It’s no secret that there are problems as to how the current agriculture and food system is set up. One of the most pressing issues, in my opinion, is that we are currently stuck in a loop of eating nutrient-less, tasteless vegetables that are very blatantly less than fresh. Every day, we are eating vegetables that are not living up to their full potential. In fact, some 12 vegetables declined 27% in calcium, 37% in iron, 21% in vitamin A, and 30% in vitamin C from an analysis of nutrient data from the years 1975-1997. Likewise, the British Food Journal published data collected from 1930 to 1980 where 20 vegetables were found to have dropped 14% in potassium, 22% in iron, and 19% in calcium. (Kushi Institute)
I find it extremely worrisome that in the past few decades the vegetables we consume have declined in vitamins and nutrients percentage-wise in the double digits. While the cause of the nutrients content decline is due to a number of issues, one of those causes is that crops are typically harvested earlier than their complete maturation process due to having to transport 1,500 kilometers to reach your table. There are a few things that can be done. First, healthy produce is grown on healthy soil. In order to make the soil healthier, and prevent any damage to the soil, you should start by forgoing any fertilizers and pesticides, using organic growing methods instead. Another tip is to alternate fields between growing seasons, which allows the land to have time to be restored back to its full nature before planting crops in it again.
Of course, telling companies what’s needed to be done to their crops to make them taste fresher and more flavorful as well as jam-packed with vitamins and nutrients won’t convince all of them to just quit what they’re doing and make the switch. Unfortunately, big-time companies continue to cause problems with the current agriculture system simply by providing food that’s got less nutritional value and less flavor to each bite. However, shopping at your local growers instead of a big-time corporation or mass-producing company is always the better option. (Institute for Local Self-Reliance)
Once you’ve found local growers that meet all of your food needs and you’ve transitioned to going to them regularly for all of your food-needs, it’s time to take the next step and grow your own food. The only way to avoid vegetables and fruits that are rich in toxins and contamination and low on the nutrients that they were initially chock full of with the utmost confidence is to grow the food yourself. Supporting local growers and taking part in personal urban framing as you transition is always recommended, but growing your own food allows you to reach a whole new level of “organic.” The disease-preventing, health- and life-giving foods that we so desperately need to consume in order to stay at our full potential become that much more rich in nutrients that our bodies crave. (Permaculture Research Institute)
Another obvious tip that’s often forgotten, especially when it comes to this particular subject, is to spread the word about all of the knowledge that you gain on the state of the current food system and what people can do to change it and turn it around. Only loud voices everywhere at one time can truly start a movement that’s remembered.
By picking produce that’s been grown on healthy soil through a local grower, or growing it yourself, is the best method to use in order to fight the chaos that the current agriculture system has become. Once you’ve finally made the transition to either shopping local or growing your own, you can combat the way mass-produce companies take advantage of consumer and their lack of knowledge on the subjects. I personally think that once you’re aware of the state of the current food system, it’s up to you to take up personal urban farming, support local growing, and spread the word. It’s easy to simply spread the word about the agriculture system, what people can do to change the way the system works now, and how they can switch to a personal urban farming lifestyle or shopping local just like you did.
This article is part of a miniseries about problems in current agriculture.
Read the previous articles here: <a href=”http://swissponic .ch/problems-in-agriculture-1-high-usage-of-chemicals/”>Part1, Part2
On average, food has to travel 2,400 kilometers from field to table. Traveling that far of a distance requires a lot of energy – it uses up refrigeration, transportation, stocking, and processing. One of the major problems with the way the current agriculture and food system is set up is the fact that food has to have so many miles on it before it reaches a family table. By crossing so many miles, the risk of the food getting contaminated, withering, spoiling, and losing its overall freshness increase exponentially. There are many problems with the way food has to travel so far to reach you, and there is one easy solution that citizens across the world can use to sustain themselves while still enjoying all of the nourishing foods they get imported . (Cuesa)
The local-food growing movement has steadily been gaining momentum. First, it started in already developed countries, as well as many developing countries. A local diet and shopping local simply means purchasing all of the food you consume within a 150-kilometer radius to your home. While the 150-kilometer radius mark is usually the most commonly accepted, there are some that also accept up to 250 kilometers depending on your location, especially if you’re in an especially dry and desert-like region. (Worldwatch Institute)
Not only are there benefits for you when you shop and grow local, but there are also countless environmental benefits. When food has to travel well over a thousand miles to reach your table, resources have been exhausted (gas for transportation, refrigeration, etc.) in order to get it there. Your food has, overall, less of an environmental impact when you switch to growing your own or shopping locally. By making the switch, you’re greatly diminishing your carbon footprint. Plus, local food is safer, preserves genetic diversity far more than imported foods, and there are a number of other benefits that growing local has to offer.
