I have actually been in the newer facility dozens of times when I worked as an intern for the Architect on the building. I actually drafted the final drawings for this project. It is a VERY nice facility, with some pretty cool under-floor cooling systems and things like that. I am pretty sure I have 3D digital models of the facility somewhere in my work records.
The lecture auditorium bites the big one though, purple seats? Nasty. The Seibel Center accross the mini-quad is a much more interesting building though, at least to an architect.:)
Admittedly there is more than one way of producing organic livestock and fruits/vegetables. I should have been more clear on that. The methods that I have seen have been pretty gross though. Buggy, misshapen apples, sickly plants, etc. I know it is possible to produce organic foods that are equal to or better than chemically produced foods, but I am also aware how much more work and effort it takes to get it right, and I have seen how bad it can be when it goes wrong. I personally don't eat organic foods, but that doesn't mean they aren't safe for others.
Organic chicken is nasty though, First they feed the cows, then what they don't digest feeds the pigs, then what passes through THEIR system goes into the chickens... I'm not saying it isn't safe, I am just saying it makes me ill thinking about it. Yes, I am squeamish.
You ever heard of the "green revolution"? The one where we more than QUADRUPLED our ability to produce food? Yeah. That was ABSOLUTELY dependent on our use of Nitrogen. Without nitrogen, we are back to the 1920's food production levels. (i.e. mass starvation) Admittedly some farmers put on to much nitrogen (i.e. anhydrous ammonia) but in general it is in the farmers interest to be AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. Both for their land and for the profit. Remember, they have to LIVE there, drink the water that flows under their fields and eat the food they produce. Farmers are HUGE environmentalists.:)
Comparing your chemical-fed and chemical-protected family farm to a closed-system all-organic greenhouse on cost of structure alone isn't really fair.
Ironic how much people bash "chemically protected" farming... it is the only reason cities like New York, Chicago, Atlanta and LA can exist. Without our chemicals you would starve. It is as simple as that.
BTW, as a farmer who has raised both fruit (raspberries, apples, blackberries, cherries, etc) and corn/soybeans organically and inorganically let me just say that you couldn't PAY me to eat "organic food". Especially organic meats. Nasty.
Re:Tractor?!?! LOL!!
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Transport does take a heavy toll on food, usually because it is harvested before it is ripe so that it doesn't rot in transport. That usually results in fairly tasteless food, especially fruit and tomatoes.
Let me see if I can put the costs of this into perspective for you. First of all, you have the cost of the land. Prime farm land in the midwest (which is the best soil in the world) goes for about $4500per/acre +/- $2000 for infrastructure conditions, etc. To give you an idea of the profits, my families most profitable crop is corn. Each acre produces between 120 and 175 bushels/acre of corn on average, though my families farm hasn't seen below 210 bu/acre in the last 10 years. Last year the price of corn was about $2.85 per bushel, though this year is is threatening to hit $5 because of ethanol. 100 acres is about all that you could reasonably expect one building to be able to hold while still getting enough light. (fyi 1 sq. mile = 640 acres) To buy 100 acres would cost $450,000. The INCOME off of 100 acres next year for my family should be 100acres x 180 bu/acre x $5/bu = $90,000!! Profit is usually less than 20% (I am a little fuzzy on exact numbers on that though). How much does transport cost? LESS than ten cents per bushel. $1800 max. It would take YEARS to pay off this land at this rate. (Hence why my family only owns 640 acres)
A 4 acre lot in NY, 25 stories high, is going to be TENS of MILLIONS, just for the lot and construction costs. Then you have to haul in the dirt, (or set up the hydroponic tanks), pay the hand laborers, pay the MUCH HIGHER energy costs to produce this way...
Theoretically it may work. In Practice? Nope. "Energy savings" aren't going to make a difference either, sorry.
I am both a farmer and an architect (I was raised on a farm and worked as a farmer for 10 years, then went to college to study architecture)
This designer is an idiot. Yes, you could technically make a giant vertical greenhouse, but why would you WANT to?
1). The vast majority of the labor would have to be done by hand. There is no way in HELL you are getting a 200hp tractor up there, period. The other option is to have equipment built into the building that can be used, but that gets unbelievably expensive, fast. 1920's all over again? No thanks.
2). Plants simply don't do as well in green houses as they do in nature. Yeah, you can get close with careful application of various fertilizers and chemicals, but then it isn't organic anymore!
3). Architecturally this would be a nightmare. Water everywhere + low ventilation to conserve heat in the greenhouse = HUGE mold and building decay problems. Greenhouses work because they don't have anything for water to seep into, they are basically steel and glass. That wouldn't work for a VERTICAL greenhouse though, you would need concrete, vapor barriers, water flashing... Again. We are talking about a LOT of money.
I think my family will stick with our little patch of former swampland.
Slashdot Mirror
I have actually been in the newer facility dozens of times when I worked as an intern for the Architect on the building. I actually drafted the final drawings for this project. It is a VERY nice facility, with some pretty cool under-floor cooling systems and things like that. I am pretty sure I have 3D digital models of the facility somewhere in my work records.
:)
The lecture auditorium bites the big one though, purple seats? Nasty. The Seibel Center accross the mini-quad is a much more interesting building though, at least to an architect.
Admittedly there is more than one way of producing organic livestock and fruits/vegetables. I should have been more clear on that. The methods that I have seen have been pretty gross though. Buggy, misshapen apples, sickly plants, etc. I know it is possible to produce organic foods that are equal to or better than chemically produced foods, but I am also aware how much more work and effort it takes to get it right, and I have seen how bad it can be when it goes wrong. I personally don't eat organic foods, but that doesn't mean they aren't safe for others. Organic chicken is nasty though, First they feed the cows, then what they don't digest feeds the pigs, then what passes through THEIR system goes into the chickens... I'm not saying it isn't safe, I am just saying it makes me ill thinking about it. Yes, I am squeamish.
You ever heard of the "green revolution"? The one where we more than QUADRUPLED our ability to produce food? Yeah. That was ABSOLUTELY dependent on our use of Nitrogen. Without nitrogen, we are back to the 1920's food production levels. (i.e. mass starvation) Admittedly some farmers put on to much nitrogen (i.e. anhydrous ammonia) but in general it is in the farmers interest to be AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. Both for their land and for the profit. Remember, they have to LIVE there, drink the water that flows under their fields and eat the food they produce. Farmers are HUGE environmentalists. :)
Transport does take a heavy toll on food, usually because it is harvested before it is ripe so that it doesn't rot in transport. That usually results in fairly tasteless food, especially fruit and tomatoes. Let me see if I can put the costs of this into perspective for you. First of all, you have the cost of the land. Prime farm land in the midwest (which is the best soil in the world) goes for about $4500per/acre +/- $2000 for infrastructure conditions, etc. To give you an idea of the profits, my families most profitable crop is corn. Each acre produces between 120 and 175 bushels/acre of corn on average, though my families farm hasn't seen below 210 bu/acre in the last 10 years. Last year the price of corn was about $2.85 per bushel, though this year is is threatening to hit $5 because of ethanol. 100 acres is about all that you could reasonably expect one building to be able to hold while still getting enough light. (fyi 1 sq. mile = 640 acres) To buy 100 acres would cost $450,000. The INCOME off of 100 acres next year for my family should be 100acres x 180 bu/acre x $5/bu = $90,000!! Profit is usually less than 20% (I am a little fuzzy on exact numbers on that though). How much does transport cost? LESS than ten cents per bushel. $1800 max. It would take YEARS to pay off this land at this rate. (Hence why my family only owns 640 acres) A 4 acre lot in NY, 25 stories high, is going to be TENS of MILLIONS, just for the lot and construction costs. Then you have to haul in the dirt, (or set up the hydroponic tanks), pay the hand laborers, pay the MUCH HIGHER energy costs to produce this way... Theoretically it may work. In Practice? Nope. "Energy savings" aren't going to make a difference either, sorry.
I am both a farmer and an architect (I was raised on a farm and worked as a farmer for 10 years, then went to college to study architecture) This designer is an idiot. Yes, you could technically make a giant vertical greenhouse, but why would you WANT to? 1). The vast majority of the labor would have to be done by hand. There is no way in HELL you are getting a 200hp tractor up there, period. The other option is to have equipment built into the building that can be used, but that gets unbelievably expensive, fast. 1920's all over again? No thanks. 2). Plants simply don't do as well in green houses as they do in nature. Yeah, you can get close with careful application of various fertilizers and chemicals, but then it isn't organic anymore! 3). Architecturally this would be a nightmare. Water everywhere + low ventilation to conserve heat in the greenhouse = HUGE mold and building decay problems. Greenhouses work because they don't have anything for water to seep into, they are basically steel and glass. That wouldn't work for a VERTICAL greenhouse though, you would need concrete, vapor barriers, water flashing... Again. We are talking about a LOT of money. I think my family will stick with our little patch of former swampland.