Author: Charlie Colvin

Hello and welcome back to a final post in this agricultural/environmental issues blog series. Today we’ll be discussing a topic that comes up in almost every environmental science class, but is also almost never explained: Tillage in agricultural systems. Specifically, focusing on the concept of no till agriculture.

Source

If you’ve ever taken a soils or environmental science class, or simply are just interested in sustainability, you’ve probably at least heard of no till agriculture. I know in my high school AP environmental science class the topic was covered something like this:

Teacher: “…and another thing that can be done to improve the environment is farmers can implement a no till system into their farming practices because it is better”

And while that was enough for people to do well on the exam, I’ve noticed many people still don’t entirely understand what it means and the various pros/cons that are associated with it. Is it really as good as advertised?

Definitions

Tillage refers to the agricultural preparation of soil by mechanical agitation. Historically this was done with hand tools or animal drawn plows. Currently, it is done with large tractors in most areas of the developed world. The general concept is to loosen or break up the soil prior to planting.

It should be pretty obvious then that a no till system is a system which uses no (or very minimal) tillage.

Pros of No-Till

The general concept of no till is reliant on the idea that soil naturally regulates itself because it is a living community of microorganisms which all work together to allow for various functions. Therefore, it is argued that tillage is destructive to the soil community and overall is a negative practice. Turing over the soil also increases the amount of oxygen the soil is exposed to, which can lead to the release of sequestered carbon and contributes to the greenhouse effect.

Source

It is also argued that although tilling initially loosens up the soil by breaking up big clumps, it also damages the soil profile and will lead to the soil collapsing back in on itself and becoming even more dense than it was before tillage. This results in soil which is compacted, that restricts root growth and water infiltration. When water cannot infiltrate the soil, it must run off the surface which can lead to the pollution of surface water and increased rates of erosion. By preserving the normal soil structure/profile, more water is able to infiltrate over time and the amount of runoff from a field is decreased.

Source

Finally, no till systems typically leave the crop residue in place on top of the soil. This can help to reduce soil erosion because the root structure is still intact and able to hold the soil from washing away. The residue can also act as mulch for the next crop and reduce the need for watering by protecting the soil from the harsh sun.

Cons of No-Till

Despite all these advantages, there are still a couple things that need to be kept in mind. First, when getting a new field established, it can take several years for the soil structure to develop into a robust enough state that it can provide the water infiltration and erosion control benefits usually associated with no till.

Additionally, it is simply easier for farmers to plant and maintain crops on tilled soil, because it is looser and easier to work with.

Source

Tillage can also be a way to control weed issues. Sometimes weeds establish themselves in the field before crops can be planted. If not controlled, weeds will outcompete the crop and lead to a large yield reduction. Hand weeding is only practical on a smaller scale, so larger operations typically till under the weeds before they plant the crop. However, if not tilling the field, the weeds must be controlled with an herbicide. This can have significant environmental impacts if the herbicide drifts or runs off into a waterway, and can also lead to the development of herbicide resistant weeds over time. This is perhaps the largest downside to no till is that it greatly increases the amount of herbicides needed.

Finally, although leaving crop residues on the surface can have benefits for moisture conservation and erosion control, they can also house insect eggs, bacteria, or diseases like fungal spores. Normally tillage destroys these pests by breaking them up and exposing them to the elements. Left untreated this cause issues with the next years crop. Practices like crop rotation may help with this, but some insects or diseases are generalists and can affect most common crops within a rotation.

In conclusion, while there are certainly benefits to no till farming, it also has its own set of issues. These issues vary with severity and impact from farm to farm and even year to year, so while they may not be that important one year or at one farm, they could be devastating in another scenario. Because of this, its hard to say for sure if no till is really the best option overall. In my opinion, the best approach is probably somewhere between the two: tilling when necessary but trying to limit it whenever possible and doing other things like only tilling right before planting to minimize some of the downsides like soil erosion over the winter. There are also some newer tilling methods and equipment being developed that aim to aerate  and loosen the soil enough to plant in, but not in a manner that is totally disruptive (think slicing the soil instead of mixing it up). These methods could also be used in combination. What do you guys think? Had you ever heard of no-till before, and would you consider using it on your own yard/garden?

Welcome back to another post in the civic issues series. Keeping with the environmental/agriculture theme today we’ll be discussing precision agriculture.