There are also many personal benefits that shopping for local food has to offer. First, food that was grown locally and just recently picked from the vine, tree, plant, or bush is going to taste and look better than anything mass-produced stored has to offer. Not only that, but local food has more nutritional value in each bite. Not only does your body reap the benefits of everything that local food has to offer, but you also get the joy of talking to a local grower or farmer that you’re helping by shopping at their location instead of a big-time grocery store. Getting to help a local grower put food on their own table by shopping through them is reward enough. (University of Vermont)
There is a distinct difference between local food and sustainable food that is important to mention when discussing the switch to shopping locally. While they are sometimes used interchangeably or as synonyms, “local” food is simply food that is grown within a certain mile radius from your home. “Sustainable,” on the other hand, is food that has the ability to be maintained at a specific rate or level, thriving and becoming chock full of vitamins and nutrients that the counterparts and mass-produced grocery stores could never compared to.
Once you become fully aware of the problems that the current food system is facing, you can become more active in doing something to change the system and you can stay informed about what the agriculture field is becoming. By switching to local foods, you reduce the risk of food getting damaged, spoiled, or contaminated, and you help a local farm near you instead of a big-time corporation or company.
This article is part of a miniseries about problems in current agriculture.
Read the previous articles here: Part1
This is part 1 of a mini-series of articles on the problems of current agriculture.mens club 24
The human population in the world never ceases its steady increase upwards, which is why it’s no surprise that it’s projected there will be 9 billion people on the planet in just 40 years. There are many pressing matters in the agricultural field that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later, especially when taking the population of the world into consideration. The first item to add to the itinerary, before addressing other agriculture issues, is the fact that there are such high usage levels of chemicals for fungicides, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides – really, any chemicals sprayed on the food that people are supposed to later eat. (Grace Communications Foundation)
It’s obvious that there are many benefits to using pesticides on crops, because otherwise the world wouldn’t be saturating the food we eat in them. However, the hazards that pesticides have to offer far outweigh any benefits they could possible offer to the crops. A field of crops with a pest problem is a much better alternative to a field of crops dusted with chemicals that are extremely harmful and provide unwanted side effects to people and animals alike. (Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University)
Not only is there a hazardous effect to all human health that comes in contact with the harmful pesticides uses to treat most crops, but those particular chemicals are also harmful to the environment that they sit in. Pesticides contaminate turf, soil, water, and any vegetation that it comes into contact with. It is a disease that slowly kills off the beauty of a land, leaving in its place a withered husk of unhealthy crops and dying land. (Cornell University)
A problem that’s happening worldwide because of harmful pesticides is groundwater pollution. Over 140 various pesticides along with over 20 transformation products have been found polluting ground water areas. Pollution detection has been found in 43 states in the US, and an alarming 58% of drinking water samples that were drawn from the hand pumps and wells throughout India were found polluted as well. (National Institute of Health)
Not only do the pesticides seep into the groundwater, but they also seep into the soil. Even though most of the pesticides that originally created this problem are no longer sold on the market, the residue of their toxic stay remains present. The populations of microorganisms that provided beneficial soil decline when pesticides are sprayed on the area. Over time, the microorganisms are no longer able to provide the necessary nutrients the soil needs, and the soil dies completely. (Food Alliance)
Pesticides are harmful to just about everywhere they touch – including the very air that it was sprayed into before it reached the crops. It contaminates the air, the soil, and any non-target vegetation within the vicinity. What many may not realize is that there is a certain level of drift with any sort of equipment that would be used to spray pesticides across crops. In fact, as much as 2-25% of the chemical that’s applied to the crops drifts a distance of just a few yards to as far as a few hundred miles. This can substantially effect a massive portion of land, contaminating all of the non-targeted plants and vegetation, soil, air, and water. (L.E.A.F.)
