwater crayfish. We have several varieties (and species) in Australia (dunno where you're from, but you probably have an equivalent). In our case we cultivate a variant of Cherax destructor . The destructor comes from their habit of burrowing into dam and creek walls to shelter during the cold season (now, currently sub-zero which is cold for Australia). We sell the yabbies live to local (small for bait, large for premium restaurants) and (small amounts i.e. 5 - 10K Kg) international markets (shipped in chilled water) but are also exploring the market for the meat, and believe it or not - the shells for use as material (chittlin or chitlin?) for use in bandages for a company the provides medical supplies to the US Marines.

Tasty - they provide good nutrients for hydroponically grown basil, parsley, and coriander - and food for Murray cod (very simple, even a flat dweller can do it - Murray Cod are a bit more demanding, I've two girls that are 40+Kg - don't skinny-dip in their pool!). The yabbies eat earthworms, straw, and small amounts of vegetable scraps.

Premium international market is Finland when the have their annual Kemah festival (Does Linus eat yabbies? Texas and other US states also have a Kemah festival, and I've found most American, at least in the Southern states love our yabbies as much as their own freshwater crayfish).

I like them - don't know how they appeal to US tastes, but they taste the same as US freshwater crustaceans to me (nice freshly boiled and dipped in sauce accompanied by good beer). We've bred a distinctive bright blue variant (which tastes the same as the green and brown coloured variants).

I also breed small amounts of the local Murray crayfish and would very much like to try breeding the giant Tasmanian yabbie. (the worlds largest freshwater crustacean)

I hope that answers all your questions - thanks for a civil, intelligent post.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Nit Picker]

According to Wikipedia, it is an Aussie Crawfish.

Re:indoor farming makes sense if you live outside.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you city folk should be quiet. You don't know how to grow food.

I guess that food is not what most city folks have in mind...

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[cayenne8]

Ok...crawfish.

Yeah...I'm familiar with them, I live in New Orleans, and here in southern LA, we go through TONs of them boiled each year during the season which ended about a month or so ago.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Ok...crawfish.

Yeah...I'm familiar with them, I live in New Orleans, and here in southern LA, we go through TONs of them boiled each year during the season which ended about a month or so ago.

Yeah! You guys (and gals) know how to do food right! I really enjoy my trips there - never thought it'd be the same after the floods, but you can't keep good things down (unless they're food).

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[cayenne8]

Yeah! You guys (and gals) know how to do food right! I really enjoy my trips there - never thought it'd be the same after the floods, but you can't keep good things down (unless they're food).

Actually, honestly...in the long run, Katrina was one of the best things that happened to New Orleans. There was 1-2 year struggle after but since then, the city is MUCH better overall.

After the first year, we actually had MORE restaurants than before the storm.

Due to money coming in after Katrina, this city was largely unaffected by the recession and the housing value drop the rest of the US experienced.

And frankly, a lot of the *bad* sort in the city were flushed out, and one of the largest demographics moving in, are 25-35 year old , well educated folks with good jobs following them. While in past couple years...the bad part of the city has infiltrated back in some, and crime has gone up, but over all...the city is much better, much stronger and better equipped to be a good place to live since the storm.

Hopefully...in just another year of so, one of the last projects remaining will be torn down and replaced with mixed housing...doing this all these years to the other horrible crime infested projects throughout the city, has really helped a lot too. And once the large VA/LSU medical corridor opens soon down Canal St.....more good paying jobs will be coming in here.

Yep, come for a visit....we're a much better city at the 10 year Katrina anniversary.

By "Basil," They of Course Mean...

[RandomExile]

"... 900 pots of [weed] a year." FTFTFA

if indoors, why not at home?

[Anonymous Coward]

The research center will unearth the lighting and technological innovations to bring farm and fork to within a few miles of each other.

So why miles? Why not meters? Couldn't they sell this in a box for people who don't have a garden or even balcony?

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Plumpaquatsch]

The problem here is that neither of us has a fucking clue what you are babbling about, Care for some coherence?

Also,

[Anonymous Coward]

Real Libertarians wear kilts!

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

The problem here is that neither of us has a fucking clue what you are babbling about, Care for some coherence?

Neither of us? Speak for yourself. You might want to seek professional help - especially about that stalking delusion.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Actually, honestly...in the long run, Katrina was one of the best things that happened to New Orleans. There was 1-2 year struggle after but since then, the city is MUCH better overall.

Hell of a price to pay for improvements - I was there the year after and things were still a mess.

Yep, come for a visit....we're a much better city at the 10 year Katrina anniversary.

I'll be back again in a couple of months - I visit Texas twice a year (work) and always make a point of visiting friends in New Iberia (which was fortunately unaffected). A trip with them to the sleazey (I mean that affectionately) is always a high-point.

Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (probably)

[Plumpaquatsch]

The problem here is that neither of us has a fucking clue what you are babbling about, Care for some coherence?

Neither of us? Speak for yourself. You might want to seek professional help - especially about that stalking delusion.

Get Help. Both of you.