How Vertical Farming Works
By 2050, there will be 3 billion more people in existence, and close to 80% of the world’s population will live in urban areas. The demand for food will be unprecedented, and we will need to figure out how to get food to the cities in the most effective way.
Enter vertical farming – the idea of building entire skyscrapers occupied with vertically-stacked farms that produce crops twice as fast, while using 40% less power, having 80% less food waste, and using 99% less water than outdoor fields.
Is it feasible, or is it a futuristic money pit?
The Advantages of Vertical Farming
There’s no question that vertical farming has enticing potential benefits.
The first is yield. Vertical farming can produce crops year-round, which increases production efficiency by a multiplier of 4 to 6 depending on the crop. There would also be less wastage and spoilage, as most of the crops could be sold fresh in a market or restaurant from the same facility. It’s estimated that 30% of harvested crops today are lost due to spoilage or infestation.
Secondly, vertical farming has less risk associated with it. Big weather events such as floods, droughts, or storms can put a dent into agricultural activity fast, costing farmers billions of dollars. Farming indoors can reduce the risk of these types of events to as low as possible.
Lastly, vertical farming is inherently more sustainable. By stacking farms vertically, the productivity per unit of land can be many times higher and arable land can be saved for other purposes. Further, there are no transportation costs to get the crops to market, and energy and water can be recycled within the building. Methane digesters can even help convert organic waste to energy to help power the building.
On paper, vertical farming seems to have big advantages.
Too Good to be True?
Critics of vertical farming question the potential profitability of commercial operations.
They say the capital expenditures, as well as the additional energy costs for lighting and heating, could outweigh any benefits. Building complex plumbing and elevator systems to distribute food and water throughout a 30-story building is not easy.
Meanwhile, for traditional farming operations, both sunlight and heat are free. Irrigation is generally cheap as well.
The benefits of vertically-stacked farms would have to outweigh the increased costs. With billions of new people being added to cities over the next decades, this could come be sooner than later.
Original graphic by: Futurism
The Most Valuable Agricultural Commodity in Each State
Which agricultural commodity is the most important to each state’s economy? This infographic breaks it all down, based on data from the USDA.
The Most Valuable Agricultural Commodity in Each State
The United States has an incredible amount of geographic diversity.
From the fertile farmland of the Great Plains to the volcanic islands in the Hawaiian archipelago, each state has been dealt a unique geographical hand.
Each geographical setting can be the source of economic opportunities, such as tourism or the development of natural resources. It also partially dictates what kind of agricultural choices are available for farmers and local economies.
A Higher Level Look
Today’s infographic comes to us from HowMuch.net, and it color codes each state based on the most valuable agricultural commodity it produces, based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
At a big picture level, how does the country break down?
|Most Valuable Agricultural Commodity||Number of States|
|Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||16|
|Poultry and eggs||9|
|Cattle and calves||7|
|Milk from cows||7|
|Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod||4|
|Fruit, tree nuts, and berries||3|
|Vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes||2|
|Other crops and hay||1|
Broadly speaking, the category of “Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas” is the most valuable agricultural commodity in 16 states, while aquaculture was the most important in only one state, which is Alaska.
It’s interesting that there are niches that end up deriving massive amounts of value in only a few states. For example, the category of “Fruit, tree nuts, and berries” is the biggest in just three states, but California makes $17.6 billion from it every year – more than the size of the entire agricultural sector of some states.
State by State Data
Finally, here’s a look at the data for each state in a sortable table:
|#1||California||Fruit, tree nuts, and berries||$17,638,972,000|
|#2||Iowa||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$17,146,679,000|
|#3||Illinois||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$13,589,230,000|
|#4||Texas||Cattle and calves||$13,013,127,000|
|#5||Minnesota||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$12,304,415,000|
|#6||Nebraska||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$10,698,861,000|
|#7||Kansas||Cattle and calves||$10,153,087,000|
|#8||North Dakota||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$8,813,348,000|
|#9||Indiana||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$7,217,854,000|
|#10||Ohio||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$5,834,600,000|
|#11||South Dakota||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$5,809,792,000|
|#12||Wisconsin||Milk from cows||$4,952,039,000|
|#13||North Carolina||Poultry and eggs||$4,837,026,000|
|#14||Georgia||Poultry and eggs||$4,773,837,000|
|#15||Colorado||Cattle and calves||$4,321,308,000|
|#16||Arkansas||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$4,214,355,000|
|#17||Missouri||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$3,922,873,000|
|#18||Alabama||Poultry and eggs||$3,624,852,000|
|#19||Michigan||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$3,613,250,000|
|#20||Oklahoma||Cattle and calves||$3,402,919,000|
|#21||Washington||Fruit, tree nuts, and berries||$2,931,370,000|
|#22||Mississippi||Poultry and eggs||$2,744,048,000|
|#23||New York||Milk from cows||$2,417,398,000|
|#24||Idaho||Milk from cows||$2,333,364,000|
|#25||Pennsylvania||Milk from cows||$1,966,892,000|
|#26||Florida||Fruit, tree nuts, and berries||$1,847,805,000|
|#27||Louisiana||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$1,832,208,000|
|#28||Montana||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$1,787,162,000|
|#29||Kentucky||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$1,656,983,000|
|#30||South Carolina||Poultry and eggs||$1,476,817,000|
|#31||Tennessee||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$1,301,303,000|
|#32||New Mexico||Milk from cows||$1,251,065,000|
|#33||Virginia||Poultry and eggs||$1,161,564,000|
|#34||Wyoming||Cattle and calves||$1,101,195,000|
|#35||Maryland||Poultry and eggs||$922,999,000|
|#36||Oregon||Cattle and calves||$894,485,000|
|#37||Delaware||Poultry and eggs||$811,301,000|
|#38||Arizona||Vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes||$764,062,000|
|#39||Vermont||Milk from cows||$504,884,000|
|#40||New Jersey||Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod||$405,247,000|
|#41||West Virginia||Poultry and eggs||$401,439,000|
|#42||Utah||Cattle and calves||$364,214,000|
|#43||Nevada||Other crops and hay||$280,554,000|
|#44||Connecticut||Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod||$252,923,000|
|#45||Maine||Vegetables, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes||$207,254,000|
|#46||Hawaii||Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas||$152,930,000|
|#47||Massachusetts||Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod||$144,188,000|
|#48||New Hampshire||Milk from cows||$54,798,000|
|#49||Rhode Island||Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture and sod||$32,831,000|
As the legal cannabis industry continues to take off, it’ll be interesting to see if the USDA incorporates that crop into its rankings in future years.
Balancing the Environmental Costs of Cannabis
Legal cannabis cultivation emits as much CO2 as 92,660 cars annually. Growing cannabis sustainably can reduce this massive environmental footprint.
Balancing the Environmental Costs of Cannabis
Economic development comes with a massive environmental cost.
Since 1980, heavy industrial activity has caused the doubling of CO2 emissions. As scientists warn of the lasting negative impacts this will have on the planet, nearly every industry is committing to sustainable practices to try to counteract this effect.
Today’s infographic comes from The Green Organic Dutchman, and it demonstrates that while the business of cannabis isn’t always eco-friendly, there are several tried-and-tested ways to reduce its massive footprint.
A HEFTY PRICE TO PAY
Energy is the second-highest cost driver in cannabis cultivation after labor.
There are two main culprits – lighting and HVAC systems (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). Combined, they make up a whopping 89% of energy use in cannabis cultivation operations.
Last year, legal cannabis cultivation was responsible for consuming 1.1 million MWh of electricity, and producing 472,000 tons of CO2 emissions. That’s enough to power 92,500 homes, and produce the same emissions as 92,660 cars per year. As legal cannabis production scales, this will only escalate.
Much of this data can be attributed to how the plant is grown.
|Growing method||Power consumption (kWh/g)||Carbon intensity (lbs CO2e/g)|
Indoor cultivation is roughly 18 times more energy-intensive than outdoor cultivation, and produces 25 times the carbon emissions. On the other hand, outdoor production produces lower overall yield per square foot. Since it’s difficult to control the environment, impurities can also end up in the final product.
That’s why many companies opt for a hybrid approach instead – balancing the benefits of precise control, with the use of natural light to lower production costs.
A GAME PLAN FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Many licensed producers are adopting a suite of strategies to relieve this environmental footprint.
- Renewable energy
Diversifying the energy sources for cannabis cultivation can reduce carbon emissions. Solar and wind are top choices among cultivators.
- LED lighting
LED light bulbs are more than 60% more efficient than other types. They also produce barely any heat, lowering ventilation requirements.
- Water efficiency
A single cannabis plant can use up to 23 liters of water per day. Water can be recycled and re-used through innovative techniques such as reverse osmosis.
The plastic packaging often associated with cannabis products is a considerable contributor of waste. There are several alternatives, such as paper, glass, and tin. Each of these have their own benefits and drawbacks, depending on what they are used for.
Maximizing energy-efficiency has a domino effect not only on the planet, but on reduced operating costs. These savings can then be passed on to the buyer, which could prove to be a strong competitive advantage as the cannabis industry matures.
Stay tuned for part 6 of this series, where we’ll delve into the scientific evidence for medical cannabis compounds.
Markets5 months ago
The Jeff Bezos Empire in One Giant Chart
Maps7 months ago
Mercator Misconceptions: Clever Map Shows the True Size of Countries
Advertising4 months ago
Meet Generation Z: The Newest Member to the Workforce
Misc6 months ago
24 Cognitive Biases That Are Warping Your Perception of Reality
Advertising3 months ago
How the Tech Giants Make Their Billions
Technology5 months ago
The 20 Internet Giants That Rule the Web
Environment4 months ago
The World’s 25 Largest Lakes, Side by Side
Chart of the Week5 months ago
Chart: The World’s Largest 10 Economies in 2030