The chemicals used for current agriculture are overwhelmingly harmful to the environment it’s presented to. Not only do pesticides contaminate non-targeted plants outside of the crop range – for as far as a few hundred miles – but by contaminating the non-targeted plants, the animals and insects that ingest these plants are also contaminated and potentially harmed. Bees, specifically, are slowly dying because of this very problem. It’s absolutely vital that current agriculture alters the way that crops are taken care of with pesticides, as the areas contaminated and effected will only spread out more and more as the problem persists.
As part of the growing movement of Urban Farming, I’m very happy to announce that Swissponic has joined the Association for Vertical Farming.
The association is a “nonprofit organization focusing on advancing Urban and Vertical Farming technologies, designs and businesses” and is the ideal cooperation platform for the actors involved in urban farming.
By joining, we hope to give our practical contribute and our expertise to the other members and to the whole community.
Dr. Cox writing is full interesting argumentations and while I agree on some of them, there are some issues that left me a little puzzled. Since I’m a very curious guy, I just have some questions for him (if he will ever read this article).
Unless I misunderstand the meaning of feasibility, Dr. Cox may have used the wrong word.
According to Toyoki Kozai’s paper (cited by Dr. Cox himself), only in Japan there were over 130 Plant Factories with Artificial Light (PFAL) by the end of 2012. Many more have been established all around the world. If they were not feasible, how could they work?
And Dr. Kozai conclusions:
Isn’t this in contradiction with the fact that they are “not feasible”?
But let’s not focus on single words meaning, because in the rest of the article Dr. Cox states clearly what are his concerns. The main one being the fact that Vertical Gardens/Farms are very energy-hungry, especially for lighting.
In Dr. Cox words:
Nobody disputes that VFs consume a lot of energy, but I’m curious to understand where the 1,200 kWh estimation come from, since Dr. Kozai articles mention that “PAR energy consumed to produce one kg of dry matter is 740 (= 20.0/0.027) MJ/kg or 205 (= 740/3.6) kWh.”
How was 1,200 kWh calculated?
I would also like to understand how he calculated the following figure:
Could somebody please shed some light over this 1.3 billion tons number?
Then, he writes about another issue, that VF produces will not be for every budget. Citing another study:
And the very same GIZ paper concludes also:
Sure that 3.50 €/kg to 6.00 €/kg is maybe not a popular price, but it’s not so far away from current vegetable costs. We are not talking about orders of magnitude of difference.
Why is Dr. Cox so critical over production costs? In the long term, advancing in technology will improve the yields and drive down the production costs. It always happens with new technology/products introduced to the market. Just think about smartphones, TVs, cars, and just almost anything else.
It is clear that Dr . Cox is very critical about vertical farms with artificial lighting and very categorical about their the non-feasibility.
His article left me with doubts, but he is right in pointing out some issues about VF. Indoor farming is very power-hungry. Costs are not yet on par with current growing methods. VF is not applicable in all situations and is not the solution to ALL the problems.
But just saying that VF is not feasible, stop thinking about it, forget about it, it’s a little too limiting. Dismissing the whole VF concept because there are some issues, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, there are issues, and it’s important that we acknowledge them, and then we discuss and explore the possible solutions.
We need also to give a more comprehensive look at the problem.
If on one side we have the high energy consumption of lights (and temperature regulation), on the other hand vertical farms save on energy used for other agriculture operations. Just think about soil preparation, seeding, irrigation, fertilization, chemicals distribution, transportation, processing, packaging, refrigeration… all these operations in some way have an impact on the environment.
What we need is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparing VF and traditional agriculture and including the whole cycle of the plant, from cradle to table.
It is important to consider not only the energy and environmental impact, but also the other advantages of VF, such as the drastic reduction of pesticides and herbicides, healthier food, better use of water resources and increased food security.
Only with complete analyses of different situations we could assess if, when and where a VF is “feasible”.
What is your opinion? If you have links to good LCA analysis of VF compared to traditional agriculture, leave them in the comments.