Vertical Farming - Space saving farming - sustained living

[Ganoderma]

Vertical farming/farming Vertical. sounds interesting, and thinking of giving it a go.

 

now one thing i notice everywhere is that is seems rather hydroponics related, perhaps doesn't have to be, but is seemingly more convenient at present to most people.

 

also seem to be limited in smaller annual crops, ie lettuce, tomatoes and peppers, and root crops *probably* are not so great.

 

in the last 3 years there has been a real green surge here in taiwan. freeway signs with led lights run by solar panels on top, let street lights as well as light up road signs all solar run. green buildings, more trees etc. all good stuff i guess.

 

you know its a fad when shopping malls get in on it. look at these buildings (malls/airports here in taiwan). pretty neat, but i have to say awfully energy dependent.

 

In Taijong city

inside

note heavy power usage on HID lighting indoors....

 

 

kaohsiung airport

 

Taipei airport

 

 

ok so back to farming (the above are just ornamental, but food crops can be exchanged easily enough if they chose to).

 

what are the pros you guys think of? and the cons.

 

if we were to do this outside pretending local environment was good and we were not relying on rain, but were relying on the sun for light.

 

the biggest draw back seems to be water circulation and nutrients. to me, the onyl real work a pump needs to suffer is going UP. it can pump flat all day no worries, but pumping up water requires more wattage. so i played with various pumps i have. one is a monster pump i use at our farm to fill a holding tank, uses 800 watts and can pump up to 30 feet high throgh a 2" hose (though slowly at that height i imagine) it fills a 3meter diameter by 1.4meter deep pond (too tired to do the math on gallons there lol) in 7 minutes with a 0-0.7m incline.

 

my fish aquarium pump uses 150 watts and can go up 1.7meters and has a (so they say) 10l/m flow rate at that height.

 

so lets say we have a system with a pump say 200 watts for a 2 meter high systems of say 20x10 feet, which is what i personally assume a single pump can do as they flow rate i dont *think* would need to be super fast.

 

200watts x 24 hours x 365 days = 1752000watts, or 1752KW (which is what we are charged by in most places i think). here that relates to about $190 USD a year. not too bad?

 

but then there is nutrition, and i am wondering if between composting with invertebrates and making teas and also using a fish farm hooked into the bottom of the system, could that feed the plants? be hard to correct deficiencies i would think....? thoughts.

 

sorry i seem to be jumping all over the place, but i am seriously toying with the idea of buying some land and building a sustainable farm/housing plot to live on "off the grid"....well, still be around and playing on the computer, but not "hooked up" to any power lines or grocery stores.

 

my goal is to support me, my wife and our planned children without *need* (of course there will be wants still) of outside purchases after construction.

 

so ideas.

 

teh idea is to eventually be set up and not rely on outside sources of energy besides natural ones (wind/sun/rain etc).

 

intend on using human waste disposal (septic field hooked into a cultivation area (liekly trees for sanitary reasons)

 

planning on solar

 

farming animals, plants and fungi as a means to support each other and humans

 

design a dwelling that limits wasted energy, but supports comfortable living by todays standards

 

$25k budget after land purchase we'll see....need to pass the wife part of the panning stage. might leave out a few details.

 

neat link (check the links throughout)

Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GAHD]

A rain-catcher at the "top" with a reservoir would make the planet do the work of moving the water that high "for free."

[Moontanman]

I think the biggest draw back is providing light to the crops inside a building. if the idea of vertical farming is going to mean anything it must be more than the outside or top other wise all you have is raised farming that could be done easier at ground level.

