Talk:Vertical farming

message: Much before we started talking about vertical farming, mushroom growers were using vertical space and growing mushrooms in 6-7 tiers or more.  Current mushroom production in the world is 40 million ton and in terms of area required to produce it, the area required may be 150 thousand ha. In terms of actual space it will be much less, say one fifth of this area (needs confirmation)
This is a great concept, but is there any criticism that can be addressed to make this article seem a bit more relevant?
I wonder if there are any current projects being done by students at Columbia which would address this.
I think this is an exciting concept and I would like to see this article grow to reflect its current progress. --Joseph.r.martinez 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only downside is the cost. Grundle2600 01:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: When the idea was mentioned on Charlie Stross's weblog, he suggested putting a small nuclear reactor in the basement. :) --GCarty (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From a production standpoint, there is no need to use GMO crops in the kind of growing system that is proposed. From a publicity standpoint it seems critical. The vertical farming proposal is ridiculous from a technical, economic, and scientific standpoint. Selling it requires throwing out a cloud of "high tech" buzzwords. Proposing GMO crops fits right in.Phytism (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I removed the following text from the main article, seems like it should be here instead. 208.87.234.180 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Vertical Farming Installation in Europe Criticism 

message: Other companies that make or -have proposed- farmscrapers have not been described:
See Michael Braungart's MBDC, Rafael Pizarro and finally Ken Yeang
87.64.163.98 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other companies making farmscrapers 

message: the ip reverted with comment - "24.126.76.179 (Talk) (4,468 bytes) (Removed Las vegas claim - refuted here:http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/28654" -
yet, http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/28654 does not seem to refute that: 
"The city of Las Vegas, Nevada in the United States will build the world's first 30 story vertical farm. Scheduled to be open in 2010, the $200 million dollar project would produce food for 72,000 people."
please clarify this if you feel strongly that it does. Thanks. --Emesee (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing of vegas claim 

message: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/07/15/eafarms115.xml Emesee (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York  

message: I have removed the "All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers" line. Vertical farming is not a subset of organic farming. Organic vertical farming is possible, but so is non-organic vertical farming. Also, "organic farming" refers to farming without synthetic herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And without GMOs for that matter. Phytism (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I've completely reverted 68.236.216.95's edit, as it was plagarized from http://www.verticalfarm.com/. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edits to the advantages section 

message: Vertical forestation should be noted in the see also section. The article needs to be made too. See http://www.progettiepaesaggi.com/inglese/stefano_boeri.htm,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.185.39 (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vertical forestation

message: The opening to this article has lines taking directly from Verticrop's corporate website and thus for obvious reasons comes across as fairly biased (and contains unmarked external links).  Likewise in the "First vertical farming installation in Europe" section the section is decidedly corporate in flavor (beyond the broken English which I tried to clean up) and the only claim that is backed with a citation is the 3 fold increase.
There's no citation for the benefits sub heading and its covered later on in the article so I'm also stripping that out.  i.e. "Reduces energy consumption" but compared to what?  Sticking a plant in ground and watching it grow?  Intensive industrial farming?  
Sxoa (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add the  tag to the top of the article, preferably with the URL for the source page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  non neutral/conflict of interest 

message: Someone is obviously getting vertical farming confused with single story indoor hydroponics - I stacked plants ontop of each other in my greenhouse years ago it doesnt make my green house a vertical farm! Vertical Farms are multi-story structures - please re-examine. (Well done to Valcent Products it is a nice piece of technology and I'm sure it will do well).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.197.130 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenhouse type products should not be classified as Vertical Farming  

message: While I agree with the fact that the farms make little sense in the city and very unlikely  produce there own energy (and will need outside sources of energy) it doesn't mean that wouldn't have it's uses. For example:
Gasoline: while the food miles don't have much effect on the GHG removing it form the equation would be a big help in going green as transport is currently a big hurdle if you want to get rid of fossil fuels as not may renewables have the ease of use and energy density. So removing this would give you more flexibility when switching. Also most of the farming equipment could be connected to the grid allowing them to become electric and more efficient (35% ICE to 90% electric motor).
Waste processing: when you think about all the trouble we go to to remove high density nutrients from are sewage surely something that uses them at the same intensity would be a great thing to combine together. Being near the city would also mean that it is much easier to link up the system. This is killing two birds with one stone rather than destroying the stuff (requiring energy) then making it again (requiring more energy again) you simply cut out the middle man and use it as is saving on energy and probably cost. (probably wouldn't eliminate fertilizers but would sure make a dent in the amount needed)
Reduced pesticides: Vertical farming doesn't eliminate pesticides but it would certainly make them more effective. Think about how much less pesticide you could use if it didn't constantly get washed away be rain or leached from the soil. Also easier monitoring would allow you to target the area affected rather than have to spray huge areas.
(NB: incomplete and doesn't flow well will continue to edit later)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.109.152 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside the city 

message: As someone with a degree in agriculture I see this entire article as a lot of bull, I'll re-write most of the article once I get some time; in a week or two.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionless (talk • contribs) 04:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  So Wrong... 

message: I undid changes by 117.207.23.173. It had left several broken sentences and the edit did not seem
well planned out.
Bj norge (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo 

message: Hey, the article is getting better, though the background still annoys me for several reasons. 
*The calculation that 13 acres could feed 40,000(2percent of 2,000,000) people is ridiculous, its 40x what the theoretical maximum yield could feed for a brink of starvation meat free population. Really 13 acres could feed about 100 people with a good diet. This nonsense goes to show the worthyness of what the "developers" say.
* "developed the idea of vertical farming" I would like to get rid of this as the simple idea of vertical farming is as universal as the idea of greenhouses which belongs to no one in particular. also this article is moving quite away from Dickson's ideas, like his carbslurry, windmills, gas chromatography, individual plant sensors and such.
* This leads to the terrible quote...gas chromatography and individual plant sensors are just ridiculous, no body uses that technology in greenhouses today because it takes a single untrained worker less than a second to do the job of this impractical and expensive idea. also even if it was sensible technology he was talking about, it is not required for or would be differently used in vertical farming. Passionless (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: The article talks about using waste water from urban environments, and I was wondering if anyone knows if this is actually possible as I know that the makeup of the solution is very exact and is thrown out kinda often:
"Solution disposal - sometimes, some or all of the nutrient solution must be disposed of. This may be due to salt imbalances, end of a crop cycle, disease infection, or contamination. "(1)
If anyone has an article about its use in hydroponics I would like to see it,Passionless (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the water recycling section as it was only about using un-clean water in the vertical farm which is inconceivable, and no sources proved otherwise Passionless (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black/greywater 

message: So, the article currently states 10^9 more hectares of land are needed to feed the next 3 billion people. This makes little sense as we currently use 4.9^9hectares to feed over six billion... I think this uncited number came from  where it compares it to 1.2x Brazil's size even though Brazil is 8.51^8 hectares ...though 10^8 would be too small (2.44^9 would keep the ratio of land to ppl). So this is why I removed this from the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionless (talk • contribs) 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Required land 

message: City-Based Vertical Farming -- A New Twist on the Kibbutz
Vertical Farming is an exciting idea. Much credit should be given to Professor Dickson Despommier of Columbia University in NY, who has promoted the concept of vertical farming. Imagine modern skyscrapers that in fact are vertical greenhouses glistening on the skyline. Such massive modern-day greenhouses  would provide high quality produce using state of the art hydroponics. Also in a controlled environment food can be grown year-round. 
But why invest in contemporary vertical farming?  Beyond just being really really cool, they have the potential to address some very important social problems. For one, the world population is growing. Currently the world population is approaching seven billion. According to demographics, the world’s population continues to become urbanized.  People continue to move to cities in hopes of finding better jobs, and for the excitement of the city. 
This editorial, goes beyond plugging the vertical farm as an efficient means of growing produce.  This editorial promotes the vertical farm as having the potential to alleviate some societal ills associated with the modern city.  The city creates an economic paradox of sorts.  Cities can be highly efficient places offering many amenities and opportunities, but they do not guarantee opportunity and amenity for all.  For example city life is most difficult for those who lack education and skills, or those who are mentally ill -- to name a couple. 
Vertical Farming would potentially provide jobs (and housing) to the unskilled and/or homeless. Think of it as an inner city kibbutz.  People can live in the same building as where they farm. If they are homeless, they have a place to say as long as they tend to their crops.
But such structures need not be giant homeless shelters -- indeed not.  Vertical Farms could provide mixed housing.  College students who want to farm as a way to support their way through school could live, work and study.  True inner-city farmers could live and farm in modern comfort.  Vertical Farms could also be places of learning and research. Such farms could provide a venue to teach farming and agribusiness. 
The modern city is a wonderful place, but in the scope of human history, it is recent invention.  As a species we learned to survive by means of hunting, gathering, and farming. So many of us today take our food for granted. Most of us did not grow up on a farm, and most of us do not hunt or fish for our food.  The city-based vertical farm, on a certain level, has the potential to reconnect disenfranchised city dwellers to their agrarian roots.
In a world where so many things have already been invented and implemented. Vertical Farms could represent a new wave of technology and innovation. To learn more about vertical farming please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming.
Submitted by:
Robert Grant
Nashville, TN
Grantrobertb@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantrobertb (talk • contribs) 00:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  City-Based Vertical Farming -- A New Twist on the Kibbutz 

message: Contrary to this article's assertion, Despommier did not invent vertical farming, this method of agriculture dates back to at least as far back in time as the hanging gardens of Babylon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.172.40.13 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Despommier did NOT invent vertical farming 

message: This section adds to the articles viewpoint neutral credence.  It doesn't subtract from it.  Why is that section in particular, as opposed to the entirety of the article, tagged?
71.232.16.135 (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm aware the above comment was made a long time ago, but I have to agree with them. The entire Pollution section in the criticism section comes off to me as biased and written by somebody with an axe to grind that is stretching for things to put down. I especially agree with the above comment that the light pollution one is ridiculous. Jamo2008 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The criticism section does ''not'' sacrafice viewpoint neutrality 

message: http://www.plantchicago.com/
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/vertical-agriculture-city-farm-back-of-the-yards/Content?oid=2272850
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/96704184.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/the-vertical-farm-the-movie-by-sting.php
http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/244389/vertical-farming-comes-to-chicago
99.181.155.233 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources for ''The Plant'' in [[Chicago]] ... http://www.plantchicago.com/ http://timeoutchicago.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-chicago/244389/vertical-farming-comes-to-chicago ... 

message: I don't understand why the introduction discusses who invented what, nor what is meant by "classifications" and "categories". Also, from what I can tell Bailey's book is not referenced anywhere (except by this article) nor does his concept of vertical farming have anything to do with the topic. Unless there is evidence of "debate by contemporary scholars" of Bailey's work I suggest we relegate it to a footnote. Jojalozzo 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added sections which makes Bailey seem even more off-topic. I'll remove it soon unless anyone objects Bhny (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs work, Bailey's book is irrelevant 

message: The article didn't mention the artificial lighting until the end of the long introduction, and I thought it was a stupid idea since the total area of sunlight captured isn't increased. The pictures are also misleadingly suggestive that natural sunlight is used. Any ideas on how to fix this? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I noticed while reading this article that under "Impact on human health" the following snippet can be found,
"Currently, the American food system makes fast, unhealthy food cheap while fresh produce is less available and more expensive, encouraging poor eating habits. These poor eating habits lead to health problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. The increased availability and subsequent lower cost of fresh produce would encourage healthier eating."
This section doesn't have any sources attached to it, and while I am not necessarily arguing it's veracity, I was under the belief that on Wikipedia you aren't supposed to just write claims without anything to back it up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.251.136 (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-sourced opinion under "Impact on human health". 

message: There is no reference to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.  Ancient descriptions of the Hanging Garden exactly match today's vertical farming methods.  Myth or fact, the writings show that it is hardly a new concept.  Hanging_Gardens_of_Babylon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.40.188 (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Hanging  Gardens of Babylon? 

message: I'm only here to propose adding disadvantages to the Advantages section to make it balanced; for instance, maybe with comparing vertical farming with other methods, both more or less sustainable - natural farming is a good example. Or maybe aggregating the disadvantages spread throughout the entire page, such as CO2 leaks during necessary ventilation, into a dedicated section. Nathan67003 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages and comparisons 

message: In general this article isn't very well structured, but as far as I can see a lot of the controversy and arguments around vertical/containerised farming seems to be centered around those in urban areas (which, to my knowledge, were the location the original concept of vertical farming was developed for).  What seems less controversial is the use of containerised farming in areas that have climates that are not conducive to traditional farming.  From living in Canada I am primarily aware of containerised farms being set up to provide fresh produce in arctic communities, but this might also apply to areas subject to extreme heat.  Regardless of commercial viability (though they do also seem to be commercially viable) it seems like these containerised farms are a very good solution to the problem of providing fresh produce to remote northern communities.  I'm wondering if perhaps there ought to be some sort of split, or maybe re-structuring, to allow the places that vertical farming is really being successful to take more prominence.Physdragon (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This article only seems to concern large-scale vertical farming, where vertical farming is also used in smaller scales and as part of aquaponic farming. In urban environments, people are using vertical farming techniques outside and on small scale. Maybe this should be covered as well? Not Wilkins (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it should.  The lede implies that the article should cover the subject quite generically (hence why I thought it was the sensible place for putting arctic container farms), but the article doesn't currently live up to that.Physdragon (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring to separate and urban and non-urban farms 

message: Maybe there should be some mention of subsidies given to traditional farmers ie as for comparing renewable energy with oil gas and coal, or the price of organic food. Howard.noble323 (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics section 

message: — Assignment last updated by Gizmo7408 (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu