Group items tagged

Farm Together Now in its most elemental form is a book about American farmers in the 21st century. In particular, this book addresses the other side of American agriculture: innovations moving towards sustainable farming practices. This is achieved through 20 interviews with farmers and activists across the nation along with 60 beautiful photos of their lives.  Although honing all 20 of the interviews down into one specific argument is difficult, the purpose of this book is to see the unity in all of their individual and sometimes philosophically contradictory approaches to sustainable agriculture. The authors argue that a shift in the dominant agricultural paradigm will not occur unless farmers and citizens are united in resisting it and are invested in working together to forge a more sustainable agricultural system.  What this book lacks is a deeper discussion of conflicting views in sustainable agriculture. The three issues that Franceschini and Tucker identified are provocative and would make a very interesting follow-up book.  Despite the author's insistence that we "Farm together now", they do not explore how sustainable farmers can reconcile their differences to do just that.  Although it's likely that urban, educated people are the main consumers of this book, I feel that it has value outside of those exclusive communities and would be beneficial for farmers, artists, and anyone looking for solutions to local problems. Personally, I would recommend this book to anyone because I feel that the authors made a sometimes-scary topic more approachable through this intimate portrayal of farmers. 

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

The theme of our symposium seemed to be: eat regionally, not locally. This article reiterates that with a particular focus on urban agriculture. What seems like a uber-progressive change, may not be the best for farmers and land use, and (this article claims) it wouldnt even work, regardless.

This highlights the rare but occassional shrinking city. Detroits population and economic state is declining, and the city - structurally - may actually have to get smaller. This is, as the article notes, not exactly what urban planning is traditionally oriented towards. But that does not mean it will never happen. Imagine fuel prices increasing without a good alternative coming in - people will likely begin to abandon hinterlands and outskirts and suburbs for cities, and this problem will occur even without dramatic and rare economic decline. Or just the general appeal of cities. Or Stewart Brand's defused population bomb comes true, and economic decline due to aging populations strikes many more aging cities. So it is worth paying attention to, especially since it offers space, which I like to see as opportunity. You can do a lot with that - Detroit gets a lot of urban agriculture press, and some of the first urban farms did emerge from reclaimed abandoned property where buildings had been burned down for insurance money. And the size of the space emptying out might even make it functionally scalable, which has been a major problem. Empty neighborhoods that are structurally intact are also really interesting to me - that is a lot of initial capital set up that could be utilized in the future, allowing for some groups with very little amassed wealth or capital to potentially do something with it. Who knows what, but there looks to be a lot to play with here, and it could be really cool.

Will Allen has become one of the patron saints of the modern alternative food movement, appearing in the White House, championing Michelle Obama's new programs, becoming the father of modern Urban Agriculture, and being named one of People's 100 most influential people (among other awards and achievements). He is really worth checking out. While I have been very excited to see ideas for vertical farms popping up everywhere from Milwaukee to Toronto to Chicago and beyond, my enthusiasm is beginning to lag. While vertical farms offer great potential for feeding people locally, consistently, cheaply (maybe), and in an environmentally friendly way, are these sometimes soil-less, urban high rises really just a factory farm for vegetables? If so, does it matter? I'm still in favor of them, so far, but I can't help but wonder if the food movement of tomorrow will be "ground-grown" or "grown in soil". I'd really appreciate thoughts and a discussion, if anyone is interested. While I see many positives in the economic/ecological realm of things, I'm less sold on the philosophy of the idea. Are "natural systems" methods still natural if they're in something we would not necessarily consider "nature" off-hand?