[maikeru]

Vertical farming seems most useful in places where land is expensive and space tight. (Could work well in Taiwan and other Asian countries.) From what I've read it offers the potential for closed-loop nutrient cycles and recycling and many of the advantages of greenhouse growing but on a much larger scale. The downside is that building a building to farm is a bit counterproductive (IMO, because it'd need to be more comprehensive than a greenhouse) and it could be very energy intensive like you point out, and like Moontanman suggested it might be easier most of the time to do horizontal (read: normal) farming. I think much better urban planning, zoning, and land use could or should free up more land to be reverted back into farms, green belts, wild areas or reserves, etc. Nutrient deficiencies and such could be easier to deal with, because one can use or create many different growing mediums, tailored fertilizers, compost, or changing types of crops because different crops have different nutrient requirements, etc.

 

I'll write a better reply after I get back from work. :)

[Ganoderma]

I think the biggest draw back is providing light to the crops inside a building. if the idea of vertical farming is going to mean anything it must be more than the outside or top other wise all you have is raised farming that could be done easier at ground level.

 

sort of, but the idea of vertical farming is to utilize the extra surface area provided on the sides with the height. for example if you have a 10x10 plot, thats your surface area. if you have a 10x10 by 10 high plot, you just gained 4x 10x10 plots. now as you say light is an issue. so lower light requiring and smaller sized crops are better suited, like lettuce and the like.

 

naturally there will be less light further down. but spacing and thinking things out will maximize it. it is a little bit like those tripods farmers use for beans. 3 poles in a triangle and tied at the top, almost tepee like. or even rows planted together. you jsut gain massive amounts more surface area than if you simply grew them on the ground or use a flat top system.

 

A rain-catcher at the "top" with a reservoir would make the planet do the work of moving the water that high "for free."

 

indeed a great idea, but energy will still need to be used in times of dry, which many countries get. but far better than always pumping, i agree. though I cant see a reservoir keeping water long in a hydro setup....need to be huge, then i wonder if it is being counter productive in the amount of space it takes. i think with vertical farming, one has no choice but to use at least pumps.

 

greenhouses can help the issue in cold areas as many places are bright enough, but planting outside in the cold is not possible. there are some fine monster examples in the lower mainland of BC canada, where without greenhouses the land would sit brown for 4 months.

 

 

Vertical farming seems most useful in places where land is expensive and space tight.

 

yes, but i dont see why it should be used there more than anywhere else. its all about using things more efficiently and putting in less to get more...that seems to be the ultimate goal everywhere, despite our apparent failures at doing so. just image in land rich countries like the US, canada, brazil and australia which all have huge agro industries. now if someone were to develop a system that produced well and took half the space, imagine the results....either an environmental miracle or an overfed human population.

 

i am a firm believer that there is the know how and technology to allow us to produce far more per square meter of land and also not use so many chemicals. in a well thought out system, it should work like a mini ecosystem, just add water. cant wait for the time to come. imagine farms being literal mini forests with animals, plants but all are directly used for either human harvest or to help sustain the system.

 

ponds replace rivers/lakes providing aquatic feasts and awater for treh plants. trees and vegetation provide a foundaation for eveything to survice from soil health, to food of decomposers etc. bugs and fungi in teh soil fertilize the plants te grow in it. and animals eat the various waste vegetation discard from teh farmer and produce more fertilizer.

 

i think of it as a possible living environment that takes care of its self, and human manipulate it a little to produce more productive results (ie pruning, feeding, even spread of nutrients/water etc). and only the "fruits" are taken out, which means most of the energy that is locked up somewhere just gets turned around inside the ecosystem and not hauled away and burned like so monoculture many farms do.

 

add to this natural wonderland some electricity (from whatever source we care to use) and some construction to manipulate how things work to make it more streamlined and FASTER, this could be a pretty cool little thing we got going, and surely better for everyone than a tonne of fertilizer and pesticide per acre on a farm that only grows things for 3/4 of the year. and where we may lack quantity of any single crop, compared to monoculture, teh overall haul with numerous species being harvested would no doubt far exceed that of a monoculture system.

 

 

i should shut up now, this stuff really excites me :)

 

look forward to more thoughts and ideas :phones:

[maikeru]

sort of, but the idea of vertical farming is to utilize the extra surface area provided on the sides with the height. for example if you have a 10x10 plot, thats your surface area. if you have a 10x10 by 10 high plot, you just gained 4x 10x10 plots. now as you say light is an issue. so lower light requiring and smaller sized crops are better suited, like lettuce and the like.

 

naturally there will be less light further down. but spacing and thinking things out will maximize it. it is a little bit like those tripods farmers use for beans. 3 poles in a triangle and tied at the top, almost tepee like. or even rows planted together. you jsut gain massive amounts more surface area than if you simply grew them on the ground or use a flat top system.

 

I think a normal 10X10 plot can be visualized in another manner if you do it as polyculture. By using crops that have greater height and different sizes, you are effectively and efficiently use vertical space as well. Vertical farming is good with smaller crops, so there will be more plants more compactly.

 

I wanted to say that lighting can be met by certain adaptations, maybe like using LED grow lights and/or more clean and sustainable ways to generate electricity for lighting needs. I have no experience with LED grow lights, though, so I'll keep mum on that. I just know we discuss them in the forum quite a bit.

 

greenhouses can help the issue in cold areas as many places are bright enough, but planting outside in the cold is not possible. there are some fine monster examples in the lower mainland of BC canada, where without greenhouses the land would sit brown for 4 months.

 

Definitely. They're very useful.

 

yes, but i dont see why it should be used there more than anywhere else. its all about using things more efficiently and putting in less to get more...that seems to be the ultimate goal everywhere, despite our apparent failures at doing so. just image in land rich countries like the US, canada, brazil and australia which all have huge agro industries. now if someone were to develop a system that produced well and took half the space, imagine the results....either an environmental miracle or an overfed human population.

 

i am a firm believer that there is the know how and technology to allow us to produce far more per square meter of land and also not use so many chemicals. in a well thought out system, it should work like a mini ecosystem, just add water. cant wait for the time to come. imagine farms being literal mini forests with animals, plants but all are directly used for either human harvest or to help sustain the system.

 

Believe me that you speak directly to my heart. If more people, businesses, and industries practiced, less in for more out, less waste and greater gain, we would have revolutions in agriculture, science, tech, business, and simple satisfaction and happiness in people's lives. Part of the problem is that we must factor cost into the equation, because if it costs too much to do farming one way, we need to ask ourselves if it can be another way or more importantly, can it be done a better way. Part of the problem is fighting a system, a knowledge base that relies on chemicals, monocultures, etc. Part of the problem is fighting cultures, peoples, and businesses/industries that have indoctrinated themselves to believe that things should be or must be a certain way.

 

ponds replace rivers/lakes providing aquatic feasts and awater for treh plants. trees and vegetation provide a foundaation for eveything to survice from soil health, to food of decomposers etc. bugs and fungi in teh soil fertilize the plants te grow in it. and animals eat the various waste vegetation discard from teh farmer and produce more fertilizer.

 

i think of it as a possible living environment that takes care of its self, and human manipulate it a little to produce more productive results (ie pruning, feeding, even spread of nutrients/water etc). and only the "fruits" are taken out, which means most of the energy that is locked up somewhere just gets turned around inside the ecosystem and not hauled away and burned like so monoculture many farms do.

 

Basically, people need to realize that we live inside, function inside, and compose systems that interact within greater and more complex systems, like an ecosystem. A farm is a living system, with inputs and outputs of energy, resources, products, etc., and in a certain way, should be viewed and treated holistically (shall we say: wholistically?) for optimal functioning. Just as a human cannot live without a liver or heart, so there are also certain things on a good farm that cannot be ignored, without peril to its health (and the health of others).

 

add to this natural wonderland some electricity (from whatever source we care to use) and some construction to manipulate how things work to make it more streamlined and FASTER, this could be a pretty cool little thing we got going, and surely better for everyone than a tonne of fertilizer and pesticide per acre on a farm that only grows things for 3/4 of the year. and where we may lack quantity of any single crop, compared to monoculture, teh overall haul with numerous species being harvested would no doubt far exceed that of a monoculture system.

 

Properly planned polycultures should exceed the viability and produce of a monoculture when weighed together as a whole, IMO. Not only that, they give significant more resilience and flexibility to the entire system and the farmer. Whoever fertilized a forest? Nature cultivates herself and flourishes.

 

i should shut up now, this stuff really excites me

 

look forward to more thoughts and ideas

 

You must be pretty familiar with Bill Mollison and other permaculturists' work, right?

[Ganoderma]

I think a normal 10X10 plot can be visualized in another manner if you do it as polyculture. By using crops that have greater height and different sizes, you are effectively and efficiently use vertical space as well. Vertical farming is good with smaller crops, so there will be more plants more compactly.

 

I wanted to say that lighting can be met by certain adaptations, maybe like using LED grow lights and/or more clean and sustainable ways to generate electricity for lighting needs. I have no experience with LED grow lights, though, so I'll keep mum on that. I just know we discuss them in the forum quite a bit.

 

LED, are almost there, still not quite able to penetrate liek other sources, but they will get it im sure.

 

as fr the space saving with poly i agree 110%. i am drawing up some plans for a hydro aquaculture and started thinking in the pipes used for hydro, one could easily interchange a low grower, or say a ground cover like some beans, with a taller grower like peppers or tomatoes...for example. and that is barely even using vertical space to its full potential.

 

Part of the problem is fighting cultures, peoples, and businesses/industries that have indoctrinated themselves to believe that things should be or must be a certain way.

 

mhmm. this is why with this sort of thing, it takes so long cause individuals have neither the money nro influence to make it usually. but i feel that if peoepl do this on their own, make it work than make it very public very fast in an easy to read article, it can make huge changes fast...this avoids all the gov regulation red tape crap and business and their greedy ways delaying things to maximize profit...but lets avoid that topic cause tis a passionate one between the tree huggers and the wallstreet gurus lol. luckily here we are allowed to do such things. it would never work back in canada with all their bureaucracy. after 10 years of inspections, permits, planning etc, one would be left so broke or simply declined too often to ever make a go at it. here i call up the store and order, bricks, concrete piping etc and the onyl draw back is cash for materials and time to build.

 

 

Properly planned polycultures should exceed the viability and produce of a monoculture when weighed together as a whole, IMO. Not only that, they give significant more resilience and flexibility to the entire system and the farmer. Whoever fertilized a forest? Nature cultivates herself and flourishes.

amen brother (or sister?).

 

but it seems teh arguments against are always, the end product is lower than of monoculture. due to pests, nutrients etc. but like you say

Properly planned polycultures should exceed the viability and produce of a monoculture when weighed together as a whole

 

but i think the problem is it is a HUGE learning curve, and when a farmer often relies on that annual return, he likely isnt interested in a 5 or so year learning curve of liekly crap profit. thats my assumption anyway, so it is likely going to be the younger new farmers that bring this about...guess that is not so uncommon in most fields though.

 

 

 

so i have been drawing up some basic designs that incorporate fish and plants (and worms/land composters if one wished to evote a compartment instead of fish).

 

it is basically a pyramid. with the top being a large water holding tank with a flaot in it that will automatically turn teh pump on ti fill it (like a toilet or water tanks here). then down the 4 sides hydro pipes snake down gradually (say 5 degree decline for arguments sake) and eventually drain out into the fish holding tanks which are a square around the holding tank (but lower).

 

the water trickles down, from the holding tank at the top, via gravity through all the piping (rate to be determined) into a the tanks below. the piping literally is above the fish holding tanks below, as the fish are not in large need of light. there is a pump below in the fish tank that pumps up to the reservoir up top when the water level reaches XX line. the hydro i would think would do well for things like leaf crops, tomatoes etc.

[maikeru]

LED, are almost there, still not quite able to penetrate liek other sources, but they will get it im sure.

 

as fr the space saving with poly i agree 110%. i am drawing up some plans for a hydro aquaculture and started thinking in the pipes used for hydro, one could easily interchange a low grower, or say a ground cover like some beans, with a taller grower like peppers or tomatoes...for example. and that is barely even using vertical space to its full potential.

 

Those are good ideas.

 

mhmm. this is why with this sort of thing, it takes so long cause individuals have neither the money nro influence to make it usually. but i feel that if peoepl do this on their own, make it work than make it very public very fast in an easy to read article, it can make huge changes fast...this avoids all the gov regulation red tape crap and business and their greedy ways delaying things to maximize profit...but lets avoid that topic cause tis a passionate one between the tree huggers and the wallstreet gurus lol. luckily here we are allowed to do such things. it would never work back in canada with all their bureaucracy. after 10 years of inspections, permits, planning etc, one would be left so broke or simply declined too often to ever make a go at it. here i call up the store and order, bricks, concrete piping etc and the onyl draw back is cash for materials and time to build.

 

I've heard that's one of the advantages of doing business in Taiwan. btw, you're all right there in Taiwan? I'm sorry I haven't written sooner and I heard the earthquake hit a few days ago. Best wishes. I think there can be a line walked where one can be a profitable tree hugger. :coffee_n_pc:

 

but i think the problem is it is a HUGE learning curve, and when a farmer often relies on that annual return, he likely isnt interested in a 5 or so year learning curve of liekly crap profit. thats my assumption anyway, so it is likely going to be the younger new farmers that bring this about...guess that is not so uncommon in most fields though.

 

That's possible. Anyway, the time is pretty good for a new generation of farmers, but one of the serious drawbacks right now is that land prices have shot up around the world, due to development and speculation. New younger farmers will have a more difficult time finding a place.

 

so i have been drawing up some basic designs that incorporate fish and plants (and worms/land composters if one wished to evote a compartment instead of fish).

 

it is basically a pyramid. with the top being a large water holding tank with a flaot in it that will automatically turn teh pump on ti fill it (like a toilet or water tanks here). then down the 4 sides hydro pipes snake down gradually (say 5 degree decline for arguments sake) and eventually drain out into the fish holding tanks which are a square around the holding tank (but lower).

 

the water trickles down, from the holding tank at the top, via gravity through all the piping (rate to be determined) into a the tanks below. the piping literally is above the fish holding tanks below, as the fish are not in large need of light. there is a pump below in the fish tank that pumps up to the reservoir up top when the water level reaches XX line. the hydro i would think would do well for things like leaf crops, tomatoes etc.

 

And that's a cool idea.

[Gelar123]

The Corps of Engineers and EPA can mislead, mistreat and leave you stranded, for no reason at all, because nobody is WILLING and ABLE to stop them.

 

New New Alaska - Can The Bump Start Here?

[freeztar]

it is basically a pyramid. with the top being a large water holding tank with a flaot in it that will automatically turn teh pump on ti fill it (like a toilet or water tanks here). then down the 4 sides hydro pipes snake down gradually (say 5 degree decline for arguments sake) and eventually drain out into the fish holding tanks which are a square around the holding tank (but lower).

 

the water trickles down, from the holding tank at the top, via gravity through all the piping (rate to be determined) into a the tanks below. the piping literally is above the fish holding tanks below, as the fish are not in large need of light. there is a pump below in the fish tank that pumps up to the reservoir up top when the water level reaches XX line. the hydro i would think would do well for things like leaf crops, tomatoes etc.

 

That sounds very close to a design my father-in-law is working on, except his version doesn't use soil (think biochar).

 

I think the concept of pyramidal agriculture (aeroculture) has it's roots in Phoenix (IIRC).