|
 
|
Growing verticalThere seem to be infinite new ideas in food production where the logic defies gravity. The latest is in the respected magazine, Scientific American. It proposes building skyscraper farms within cities rather than growing the food and trucking it to the masses. Here's the summary by author Mark Fischetti: "Why not grow grains, vegetables and fruits right where the expanding crowds of consumers are: in the middle of a city, inside a tall glass building? Poultry and pork could be reared there, too. A vertical farm would drastically reduce the fossil-fuel use and emissions associated with farm machinery and trucking, as well as the spread of fertilizer and its runoff. "Crops could grow and be harvested year-round instead of at the end of one season, multiplying annual yield by at least four times. Urban agriculture could also convert municipal wastewater into irrigation water, reducing a city's refuse problem. And consumers would get the freshest food possible, without pesticides." It is imperative that we dream and that technologies merge to address the needs of society. I just have problems with the premise that what farmers are doing now is bad and this approach would be better. It would be greenhouse agriculture taken to a higher level and certainly is scientifically feasible today. There are, however, many other factors that enter into my vision of how my great-grandchildren will get their food in the crowded second half of the 21st century. Agricultural production remains the lowest value use of land. Pick an acre and price it for urban businesses, suburban homes, rural industry or any other use and farming comes out at the bottom. This is true worldwide, even in countries that have many people and few acres of tillable land. The issue, in a free market, is cost. It is relatively inexpensive to plant an acre of tomatoes in north Florida but it would be very expensive to grow the same tomatoes in a high-rise in Manhattan. The Florida tomatoes are attractive and nutritious but may not retain as much flavor after their 1,000-mile ride north to New York City. They will, however, be cheaper than those grown in a high-tech urban environment. Given the choice, which tomato will the consumer choose? Today, about 10 to 25 percent of consumers will pay more for locally grown, identity preserved produce. How much more depends on the economy. Estimating cost of the ultimate urban production system has to take into account the alternative use of the same investment in property. In major cities, office space rents for $10 to $40 per square foot per year. If you farmed an acre (43,560 square feet) the crop rent would range from $435,000 to $1,741,000 per year. Pencil that in when you start figuring out the price per pound to break even. If you want locally grown food, the resource that is being overlooked is lawns. The green grass that is fertilized watered and mowed could easily be turned into vegetable gardens that could yield massive quantities each growing season. Place a greenhouse on each property to extend the productive period and the urban dwellers can buy from their neighbors or form cooperatives where each grower specializes and they barter the output. The only way high cost urban food production will work is if government restricts supply from outside sources. We may stop Mexican fruits and vegetables from entering the United States, but will we go so far as to ban trucking of produce from rural to urban areas? The premise that traditional agricultural production is a polluter also troubles me. The author implies that raising livestock on the 30th floor of an urban farm is more environmentally friendly than raising the same species in a confined animal feeding unit. I consider that view as naÃØve: waste is waste. What is done to extract nutrients and detoxify manure comes down to cost. We could run all hog manure through a metropolitan sewage system at a high cost, or we could inject the manure into cropland and break it down utilizing natural processes while increasing fertility and yields. Again, government has to decide what restrictions it will place on animal agriculture before producers can address the most cost-effective means of producing meat, milk or eggs. Urban gardens are a wonderful Idea. Go Ms. Obama! The idea that a child might have a small livestock project in the midst of an urban jungle is wonderful. Go 4-H clubs! But to conclude that conventional farming systems are bad because they transport food and use inorganic fertilizer and pesticides leads me to wonder if the urban dweller has "agoraphobia" where the fear of the wide open spaces makes one want to cast out reality and hide in their small and safe little world. Editor's Note: This is Ken Root's 35th year as an agricultural reporter. He grew up on a small farm in central Oklahoma and started his career as a vocational agriculture teacher. He worked in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri as a broadcaster and was the original host of AgriTalk. He has also been the executive director of the National AgriChemical Retailers Association in Washington, D.C. and the National Association of Farm Broadcasters in Kansas City. Ken is now the lead farm broadcaster at WHO and WMT Radio based in Des Moines, Iowa. He has been a columnist for HPJ and Midwest Ag Journal for eight years.
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2010. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
62023