Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?
Eater ^ | July 3, 2018 | Steve Holt

Posted on 07/05/2018 3:29:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

By now, the images of shelves full of perfect greens in hulking warehouses, stacked floor to ceiling in sterile environs and illuminated by high-powered LED lights, have become familiar. Food futurists and industry leaders say these high-tech vertical farming operations are the future of agriculture — able to operate anywhere, virtually invincible against pests, pathogens, and poor weather, and producing local, fresh, high-quality, lower-carbon food year-round.

That future seemed one step closer to reality last year when San Francisco-based indoor farming startup Plenty, which grows a variety of salad and leafy greens hydroponically (without soil) and uses artificial lighting in facilities in three locations, announced that it had raised a whopping $200 million in funding from the SoftBank Vision Fund, whose investors include Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Flush with cash, Plenty quickly opened a 100,000-square-foot indoor farm outside Seattle that promised to produce 4.5 million pounds of greens annually—and testing some varieties not yet grown for the masses at scale, such as strawberries and tomatoes, at its research and development farm in Wyoming. To Plenty’s leadership and many observers, the cash influx signaled the economic promise of growing food indoors without sunlight and with less soil and water than field farming.

“My reaction [to the $200 million round] was both that of validation, excitement,” said Matt Barnard, Plenty’s co-founder and CEO, over a manner of farming he says yields 350 times the produce per acre on one percent of the water used by dirt farming. “Now we must move with speed and efficiency if we’re to accomplish our mission of bringing people worldwide an experience that’s healthier for them and the planet.”

Not everyone is in agreement.

“My first thought was, ‘we could build a lot of greenhouses for $200 million,’” recalls Neil Mattson, a professor of plant science at Cornell and one of the country’s leading academic voices on indoor agriculture, who’s found that high-tech greenhouses that harness sunlight are more cost- and carbon-friendly than vertical farms that use artificial light.

Most vertical farmers are only hoping to claim a percentage of the conventional produce market, not replace it. To these founders and their investors, the market for lettuce and greens, especially — grown primarily in California and Arizona and shipped worldwide — is ripe for disruption. E. coli outbreaks like the one that hit Arizona-grown romaine lettuce earlier this year, killing a handful of people and sickening hundreds, only further their case.

But behind futurists’ fervent predictions about indoor agriculture, claims about product quality, and sexy technology lies a reality known by industry insiders but too often missing from media coverage: The future success of this nascent industry is still very much an open question.

The astronomical capital costs associated with starting a large hydroponic farm (compared to field and greenhouse farming), its reliance on investor capital and yet-to-be-developed technology, and challenges around energy efficiency and environmental impact make vertical farming anything but a sure bet. And even if vertical farms do scale, there’s no clear sense of whether brand-loyal consumers, en masse, will make the switch from field-grown produce to foods grown indoors.

Tricky Economics

Walking into any supermarket will reveal a small mountain of salad greens, carrying a price tag of between $9 and $12 per pound. They may be locally grown or organic, which will add $0.50 or $1 to the price tag. Meanwhile, a 4.5-ounce carton of Massachusetts-based FreshBox Farms’ spring mix—grown in the company’s hydroponic farm in Massachusetts—costs $3.99 for a 4-ounce box, or $15.96 per pound. Or kale: the conventional variety will run you $1.33 per pound at Walmart; organic kale costs around $4.99 per pound at Whole Foods; and vertically farmed kale grown at Newark, New Jersey-based AeroFarms will cost you a whopping $14.18 per pound.

That dramatic price gap is due to the millions of dollars currently needed to build one large indoor vertical farm — and that price is not going to drop until the industry scales up. Agritecture Consulting, whose clients include current and prospective indoor farms, estimates that a 30,000-square-foot vertical farm growing leafy greens and herbs in the tri-state area around New York City requires nearly $4 million in startup capital—not including labor.

They should know: In 2016, Agritecture built in Manhattan’s TriBeCa neighborhood, which supplies hydroponic greens and edible flowers to a number of the city’s top restaurants. Chefs have been quick to catch onto the value of consistent, year-round, locally grown produce.

In 2016, AeroFarms, now considered an industry leader, spent $30 million on its flagship aeroponic farm in Newark. The majority of these costs lie in the equipment needed to grow greens without soil or sunlight—heating and cooling systems, ventilation, shading, environmental controls, and lights.

All of these costs add up to a hefty electricity bill: According to models compiled for Civil Eats by Agritecture, a 30,000-square-foot vertical farm in metro New York City should budget upwards of $216,000 annually for lighting and power, and another $120,000 on HVAC systems; costs will vary region to region depending on what each state charges for electricity.

Energy and equipment costs are, by far, the largest drivers of expenses that can bring the price of operating a vertical farm close to $27 per square foot. By contrast, Agritecture’s models show that the cost to run a 100,000-square-foot smart greenhouse is roughly a third as expensive, thanks to the use of natural sunlight and more advanced automation.

Vertical farms’ energy usage carries a significant carbon footprint. While vertical farm companies promise more-sustainable produce by growing it closer to consumers and using renewable energy to power their operations, the industry still has a long row to hoe.

Industry leaders acknowledge the energy challenges in the short term, yet tout continually improving lighting technology that has brought down costs. But Mattson, whose Cornell team studies the way plants respond to different lighting, predicts a plateau coming for improvements to LED technology.

“The best LEDs are 40 percent more energy efficient than in 2014,” Mattson says. “There continue to be improvements; however, those improvements will start to slow down over time. There’s only a finite amount of light you can generate at a given wavelength, and in 2022, I’m not expecting new lights to be 40 percent more efficient than the current lights now.”

FreshBox Farms began shipping greens from its 40,000-square-foot hydroponic facility in Millis, Massachusetts, in 2015. The warehouse farm, located 30 miles outside of Boston, runs on a combination of renewable energy and non-renewables, and CFO Dave Vosburg admits his company is “not doing any better” than field-grown greens when it comes to carbon usage.

When it eventually expands outside of Massachusetts, Vosberg says that by introducing a cogeneration system—technology that recycles otherwise wasted heat into new energy—FreshBox Farms will eventually keep costs and carbon emissions down in expensive markets like Connecticut, where commercial users pay an average of more than 14 cents per kilowatt-hour. But Vosburg says the company’s priority is to use contextually appropriate renewable energy sources to power the farms, such as wind energy in the Midwest, hydro in the Northwest, and solar in the Southwest.

“Yes, it sounds crazy to take the sun and turn it into electricity and turn that electricity back into light. It sounds ridiculous, but that’s what we’ll be doing,” Vosburg says. “It’ll be really efficient and clean and create a better product, and it won’t have the same carbon impact that we’re having today.”

And energy isn’t even a vertical farm’s top ongoing expense. The companies Civil Eats spoke to say labor is actually their largest budget item. Vertical farms typically pay workers higher, more metropolitan pay rates than both dirt farms—many of which rely heavily on migrant labor—and the more automated smart greenhouses. The fast-food chain Wendy’s announced in June that it plans to source vine-ripened tomatoes exclusively from greenhouse farms by early 2019.

Moreover, no matter how automated the indoor growing system is, vertical farmers are discovering the constant need for a human eye—or several—on the process. In fact, some estimate that if indoor agriculture continues to grow at the pace it has in recent years, vertical farms will have to hire 100,000 workers over the next decade.

That continued growth is not a given, however. Because of the high cost to launch, operate, and scale up a vertical farming operation, the industry is highly leveraged, with each new farm requiring tens of millions of dollars in investor capital before it can grow a single plant. Between 2016 and 2017, investments in vertical farming skyrocketed 653 percent, from $36 million to $271 million. The lion’s share of that investment went to Plenty, but Newark-based AeroFarms has raised $80 million in recent years and New Jersey’s Bowery Farming added another $27 million.

Just last week, Manhattan-based BrightFarms announced it had raised $55 million. Shoppers can now find produce grown indoors by more than 23 large vertical farms in more than 20 supermarket chains in nearly every major metropolitan area in the country, according to Agritecture.

While industry leaders say scaling offers the best hope for profitability in this business, many vertical farms have encountered problems when they began planning to add additional production facilities. Before Atlanta-based PodPonics closed its doors in 2016, executives from the five-year-old hydroponic farm startup met with executives from supermarket chain Kroger.

Kroger indicated that it was ready to purchase 25 million pounds of produce from PodPonics annually if it would build the facilities to support that kind of production, founder Matt Liotta told a crowd at the 2017 Aglanta Conference. According to Liotta, who said PodPonics had lowered the cost to produce a pound of lettuce to $1.36, Whole Foods and Fresh Market also expressed interest in bringing PodPonics greens into their stores nationally.

“This was our wildest dream,” Liotta said. “Then we realized how much capital that was going to require, how many people we were going to have to hire. Every retailer told us the same thing: ‘We will buy it if you will build it.’ We realized we were incapable of building everything that they wanted.”

Unproven Demand for Food Grown Indoors

In early 2016, researchers from the University of Illinois-Urbana set out to determine whether consumers would spring for produce grown indoors. They asked a panel of 117 participants a series of questions about their perceptions of and willingness to pay for lettuce grown in fields, greenhouses, and in vertical farms. While vertical farming ranked fairly high in terms of produce quality and safety, the tech-heavy production method was rated less “natural” than both field farming and greenhouse and ranked last in participants’ willingness to purchase it.

