Posted: 3/13/2016 7:36:32 PM EDT
|
Saw this on foxnews: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/03/10/future-farming-may-live-inside-this-box.html
Hydroponics. One of the pictures looks like they use grow lights instead of the typical greenhouse using natural light. The article claims they use 90% less water than conventional farming. My guess is they also use a lot of electricity. They claim one container is currently generating 800 heads of lettuce a week for a local school cafeteria, and it says they can produce the equivalent of an acre of "conventional" farming. Seems like California could use a break like this given their multi-year drought. |
|
Makes growing pot a little more obscure as well. 
|
|
Have a guy on one of the boards I frequent that grows fodder in a container. I forgot the exact numbers, but it's pretty amazing. Feeds a bunch of chickens and hogs with it.
It can be done, but I don't think it's worth the effort for the average family in the South - now up north, with the conditions what they are 8 months of the year, it might be an option. Going to need a lot of heat and light though! |
|
Quoted:...looks like they use grow lights instead of the typical greenhouse using natural light. The article claims they use 90% less water than conventional farming. My guess is they also use a lot of electricity... I've been looking into aquaponics for a little while now; looks like this would be a natural match-up for that. Much less water, and the only electricity being recirculating pumps and lights. |
|
Quoted:
I've been looking into aquaponics for a little while now; looks like this would be a natural match-up for that. Much less water, and the only electricity being recirculating pumps and lights. Quoted:
Quoted:...looks like they use grow lights instead of the typical greenhouse using natural light. The article claims they use 90% less water than conventional farming. My guess is they also use a lot of electricity... I've been looking into aquaponics for a little while now; looks like this would be a natural match-up for that. Much less water, and the only electricity being recirculating pumps and lights. In places like Arizona and Texas its going to take some electricity to cool it in the summer and if you use an evaporative cooler there goes your water savings. I think it would still be feasible. |
|
Quoted:
I've been looking into aquaponics for a little while now; looks like this would be a natural match-up for that. Much less water, and the only electricity being recirculating pumps and lights. Quoted:
Quoted:...looks like they use grow lights instead of the typical greenhouse using natural light. The article claims they use 90% less water than conventional farming. My guess is they also use a lot of electricity... I've been looking into aquaponics for a little while now; looks like this would be a natural match-up for that. Much less water, and the only electricity being recirculating pumps and lights. A metal box in Arizona may not be the best choice. In addition to air temps, with hydro you have to maintain water temps. Being a good thermal mass, you can't even let the water get too hot once. True of hydro or aero. You have to set up based on the extremes you will face. Air temp, air handling (both space and cooling lights) air humidity, air filtering, water temp, water ph, nutrients, bugs, excessive solar gain, excessive wind. You can't skip one thing and expect balance. |
|
Quoted:
Saw this on foxnews: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2016/03/10/future-farming-may-live-inside-this-box.html Hydroponics. One of the pictures looks like they use grow lights instead of the typical greenhouse using natural light. The article claims they use 90% less water than conventional farming. My guess is they also use a lot of electricity. They claim one container is currently generating 800 heads of lettuce a week for a local school cafeteria, and it says they can produce the equivalent of an acre of "conventional" farming. Seems like California could use a break like this given their multi-year drought. Says it costs $20k per year to operate, which is like $400 per week. That's kinda brutal. |