Transition from Conventional Agriculture to High Tech...

"Cities and regions in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects"

5-7 July 2017, Panteion Univerisity, Athens, Greece

Transition from Conventional Agriculture to High Tech Urban

Food Production System. A High Tech Response to Urban Food

Production Strategies

Hosseini F. S. MOHSEN, Università Iuav di Venezia

Turvani MARGHERITA, Università Iuav di Venezia

Hosseini F. A. SARA, Università Iuav di Venezia

Contact: [email protected]

Abstract

By 2050, 70% of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Urban migration and mounting population will increase the need for accessible, and nutritious food sources. The world population growth entailed to a massive growth of urban agglomerations, not just in terms of density but also in land consumption. Since 1950s countries in developed and developing countries have employed the industrial food production methods to produce vast amounts of cheap price food. The Industrial food production system has been successful in increasing the quantity of food production at a very low price for both consumers and producers. But these food production systems have developed with the high cost to vulnerable ecosystems and human health. Using vast amount of lands and fresh water to sustain productive capacity exacerbate the problems of the conventional farming practices. High Tech Urban Food Production System (HTUFPS) right now is niche that has become a major player in the niche market of locally grown, high margin, perishable greens. HTUFPS refers to the vertical farming, plant factories, rooftop gardening and soilless agro food production methods like hydroponic and aquaponics technics and those urban agriculture practices that use modern technologies for cultivation inside, on top or façade of built up spaces. In this paper a selected set of existing literature on research and experiences with high tech agro food production system have been analysed. The collected data were used to compare conventional agriculture and HTUFPS in three different areas: 1- Resource efficiency and environmental impacts; 2- Economic viability; 3-Quality and health benefit of products. The review of literature has shown that HTUFPS is a promising solution for future of agro food production. The research has unveiled that high energy consumption and technological complexity are the most important obstacle to development and

mailto:[email protected]



2

adoption of HTUFPS in cities. But the advocates of HTUFPS believe replacing the current sources of energy with renewable energies can resolve this problem. In addition the study has shown that the improvement of technologies used in HTUFPS in last 10 years have significantly increased the efficiency of these food production systems. The social and economic privileges of HTUFPS in addition to its land and water resources efficiencies are the main justification for adoption of HTUFPS as a food production strategy in both developing and developed countries. Keywords

Urban food production system, high tech urban agriculture, conventional agriculture, resource

efficiency

Introduction

By 2050, 70% of the worlds’ population will live in urban areas (UN, 2013). Urban migration and mounting population will increase the need for stable, accessible, and nutritious food sources. The world population growth entailed to a massive growth of urban agglomerations, not just in terms of density but also in land consumption. Over the past few decades, efforts to improve the global issue of food tended to focus on producing sufficient quantities of food by increasing productive efficiency and capacity. Since 1950s countries in developed and developing countries have employed the industrial food production methods to produce vast amounts of cheap price food. The Industrial food production system has been successful in increasing the quantity of food production at a very low price for both consumers and producers. But these food production systems have developed with the high cost to vulnerable ecosystems and human health. Using vast amount of lands and fresh water to sustain productive capacity exacerbate the problems of the conventional farming practices (Foley et al. 2011). Today the industrial agriculture has taken over the food supply. The majority of food production system is dominated by industrial agriculture—the system of chemically intensive food production, featuring enormous single-crop farms. At the core of industrial food production is monoculture—the practice of growing single crops intensively on a very large scale. There appears to be enough evidences that prove the industrial agro food system has had large, complex impact on environment, economy, and urban and rural social fabric (Lyson, 2004; King, et al. 2010). Agricultural experts as well as farmers, scientists and policymakers see industrial agriculture as a dead end. The impacts of industrial agriculture on the environment, public health, and rural communities make it an unsustainable way to grow our food over the long term. It relies heavily on chemical inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Beside the industrial