For the vertical agriculture industry to eat into the profits of field-grown products—a roughly $140 billion industry—Agritecture Consulting founder and managing director Henry Gordon-Smith says it will first need to prove consumers are demanding produce grown indoors. He points out that because of a lack of demand, many vertical farming operations are not yet at full production year-round—despite touting the 12-month growing season as a main benefit of the industry.

His sense is that indoor farms that have achieved the sales to produce continually—such as Gotham Greens has with its New York City greenhouses, for example—have a customer base that’s responding to strong “local” branding rather than the technology behind the food. That may include vertical farms selling their produce using the USDA Certified Organic label, which the National Organic Board reaffirmed in January, much to the dismay of many organic dirt farmers.

“I think the automation and economics are all improving,” Gordon-Smith says, adding that the question of “whether consumers are going to pay more or whether the products coming out of vertical farms are going to align with their values” is still an open question.

But while many of the East Coast vertical farms built their business models around replacing greens being shipped cross-country from California and Arizona, Matt Barnard of Plenty hopes to add to the global population consuming fresh produce. A 2015 report found that where USDA guidelines suggest each of us in the U.S. should eat up to three cups of vegetables daily, current U.S. production is only providing enough for 1.7 cups per person. Barnard extends that supply gap to the rest of the world, especially the Middle East and Asia, where a lack of water and high pollution have hampered agriculture.

“We believe the industry will be five times larger when there is supply to meet the demand,” Barnard says. “With the field unable to deliver consistent supply, new forms of agricultural capacity like Plenty must be added to the global food system.”

But as vertical farming companies like Plenty go city by city attempting to dominate local markets, it may be that small farmers get hurt the most. Barnard drew the ire of Washington State dirt farmers last year when he told GeekWire that Plenty expanded to Seattle, in part, because it was the West Coast’s “best example of a large community of people who really don’t have much access to any fresh fruits and vegetables grown locally.”

Not so, according to Sofia Gidlund, Farm Programs Manager at Tilth Alliance, which advocates for and supports local agriculture systems in Greater Seattle.

“We work with many hardworking local farmers who supply Seattle with high-quality, delicious, and nutritious food while caring deeply for our land. These farmers use sustainable farming practices, nurse the soil, create beautiful open green space and provide wildlife habitat,” says Gidlund, who adds that she does not speak for all area farmers on the issue of vertical farming. “Many consumers in Seattle choose to support local farmers, both urban or rural, because of this deep connection to the land. Providing that support is a point of pride for many Seattleites.”

Actual Data Is Coming

Peer-reviewed research into the business of vertical farming has been sparse, partly because the industry is so new. That’s set to change, however, when Mattson and a team of researchers at Cornell University finish a comprehensive study into the viability of this approach.

A three-year, $2.4 million research grant, which is funded by the National Science Foundation and kicked off in January, will compare the vertical farming industry to field agriculture in a slew of categories, including energy, carbon, and water footprints, profitability, workforce development, and scalability. The study will include one of the first nutritional analyses of food grown indoors, as well as comparing the price-per-pound to deliver strawberries, lettuce, and tomatoes grown vertically and outdoors to five U.S. metropolitan areas: New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles, and Atlanta.

A 2016 study conducted by a few of Mattson’s colleagues at Cornell found that the energy consumption and carbon footprint associated with a vertical farm (the study calls it a “plant factory”) is significantly higher than that of a greenhouse. Vertical farming leaders counter that they use significantly less water than field farms, are more space-efficient, and do not produce emissions from trucking produce across the country. Mattson says these factors were not considered in Cornell’s previous research but will be included in the current grant.

“[Vertical farming] is not a fad,” says Mattson, who wants to use data to help the industry become more sustainable over time. “I’m not sure to what degree it’s going to scale up, but this is happening. So we need to understand the economic and environmental implications— both the good and the bad.”

TOPICS: Agriculture; Business/Economy; Food; Gardening
KEYWORDS: agriculture; dietandcuisine; farming; food; gardening; gmo; hydroponics; indoorfarming; vegetables
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 07/05/2018 3:29:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

No. It increases the cost pretty good and can be considered bad on the environment as it requires more chemicals and electricity. It is very efficient on water use though.

2 posted on 07/05/2018 3:35:48 PM PDT by Fhios (♫ Oh Where have you been Jeffy boy Jeffy boy oh where have you been charming Jeffy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“[Vertical farming] is not a fad,” Wanna bet? Why are people willing to pay three times more for the same product? “It’s not three time healthier.”

3 posted on 07/05/2018 3:36:39 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Upstate NY

The greenhouses around here can produce two crops every year....which is what they were built to do.

