by Chas Bonner
There is general agreement among economists and demographers that between 2000 and 2050, world population will increase by 50% and food production must increase 70%. Do we have the land available, or can we expect that kind of productivity increase on existing and new agricultural lands to achieve a 70% increase?
One plan that has been heavily researched is to farm “vertically.” Most population growth has been urban, and demographers predict that by 2050, fully 70% of the world population will be in urban environments. As a result, farms should be built vertically in such environments (or that is one line of reasoning). There are some real plusses:
- Serve the locally grown movement, the “locavores.”
- Far less distribution costs.
- Less spoilage since most production is locally consumed.
- A fraction of the water use because crops would be grown hydroponically, and water is continually recycled with no run off.
- No soil erosion since soil is absent or insignificant in hydroponics.
- Most farm chemicals would see vastly decreased use, with exception of plant food needed to grow hydroponically.
- Air flow through growing crops provides them necessary carbon dioxide.
If so easy, why is this not becoming a reality? One primary answer seems to rule: LIGHT. Plants need natural light and sunlight. In a vertical farm, there are many floors of growing plants, and few can get enough light. To date, artificial light has not worked or is prohibitively expensive. Someday, maybe, but the jury is out.
So keep those farms running, hopefully growing more food with fewer inputs. “Horizontal farming” is essential forever, even if strides are made in the vertical farming arena.
Comments