Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science News

A Desert Nation Turns To Hydroponics To Make Feed for Its Livestock (bloomberg.com) 49

The United Arab Emirates is turning to vertical farming and hydroponics to produce food for local livestock as the desert nation tries to reduce its reliance on imports and shield itself from disruptions to global supply chains. From a report: Abu Dhabi-based startup World of Farming will begin building on-site operations at local farms later this year to provide fodder for meat and dairy producers that currently rely on imports for as much as 80% to 90% of their animal feed, said Faris Mesmar, chief executive officer of Hatch & Boost Ventures, a venture capital firm that launches and scales its own startups. "This region doesn't have a lot of arable land and the dependency on imports is becoming an issue for all local privately held and commercial farms," said Mesmar in an interview. Local livestock producers "find themselves with no consistent access with food to feed their animals."

Land or resource-scarce countries from the Middle East to Asia are increasingly seeking to insulate themselves against food shocks and global supply chain disruptions caused by the pandemic, politics and extreme weather. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has disrupted supplies from one of the world's top grain exporters, while heat waves have been wilting crops in Europe and the US. Techniques such as hydroponics, drip irrigation and enclosed cultivation allow desert nations such as the UAE to reduce costly imports of high-value fresh produce. Dubai-based airline Emirates opened what it says is the world's largest hydroponics farm in July to supply leafy greens for in-flight meals. Hydroponic, vertical farms typically grow plants indoors without soil, irrigating the crops with a water-based nutrient solution and often use artificial light.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Desert Nation Turns To Hydroponics To Make Feed for Its Livestock

Comments Filter:
  • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @10:34AM (#62791196) Homepage

    But it's the UAE, so I'm sure they can pay for it.

  • by bugs2squash ( 1132591 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @10:35AM (#62791198)

    Wouldn't they be better off playing the long game, try and improve the land they have and for a while at least leave the raising of crops to countries that naturally have better suited farmland? Rather than raise crops inefficiently in-country

    It's not as if they have any shortage of cash to import crops and that approach would both improve their natural agriculture over time and boost farming nations like India, not to mention foster international co-operation.

    • by JanSand ( 5746424 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @10:54AM (#62791250) Homepage
      Whatever the economics of vertical farming might be, and I've read it might make sense in large cities where shipping costs and the economics of water and the lack of need for weed and insect poisons that are a real problem with today's agriculture, the invested time in the developing of technology might be very valuable in extra-terrestrial technologies of agriculture for the future.
      • I think it sounds like a great idea. As Jan points out, there can be real advantages to using this kind of tech where land is extremely scarce or water or both. Big cities like New York or London or numerous others across the entire work could benefit from this kind of technology as continues to mature.

        Even if today it is expense, so to will crops done the traditional way as they continue to deal with "nature", something a vertical indoor farm gets to control and set to maximize yields and crop health.

        In si

      • by Vegan Cyclist ( 1650427 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @01:36PM (#62791758) Homepage

        It makes sense to feed humans...

        It doesn't make sense to feed livestock, who are quite inefficient and takes something like 20lbs of grain to produce 1lb of animal flesh.

        If they were to do this to feed people directly (instead of livestock), it'd make sense.

        • You don't need to feed livestock grain. There are a large number of alternative plant materials. And a cow's four stomachs are MUCH better at digestion than yours is.

          Your idea that livestock is inefficient come from the same people who tell you a kilowatt of coal fired energy is evil if used for air conditioning but good for the environment if used in a Tesla.

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            What people have actually been trying to tell you about coal energy is that it's disappearing**, and what they've been trying to tell you about EVs is that they're much more energy-efficient than ICE vehicles even when powered by fossil fuels. You just haven't been listening.

            ** Will probably get a couple year boost from the current Russian energy crisis before resuming its trend.

            • I prefer ambient energy (that is, energy generated from the resources in the land and environment your house is sitting on) to centralized energy generation myself, but that means that in some places, coal is indeed appropriate (especially *recent* coal as opposed to *fossilized* coal - such as peat coal, which can be found in many forest lands quite close to the surface, and which does *not* increase global warming because it is not releasing fossilized carbon).

              The prejudice against some people, is the rea

              • by Rei ( 128717 )

                Burning peat ABSOLUTELY increases warming. Peat only gets laid down at about a millimetre per year in a good productive bog. The carbon contained within a peat bog has been being built up over tens of thousands of years on average, and can be all mined up an burned in a single season. And to add insult to injury, often they're not turned back into peat bogs at all, and even where the goal is to re-convert them to a sequestering ecosystem, that's easier said than done. Replacing just coal power alone with

                • Clearly you didn't understand- unless your house is in a peat bog, you shouldn't be burning peat.

                  You *should* use all available ambient energy in a sustainable fashion, for *LOCAL* energy production only.

    • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @11:11AM (#62791318)

      It's not as if they have any shortage of cash to import crops and that approach would both improve their natural agriculture over time and boost farming nations like India, not to mention foster international co-operation.

      The first sentence of the summary already addressed that point in that the UAE is looking to lessen their dependence on imports. Sometimes it is not all about money. Currently only 5.0% [wikipedia.org] is being used for agriculture with another 3.6% for woodlands. The rest is desert.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Not only that, but they want to raise crops in the desert to feed animals for meat? Talk about inefficiencies.

      • Yeah, it makes much more sense to be dependent on other nations for minor things like FOOD!

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Eating plants is much more efficient in terms of water requirements.

        • by mspohr ( 589790 )

          Feeding animals for meat and dairy wastes about 90% of the feed.
          Much better to just raise crops that people eat directly rather than passing through an inefficient animal.
          How about hummus?
          The chickpea (Cicer arietinum), also known as the garbanzo bean, is an annual grain legume crop that ranks among the world's three most important pulses (seed legumes used as food).
          Chickpeas are native to the Mediterranean region and are a major ingredient of many Middle Eastern, Mediterranean and Indian dishes, such as hu

    • To improve the land they have to stop overgrazing with camels and goats and they will never do that.
  • So a hydroponic medium for wheat\rye, not sure why they would need to use lights though. If anything they have too much sun. Biggest issue it seems is access to water and\or ensuring you reclaim as much H2O as possible, just giving as much as the plant needs.

    I'm curious what is more efficient, solar to LED and a warehouses of wheat crops, or a green house style vertical farm harnessing direct sunlight?

    • In green houses a lot of power is used for ventilation with massive fans, so there is more to the equation than just "light in". Much of the conversion loss in solar panels is in the longer infrared frequencies that aren't useful for plant growth so you could think of them as a type of IR filter. I suppose you could make some kind of mirrored thing with light pipes and coatings to do the same things but it won't be cheap.
    • Re:No lack of sun (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @11:40AM (#62791406) Journal
      Filtering off the direct sunlight already helps a lot. In Tamera, they built a greenhouse [tamera.org] (bottom picture in the link) that used the direct sunlight to harvest energy, while leaving the diffuse sunlight for the plants.
    • I say bury the operation and use lights powered by solar panels as an alternative to sunlight. This would minimize the required cooling and help compensate for the inefficiency of the solar panels / LEDs.
  • by clawsoon ( 748629 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @11:01AM (#62791268)
    Not to distract from the no-doubt-wonderful technology involved here, but I feel sorry in advance for whatever migrant labourers they acquire to actually build this.
  • by Jodka ( 520060 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @11:23AM (#62791360)

    from the /. summary:
    "Hydroponic, vertical farms typically grow plants indoors without soil, irrigating the crops with a water-based nutrient solution and often use artificial light."

    I did back-of-the-envelope calculation a while ago and indoor farming in Manhattan would be less expensive in a Boring Company tunnel than in an above-ground building there. Even at $10 million/mile those tunnels are volumetrically cheaper there than above-ground real estate.

    The calculation for UAE would be different, the underground temperature, 30C/80F, is above what is tolerated for common indoor crops such as lettuce. Manhattan required some heating to reach optimal lettuce temperature though.

    By the way, in Manhattan they are never going to get anywhere close to breakeven for any crop, such as pumpkins, that transports well. Indoor farming is sort of maybe financially feasible in big cities only for delicate crops, significantly because of loss from spoilage during transport and storage when grown outside the metropolitan area. The harsh outdoor conditions and water scarcity in the UAE favor tunnels more, so cost estimates for other tunnel crops there would be interesting.

    • They're looking to grow fodder - livestock feed - not lettuce. Looking at the article, they didn't way what they'd be growing as fodder - I'd be interested in finding that out to see how it works.
  • Cheaper than the one that wanted to open a museum...
  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Monday August 15, 2022 @12:06PM (#62791498)
    seem cheap by comparison.

    I'm all for developing hydroponics and stacked farming, but as feed for animals? That's literally the least inefficient way of getting calories into bellies.
  • I thought the idea was to start eating insects like the WEF folks are pushing. Lots of protein, good for the planet, stops climate change... A yummy win-win!

  • I believe some of that local livestock are palestinians and pakistanis.

  • This is the most inefficient way of producing food you could conceivably think of.

    Growing crops hydroponically, to feed animals, for food for humans.

    Why not cut out the middle-animal entirely?

    I don't get it, really I don't.

    All the research is there, if you care to read it - the inefficiency of crop production to feed animals for food for humans, is one of the key factors driving climate change and the decimation of the natural environment.

    It's not rocket science, really it isn't.

    Humanity seriously needs to

    • Bingo.

      It'd be like building a nuclear reactor to power machinery to dig up coal to burn for electricity.

      • Bingo.

        It'd be like building a nuclear reactor to power machinery to dig up coal to burn for electricity.

        Nice analogy.

        I guess, globally, the planet is in denial about what it faces - and at the sheer speed at which what it faces, is unfolding.

        We'll see what transpires.

        If Europe, the US, Australia, South America see the same unprecedented climate patterns repeat within a few years, we're ... screwed.

        It means what was predicted to hit in 2040 to 2050, is arriving two decades sooner than anticipated.

        Heck, at one point, it was predicted the worst would hit by 2100 - then climate scientists started to get alarmed a

        • I hardly see any promising news to be honest. Even the big bill just passed by the US fails to address animal agribusiness and the impacts it has, along with other shortcomings.

          I kind of feel like if the person addressing climate issues doesn't maintain the same urgency as someone like Greta Thunberg, they're wasting their time. Because that's where we're at. It's here.

      • 75 percent of Earth's land is grass. Without ungodly amount of fertiliser, irrigation and so on the best thing to do with it is graze animals.

        But of course you knew that. You also know that veganism is detrimental to human health, particularly during childhood and beyond .
        You also know that veganism is impossible without heavy carbohydrate consumption and seed oils. The former is killing about 1.5 billion people as we speak via metabolic deaseases. 600 million of these are diabetics. The lattet is pure canc

        • Is this meant as a circle jerk post?

          Because you sound insane otherwise.

          Maybe expand your reading. Let's just look at your first claim as an example: 75% of Earth's land is grass. It's a laughable claim by anyone who knows anything about the topic. But I was genuinely curious.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          12% of the land on Earth is grassland. 30% is forest. 10% is human crops.

          You sound worse and more ignorant than any vegan I've ever met. Even the weird woo-woo ones. Bravo.

        • Where to even begin, to respond to a reply like this, which is ... batshit crazy?

          Firstly, did I mention the word "vegan" once in my original post? No, I didn't.
          You immediately knee-jerked into mad typing at the mention of "plants for human food instead of animals."

          The claims you make about humans needing meat in their diet has been debunked so many times, but this isn't even about that.

          We absolutely _could_ have meat as part of our diet and still have a sustainable planet, we just need to eat a _lot_ less.
          T

    • by Compuser ( 14899 )

      Honestly, in a choice between meat-free meals and civilization collapse I would choose the latter in a heartbeat. And I am very certainly not kidding.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Working...