Source

Many of you have probably seen images like this floating around on the internet. Pictures of drones flying over fields of lush green crops or robotic arms harvesting lettuce and other herbs. The technology in these pictures is usually referred to as precision agriculture, and it is often said to be the way of the future. Precision agriculture (PA) is a “farming management concept based on observing, measuring and responding to inter- and intra-field variability in crops” Source. Articles discussing these topics often promise huge savings in time, energy, money, as well as great benefits to the environment. Often however, these articles simply make these claims without ever explaining how this might actually work. So in todays post we’re going to look into the practical applications of this technology with a little more detail.

Drones

Source

Many depictions of precision agriculture use drones in their thumbnails. This usually consists of a drone hovering over a field of crops with some sort of substance being sprayed out of the drone into the field. This implies that drones can and will be used for applying pesticides or some other chemical to the crops as an alternative to crop duster planes.

While this is technically a possibility, many drones are limited by their weight capacity and cannot move a large tank full of chemicals. Additionally, we already have several different types of technology that can be used for this process. Despite this, drones can definitely still play a large roll in the implementation of precision ag systems. More realistically, drones can be fitted with various camera/sensor systems such as hyperspectral, multispectral and thermal sensors that can help to analyze differences in crop health, nutrition and performance across a large area. With this information, it is possible for the farmer to see that a portion of his field is growing slower than the rest of the field, or is suffering from some disease. The farmer could then calculate an increased amount of fertilizer to apply to that specific portion of the field, which would improve the overall yield, but reduce the amount of resources wasted on portions of the field with naturally greater fertility. This benefits the farmer because they can easily save money on fertilizer or pesticides while also increasing their overall yield. This can also benefit the environment, because it helps to mitigate a large environmental issue associated with agriculture that is fertilizer runoff due to overapplication. Reducing runoff helps to preserve water quality while also reducing salt buildups in the soil.

In ground sensor systems

Source

The other main precision ag technique we’ll be discussing is the use of in ground sensor systems. This technique is exactly what it sounds like: a network of sensors that can collect specific real time data from various points in the field to help monitor crops and predict fertilizer and water needs. Sensors can detect soil moisture which can let the farmer know exactly when/where the field needs irrigation. In places such as California, there are high level of agricultural production, but very little natural rainfall. Because of this, farmers need to irrigate their fields, but knowing exactly when to irrigate is difficult because water leaves the soil at different rates depending on a number of factors like sun exposure, air temperature, wind, humidity, etc. The use of sensors can give the farmer real time data that will let them know exactly where, when, and how much to irrigate. This ensures the farmer doesn’t suffer any crop loss to drought, but also makes sure they conserve the limited water resources as efficiently as possible. Similar systems can be used for fertilizer needs, as well as monitoring changes in soil temperature that can prompt developmental changes (like flowering) in certain crops. This gives the farmer a sort of heads up that the flowers are going to form soon, and allows them time to prepare whatever treatments they may be applying come bloom time.

Again, the more efficient use of resources, the lower the environmental impact and the higher the profitability. Because of this, precision ag could have significant implications on improving our cropping systems moving forward. However, at this time the main barrier is cost. All of these high-tech sensors, drones, cameras, etc. all cost money, and right now its a lot of money. Additionally, testing is still needed to calibrate the equipment and find the best ways to implement it. That being said, I’m still confident that we’ll be seeing more of this in the future. In fact, this summer I am participating in an internship program at the University of Florida, working with a professor who specializes in using both soil sensors and drone technology to improve crop productivity while optimizing water and fertilizer use.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts however, do you think this is the future of agriculture, or more of just a fad that will never become a widespread staple?

Walking through the dining halls on campus, I’m sure you’ve noticed the bins near the trash area talking about composting. However, a lot of people are unclear on what exactly this is and why they should bother to do it. Several years ago composting was thought of as something done only by the earthiest of individuals. After all, who really wants to collect their garbage and intentionally let it rot on their back porch just to keep it off the weekly trash truck? Recently however, there has been an increase in the number of people composting at their homes, and perhaps more significantly, an increase in the popularity of municipal composting operations. These operations claim that composting is far more eco friendly than simply sending food to the landfill. The question remains though: What impact-if any- does composting really make on the environment? Is it as beneficial as people claim it to be?

Source

To answer this question, it is important to first understand what composting is. Put simply, composting is the process by which organic waste (chemically organic not just “organic” from the grocery store) is broken down by microbes and fungi into a soil like substance, instead of disposing of this material in a landfill. The resulting substance is called compost and makes an excellent addition to gardens and farms because it improves soil structure, water holding capacity, and nutrient content.

Currently there are two main pathways by which food waste is composted: At home and in municipal facilities. Home composting operations typically consist of just a small pile or bin in which food scraps are place and mixed occasionally (to add oxygen necessary for rapid decomposition). These systems can work well, although the smaller size of the pile leads to somewhat slower decomposition, and because the piles are usually smaller they also do not typically generate enough heat from microbial activity to pasteurize the compost and kill off harmful plant/human diseases or weed seeds. These piles may still be effective, but the user must simply be a little more cautious on what they put in.

Source

A municipal composting operation involves the collection of food waste from a variety of sources such as homes, restaurants, and often yard waste like bagged leaves and tree trimmings from power line companies. These materials are all brought to large areas where they are shredded and combined using special equipment to create massive rows of material that can be aerated with a tractor/skid steer. Because of the large thermal mass in the piles, they can easily reach internal temperatures of over 160 F for several days which is enough to kill off most pathogens. This means that even contaminated material can be used in these operations with minimal risk of a contaminated final product. These municipal operations usually give away or sell the finished compost to local residents to use in their own gardens/flower beds.

With all that being said, does composting really have any potential to make a substantial impact against climate change? The numbers seem to say it does.

Quick Stats:

• • Composted food waste produces 50% less CO2 equivalent greenhouse gasses than landfills (Source)
    • This has to do with the aerobic decomposition of compost which greatly reduces the production of very potent greenhouse gasses like methane (CH4)
  • In 2015, only about 38% of US food waste was composted (Source)
  • Studies estimate that a 20% increase in composted food waste (increase from 38 to 58% of food waste being composted) in the US could reduce CO2 equivalent emissions by about 1.4 gigatons from 2020-2050

This is a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and it doesn’t even account for the benefits of using all the compost produced to enrich soils (which would encourage faster CO2 sequestration by plants)

However, you may be wondering if this is finically feasible. That is a very good question, but the estimates show that a $1.4 billion investment in the municipal composting system in the US would be enough to achieve this 20% increase in compost production, and the money saved over the same time period would be over $30 billion compared to not investing in these systems.

Overall, it seems composting has the potential to make significant contributions to societies fight against climate change. So the next time you’re at the dining hall, consider taking the 10 extra seconds to sort your plate between the compost and trash bins.

Welcome back to another post in this civic issues series. Once again for this post we’re sticking with the theme of agriculture and the environment. Today specifically we’ll be talking about the concept of organic agriculture and its potential environmental implications.

Walk into the produce section of almost any grocery store in the US and you’ll notice a wide variety of “USDA Certified Organic” products. This didn’t always use to be the case however, in just the last 15 years the sales of organic products in the US have tripled, an increase of almost 40 billion dollars

Image

First officially defined in 1990 when congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act, the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) defined the term “Organic” as food products that have been certified by the USDA as being grown and processed according to federal guidelines addressing, among many factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, and use of pesticides. These regulations were finally finalized and implemented in October of 2002 and are the regulations in place today.

When these regulations went into place the market for organic foods was still relatively small, generating only about $8 billion across the US. Soon however, sales skyrocketed to $23 billion by 2012 and then jumped even more to $52 billion in 2018, more than doubling national sales in under 6 years.

Image

Proponents of the organic movement have cited many reasons as to why it should be considered the “superior” method of agriculture, one of the most common being that it is in many ways better for the environment/more sustainable.

The first argument many people make in regards to the environmental benefits of organic agriculture is the absence of pesticides in organic systems. While this definitely could be a logical argument, it has the small flaw of not being true.

When the first organic products came out, they may have truly been free of all pesticides, but today, the USDA maintains an entire list of pesticides which can be applied legally to certified organic crops. This list, known as the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, includes a wide variety of both synthetic and non-synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and other inputs which are used in organic production.

Image

Additionally, there is a common misconception that non-organic crops are entirely unregulated and that any chemical inputs can be used in any amount. This is also false, as certain inputs (like DDT) are not allowed for even conventional agriculture. Additionally, analysis of both organic and conventional produce has found trace levels of pesticides in both types, but they were almost all within the accepted safety limits

This being said, there may still be a small benefit it the some of the types of pesticides being used for organic production if they are less harmful that a conventional counterpart. This is not ubiquitous however, and the overall claim that organic is better because it doesn’t use pesticides is purely false.

Another argument being made about organic systems benefits has to do with the soil and how organic fertilizers (particularly the nitrogen components) are less likely to leach from fields and cause eutrophication issues in waterways. This argument is a little more valid, because organic fertilizers typically rely on ammonium (NH4 +) as their nitrogen component, while synthetic fertilizers typically use nitrate (NO3 -). Because soil colloids typically have a negative charge, they are better able to hold on to the positively charged ammonium, making it less likely to leach out of the soil during rainfall. However, when NH4+ is used, it tends to be converted into NO3- by soil bacteria (a process called nitrification). This means that over time, even the organic fertilizer poses a risk to leaching into waterways.

Image

A final argument that is often made is that the reduced uses of herbicides (in particular Roundup) in organic systems makes them better for the environment. While the general statement that organic systems uses less herbicides (partly because they are banned and partly because herbicide resistant crops are banned too), the statement of if they’re better for the environment because of it is not as simple. While it isn’t too controversial to say that mass spraying of herbicides has the potential for negative consequences if they contact animals or wash off of the field, it is important to note that proper application usually minimizes these risks. Additionally, weeds will still be an issue regardless of if you use herbicides, so the alternative method of control in an organic system is usually through more frequent tillage, which can compact the soil, release CO2 into the atmosphere, and increase the amount of sediment runoff during rain events. Therefore, its not clear if switching from chemical herbicides to mechanical methods of weed control is actually much (if any) better for the environment.

Image

So in conclusion, organic agriculture does certainly promise some benefits compared to conventional, but it also brings on its own set of issues, making it difficult to justify a statement as broad as “organic agriculture is better for the environment” because so much of the environmental impact of either system is dependent on local conditions, environments, and how exactly each strategy is implemented. What do you guys think? Are the benefits of organic as plentiful as people claim they are? Are there aspects I overlooked? Or is it like almost every other environmental issue where there really is no clear-cut answer?

 

Hello and welcome back to my spring 2023 civic issues blog. As a reminder focus of this blog will be on environmental issues. Last week we I gave my thoughts on a TED talk about the idea of indoor vertical farms as a possible way to sustainably meet future food production needs. This week, I’m going to be reviewing an article about a new trend that has been going around: Turning lawns into gardens.

Image

The article linked above is going to be the reference for the post, but a simple google search for “turning lawns into gardens” will bring up a number of similar results.

The general gist of the article is that lawns currently take up a huge amount of land in the US (some sources say close to 32 million acres of irrigated lawns exist in the US), and that compared to gardens, lawns are worse for the environment and also don’t bring as many benefits to the household.

The article makes several claims about lawns, most of which they provide sources for. However, as I’ll get into in a little bit, some of these claims and sources are questionable in their reliability or reasoning.

The first section of the article dives into the negative aspects of lawns. It raises the following points:

• • • • Lawns require time and money
        • They say that the average lawn takes 21 hours per year per 1/4 acre
        • Americans as a whole spend $29 billion on lawn care annually.
      • Lawns use a lot of water
        • They site a study which reports that the typical American lawn uses 10,000 gallons of irrigation water annually
        • This could be considered wasteful, particularly with areas that have concerns of water shortages and droughts
      • Lawncare often involves a lot of chemicals
        • Exposure to some of these chemicals can be linked to cancer in people and pets
        • These chemicals can also run off into the waterways and cause major environmental issues there
        • Fertilizer runoff can also cause significant issues (mainly eutrophication)
      • Lawnmowers can contribute to air (gas powered) and noise pollution

Image

Most of these points are accurate, but there are a couple things I’d like to point out:

• • • • 21/hours/year/0.25 acre seems like a bit of an overestimate. Obviously most of this time is going to be made up of time spent mowing. Therefore, the size and speed of your lawnmower is going to make a large difference in how much time you need to spend.
        • Also, different species of grass grow at different rates, and even the grass of the same species grows differently depending on the weather.
      • Water usage for lawns is highly variable. Sure, if you’re trying to have a nice green lawn in Arizona in June, you’re going to need a ton of water because the climate is just so hot and dry. On the other hand however, even here in Pennsylvania where our summers are pretty hot, we usually still get enough rain that lawns can be grown without any supplemental irrigation.
        • Drought tolerant grasses are also able to thrive in dryer conditions, so planting the right species for ones climate is a good way to reduce water requirements

Image

• • • • Exposure to pesticides and herbicides is certainly a concern, and in the right scenarios they can definitely have some adverse effects on people. However, many of the studies done linking these pesticides to cancer and other diseases are done with very high dosages of the chemical compared to what one would normally be exposed to if they waited until the lawn was dry before going out on it.
        • Also, plenty of pesticides and other chemicals can be used in gardens as well, so this is more of a matter of how people choose to manage their property, rather than being exposed to the chemicals simply because they have lawns.

The next part of the article is focused on the advantages of growing your own food. For simplicity, I am going to insert that section here so you can read their points for yourself:

• “You and your family will be more likely to eat fresh vegetables and fruits 
• The fruits and veggies you eat will have more nutrients.
• The fruits and vegetables you eat could be safer.
• You can save money. 
• Vegetable gardens are ecologically responsible. 
• They’re good for your spirit and your health.
• Gardens increase community.
• Vegetable gardens teach children vital life lessons. 
• They’re good for food independence and food security.”

My thoughts again:

• • • You’re probably only more likely to eat significantly more fruits and vegetables if they weren’t a normal part of your diet already (which they should be)
    • The produce you eat could be safer… but this depends on how you grow and wash the produce, and how it compares to what you used to buy
    • Overall, a vegetable garden is probably a better choice for the environment, since the variation in plants supports higher biodiversity and the flowers can be good food sources for various pollinators
    • Saving money is not guaranteed with growing your own produce, seeds, fertilizer, tools and other supplies all add up
    • Some areas may not allow a garden in place of a lawn, particularly in the front yard. This will depend on your local city laws or HOA regulations
    • A vegetable garden can definitely be a great way to get kids outdoors and teach them about nature and plants
    • The amount of hours of work required annually for a vegetable garden is almost certainly greater than the 21 hrs./year/0.25 acre that was reported for lawns. If you don’t have a lot of free time, converting your entire lawn to a garden is probably just going to end in failure and frustration

Conclusion:

A vegetable garden certainly has a unique set of benefits when compared to a traditional lawn, however the extent of those benefits vary widely based on your local conditions and own personal situation. For some people, keeping a front yard at least is non-negotiable, as it is regulated by law. For others, a whole yard sized garden is simply too much work and too much of a time commitment. So overall, like most things in life, there is no one size fits all solution. But in general, if you are looking to help out the environment and interested in having a garden, this concept is certainly an option.

And if you’re thinking “wow a garden would be great, but I don’t know where to start”, you’re in luck because that was the topic of my entire fall passion blog:

Fall Semester: The Garden Guide

 

Hello and welcome to the first post of my spring of 2023 civic issues blog. The focus of this blog will be on environmental issues.

If any of you have read any of my other blog posts, you probably already know that I like plants. In fact, they’re the topic of both my fall and spring semester passion blogs. So what better way to bridge the gap into this new style of blog than starting with a bit of a familiar topic?

Todays blog will be a compilation of my thoughts on the following TED talk by Stuart Oda:

I’d recommend you take a few minutes to simply watch the talk, but if you are unable to for whatever reason, the description from TED themselves is as follows:

“By 2050, the global population is projected to reach 9.8 billion. How are we going to feed everyone? Investment-banker-turned-farmer Stuart Oda points to indoor vertical farming: growing food on tiered racks in a controlled, climate-proof environment. In a forward-looking talk, he explains how this method can maintain better safety standards, save money, use less water and help us provide for future generations”

Source

My Thoughts:

Firstly, reading the description tells you that Stuart Oda was originally an investment banker, not a horticulturist or environmental scientist. That doesn’t necessarily discredit his entire project, but in my opinion it is worth noting.

Oda opens by setting the stage so to speak in regards to the need for a change in agriculture. He brings up several figures regarding an increasing population both in overall size and percentage living in urban areas. This, he claims, will require an increase in global food production by about 70% by the year 2050. This seems like a fairly reasonable take if the world population grows in the way we expect it to. Oda then brings up some of the current challenges with agriculture today. Things such as the need for improved food safety, more efficient water use, and the high (~30%) percentage of food that is wasted. Again, no arguments here, these are all very real concerns.

To remedy these issues, Oda introduces his type of farming which he calls “Controlled Environment Agriculture” or “Indoor Farming”. He essentially claims it to be the next big thing, and the ultimate solution to all the aforementioned challenges. He presents us with the following picture:

This is an example of one of his indoor lettuce farms. His claims are that these farms will be the solution to the problems he mentioned:

• • • They use 90-99% less water, fertilizer and land use than traditional farms
      • • Water is recycled through the system so none goes to waste
        • Nutrients are directly available to plants so plants can be fed more efficiently
    • They use 0 chemical pesticides
    • He did acknowledge that they are somewhat energy intensive with the need for lighting, but made sure to state that they used LED lights which are among the more energy efficient lighting options

This all sounds great initially, but to me it did raise a couple thoughts:

• • • Water use is definitely reduced in a closed system compared to a field where you have more losses to either draining through the soil or evaporating in the hot sun/windy days
      • However, not every farm requires additional irrigation (depending on climate, precipitation, etc.), so in some cases his hydroponic system would not provide as much, if any, water savings.
      • 
      • Source
    • Fertilizer is more efficient, yes, but to provide water soluble, plant available nutrients usually requires synthetic fertilizers to meet both these requirements. In soil, bacteria and other organisms convert organic forms of nutrients into plant available forms, but in a hydroponic system this bacteria is absent and so the fertilizer needs to be provided in exactly the form the plants will use, otherwise it will be unavailable to them.
    • Obviously stacking trays of lettuce on top of one another is a way to provide more plants in less square footage, and yields per square foot are usually higher for hydroponics as well, so this makes sense for lettuce.
      • However, I have to wonder about other crops… Corn for example is one of the most widely grown crops in the US, and while it could be grown indoors, you’d have a hard time stacking it in shelving systems like these because the plants can get up to 10-12 ft tall. In this case, your land efficiency is either not that much greater than that of a field, or you’re building a massive corn filled sky scraper, perhaps 20 stories high if you want to fit even 10 layers of corn plants.
    • “0 Chemical pesticides” is certainly an alluring claim, but as anyone who’s ever dealt with pests in their houseplants can attest, simply being indoors doesn’t make you immune to bug problems. While good sanitation and quarantining procedures will definitely go a long way to making the grow rooms pest free, the nature of being indoors is that eventually you will inevitably deal with some sort of pest outbreak, and unfortunately being indoors without any natural predators even a minor outbreak can quickly spiral out of control and require the application of pesticides.
    • 

Source

• • • Perhaps my biggest hang-up with this indoor farming situation however is not the pest issues or the exact percentage of water being saved, but simply the amount of electrical energy required to run this whole operation.
      • The lights may be LEDs which are fairly efficient, but the numbers of them required even in a small room, like the one shown in the demonstration, certainly leads to the energy usage building up
        • • In just that small room, there are two rows of shelves, each with 5 shelves containing 4 layers of lights. Each layer has 6 lights. That’s a total of 240 of those lights for just that room.
          • Each light will run for 12-18 hours a day, so a single day uses quite a bit of power
          • And to top it off, lettuce is a crop that can be grown in fairly low light conditions compared to many other crops, meaning the lighting cost would be even higher for other staple crops like corn.
      • But the energy costs don’t stop at the lights. The entire system requires electricity.
        • • The fans to replace the air circulation (which helps prevent plant diseases) of the wind have to be running many hours a day.
          • Since the water is reused, there need to be pumps running constantly circulate the water and nutrients around the system.
          • All of those lights give off heat. As do the pumps and fans. Without an air-conditioning system running, this room would quickly cook every single plant inside of it, and the bigger the room, the more heat you’ll have to get rid of.
  • Finally, the system seems to be designed primarily for salad greens like lettuce. If your goal is to feed a growing population, lettuce-which is 96% water and contains only 63 calories per POUND (that’s a lot of lettuce)-is probably not the most efficient way to do so.
    • • But to grow more energy dense staple crops like cereal grains, many of the benefits of this system would be greatly diminished simply because the crops literally don’t fit well.

Overall, I don’t hate the idea of indoor farming, I think it definitely has potential in certain applications (like high value crops such as herbs or salad greens), but given the current technology surrounding lighting, and the cost (both finically and environmentally) of production of electricity, it seems to me that this method cannot be relied on to provide an economical and sustainable food supply large enough to support the predicted population. Currently (because of the things I pointed out above) its not really even close.