3

agriculture fields are highly attractive to certain weeds and insect pests. No matter what methods are used, agriculture always has some impact on the environment. But industrial agriculture is a special case: it damages the soil, water, and even the climate on an unprecedented scale. Innovative methods, commonly referred to hydroponics and vertical farming (Despommier, 2007, 2009, and 2010) has emerged in recent years and has become an increasingly relevant part of the movement toward High Tech Urban Food Production System (HTUFPS). Despommier (2009) noted that current, industrial-based agriculture and land-utilization practices are not sustainable and cannot be relied upon indefinitely to feed the world’s population. HTUFPS shows promise as an effective means to help increase food production, maintain food security and foster sustainable agricultural practices. The idea of vertical farming was first devised by American geologist, Gilbert Ellis Bailey, as described by his ground breaking book simply titled Vertical Farming (Despommier, 2007). Bailey (1915) recognized that the only away to avert the inevitable future crisis of food scarcity was to create farming practices that went up rather than out. High Tech Urban Food Production System (HTUFPS) is one of alternative food production methods. It is a niche that has become a major player in the niche market of locally grown, high margin, perishable greens. HTUFPS refers to the vertical farming, plant factories, rooftop gardening and soilless agro food production methods like hydroponic, aeroponic and aquaponics technics and those urban agriculture practices that use modern technologies for cultivation inside, on top or façade of built up spaces. In this study HTUFPS is described as hydroponic agriculture and vertical farming methods for production of non-staple foods like herbs and vegetables within urban boundaries and in periurban areas. In recent years scholars in various disciplines have sought to replace the industrial urban food system with an alternative food production system. Food production systems are socio-technical systems. It is composed of and shaped by the everyday practices that are performed in specific places. Transitioning food production systems involves changing the practices that constitute and reproduce them. Planning approaches for sustainability transition of agro food systems has been discussed in planning literature (Viljoen & Wiskerke 2012; White & Hamm, 2014) and policy literature (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999; OECD, 2013). Cities are uniquely positioned to change food practices, and by doing so transition socio-technical regimes like food to sustainability. Cities are tightly bundled agglomerations of everyday practices, and are the stages on which healthier and more sustainable practices are performed, repeatedly, until they become normal, everyday activities. Municipal policies, programs, and infrastructure influence practices, while activists, spiritual leaders, media, teachers and other urban thought leaders shape our understanding of practices. By strategically influencing food practices, cities can potentially advance public health, improve the environment and economy, and ultimately transform the food system.



4

Some scholars including architects, geographers and urban designers stepped forward to conceptualize sustainable urban food production methods (Despommier, 2009; Bailey, 2011). High Tech Urban Food Production System (HTUFPS) is a cutting-edge agro food system that is in the process of being more clearly refined. The aim of this research is firstly, to review existing polices and plans for transformation of current food system; and secondly analyze the differences between conventional and hi tech local agricultural practices on the basis of a review of literature, ongoing experiences and analysis of scientific and policy debates. This paper aims to link HTUFPS to the idea of Sustainable and Resilient Food System. SRFS is a global movement that aims to transform existing agro food systems into a driving force of sustainability transitions. In the following literature review, a selected set of existing literature on research and experiences with high tech agro food production system assessment, urban food public policies, strategy development and planning approaches in alternative urban food system have been analyzed (Besthorn, 2013).

1 Comparison of HTUFPS and conventional agriculture

To compare the HTUFPS and conventional agriculture it is needed to distinguish between farming and the agro food system. Lewontin (1998) has defined farming as ‘’the physical process of turning inputs like seed, feed, water, fertilizer, and pesticides into primary products on a specific site, the farm, using soil, labor, and machinery’’. The agro food system is not simply farming. According to Lewontin ‘’it includes the farm operation, but also the production, transportation, and marketing of the inputs to farming, as well as the transportation, processing, and marketing of the farm outputs. While farming is a physically essential step in the entire chain of agricultural production, the provision of farm inputs and the transformation of farm outputs into consumer commodities have come to dominate the economy of agriculture’’ (Lewontin, 1998). Studies have shown that farming accounts for only about 10 percent of the value added in the agro food system. Around 25 percent of the value of the food that is consumed is being paid for farm inputs and the remaining 65 percent are the costs of transportation, processing, and marketing that converts farm products into consumer commodities. The industrial food production system put its success in capturing profit down to production of farm inputs and the transformation of farm outputs (Lewontin, 2006). Soilless cultivation of vegetables that is used in HTUFPS has a long history and it was known since the ancient times. Francis Bacon back in XVII century has done first organized and official researches on this cultivation technics. The term ‘hydroponics’ was introduced by the two scientists from the University of California at Berkeley—W. F. Gericke and W. A. Setchell, in 1937. Their researches have revolutionized the traditional agriculture (Hindle, 2012). Conventional agricultural practices can cause a wide range of negative impacts on the environment. Barbosa (2015) has defied conventional or in industrial agriculture ’’as the practice of growing crops



5

in soil, in the open air, with irrigation, and the active application of nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides’’. The negative impacts of conventional agro food production include ‘’the high and inefficient use of water, large land requirements, high concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in runoff, and soil degradation accompanied by erosion.’’ To feed the growing world’s population, the production of food needs to increase. To meet the demand of the growing population for nutrient and healthy food through conventional agriculture the water and land scarcity will become a trigger point for the sustainable development. Currently, around 38.6% of the ice-free land and 70% of withdrawn freshwater is used in agricultural industries. To sustainably feed the world’s growing population, land and resource efficient methods have to evolve (Barbosa, 2015). The advocates of HTUFPS argue that it can eliminates the need for pesticides; reduces the spoilage that occurs from trucking perishable produce 3,000 miles across the continent; and can significantly cuts the carbon footprint of farm tractors and refrigerated trucks. The plants that are produced indoor through HTUFPS encounters nor soil, neither natural sunlight and cultivates indoors in mineral nutrient solutions or in a medium—using a modern method of hydroponics, especially popular in urban areas. Soilless cultivation and controlled-environment agriculture are the most important characteristics of HTUFPS (Astee and Kishnani, 2010). Controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) that is used in HTUFPS allow to control all variables such as temperature, humidity, amount of nutrient and pH of water, Oxygen and CO2 throughout the year in order to keep optimum conditions for the growing of plants. The cultivation technic of majority of HTUFPS practices consist in circulating a layer of nutrient solution past the roots of plants in water-tight channels. At the end of the channels, excess water and nutrients are collected and recirculated until exhaustion of the necessary nutrients. These systems can double the growth rate, use 10-20 times less land and 5-10 times less water when compared with conventional field agriculture (Delor, 2011; Astee and Kishnani, 2010; Despommier, 2011). However, advocates of low tech urban farming believe that HTUFPS in comparison to conventional agriculture has a higher level of energy consumption and it generates much higher carbon footprint than a regular farm; it is several times more expensive; the vegetables and herbs grown hydroponically have watery ‘artificial’ taste; and the range of vegetables that can be grown hydroponically is fairly limited. Food system complexity makes it challenging to translate research goals into actionable methodologies. This is especially complicated in the context of comparative studies where several study sites and technologies are involved but it will help to move towards the overall objective in the research project which is to provide knowledge for policy action on development of high tech urban food production systems. However, to compare conventional and high tech food production practices. This study analyses the following entry points:

•Resource efficiency and environmental impacts •Economic viability



6

•Quality and health benefit of products

1.1 Resource efficiency and environmental impacts

Despommier (2020) point to the growing consequences of climate change on food systems. ‘’It is estimated for every 1 degree of increase in atmospheric temperature, 10 % of the land where we now grow food crops will be lost’’ and over next 50 years the traditional agriculture will be marginalized. Therefore, use of vertical surfaces for hydroponic/aquaponics/aeroponic food production seems to be a strong concept that will make the food production inside cities possible and respond to most crucial global issues (Despommier, 2010; Banerjee & Adenaeuer, 2014). HTUFPS is not only a solution to worldwide food insecurity, but also a strong tool to solve social issues of urban areas. The socio-spatial embeddedness and integration of the civic and social dimensions of food production is another important aspect of HTUFPS. The ways food is gathered, grown and distributed fundamentally shape human societies. Therefore, any change in food production systems can result in a social change. Food has been black boxed for city dweller over a prolonged period of time. In most cases the relation between urban residents and food is summarized in providing daily consumables through distributers of industrialized food system (e.g. supermarkets). Although black-boxization of food through global food system is the consequence of its successful scientific and technical work in food security improvement, there are several reasons that current food systems have been a cause for concern for a while now. The global food production system could sustain because of its remarkable accomplishments in solving primary food issues in developed countries. Mass production of food and efficient transportation system have secured the food access with low prices for the majority of people in developed countries. These advancements resulted in universality of industrial food production system. However the resulted gap between urban lifestyle and internal work of food system, uncertainty about the quality of food and its adverse effect on climate change have raised doubts about sustainability of exiting food system. Several studies have been done to compare the impact of HTUFPS and conventional agriculture on environment (Barbosa, 2015; Specht et al., 2014; Wada, 1995; Sheweka, 2015; Delor, 2011; Castleton et al., 2010). In 1995, Wada has analyzed the ecological footprint of HTUFPS and compared it to the mechanized field operation. He has studied Ecological Footprint/ Appropriate Carrying Capacity (EF/ACC) of four tomato production practices in Japan. In Wada’s studies EF/ACC have been defines as ‘’the sum of occupied farmland and the land-equivalent of other inputs (energy, material, etc.) required to produce a defined unit of crop per year, using defined agricultural technologies’’ (Wada, 2015). EF/ACC is a tool for estimating, from a biological perspective, the amount of natural capital needed to sustain a given economy or industrial process. Four tomato production practices were consisting



7

of Greenhous A and B were hydroponic greenhouse and two conventional agriculture practices namely Hilltop garden and Horsting farm.

Table 1 (a) Comparison of productivities of Total Land Area (b) EF/ACC of hydroponic green

house and field operations Source: (Wada, 1995) He has concluded that even if the productivity based on growing area through HTUFPS (hydroponic greenhouse A and B) is 5 to 9 times higher, because of their ecological footprint which was 14 to 21 times larger than a field operation production mechanized field operation is more efficient. On the contrary to Wada’s result, Higashide et al., (2005) has claimed that closed hydroponics in sloping land of Japan can have both economic and environmental benefits. In their research tomato production through an energy-saving system was studied. As they described ‘’The system does not require pumps, a large tank, electrical conductivity or pH sensors for monitoring nutrient solution, or an expensive controller, and the total cost is only about € 8–9 m-2. The system does not use electric power except for the electromagnetic valve and timer, which are battery-powered’’. The yield of tomato grown under the conventional rain shelters in this area were 6–9 kg m-2. By using this HTUFPS they could reach to a higher yield, 12.8 kg m-2 (Higashide et al., 2005). Comparison between the results of these two studies in 1995 and 2005 shows that the economic benefits have been the driving force of HTUFPS’s development and technological innovation have defeated the weak point of HTUFPS that used to be higher energy consumption. To have a better understanding of the resource efficiency and environmental impacts of conventional agriculture and HTUFPS the side effects of replacing food production inside cities and integration of vertical farming in buildings envelope should be studies. SO the other factor that should be considered for measuring the sustainability and environmental impact of HTUFPS is the influence of vertical farm and roof top gardens on energy performance of building and Heat Island Phenomenon is urban areas. Sheweka and Mohamed (2012) have studied the impact of vertical farming on energy performance of buildings and the heat island effects in cities. They argued that it can provide a cooling potential on the building surface and inner spaces and reduce the heat island effect, which is very important



8

during summer in hot climates. They have explained that ‘’heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality…, impervious surfaces like facades and streets influence the microclimate around town increasing temperatures around the buildings and consequently to affect recently within the same discomfort and increasing the amount of energy used to condition’’. They argue that use of vegetated roofs and facades, in which heat energy is consumed by evapo-transpiration can be a possible solution to reduce the energy consumption for cooling the buildings (Sheweka and Mohamed, 2012). The topo-climate of towns and the microclimate of buildings can be affected by HTUFPS.Façade covered by greenery is protected from intense solar radiation in summer and depending on the amount and type of greenery it can reflect or absorb between 40% and 80% of the received radiation. This effect of vegetation on building can bring about savings in electricity consumption of 5% to 10%. Vegetation can alleviate ueban heat island directly by shading heat-absorbing surfaces and through evapotranspiration cooling. Vegetation can dramatically reduce the maximum temperatures of a building by shading walls from the sun, with daily temperature fluctuation being reduced by as much as 50% (Sheweka and Mohammed, 2012). Delor (2011), has analyzed energy benefits of building-integrated agriculture (BIA). BIA is his studies were considered the integration of controlled-environment hydroponic greenhouses with buildings for production of high-quality vegetables in an urban context. In his research the major BIA project have been studied. In general it is found that green roofs offer substantial energy savings when retrofitted onto old buildings with low insulation, whereas the savings are negligible for well-insulated roofs. As the Table 4 shows, this is also the case for rooftop greenhouses.

Table 2 Comparison of U-values for a building alone, with a green roof, and with a rooftop

greenhouse source: (Delor, 2011) Table 4 shows that green roofs and rooftop greenhouses both have a very good performance as isolation for building and among them green roof perform better than rooftop greenhouses in terms of insulation. The rooftop greenhouses have the possibility of utilization of solar gains during the heating season to aid heating the building below, or the use of evaporative cooling during the cooling season for low-energy cooling methods. By using simple spreadsheet calculations, he has concluded that in compare to conventional stand-alone greenhouses and buildings, a combined building + rooftop greenhouse structure can save up to 41% in heating.



9

Resource efficiency is the most important driving force of sustainability transition. It can be defined as sustainable manner in consumption of limited natural resources while minimizing impacts on the environment. Resource efficient food production system allows to create more food with less and to deliver greater value with less input. Barbosa (2015) has compared the resource efficiency of conventional agriculture and HTUFPS. In this research project land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic and conventional agricultural methods were compared by example of lettuce production in Yuma, Arizona, USA. In his study data were obtained from crop budgets and governmental agricultural statistics, and contrasted with theoretical data for hydroponic lettuce production derived by using engineering equations populated with literature values.

Figure 1 (a) Modeled annual energy use in kilojoules per kilogram of lettuce grown in southwestern Arizona using hydroponic vs. conventional methods; (b) The energy use

breakdown related to the hydroponic production of lettuce; (c) The energy use breakdown relate Source: Barbosa et al., 2015



10

Figure 2 (a) Modeled annual water use in liters per kilogram of lettuce grown in southwestern

Arizona using hydroponic vs. conventional methods (Error bars indicate one standard deviation). Source: (Barbosa et al., 2015); (b) Modeled annual yield in kilograms per square meter of lettuce grown in southwestern Arizona using hydroponic vs. conventional methods (Error bars indicate

one standard deviation) The result of this study has shown that ‘’yields of lettuce per greenhouse unit (815 m2) of 41 ± 6.1 kg/m2/y had water and energy demands of 20 ± 3.8 L/kg/y and 90,000 ± 11,000 kJ/kg/y (±standard deviation), respectively. In comparison, conventional production yielded 3.9 ± 0.21 kg/m2/y of produce, with water and energy demands of 250 ± 25 L/kg/y and 1100 ± 75 kJ/kg/y, respectively. Hydroponics offered 11 ± 1.7 times higher yields but required 82 ± 11 times more energy compared to conventionally produced lettuce’’ (Barbosa, 2015). The research identifies high energy consumption as major factor in uncertainty about the sustainability of hydroponics. HTUFPS has various environmental benefits. The transition to HTUFPS fits in the principle of ecological engineering for sustainable development of deteriorated natural environment in urban area and it is highly impactful way of transforming the urban landscape. This characteristic have aesthetical, social, environmental and ecological benefits for cities (Despommier, 2009; Max, 2011). From a performance perspective, it appears that green roofs and vertical gardens have tremendous potential as an adaptation strategy. Beyond the climate impacts explored in this research, green roofs and vertical gardens are expected to bestow other benefits in urban areas. Peck (1999) introduces several rational for development of green roof infrastructure and vertical gardens, including:

• Climate Change Impacts;



11

• Vegetation and the energy balance in urban areas; • Reducing the urban heat island: an analytical approach; • Storm water management; • Improvement of air quality, due to the reduction in the rate of smog formation and the

ability of vegetation to filter or absorb certain pollutants out of the atmosphere; • improved water quality due to the ability of vegetation to absorb some pollutants from

water; • Reducing environmental impact of storm water runoff due to the lower temperature of

water from a green roof versus that from a regular roof; • Increasing biodiversity in urban areas; • Increasing green amenity space; • Increasing mental well-being; • Increasing property values; • Increasing job opportunities with the growth of a new industry in the economy;

1.2 Economic viability

Performance of HTUFPS under the specific conditions of urban areas requires new agricultural technologies different to those used in the rural context and developing urban food production innovation policies (Viljoen & Wiskerke, 2012). The HTUFPS can be seen as a market/industry and a policy sector in the making. Granovetter & McGuire (1998) define an industry as ‘’set of firms that produce the same or related products’’; in which ‘’firms are similarly structured, occupational categories are standardized and extra organizational structures are created to manage competition and articulate the common goals’’. To develop the HTUFPS’s industry incumbent firms in agricultural technology sector need to shape the institutions of the HTUFPS market/industry through portraying the existing form of urban food management and services as insufficient and picturing their own offer as an the solution for food issues (Callon, Law, & Rip, 1986). As newly arising market/industry HTUFPS is facing with the issues like: Resistance of incumbent actor, lack of a general strategy to apply the institutions of existing markets to emerging ones, conflicts between urban food policies and urban development plans, perplexity and finally the government’s work habits with classic utilities, developers and construction firms (King & Tucci, 2002). Today the industry of HTUFPS is a niche food production market, especially if you compare its characteristics against traditional agriculture but there are many market risks, entry barriers and challenges that hold back investments in the HTUFPS and hydroponics industry. These include the high startup and energy costs, the necessity of qualified workers, the operational complexity, and the uncertainties generated by the crops’ price volatility. The startup costs to implement a hydroponic farm are usually much larger than soil-based farming costs. So, the higher upfront capital



12

needed to develop hydroponic food production solutions is a factor that can slow the farmers’ adoption of hydroponics, mostly in developing countries. The operational costs of commercial HTUFPS can also be higher than traditional agriculture (FAOSTAT, 2012; Despommier, 2010; Grewal & Grewal, 2012; Besthorn, 2013; Banerjee & Adenaeuer, 2014). Adler (2000) has analyzed the costs and revenues of adoption of HTUFPS. The cost of setting up a commercial HTUFPS using hydroponic cultivation method includes the fixed costs of site preparation (crushed stone base and treated wooden baseboards), the structure (frames, sidewalls, gable ends, and the covering used), heating and ventilation (including a backup generator), and construction (Table 5). Because year-round production would be required, the costs of equipping the greenhouse for supplemental lighting, heating, and evaporative cooling are also included.

Table 3 Fixed cost of three gutter-connected 9.14 ´ 40.2-m arch-style greenhouses with

ventilation, lighting, heating, cooling, back-up generator, and hydroponic systems. The Adler (2000) calculations have shown high potential profitability of production of basil and lettuce through HTUFPS. ’’ Total annual variable costs (annual cash expenses) of growing lettuce or basil would be $168,350 for lettuce and $159,260 for basil for the three gutter-connected greenhouses. Total annual fixed costs (manager salary, depreciation, interest on investment,



