Dutch 'city farming' grows food faster without sunlight

[mr friendly guy]

http://global.ofweek.com/news/Dutch-cit ... ight-29809

Dutch 'city farming' grows food faster without sunlight

By: Shandra Martinez | http://www.mlive.com/ | Posted: 27 May 2015, 09:58Share:
In their beds, the salad greens are enveloped by magenta hues from the lights above hardly seem appetizing. Surprisingly, the unblemished leaves taste pretty good when they come out from under the lamps.

Those who visit Brightbox, a high-tech horticulture lab in the Netherlands' agricultural hub of Venlo are invited to taste what is grown under light-emitting diodes, or LED lights.

The salad greens are raised in such immaculate conditions, there is no need to wash the leaves before sampling, visitors are told.

"We try to stay away from soil," said Gus van der Feltz, global director of City Farming at Philips Horticulture LED Solutions.

He touts climate cells as the future of food production because the method relies on a fraction of the water needed to raise crops in fields or greenhouses. And plants grow faster under red and blue lights than the full spectrum of sunlight.

The research facility is a partnership between HAS University of Applied Sciences and the Dutch lighting giant Philips Royal.

The Netherlands is the second biggest exporter of agricultural products after the United States, and a leader in greenhouse technology. So it isn't surprising that the Dutch are at the forefront of the new trend in agriculture: vertical farming, also known as city, urban or even warehouse farming. It is even being eyed for skyscrapers.

Part of the appeal of growing indoors is that crops aren't vulnerable to the extremes of weather. The dense configuration of the plants also makes their care less labor intensive, and potentially easier for them to be tended by robotic technology.

Plant factories are being touted as the sustainable solution to the problem of decreasing farm acreage and a rising global population.

Philips Horticulture LED Solutions and PlantLab, two Dutch companies that are leaders in indoor technology, will be heading to Michigan next week as part of an economic delegation accompanying the Dutch King and Queen's historic visit to the state.

RELATED: See itinerary for Dutch Royals' U.S. visit including stop in Grand Rapids

One of Philip's clients is Green Sense Farms in Portage, Ind., which describes itself as country's largest indoor, commercial, vertical farm.

Michigan has begun to embrace this high-tech farming method. In Detroit, Artesian Farms and Green Collar Foods recently opened vertical farming operations, reported the Detroit Free Press. New Buffalo-based Green Spirit Farms designed and made the stacking shelves for Artesian Farms.

For now, vertical farming methods are primarily used to grow leafy greens, strawberries and herbs that are sold for a premium, not food staples such as rice, corn or potatoes needed to feed the masses.

"It's truly in its infancy," said Chris Beytes, editor of the Chicago-based Grower Talks and Green Profit magazines.

He was part of a contingent of U.S. journalists -- including MLive and The Grand Rapids Press -- that toured Dutch companies ahead of the royal visit to the U.S. next week.

In a former retail warehouse turned headquarters in the Netherlands' city of Den Bosch, PlantLab has created 16 growing chambers equipped with rows of tiny blue and red LED lights that shine above trays of plants.

Inside the locked chambers, PlantLab does R&D on plants. By playing with levels of light, climate and nutrients, the company says it can shift how plants taste and even their nutritional value. PlantLab creates plant recipes for its clients that can then be scaled up.

"We haven't come across a crop we can't grow," said Ard Reijtenbagh, chief partnership officer for the 40-person company. "The question is what is economically viable at this stage."

The company's founders began by developing mathematical models for growing plants in the 1990s. It wasn't until a decade ago they moved into building their first prototypes, and the first commercial project began in 2010.

Reijtenbagh says the company doesn't have any interest into moving into the politically complicated and potentially lucrative medical marijuana market.

Instead, PlantLab is focusing its attention on nutraceutical, pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

PlantLab has yet to be introduced to Amway, which does significant business in two of the categories, Reijtenbagh said. The West Michigan company also operates its European distribution center in Venlo, about an hour's drive from PlantLab's headquarters.

Reijtenbagh said he expected the PlantLab team to learn more about Amway during its visit to Michigan.

Agriculture will also be a theme during of the delegation's stop in Chicago.

There, the Royal Couple will visit Gotham Greens' newest rooftop greenhouse, the largest rooftop greenhouse facility in the world. The South Chicago facility showcases Dutch products used in the growing process from the seeds and growing mediums to climate control and biological control.

The King and Queen will end their U.S. visit attending a lesson of "Sowing Seeds of Innovation to Feed Cities Healthier Food," at Gwendolyn Brooks College Preparatory Academy.

[Broomstick]

It requires less water and space but instead of relying on solar energy you need to supply artificial light - depending on how that is generated it may or may not be a net benefit.

The other problem with concentrated growing situations like that is if you get some sort of infestation or fungus or similar affecting the plants. Dealing with that is a bit of a bitch in my experience with hydroponics.

[salm]

The Dutch have been growing massive amounts of produce in extremely tight spaces (i.e. greenhouses) for ever. I think they have the infestation problem under control.

[Lagmonster]

Not necessarily; no mention is made of their yield or loss. I'd go as far as to say that this kind of tech will expand the ability of some temperate or northern regions of richer countries to supply exotic or foreign vegetation that would be either financially or politically costly to import. But that's still basically supplying a luxury to people who don't honestly need it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Vertical farming in a city is a waste of valuable space, but growing it outside the city is a good idea - especially if you can supply the energy for the cells from solar or wind power. I remember hearing about a similar startup in the vicinity of Atlanta that was growing plants for restaurants after repurposing old shipping containers.

Not necessarily; no mention is made of their yield or loss. I'd go as far as to say that this kind of tech will expand the ability of some temperate or northern regions of richer countries to supply exotic or foreign vegetation that would be either financially or politically costly to import. But that's still basically supplying a luxury to people who don't honestly need it.

I don't consider greater access to diverse produce just a luxury, and it's a good thing if this makes it cheaper and easier to produce than shipping it in from abroad.

[Lagmonster]

I don't consider greater access to diverse produce just a luxury, and it's a good thing if this makes it cheaper and easier to produce than shipping it in from abroad.

My worry was that people who can afford to implement this technology are people who can probably afford to import the food more cheaply, and at the benefit of supporting the economies of poorer countries who rely on exotic agricultural exports.

[Borgholio]

Speaking from experience, I can confirm that using red and blue light combined is better than full daylight. Planets photosynthesize best in the red and blue wavelengths, so the bulbs I put in my planted aquarium are heavy in those wavelengths with just a touch of yellow so our eyes can see it better...but the plants can't use yellow or green very well at all.

[Broomstick]

Not necessarily; no mention is made of their yield or loss. I'd go as far as to say that this kind of tech will expand the ability of some temperate or northern regions of richer countries to supply exotic or foreign vegetation that would be either financially or politically costly to import. But that's still basically supplying a luxury to people who don't honestly need it.

The downside to importing more is that you expend energy to move those products (increased pollution, green house effect, and dependency on feudal barbarians supplying the raw materials for fuel) and it can distort the economies of the producing nations (see "banana republic", and not the clothing store)

It's not always a mater of supplying "exotic" or "foreign" foods - you can grow very mundane stuff in a green house, and green house cucumbers and greens already do a brisk business in the store where I work. When you can't grow food half the year outside in the dirt the appeal of a greenhouse definitely goes up.

[Irbis]

Vertical farming in a city is a waste of valuable space

How? If anything, it frees up the fields outside of the city that can become wildlife habitat again. Vertical anything is the exact opposite of space waste...

My worry was that people who can afford to implement this technology are people who can probably afford to import the food more cheaply, and at the benefit of supporting the economies of poorer countries who rely on exotic agricultural exports.

Such as these countries now razing such unimportant places like Amazonian jungle, Sumatran forests, or Serengeti to grow these 'exotic agricultural exports' that pay more than tourism or conservation and justify galloping land grabs?

[Darmalus]

Vertical farming in a city is a waste of valuable space

How? If anything, it frees up the fields outside of the city that can become wildlife habitat again. Vertical anything is the exact opposite of space waste...

Virtually anything will earn more money than farming in the same amount of space, even accounting for saved transportation and packaging costs.

[salm]

Vertical farming in a city is a waste of valuable space

How? If anything, it frees up the fields outside of the city that can become wildlife habitat again. Vertical anything is the exact opposite of space waste...

Virtually anything will earn more money than farming in the same amount of space, even accounting for saved transportation and packaging costs.

Are you sure? Have you taken a look at Holland? There are plenty of images like the following on google images. I mean, Holland isn´t quite as spacious as the USA but is the second largest producer of produce in the world. I think they really know what they´re doing.

[Broomstick]

Vertical farming in a city is a waste of valuable space

How? If anything, it frees up the fields outside of the city that can become wildlife habitat again. Vertical anything is the exact opposite of space waste...

Virtually anything will earn more money than farming in the same amount of space, even accounting for saved transportation and packaging costs.

Yeah, but you kind of need food if you want to keep on living, know what I mean? Somebody somewhere has to grow food.

[His Divine Shadow]

I remember a local plantation had a similar experient with LEDS and those frequencies with tomato plants and found no difference to using ordinary lamps

[His Divine Shadow]

Yeah, but you kind of need food if you want to keep on living, know what I mean? Somebody somewhere has to grow food.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read, this is why we got supermarkets!

[salm]

Also note that Holland has a CO2 pipeline that transports CO2 produced by industry directly into the greenhouses in order to increase growth speed. This is how optimized Dutch greenhouses are. It is not surprising that they are optimizing it even further with measures that might seem silly in other places.

[Irbis]

Virtually anything will earn more money than farming in the same amount of space, even accounting for saved transportation and packaging costs.

