Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Philips Is Revolutionizing Urban Farming With New GrowWise Indoor Farm 279

Posted by samzenpus from the grow-it-like-you-mean-it dept.
Kristine Lofgren writes: With arable land dwindling and the cost — both economically and environmentally — of growing and transporting food increasing, it's time to redefine farming. So Philips is creating a revolution with their new GrowWise indoor farm, which uses customized 'light recipes' in high-tech cells to grow plants that don't need pesticides or chlorine washes, and use a fraction of the water that traditional farming requires. The system can churn out 900 pots of basil a year in just one square meter of floor space, and bees keep things humming year-round for farming that is truly local, even in the middle of a city.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Philips Is Revolutionizing Urban Farming With New GrowWise Indoor Farm More

Philips Is Revolutionizing Urban Farming With New GrowWise Indoor Farm

Comments Filter:

  • So does this qualify as 'organic'? (Score:3)

    by Sowelu ( 713889 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @06:16PM (#50058363)

    Serious question. (And yes I know they contain carbon.)

    I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed, which isn't so great for environmental preservation. This stuff on the other hand, doesn't need pesticides or anything. Seems very hippie-friendly, but on the other hand they aren't going to help out bees or whatever. Not sure how expensive it'll be, but with this kind of space efficiency (and quite likely better quality output) sure I'd pay the 'organic' markup for it.

    • It's organic so long as everything you use is on the USDA organic list, because the USDA has control over the label now. It's not cyclical so it's not truly organic farming, but it's low-impact so who cares.

      • What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle? Do you mean crop rotation? Or something else entirely?

        Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming (although both are considered best practices).

        • What do you mean by cyclical? Do you mean the livestock/fertilizer/crop/fodder cycle?

          That's the one

          Just curious, since I'm not aware of either cyclical production or crop rotation being a requirement for organic farming

          Yeah, that's what happens when you don't trademark something. That was the original idea. It makes the name "organic" make more sense, several senses in fact:

          7.
          characterized by the systematic arrangement of parts; organized; systematic:
          8.
          of or relating to the basic constitution or structure of a thing; constitutional; structural:
          9.
          developing in a manner analogous to the natural growth and evolution characteristic of living organisms; arising as a natural outgrowth.
          10.
          viewing or explaining something as having a growth and development analogous to that of living organisms

          Actually having a cyclical system is more "organic" by senses of the word which don't mean "on the USDA approved list" or "has a scary name"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Adriax ( 746043 )

      Currently I'd bet yes, this meets the necessary requirements for Organic. But expect that to change.
      Just as debeers made it so you can't call a synthetic carbon crystal a Diamond, you can expect a push to require Organic produce be dirt planted and have sunlight access as the main photosynthesis source.

      They can suck it for all I care. Farms like these could be deployed pretty much anywhere and make the vast majority of your grocery store produce Locally Sourced.
      Screw early harvests, forced ripening, and bre

      • I don't know what all the inputs are, such as fertilizer, nor how they'd match up to prevailing organic specifications. However, "organic" isn't a baseless marketing concept. The goal is to produce wholesome, nutritious, food without destroying the environment. Adherents believe that modern agriculture--with Monsanto style pesticides/herbicides, GMOs, petroleum derived fertilizers, etc.--is destructive, unsustainable, and ultimately produces lower quality food. On face value this project sounds like it'

      • You can expect a push to require Organic produce be dirt planted and have sunlight access as the main photosynthesis source.

        Why now? Indoor farms with artificial lighting have been getting "organic" certifications for a long time.

    • Most likely not. For consitency they are going to most likely use synthetic fertilizers. I highly doubt they are going to be using compost tea.

    • So, I'm all for grow local, but when there's sun shining right outside - this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me... unless you are a company that sells grow lights.

      For anyone who has access to actual solar radiation, seems like hydroponic with a glass roof would be a better way to go - less carbon emissions (loading on the power grid), less equipment to manufacture, maintain and ultimately dispose of: how many pounds of electronics and plastics per pound of Basil grown? Sure, these systems could l

      • Re:So does this qualify as 'organic'? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @09:53PM (#50059703) Homepage Journal

        So, I'm all for grow local, but when there's sun shining right outside - this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me... unless you are a company that sells grow lights.

        You have a point, but you also have to consider the context of comparison.

        Plants grown outdoors face an array of problems that the farmer has to account for. Keeping insects off, keeping weeds at bay, keeping the plants watered and fertilized - all this comes at a cost to the farmer.

        Indoor farming requires a more expensive infrastructure (the building, trays, and plumbing) but has great savings in some of the other areas. It's easier to keep weeds and insects out, for instance.

        Of particular note, outdoors you can't recycle unused water or fertilizer, but this can be done indoors. Collect any unused water after the plants have drunk their fill, remove waste products, top off the fertilizer, and reuse.

        So the economic question is this: is the extra money/effort spent on generating light compensated for by the savings in insecticides, roundup, fertilizer, and water?

        I think the answer is probably "yes", given that LED lights are incredibly efficient. (Also of note: less of the environment is damaged by excess fertilizer and water drainage. Damaging the environment indirectly costs money.)

        Then the next question is with the building: does it make sense to have big windows and use mostly solar light, and adjust as needed with indoor lighting?

        Windows cost more than walls, they require extra heating and/or air conditioning, they're not as structurally sound, and the light isn't used efficiently in the 3-d volume; meaning, you can't grow corn on each story of a 5-story building, because the first layer will shade the ones below it. (And windows break, they have to be cleaned, they tend to leak, &c.)

        It may be more economically sensible to grow corn in a 5-story warehouse close to a city simply because it reduces the transport costs. It also reduces the amount of land used - allowing more plots to go back to the wild.

        And on top of all of this, researchers I've talked to are doing clever things with the light recipe they're giving to plants.

        Some plants detect the reddening of the sun and "go to sleep" at sunset. By adjusting the light color, you can keep the plants growing 18 hours a day and then blast them with excess red light to get them to quickly go into night mode. This increases yield by reducing the growing period of their crops.

        (A bunch of other experiments are really interesting, such as: hitting the crops with a particular frequency of light to cause their ripening flavors to go into overdrive, making a crop that is inordinately tasty.)

        So in summary, we should do the economic experiment and see if it's viable, but in toto there's a lot to recommend indoor industrial gardening.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by smaddox ( 928261 )

          Parent deserves to be modded up.

          What ultimately matters here is economics. There is obviously a huge capital cost involved here, but it very well may be merited, especially for growing delicate species. And the more these systems are utilized, the more economy of scale will make it economical for more general applications.

          I am a bit put off by the lack of costs in the article, but I guess that is to be expected from a press release. Since this is still in research stages, it is almost certainly not yet econ

        • No no no no no no no. You underestimate the costs of the new, and over-estimate the costs of the old.

          The cost of electricity equivalent to sunlight is quite high. The cost of 5 story warehouses close to a city is high.

          Sunlight is free. Water is cheap. Farmland in the middle of nowhere is cheap. Roundup is cheap/environmentally friendly.

          • It would help if you are using solar to power the LEDs. Water is only cheap in some places, California seems to be having a few issues with not enough water. The farmers are being blamed for taking most of it. If they could use this system in more places then it would save a lot. The cost of a 5 storey block may be high but if its full of layers and layers of growing food for 24 hours and day, 365 days a year, it will soon work out cost effective. Considering the amount of land you'd need to compare to t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )

        So, I'm all for grow local, but when there's sun shining right outside - this doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me... unless you are a company that sells grow lights.

        Very true... it's hard to compete with a fertile field in a nice climate, if you have access to one. I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious applications in locations where viable outdoor environments aren't available, though -- e.g. in space, or on Mars.

    • Serious question. (And yes I know they contain carbon.)

      The use of the term has always bugged me too.

      I mean, normally I'm really against organic crops because they take up more space per person fed[...]

      That sort of stupid and misleading statement bugs me even more. You mean chemically fertilised crops have higher yields (short-term) than non-chemically fertilised crops - but then you extrapolate from that dodgy premise to the conclusion the cropping areas for identical yields are smaller. A misleading conclusion given that it implies land area required for culti

    • Organic farming requires a number of things and not using pesticides isn't one of them. The reason they require more space is the organics tend to be less effective than synthetic pesticides so you endure more crop losses.

      On the other side of the coin you can use totally organic OMRI certified pesticides but if your fertilizer isn't organic then your crop isn't organic.

      Now to get really weird you CAN use an organic fertilizer and nothing but organic pesticides but still not be able to call the produce orga

    • Actually since production prices drop the retail cost of the product should also drop in an honest sales economy. Think of the savings when a farmer knows that a failed crop is next to impossible. Also consider an organic farm on a house roof top. The insulating effect from either cold or heat can save the home a bundle. But best of all an organic, indoor farm can exist as a long wall that surrounds a community thus defining the community and effectively walling the area off from crime. We know that

  • Growing Herbs in the Netherlands? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Irate Engineer ( 2814313 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @06:18PM (#50058373)

    The new 234m facility, one of the world’s largest, will concentrate its research to optimize growth recipes for leafy vegetables, strawberries and herbs.

    Hmm, what kind of herbs ?

    • Very Unstable Herbs!

    • Hmm, what kind of herbs ?

      I think it's fair to assume, at first anyway, that it will be used less to grow 900 pots of basil, than 900 basils of pot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by johanw ( 1001493 )

        I don't think so, this is in the beginning much too expensive for that. You loose the equipment if there is a police raid so you try to limit the equipment costs as much as posible. That is why LED lights are not used very much in that sector too. They usually tap power illegally before the meter so more power consumption is no consideration (as long as the power lines are able to handle it).

  • lettice under LED grow lights? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @06:18PM (#50058379)

    ... This is what passes for innovation? Go to youtube and you'll see an endless procession of pot growers that have been doing that since always.

    I'm a big fan of urban farming but... the real trick with that is going to be using the "sun" to grow stuff.

    Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind.

    So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about. Large insulated ground to ceiling windows facing south in the northern hemisphere and north in the southern hemisphere... with the idea that the whole sun facing portion of every building be filled with plants.

    Permaculture is something that has to be looked at and ideally looked at from the context of urban gardening. Most food producing plants are bred for maximum production with maximum sunlight. Often an urban farm is going to have less than perfect sunlight or be outright shaded. And that has to be taken into consideration with the sorts of plants you choose to plant.

    Then you've got hydroponics... which is a great idea for indoor farming because you have fewer issues with insects and can control things a little more tightly.

    Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.

    • So... green houses on the roofs of buildings would be one thing to think about.

      Where are we gonna put the solar panels?

      • Where are we gonna put the solar panels?

        How about on the roofs that don't have gardens on them? Not like we're going to put a garden on every roof. At some point there is really no excuse for not putting solar panels or gardens or something productive on rooftops.

      • Solar doesn't work for urban settings. You might as well go nuclear if you have that kind of population density.

        The Suburbs can go solar. In urban areas its a waste.

        The virtue of the urban gardening is that you can at least use it as a luxury good and you create more green space which might make people happy. With solar... All it is going to produce is electricity and there are better ways to do that for a big city than to put panels on teh roofs of large buildings.

        It would work okay in Los Angeles... and s

    • What about using sunlight everywhere you want? Shouldn't we be able to do rows upon rows of farming using light tubes [wikipedia.org]?

      • Light tubes would need to carry a significant amount of the sun's energy. They generally don't. And if you're talking about a big building which is what we're talking about because we're talking about "urban" farming... how are you going to light pump down 5 floors with any effectiveness much less 20?

        The best you're going to do is a green house on the roof and a if any side of the building actually gets real sun... maybe you can do farming on that side of the building if you're careful about what you plant.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by TWX ( 665546 )

      Etc. This product they're thinking about selling... I can't see anyone outside of some government goofball on expense account buying this thing.

      I don't think that you're correct. Food production and the supply chain is the most important part of a society after access to potable water. Places where land is hideously expensive want to maximize the yield per acre, and if they can get the energy production cost along with the equipment cost down below what it costs to do it the old-fashioned way, and can also improve the consistency of the resulting crops, they may well be on to something. Think of places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, and proba

    • In some locations, we have underwater hothouses, due to a lack of arable land (e.g. mountain states and provinces in the West). In other places, there's not a whole heck of a lot of sun, so using the energy from nearby wind and hydro, you can easily run LED to grow plants in seasons where it might not otherwise be viable.

      Buildings can be built to grow things. Here at the UW, we have many buildings with green roofs and green walls, and some have entire bioenvelopes.

    • As someone who as - in the past - grown pot indoors under lights and outdoors, there's no comparison. Growing outdoors, for every 10 seedlings, you're lucky to get one healthy plant - and it has a 50/50 chance of being a male, hence worthless. Indoors, you start with 10 seedlings and get 10 plants. The same 50/50 ratio of male and female, but you've got 5 instead of .5. Next, factor in the insect and animal damage outdoors and then the bud rot at harvest time, and indoor farming is far, far superior. Not s

      • You weren't paying attention.

        My examples had people growing inside. I was talking about green houses and stuff.

    • You know, a big part of the appeal of "indoor farming" is that there aren't (m)any bugs inside. But, if you start growing massive amounts of foliage inside the building, sooner or later you will also be dealing with insect infestation(s).

      • If you do hydroponics then that's less of an issue. Most of the bugs need the soil. And the ones that don't can be dealt with by hitting them with some safe pesticides.

        • If you do hydroponics then that's less of an issue. Most of the bugs need the soil. And the ones that don't can be dealt with by hitting them with some safe pesticides.

          I would disagree. The only greenhouse pests that need soil are fungus gnats and thrips. Fungus gnats can be taken care of by drying out the soil but even when left to run amok don't really cause serious damage. Thrips need to be killed though.

          Meanwhile aphids, spider mites, broad mites and whitefly don't need any soil at all and they can c

      • That's what cellular construction would be for - the bugs get into one room, or maybe one building. You then do the equivalent of nuking that area, repairing whatever was broken that let the bugs in before hitting it with whatever's necessary to kill all the bugs, their eggs, etc... Then you restock/reseed.

        But seriously, I've seen what they do in these rooms - they wear the same sort of clean-room gear people working in chip fabs wear.

        • > the same sort of clean-room gear people working in chip fabs wear.

          Yeah, that's gotta be more efficient than overalls and a flannel shirt, riding a tractor in a field...

          People who think we're running out of farmland need to go to Nebraska, any part really, but Western Nebraska in particular. Just look at Google Earth to see what I mean.

          I think people believe that plants just grow themselves, and they do, but there are so many things that can and do need attention in any kind of farming, that's the true

          • Yeah, that's gotta be more efficient than overalls and a flannel shirt, riding a tractor in a field...

            The places I'm thinking about humans don't go into much at all, most of it's robotic.

            And while it's more expensive 'right now', consider the expense of growing crops in South America to ship up to the USA.

            The economics of it is complex, to say the least. What it amounts to is that you're spending 200+ times as much per acre, but you're getting something like 100 times the productivity, lower shipping costs, and less ruined product by the time it reaches the stores.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by smaddox ( 928261 )

      GaN-based LED's have only been commercially available since 1994, and only recently at a reasonable efficiency and price. Using LED's is quite different from using tungsten filament or gas discharge lamps (aka flourescent lamps).

      As mentioned previously in these comments, plants only absorb a small fraction of the solar irradiation. For example, chlorophyll, the dye molecule used by many plants, only absorbs significantly in relatively narrow bands of the blue and red [wikipedia.org], corresponding to 2% of the total solar

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Khyber ( 864651 )

        " For example, chlorophyll, the dye molecule used by many plants, only absorbs significantly in relatively narrow bands of the blue and red [wikipedia.org], corresponding to 2% of the total solar irradiant power."

        WRONG.

        http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/... [oxfordjournals.org]

        This is why you should never, EVER rely upon Wikipedia, people.

        Guess why HPS lighting works so well for growing weed and other crops despite being extremely heavy in green output? It sure isn't the piss-piddly amount of red and orange coming from it, nor is it

    • We're at the point that we can actually have solar powered grow lights for our plants and still have greater energy efficiency than just plain sunlight (because you can have the LEDs at peak plant absorption wavelengths). Plus it's easier to transport, easier to deal with climate variability, easier to deal with insects or pests, plants can be fed extra CO2, and you can have more usable light with less heat stress, uses less water, easier to harvest, doesn't contain dirt, and arrives at the market fresher.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      It's not clear that using sunlight to grow things is the best approach for urban farming. In fact, unless you are doing rooftop farming it probably isn't.

      The real question is, "have they solve the energy problem?" The reason this approach hasn't worked before except for suppliers to real gourmet restaurants is that it's too expensive. Largely this means it uses too much electricity. As a result, it's only been viable where you need extreme freshness.

    • "Part of the issue is that buildings are not built to grow things. And to really do proper urban farming, they have to either be modified or built from the ground up with that in mind." Why? you just need empty spaces for tiers of hydroponic racks, a water feed, electricity for the LEDs and water pumps, they generally all come with a building (depending on the building type) You can only get a fixed amount out of 1m square on a farm but with this system you could have 3 tiers of 1m square. When you are o

  • It'll never work. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Krishnoid ( 984597 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @06:20PM (#50058401) Journal

    After you go through that much basil, you'll have the munchies something fierce, and a small area like that probably can't grow enough food to satisfy you.

    Oh, actual basil. Got it.

  • Urban farming, "GrowWise", definitely doesn't sound like "pots of *basil*" is exactly the right market for it. More like something else that also starts the same way, but has two fewer words.

    Great timing for it, too, what with the burgeoning legalization movement all across the country (but, often, only for personal use, not for sale, making logistics difficult unless you are actually growing it yourself).

  • There're lots of examples of prior art local to me, if anywhere else that has a mains electricity supply, and that's pot farms.

    Here, they tend to explode as people use halogen lights at silly power densities (like 6kW/sq.m) and lag the shit out of their lofts in an attempt to conceal them from police helicopter FLIRs, then wonder why they catch fire.

    • There're lots of examples of prior art local to me, if anywhere else that has a mains electricity supply, and that's pot farms.

      Here, they tend to explode as people use halogen lights at silly power densities (like 6kW/sq.m) and lag the shit out of their lofts in an attempt to conceal them from police helicopter FLIRs, then wonder why they catch fire.

      That's kind of the joke here... their methods are 100% stolen from people who've been figuring out how to grow pot in their basements over the past 20yrs so they can avoid the police/criminals involved in normal marijuana transactions.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Doesn't the government still pay farmers to NOT grow food as part of a subsidy program to reduce supply and thereby artificially raise prices?

    • Re:Dwindling airable land? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @07:09PM (#50058801)

      Doesn't the government still pay farmers to NOT grow food as part of a subsidy program to reduce supply and thereby artificially raise prices?

      I'm a libertarian and hate subsidies, but having many farmers as relatives, feel I have to correct your misinformation.

      Lets say the price of corn hits something insanely high like $10/per bushel.
      You might think to yourself "I should get into this corn farming thing" and invest money in starting up a farm.
      As you do that starting a farm is expensive. Equipment for farming corn is unique and can't be used for something like Peas. But the price of corn is so high, it's worth it.
      After you harvest you get your money... whew! What a good investment! But by the 2nd year you realize a lot of other people had the same idea you did and they started corn farms as well. The market is glutted with corn, the price crashes to $1/bushel
      But you notice Peas are selling really high so you switch to farming peas. It costs you a fortune for new equipment but you get your peas planted...
      and 2 years later, you run into the same problem, everyone switched crops at the same time you did, Pea prices fall through the floor and you're trying to buy back your corn equipment.

      This happened at the turn of the century a LOT. No individual farmer can be expected to accurately predict the price of corn the following season. So the feds do it for them. They offer a floor on the price of their crops, and they pay farmers not to plant. This stabilizes the market, prevents over-saturation and allows farmers to be more efficient. The cost to the government is actually a net profit because those wild swings in the market price cost them a lot of tax revenue.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Overzeetop ( 214511 )

        You, sir, are no libertarian. Anyone can give things that don't affect them the finger, but the true test is if you can eschew logic even for things you DO care about.

        So, for farming, the best libertarian course of action would be to allow the market to run its course. The smart farmers will grow a variety of crops, neither making a killing nor perishing. Some farmers will guess and go all in on the next big thing and we'll have a few billionaire bulb farmers from time to time, and a bunch of people will lo

        • I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course. The nature of the business has been encouraging specialization, and since everyone is out to maximize profits, that leads to overproduction of last year's overpriced crops, which become next year's glut production which don't sell for enough to pay the loans, so you get a bunch of banks owning farms and equipment. It's not healthy, and the next generation of farmers that

          • I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.

            I tend to consider myself a moderate libertarian, but even I recognize that 'diversification' in this sense is expensive in that it wrecks your efficiency. As was mentioned earlier, a lot of the equipment that makes farming corn profitable even with lots of competition is extremely specialized for working with corn, but still freaking expensive, even if it can process tens, hundreds, or even millions of acres of corn a year. Seriously, some of those big harvesters are measured in acres harvested per minut

            • As a control systems engineer, I believe the market should be free to choose its direction, but not its rates of change.

              If gasoline makers want to raise prices, they should be allowed to do that at their discretion, but, if they feel that they need to raise prices too quickly (more than 1% per day?) then there should be something in-place to penalize that - perhaps an increase in profits taxing for the coming 2 years? Prices need to rise 50% in 2 weeks, sure, go ahead and do that, but if you end up making

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by smaddox ( 928261 )

                But then you're just slowing the market. When possible, it's better to dampen oscillations/overshoots than to reduce ramp rates.

          • I think what the Libertarians fail to realize is that farmers, as a general rule, are not smart enough to diversify or maintain course.

            First, I think that's a ridiculous assertion. Smart farmers don't diversify because the taxpayers bear the risk of their crop failure, or of crashing prices; they have insufficient incentive to diversify.

            Second, if we had a true free market, dumb farmers would go out of business and we would be left with smart farmers allocating resources efficiently. Isn't that the po

            • Maybe today we could back off and turn the whole market wide open again.

              Back in the early 1900s, there wasn't enough freedom of information for even the smartest people to make good choices for what to grow in the coming season. The boom and bust cycles did happen, spectacularly, along with other interesting "discoveries" like the Dust Bowl. The government controls were instated and they have been working to maintain stability of food supply for the country. Maybe there's enough freedom of information, s

  • 900 pots of "basil" a year (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @06:47PM (#50058639)

    It's OK. I'm from Colorado, I know what you really meant.

  • Nobody grows basil in dirt anyway.... (Score:3)

    by Harlequin80 ( 1671040 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @06:58PM (#50058723)

    Unless it's the ratty organic version it's all hydroponic already. And it is grown in greenhouses which are cheap and easy to build and can be put just about anywhere. Then for running cost you don't need to be running lights.

    Even if you argue arable land was running out, which I also call bullshit on, there is cubic buttloads of crap land you can stick greenhouses on and grow your crops there at a fraction of the cost of running leds. This is what a basil farm really looks like - http://seedstock.com/wp-conten... [seedstock.com]

    Now if we are talking corn or grain or sugar there is NO way you can get the density needed to put it in a building.

    • The thing with the indoor farming is you can enforce a lot more consistent product quality as you control the whole system a lot better. It may also make sense in places where there is a lack of space to use sunlight like in densely populated areas (they also call this vertical farming for a reason).

      As for sugar I suspect someone will find out a way to make it cheaper using a wholly chemical path eventually.

      • I would call greenhouses indoor farming already, and I agree with you it is to control multiple factors. But farming in densely populated areas just makes no sense. You can build a transport network that connects your high value high density urban land with your low value crap land and build a gazzilion greenhouses for a higher yield and way less cost.

        Even if you removed fossil fuels from the transport network and went all electric it still works out more efficient.

        Japan does some crazy intensive farming

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by serbanp ( 139486 )

        The thing about food quality is that it's related not only to consistency but also to taste. In the name of efficiency, high yield and uniformity, all these industrial settings are squeezing out the taste from whatever they're producing.

        Heck, the hydrophonically-grown butter lettuce I'm buying from Costco tastes like sh*t compared to something grown in real garden soil.

        So no, this is not quality, unless we're talking about specialty plants, such as maryjane.

  • ...in the future (now actually) we're going to have to produce at least 5 percent of the produce in our very own homes.

    Apartments must be designed with indoor greenhouses as a part of the design. To keep it low on pesticides and insects, hydroponic farming is an essential technique, what Phillips is doing isn't new by any standard, but they're one of the worlds most important developers of lighting, we need more efficient led lights, we have to reduce the power usage and make the lights brighter, this can

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chill ( 34294 )

      I know I'm going to regret asking this, but WHY do you assert that everyone will have to produce home-grown produce? And how do you come up with that 5% number?

  • Spaghetti, Lasagna, Pizza and baked Mostaccoli/Ziti/Penne.
    Seems they will grow plenty of Basil.

  • Philips isn't doing anything new. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:47PM (#50059925) Homepage Journal

    I love how slashdot sucks up to Philips advertising while forgetting their very own denizens that have been doing this LONG BEFORE Philips got into the game.

    Let me tell you why the Philips system is a bad idea:

    1. Of the Philips lighting I've tested - EVERY PIECE WAS FALSELY ADVERTISED. Under-specced in every aspect.
    2. Of the Philips lighting I've had custom-specified - THEY STOLE MY LIGHTING BLENDS. Your heavy-blue lighting regimen for most leafy greens came directly from me, while everyone else was doing red-heavy lighting.
    3. Philips has been trying to play the finance game with their lighting systems - dead giveaway to scams is when you need to finance something.
    4. I've caught Philips fucking over two other clients so far, and I expect to find that they have fucked over several others as soon as that lighting that was sent to them gets shipped to me and dissected.

    Do not get Philips LED lighting. They've been playing games with me and other people in the horticultural industry, stealing our ideas and designs.

    Slashdot supports outright thievery with the publication of this 'article.'

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close