13

maintenance, insurance, taxes, and land) would be $35,690. To estimate potential profitability, the break-even price of the enterprise can be determined. This is the price needed to cover all the annual costs of production (variable cost of growing the crop and the fixed costs associated with the greenhouse and hydroponic investments). On an annual basis, the break-even price for basil is $0.53/plant {[$194,950 (total cost) + $4500 (transportation cost) + $9970 (marketing commission)] divided by 398,600 plants}. For lettuce, the break-even price is $13.18/box {[$204,040 (total annual cost) + $4500 (transportation cost) + $10,430 (marketing commission)] divided by 16,608 boxes}. Potential profitability is good for both crops, given that expected prices should exceed $0.60/plant for basil and $14/box for lettuce. Assuming these price levels, profits of $12,350 for lettuce or $27,750 for basil could be generated from the three 9.14 ´ 40.2-m gutter-connected greenhouses necessary to treat the 109 m3 of fishery effluent daily’’ (Adler, 2000). Although the paper has proved the potential profitability of HTUFPS, the required technical sophistication, labor, and marketing expertise have been considered as the primary drawbacks of hydroponic production as an alternative food production system. Compared with traditional food production methods that require relatively little additional management or labor, hydroponic production is much more risky. Development of a marketing plan is crucial. Sufficient attention must be paid to the day-to-day operation of the greenhouses and the servicing of markets for the produce or the better profitability of hydroponic production for the treatment of fishery effluent rapidly disappears. In Turkey the Hydroponic cultivation and other HTUFPS’s methods have been developed at a fast pace. Soilless cultivation is an alternative production method for Turkish growers and it is being practiced on a commercial basis on 180 ha. Engizdeniz (2009) has compared the economic aspects of HTUFPS and traditional agriculture. His economic analysis were based on cost and revenues of soilless and soil-based greenhouse cucumber production in Turkey (Table 6 and Table 7).



14

Table 4 Initial investment costs for 1,000 m2 greenhouse construction (Engizdeniz, 2009)1

1 * Calculated over 10 years (Hickman & Klonsky, 1993; Estes & Peet, 1999).



15

Table 5 Variable costs of soilless 1,000 m2 cucumber production (Engizdeniz, 2009).

Total costs were subtracted from total gross revenue to calculate the net return of soilless and soil-based greenhouse cucumber production. The cost items of soilless and soil-based greenhouse cucumber production were initial investment costs, variable costs, and fixed costs. Net return obtained from cucumbers grown in a mixture of perlite and zeolite was determined as € 1.84 m–2, whereas it was € 1.48 m–2 in conventional soil-based production. Production and market risks both affect profitability and economic viability of soilless grown vegetables (Table 8).



16

Table 6 The economic comparison of soilless and soil-based cucumber production (Engizdeniz,

2009).2 The study has shown several economic advantages of HTUFPS. Although these systems require more initial investment, inputs and maintenance, the annual running cost is HTUFPSs. To succeed with the soilless culture methods, one must have or to be able to learn and have some knowledge of how to grow the crop, plant physiology, elementary chemistry, familiarity with the control systems, etc. Soilless culture is not an easy operation. Furthermore, scientific and technical support from the research workers, extension services and private enterprises dealing with all relevant materials and accessories for soilless culture, is important. According to results of Engizdeniz (2009) ‘’Variable and fixed costs of soilless production were higher than soil-based production. Although material costs and total costs were higher for soilless culture systems compared to soil-based systems, adjusted cost and operating costs were generally lower and overall crop yield far exceed the soil-based one. But net return of soilless production (€ 1.84 m–

2 * Seedling, chemicals, wrapping etc. 1The results of current study. 2The results derived from survey with the growers in

the region.



17

2) was higher than soil-based production (€ 1.48 m–2) because its yield and gross revenue are higher. Soilless cucumber production is an economically viable alternative to soil based production.’’ Economic remarks of HTUFPS:

• HTUFPS dramatically reduces fossil fuel use since there is no agricultural machinery or inorganic fertilizer involved. Furthermore, since food is grown locally or closer to points of consumption, transportation is reduced, thus saving on energy and the environment.

• HTUFPS create sustainable environments for urban centers though dealing with issues like purifying the air and providing a positive psychological effect on urban populace which normally have high cost for local governments.

• Changing consumer preference and promoting healthier diets by producing sensitive crops of high nutritional value away from their native agro-climatic zones, that can reduce health related cost of malnutrition, serves as an opportunity for HTUFPS

• HTUFPS might also find opportunity to increase arable land per capita (vertical surfaces) and affect the rising land prices.

• HTUFPS could generate food sovereignty to a certain extend to reduce the volatility of food prices especially in geographical regions where purchasing power is high but agro-climatic factors too hostile for conventional agriculture.

• HTUFPS’s products have limited market opportunity and by existing high-cost systems it is feasible to grow only high value crops for consumers with dispensable money. As long as conventional agriculture can supply food cheaply and the pressure on resources is not that high, such costly food system might not see mass production but a successful implementation of the technology in potential markets will definitely improve its marketability.

• Regarding the high production costs, even in the identified markets, they might be a factor hindering the building of HTUFPS.

• Structures need to be built for the nutrient delivery system and platforms for plant growth along with artificial growing medium, generating additional costs. This could be a weakness compared to conventional agriculture.

1.3 Quality and Health Benefits of the Products

The transition of food production system can also result in shifting diets and health. There has been international attention to the rise of urban malnutrition. Issues of food, and nutrition security have received much attention in recent years, both in developed and developing countries. As the public health services of countries all over the world grapple with the current and future costs of rising obesity and other chronic dietary diseases, various alternative food production system have been tested.



18

Study Murphy (2011) has compared hydroponically and conventionally and organically grown lettuces for taste, odor, visual quality and texture. In this study, hydroponic lettuce grown by a local distributor and conventionally and organically field-grown lettuces purchased at local retail stores were compared by descriptive analysis for taste, odor, visual quality and texture. To compare the products an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for each lettuce variety. A twenty-three member sensory panel randomly rated the lettuces using a 5 point scale or a 3 point scale for taste, odor, visual quality and texture. ‘’The results showed that for each of the five varieties of lettuces, all lettuces were perceived to be equal in their sensory evaluation for those grown locally and hydroponically or purchased from local grocery as organically or conventionally grown.’’ (Murphy, Fannie, Yukiko, and Stanley, 2011) Although the sensory analysis does not show any significant difference with respect to visual quality, texture, odor, taste or taste characters, there was a significant difference among the three groups for Variety 1 (p = 0.0207) (Table 14). A significant difference was found either between hydroponically and conventionally grown lettuces (p = 0.03) or between organically and conventionally grown lettuces (p = 0.009), but not between hydroponically and organically grown lettuces (p = 0.6956). The perception of the panel was that hydroponically and organically grown lettuce had an odor (Table 13, Table 14 and Table 15).

Table 7 Left) Mean visual quality and texture evaluation of hydroponically, organically and

conventionally grown lettuces. (Murphy, Fannie, Yukiko, and Stanley, 2011); Right) Mean odor and odor character evaluation of hydroponically, organically and conventionally grown lettuces.

(Murphy, Fannie, Yukiko, and Stanley, 2011)



19

Table 8 Mean taste and taste character evaluation of hydroponically, organically and

conventionally grown lettuces. (Murphy, Fannie, Yukiko, and Stanley, 2011)

Conclusion

Societies in most of developed or developing countries demand fresh vegetables with produced with low amount of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. The market demands healthy, good quality products with continues distribution. Conventional agriculture is not able to fulfil these demands. The high tech systems used for vegetable production is based on solving problems with knowledge and technology that can provide a complete control of nutrient and pesticide emissions to ground and surface water. It can guarantee all year round vegetables production without any dependency on weather conditions. But compared to conventional agriculture high costs of capital and energy inputs, and a high degree of management skills that is required for successful production are considered as weak points. The research has unveiled the potential and barriers to development of HTUFPS. Although the high energy consumption of HTUFPS has slowed down the transition process to HTUFPS, and made environmentalist sceptical about its sustainability, this literature review has shown that technological development and innovations in this field has remarkably reduce the energy usage and resource consumption of HTUFPS. The review of literatures has revealed that hi tech agriculture i.e. hydroponics and vertical farming like traditional farming has both financial and physical features of production that should be taken



20

into consideration, including: The ownership of vertical farmland, investment in vertical farmland, the arising vertical surface real estate market, controlling the labour process on large vertical farms, extensive vertical farming operations, risks from human mistakes and external natural events, new diseases, the cycle of reproduction of capital which is linked to an annual growth cycle in plants. These features and the way that it would be treated by local governments can result in different economic, social and political out comes (Vivero, 2015 &Vivero, 2013).

References

• Adler, P. R., Harper, J. K., Takeda, F., Wade, E. M., & Summerfelt, S. T. (2000).

Economic evaluation of hydroponics and other treatment options for phosphorus

removal in aquaculture effluent. HortScience, 35(6), 993-999.

• Astee, L. Y., & Kishnani, N. T. (2010). Building integrated agriculture: Utilising

rooftops for sustainable food crop cultivation in Singapore. Journal of Green

Building, 5(2), 105-113.

• Bailey, G. E. (2011). Vertical farming. Charleston, SC: Nab u Press. (Original work

published 1915)

• Banerjee, C., & Adenaeuer, L. (2014). Up, up and away! The economics of vertical

farming. Journal of Agricultural Studies, 2(1), 40-60.

• Barbosa, G. L., Gadelha, F. D. A., Kublik, N., Proctor, A., Reichelm, L., Weissinger, E.,

... & Halden, R. U. (2015). Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of

lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. conventional agricultural methods. International

journal of environmental research and public health, 12(6), 6879-6891.

• Bass, B., and B. Baskaran. (2001). Evaluating rooftop and vertical gardens as an

adaptation strategy for urban areas. NRCC Report 46737. Institute for Research in

Construction, National Research Council Canada.

• Benyus, J. (2002). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New York: William

Morrow.



21

• Besthorn, F. H. (2013). Vertical farming: Social work and sustainable urban

agriculture in an age of global food crises. Australian Social Work, 66(2), 187-203.

• Castleton, H. F., Stovin, V., Beck, S. B., & Davison, J. B. (2010). Green roofs; building

energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy and buildings, 42(10), 1582-

1591.

• Cobb, T. (2011). Reclaiming our food: How the grassroots food movement is

changing the way we eat. North Adams, MA: Storey Press

• Delor, M. (2011). Mini-project report summary Current state of Building-Integrated

Agriculture, its energy benefits and comparison with green roofs-Summary.

• Despommier, D. (2007). The vertical farm essay 1: Reducing the impact of agriculture

on ecosystem function and services. Retrieved November 8, 2011, from

http://www.verticalfarm.com/more? essay1

• Despommier, D. (2009). The rise of vertical farms. Scientific American Magazine,

November, 2009, 8087.

• Despommier, D. (2010). The vertical farm: Feeding the world in the 21st century.

New York: Thomas Dunne Press.

• Despommier, D. (2011). The vertical farm: controlled environment agriculture

carried out in tall buildings would create greater food safety and security for large

urban populations. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 6(2),

233-236.

• Doug, B., Hitesh, D., James, L., & Paul, M. (2005). Report on the environmental

benefits and costs of green roof technology for the city of Toronto.

• Engindeniz, S., & Gül, A. (2009). Economic analysis of soilless and soil-based

greenhouse cucumber production in Turkey. Scientia Agricola, 66(5), 606-614.

• FAOSTAT (2012) Database on Agriculture.



22

• Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston,

M., ... & Balzer, C. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337-

342.

• Fred H. Besthorn (2013) Vertical Farming: Social Work and Sustainable Urban

Agriculture in an Age of Global Food Crises, Australian Social Work, 66:2, 187-203,

DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2012.716448

• Granovetter, M., & McGuire, P. (1998). The making of an industry: electricity in the

United States. The Sociological Review, 46(S1), 147-173.

• Grewal, S. S., & Grewal, P. S. (2012). Can cities become self-reliant in food?. Cities,

29(1), 1-11.

• Gruda, N. (2009). Do soilless culture systems have an influence on product quality

of vegetables? Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality 82, 141 - 147

• Hallock, L. S. (2013). Vertical Farms, Urban Restructuring and The Rise of Capitalist

Urban Agriculture.

• Henderson, E. (1998). Rebuilding local food systems from the grassroots up. Monthly

Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine, Jul/Aug 1998, 50, 112.

• Hindle, R. L. (2012). A vertical garden: origins of the Vegetation-Bearing

Architectonic Structure and System (1938). Studies in the History of Gardens &

Designed Landscapes, 32(2), 99-110.

• Hwang, J. (2010). Vertical farming in Las Vegas? Beyond pragmatism toward desire.

In White & M.

• King, A. A., & Tucci, C. L. (2002). Incumbent entry into new market niches: The role

of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities.

Management science, 48(2), 171-186.



23

• King, R.P., M.S. Hand, G. DiGiacomo, K. Clancy, M.I. Gomez, S.D. Hardesty, L.Lev and

E.W. McLaughlin. (2010). Comparing the Structure, Size and Performance of Local

and Mainstream Food Supply Chains. USDA ERS Report Number 99. June.

• Lewontin, R. C. (1998). The maturing of capitalist agriculture: farmer as proletarian.

Monthly Review, 50(3), 72.

• Lewontin, R.C. 2006 "The maturing of capitalist agriculture: farmer as proletarian."

Monthly Review 50.n3 (July-August 1998): 72(13). Expanded Academic ASAP.

Thomson Gale. Univ of California Santa Cruz (CDL). 7 July

• Lyson, T. (2004). Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Boston:

Tufts University Press

• Max, A. (2011). Future farm: sunless, rainless, indoors. Retrieved November 4, 2011,

from http:// abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id13346712#.Tuyk0VY8c1A

• OECD (2013), Policy Instruments to Support Green Growth in Agriculture, OECD

Green Growth Studies.

• Peck, S.W., Callaghan, C., Bass, B. and Kuhn, M.E., “Greenbacks from Green Roofs:

Forging a New Industry in Canada”, Research Report, Canadian Mortgage and

Housing Corporation (CMHC), 1999.

• Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. L. (1999). Placing the food system on the urban

agenda: The role of municipal institutions in food systems planning. Agriculture and

Human Values, 16(2), 213-224.

• Sheweka, S. M., & Mohamed, N. M. (2012). Green facades as a new sustainable

approach towards climate change. Energy Procedia, 18, 507-520.

• UN, D. (2013). World population prospects: The 2012 revision.

• Viljoen, A., & Wiskerke, J. S. (2012). Sustainable food planning: evolving theory and

practice. Wageningen Academic Pub.



24

• Vogel, G. (2008). Upending the traditional farm. Science, New Series, Vol. 319, No.

5864 (Feb. 8, 2008), pp. 752-753

• Wada, Y. (1993). The appropriated carrying capacity of tomato production:

comparing the ecological footprints of hydroponic greenhouse and mechanized field

operations (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).

• White, S., & Hamm, M. W. (2014). Urban Agriculture and a Planning Approach to

Urban Food Systems. Global Centre for Food Systems Innovation, Michigan State

University

Transition from Conventional Agriculture to High Tech...

Documents

Transcript of Transition from Conventional Agriculture to High Tech...