which is really only a useful technology in places that are short on arible landq
So, everywhere within the next 60 years?
:-(
Comment on Breakthrough: "Electronic soil" boosts crop growth by over 50%
echo64@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is really only a useful technology for hydroponics, which is really only a useful technology in places that are short on arible land, but the realities of globalization means good luck beating the costs of importing from places that have more arible land than you.
Still neat, I would have liked to have seen an explanation for the change
obinice@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Also quite useful for places short on water, or daylight, or clement weather, or low-value ecosystems, or where transportation is unfeasible due to accessibility, environmental conditions, market access.
Also quite good to alleviate food deserts, securing strategic supply chains, and supporting urbanisation for greenification, food supply, lowering transport and food security (with growing food also having positive mental and psychosocial effects).
rdyoung@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Hydroponic is way more efficient than growing in dirt. You can stack it as high as you want and grow way more per acre. On top of that you have the reduced amount of fertilizer and the increase in growth rate.
There is a reason why the best weed is grown via hydroponics.
bassomitron@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It depends on what you mean by efficient. Cost efficiency wise, normal land farming beats out hydroponics by a mile. And really, cost efficiency is virtually the only thing that matters when it comes to farming on a massive scale.
rdyoung@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is so false it’s not even funny. Hydro is way more efficient and aero even more so.
The highlights because I don’t have time for a lecture.
With farming indoors you can control the day/night cycle which not only increases the growth rate it also let’s you manipulate fruiting and flowering.
Hydro and aero use a fraction of the water dirt farming does. More water is being taken up by the plants and none of it is being lost to the environment. On top of that evaporation is controlled so less is lost that way.
As mentioned above the growth rate is increased not only by the light cycle but also by being able to more strictly control and fine tune the amount of fertilizer and you use way less of it. Just like the water, fertilizer isn’t lost to the environment.
Seems like some of you need to learn more about this stuff. There is a growing number of vertical farms popping up all over the world. Hopefully one day soon we will be buying lettuce, carrots, etc that were grown if not in the same building but on the same block.
bassomitron@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If that was the case, why isn’t every industrial farm doing it?
Meowoem@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
That depends on yield per year and for certain crops it’s incredibly high compared to arable, especially with clever engineering that uses waste heat productively.
We’re certainly going to see an increase in city farms for various things over the coming decades, automation just makes it too easy and there are so many good options to explore
echo64@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Or you could just skip all that and plant seeds in soil, with a larger farm outside of the city
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 10 months ago
Only if you want to use incredible amounts of electricity and occupy a lot of building space. Ignoring those things it may be more efficient but not when you look at the whole picture.
rdyoung@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It doesn’t actually take that much juice these days. On top of being able to use solar and wind generated power we also have leds that barely use any electricity to run.
Aside from the initial investment for the setup, the ongoing energy and resources needed for hydro and aero are most definitely going to be less than dirt farming especially when you factor in being able to grow year round. And don’t forget the reduced amount of fertilizer and water usage. The water isn’t lost to the ground with only a small amount of it being used by the plants.
Basically this it like ev versus ice. When you don’t factor in everything, one looks better than the other but with all things considered, ev is way better than ice.
echo64@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Efficiency doesn’t matter when we have huge amounts of low-cost arible soil. We don’t need to make the most of every square meter when it’s cheaper and easier to just put seeds in soil. This is the problem.
Hydroponics are cool technology that is in every way “better” but useless.
rdyoung@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Again, false. Getting the equivalent of 5+ acres out of the physical space of 1 and leaving the plants to do their thing is better in every way imaginable.
refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 10 months ago
The best weed is grown in no-till soil, hence why living soil weed sells for more money.
rdyoung@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Aeroponics were what you wanted, especially 20+ years ago.
kozy138@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Hydroponics, when combined with indoor, vertical farming, is the reason that the Netherlands are one of Europe largest exporters of food. Even though they’re one of the countries with the least amount of farmland.