Apr 13, 2021
Written By: Henry Gordon-Smith, Founder & CEO Agritecture, and David Ceaser, Lead Agronomist at Agritecture
“I started the Agritecture blog 10 years ago to help others understand that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to agriculture. This is fundamental to our philosophy at Agritecture where we help our audience, consulting clients, and software customers understand their options when it comes to developing farms through our data and experience. It makes a real difference for the triple bottom line (people, planet, profit) of those that open their minds to comparing methods (soil, greenhouse, vertical farming, etc.), scale, sales channels, input sources, and more. Through a more sophisticated dialogue about agriculture methods, we can all be a part of facilitating a more diverse and resilient food system. When we cut corners and promote hyped-up stories of one farming method over another, we become no better than the established agriculture system we are trying to disrupt. ”
10 years of industry evolution
Since I started blogging 10 years ago, the CEA landscape, especially the Vertical Farming landscape, has changed incredibly. When I started in 2010, there were only a handful of companies using indoor farming techniques (non-greenhouse) to produce food. These early pioneers included Aerofarms, Podponics, FarmedHere …. While some of these companies have survived and others have not, the industry has grown incredibly, and as a result, billions of dollars have flowed into the CEA industry. I believe that this growth represents a shared dream of creating a more sustainable agricultural system. Let’s see how we are doing...
Where are we in 2021?
The metrics for evaluating how our industry is doing and how sustainable it is can be argued several times over. Let’s keep it simple and focus on 2 areas: what we are doing right and where we can improve.
What the industry is doing right
-
Inspiring the next generation of farmers: We know that farmer populations are aging around the world and many farms do not have succession plans. CEA is inspiring young people to get into agriculture, which is beneficial for the industry as a whole.
-
Creating jobs: The growth of the CEA industry has created a large demand for jobs related to horticulture and in turn, given new life to many ag programs at colleges and universities.
-
Providing fresh produce: The produce provided by CEA operations, especially those focusing on local production, is providing a fresher product to consumers in many parts of the world. Fresh produce means better nutrition for consumers and less food waste caused by poor product quality.
-
Using less water: Freshwater availability is literally a matter of life and death in many parts of the world. While the specifics of water use vary by operation, we know that closed system hydroponic production presents major water savings versus field agriculture.
-
Land system change: Traditional agriculture is a major disruptor of ecological systems, leading to negative consequences such as biodiversity loss, water flows interruption, and runoff of chemicals and fertilizers, which negatively impact our waterways. CEA provides for a much more efficient use of land areas and agricultural inputs, which reduces waste and regulates their disposal.
Where the industry can improve
-
Providing affordable food: Many CEA operations, especially vertical farms, have established themselves in urban areas, with the goal of serving the local population centers. This is certainly important. But we also need to realize that the business model of the majority of these operations caters to high end markets and their customers - this is not a model for producing food for the masses. The agricultural system that we are trying to disrupt, which ships food thousands of miles across the US, actually does a much better job of providing affordable food. Who will innovate within the CEA industry to provide more inclusive products?
-
Energy use & carbon footprint: While many vertical farms try to make the argument in their marketing that by removing the cross country shipping of leafy greens, they are providing a more sustainable product, all of us in the industry know that is not true. While cross country shipping is energy intensive, it doesn’t compare with the energy load of artificial lighting and facility HVAC, as described in this piece by my colleague, Djavid Abraham, the Director of Consulting at Agritecture. Unless a farm is sourcing 100% of its energy from clean sources (shoutout to DreamHarvest Farms in Texas), the carbon footprint of your produce is a problem. As an industry, let’s not ignore the elephant in the room.
-
Sustainability claims: Many VF operators claim to be “sustainable” but is it right for them to be using this claim? You can see recent examples by industry leaders AeroFarms, Fifth Season and Plenty. With current CO2 levels above 410 ppm and the majority of Americans worried about global warming, how can these companies claim sustainable practices if their product’s carbon footprint is multiple times as large as that of field agriculture?
Each of these companies publishes some information on their environmental and social practices, but interestingly enough, none of them mention the source of their energy.
-
Aerofarms environmental impact page makes no reference to its source of energy: https://aerofarms.com/environmental-impact/
-
Fifth Season’s environmental impact page makes no reference to its source of energy: https://www.fifthseasonfresh.com/our-commitment
-
Plenty’s supplier code of conduct makes no reference to its own source of energy: https://www.plenty.ag/supplier-code-of-conduct/
We know, from our work in the industry, that the energy use per lb of leafy greens produced falls in the range of 5- 10 kwh per lb of production. This will vary by type of green, amount of waste, lighting efficiency, and numerous other factors. Assuming an average VF, using 7.5 kwh per lb of production that produces 2 million lbs of produce per year, we arrive at a total annual electricity use of 15,000,000 kwh.
We will then use the EPA GHG equivalencies calculator which means that back-of-the-envelope calculations show that one VF of this size could have a carbon footprint from the energy used of approximately 10,606 metric tons per year. Here is what else would create that kind of footprint:
And what would be needed to offset it:
Now, vertical farming may be able to solve its energy problems in the future, over time, in part through improvements in lighting, HVAC efficiency, and more renewable energy capacity. Some vertical farms even buy renewable energy already which is great. But for now, it’s inaccurate and irresponsible to label vertical farming as “sustainable” by only telling one part of the story.
Sustainability is a process, not an end. And so, unless something is certified as sustainable through a third-party verification process or even better a Life Cycle Analysis, it shouldn’t be loosely used in marketing. In the very least, vertical farming companies should communicate more honestly about their sustainability impact and not pick and choose what they want to report. I challenge all vertical farming operators to provide an annual environmental statement following GRI guidelines.
Agritecture is taking this challenge head-on with some new initiatives to accelerate sustainability in the industry and encourage more accountability and honesty in the sector.
-
We are working on a new communications guidelines page for the sector to be more accurate and avoid greenwashing.
-
We are working on embedding a CO2 calculator into our Agritecture Designer software to make estimating environmental impact easier.
-
We are offering new sustainability assessment services to our consulting clients.