Not if you account wildlife habitat damage due to using fertilizers, harvesters, destroying nests, using extra fuel, etc, etc, as well as opportunity costs and lost benefits from land being left in natural state, but these just aren't visible enough. The exact same argument was once used for dumping untreated waste into rivers and air, because hey, it's cheaper that way, no?

[Guardsman Bass]

What I meant is that land in dense areas of cities (areas where skyscrapers and tall buildings are permitted) tends to both be pretty expensive and more environmentally friendly if you've got people living/working there instead (their per capita emissions, gas usage, etc goes down). It's not a good place to grow crops inside of greenhouses - if you really wanted to be environmentally friendly, you'd grow them on the outskirts of the city in a densely packed greenhouse district, then send it into the city by boat or rail.

[salm]

That´s pretty much what they are doing. Just look at a satelite image of Westland on google maps. There isn´t that much space left for greenhouses. The greenhouses boarder Den Haag and Delft and are about 15 km from Rotterdam. On the other side there is the ocean and the enormous harbour of Rotterdam. A couple of towns are completely encompassed by greenhouses.

For a country packed as densly as the Netherlands in which 10 percent of the GDP comes from agricultural products it makes sense to develop and optimize technologies that save space.

[Lagmonster]

My worry was that people who can afford to implement this technology are people who can probably afford to import the food more cheaply, and at the benefit of supporting the economies of poorer countries who rely on exotic agricultural exports.

Such as these countries now razing such unimportant places like Amazonian jungle, Sumatran forests, or Serengeti to grow these 'exotic agricultural exports' that pay more than tourism or conservation and justify galloping land grabs?

Yeah, like them. You got a problem with that, give them this goddamn tech so they don't have to savage quite as many acres of land to generate an equal yield, assuming yield-per-acre from this tech even comes close to their current production.

My conviction is that technology and education should be used to improve the production and reduce the negative impact of farming for the people with the least options, and not used to simply cut them out of the equation entirely. That is shortsighted and cruel.

Virtually anything will earn more money than farming in the same amount of space, even accounting for saved transportation and packaging costs.

Not if you account wildlife habitat damage due to using fertilizers, harvesters, destroying nests, using extra fuel, etc, etc, as well as opportunity costs and lost benefits from land being left in natural state, but these just aren't visible enough.

Demonstrate how you calculate that more money can be generated from leaving land devoid of human contact as opposed to farming it or developing residential or industrial buildings on it.

Leaving aside every single other argument, of course, such as that profit is an unreasonable standard to hold agriculture to, agricultural production is more important than basically everything else, most people don't have the luxury of other forms of land development, you're kind of a dick, etc., etc..

[Adam Reynolds]

I'd read about this a while ago before it was proliferating. Nice to see that it is making progress.

Demonstrate how you calculate that more money can be generated from leaving land devoid of human contact as opposed to farming it or developing residential or industrial buildings on it.

Because the environment has no value. Right. Environmental damage will actually hurt the people with least resources first rather than last.

Leaving aside every single other argument, of course, such as that profit is an unreasonable standard to hold agriculture to,

Nice contradiction with the above point. So it is unreasonable to consider profit when discussing agriculture, but it is reasonable when discussing the environment.

agricultural production is more important than basically everything else, most people don't have the luxury of other forms of land development, you're kind of a dick, etc., etc..

And if we are talking about imported agriculture production, transportation infrastructure(and it's associated cost) is at least as important. It does no good to grow crops and have them rot because they can't go anywhere.

[PainRack]

Any more details on the inputs costs? My understanding is that that's vertical farming current viability issue.. It kinda makes that difficult for third world farming to compete and they're already screwed as it is on agricultural markets

[Lagmonster]

Demonstrate how you calculate that more money can be generated from leaving land devoid of human contact as opposed to farming it or developing residential or industrial buildings on it.

Because the environment has no value. Right. Environmental damage will actually hurt the people with least resources first rather than last.

The guy was arguing that farming makes less profit per square foot of space used, which seems really hard to disagree with. You could, as I implied, argue that profit margin isn't the best way to determine how we use land, but we'd go back and forth about environmental concern versus reducing the cost of food while raising availability/quality, until I remember that the people who determine public policy on agriculture all think like me and give up.

Leaving aside every single other argument, of course, such as that profit is an unreasonable standard to hold agriculture to,

Nice contradiction with the above point. So it is unreasonable to consider profit when discussing agriculture, but it is reasonable when discussing the environment.

I don't agree that profit should be a primary motivator in either case, if you need me to phrase it more clearly. it's just that the only metric being used for that particular argument was dollars made per unit of space required, and I wanted to know what the hell Irbis was talking about with all that stuff about pesticides, etc., factoring into his contradiction of this statement. I expected him to reply with some bullshit about public health costs long-term or damage control costs or something. Hell, I'd settle for 'you misunderstood' so long as it came with a reasonable explanation.