Our closest hydroponic "greenhouse" produces the year round.

Either you want reasonably priced USA vegetables or you want Mexican seconds.

4 posted on 07/05/2018 3:41:17 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Fantastic article. The numbers analysis alone is worth the time reading for those interested in new agritech.

5 posted on 07/05/2018 3:43:37 PM PDT by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

vertical farming when it matures —will enable the earth to sustain earth populations 100 times greater than those today.

Hopefully by that time a fair percentage of people will be buzzing around the solar system.

6 posted on 07/05/2018 3:44:58 PM PDT by ckilmer (q e)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Same here in the Pacific Northwest. ‘Hot Houses’ produce reliable year-round produce.

Vertical farming seems to capitalize on space. Energy for special grow lamps could be a hindrance though.

7 posted on 07/05/2018 3:46:30 PM PDT by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
All I can tell you is that being able to buy hydroponic grown tomatoes in the winter is a pleasure. Never bought the cardboard ones they sold for years and years.

I eat hydro every day. Our local tomato season is very short.

8 posted on 07/05/2018 3:52:55 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fhios

It is very efficient on water use though.


I think total water use in America has been about the same for the past 50 years. Saving water shouldn’t be a huge priority considering that.

9 posted on 07/05/2018 3:57:23 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Give a man a fish and he'll be a Democrat. Teach a man to fish and he'll be a responsible citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“My first thought was, ‘we could build a lot of greenhouses for $200 million,’” recalls Neil Mattson, a professor of plant science at Cornell and one of the country’s leading academic voices on indoor agriculture, who’s found that high-tech greenhouses that harness sunlight are more cost- and carbon-friendly than vertical farms that use artificial light.


That sounds more promising on Earth. The vertical farming sounds better for spaceships.

10 posted on 07/05/2018 3:58:48 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Give a man a fish and he'll be a Democrat. Teach a man to fish and he'll be a responsible citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Vertical farming: Plenty receives $200 million investment from tech giants - TomoNews

Aquaponics System - $75 - How We Easily Build Aquaponics Garden

Backyard aquaponics: DIY system to farm fish with vegetables

11 posted on 07/05/2018 4:02:40 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK (“I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high-functioning sociopath. Do your research.” Sherlock Holmes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fungi
My form of vertical farming where I put cages around my squash, beans and other vining vegetables is not a fad.

This growing things inside? Fad.

And a expensive one.

12 posted on 07/05/2018 4:02:58 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear ( Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies!! Or maybe midgets....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Yes, here too. Also with the AI tech development shown here below, one day perhaps soon we won’t need any migrant labor:

AI-equipped Tomato Harvesting Robots to Farms May Help to Create Jobs

13 posted on 07/05/2018 4:06:19 PM PDT by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Vertical farming seems to capitalize on space. Energy for special grow lamps could be a hindrance though.

“Vertical farming” is optimal for crops that generate a lot of income and need a lot of security... like marijuana hybrids. That is the cash crop that most if not all “vertical farms” are really going to be growing. Articles like this one like to pretend that they are for growing lots of healthy vegetables. So lets get real here. What are they really growing or planning to grow in a big “vertical farm” just outside of Seattle when greenhouses work great here?

I am sure that there are places in the country and the world where “vertical farming” works as well or better than green houses or traditional farming. The problem is that economically “vertical farms” in these locations have a difficult time competing with farms in more optimal conditions when it comes to traditional vegetables. Without the marijuana cash crop these facilities cannot compete.

14 posted on 07/05/2018 4:15:22 PM PDT by fireman15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“carrying a price tag of between $9 and $12 per pound.”

not in any grocery store I go to ... Costco & Sam’s have really nice organic baby spinach for $4.48/lb ...

15 posted on 07/05/2018 4:43:19 PM PDT by catnipman ((Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Exactly, you get it.

Conservatives should be pushing and cheering this technology.

The left loves scarcity and this is the opposite of scarcity...

16 posted on 07/05/2018 4:54:54 PM PDT by crusher2013
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
virtually invincible against pests, pathogens,

Whoever wrote that line clearly doesn't grow much. Indoors or out.
17 posted on 07/05/2018 4:55:58 PM PDT by Ellendra (A single lie on our side does more damage than a thousand lies on their side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Can’t greenhouse farming be vertical?

18 posted on 07/05/2018 5:06:43 PM PDT by nicollo (I said no!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
lower-carbon food

Lower carbon? Seriously? That's a pretty good trick!

19 posted on 07/05/2018 5:11:47 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Hydroponic tomatoes beat the shipped in white golf balls every time. We even have them grown in the northern tundra. Love Bushel Boy!

20 posted on 07/05/2018 5:26:16 PM PDT by mplsconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson