How an Army of Ocean Farmers Are Starting an Economic Revolution
medium.com
medium.com
My folks are involved with farming mussels in New Zealand. The farms are in a river mouth, putting the nitrogen and phosphate runoff from farms to good use. The phytoplankton they eat is replenished 500m down-current from the mussels.
There's one major risk - the 'spat' - the baby mussels used to start a vertical mussel line - are harvested when they're washed up on a beach. Sometimes, there's no spat and no one knows why. The concern is that climate change will result in less, or no spat, and then no more mussel aquaculture.
All plants need Nitrogen to grow, there is a surplus for various reasons in the sound, that surplus needs to come down and this idea is great.
I'm curious whats worse, pesticides directly applied, or the possibility of pesticides in run off?
The basic idea is that as you move up the food chain the concentration of toxins gets higher. So a plant might have a relatively low level of toxin absorbed even if it was directly applied, but a shellfish that consumed algae that were exposed to the toxin downstream from the farm might have a considerably higher level.
I don't know a whole lot about the details in this specific case, but that's my concern.
For Connecticut, this is a local issue (too much Nitrogen in the sound) and this is a local solution that not only _reverses_ a problem, but produces real food and economy.
This economy doesn't have to be at scale, other places on this earth have different problems and require different solutions.
Research "greening the deserts" on youtube for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A
We need to work with nature, not against it. Let nature do the work. A healthy natural system is the true meaning of wealth in this world, it works without ANY human or oil expense. A fly-wheel system that generates money without effort.
Reference: http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2719&q=325572&deepNav_... | "Each summer, the bottom waters in the western half of Long Island Sound experience hypoxia, or very low levels of dissolved oxygen. Extensive monitoring and modeling of Long Island Sound have identified the excessive discharge of nitrogen from human activities as the primary pollutant causing hypoxia. "
I think biomanufacturing of protein via bacteria/algae could be the cheapest. For example there's even a company, prottero, making sugar via bacteria at 1/3 of the cost of sugar cane.
And theoretically with those of methods , you might be able to feed the world from an area the size of new jersey.
1) The world being able to afford it's food is the issue.
2) getting food to people in time without spoilage is the issue.
For when to plant, I use this web site, if my desired plant isn't on the chart, I make a best guess based on related plants:
http://www.almanac.com/gardening/planting-dates
As for temperature tolerances, googling the "hardiness of a tomato" is a great stepping stone.
It sounds like they are open sourcing their information.
Further, they're offering 2 years consulting and 5 years buying nearly the full crop at triple the market rate.
Maybe you could reach out. It sounds like they want the help.
The 5 years is to cover capital investments. Banks would see those 5 years as low risk.
Have a look at 'open source ecology', there are things existing, but this is still a long way from getting to the point where CS/math is.
You can also look at Earthships, a fairly utopian idea, and how far they are from embracing openness, despite their proclaimed philosophy.
You can also go to school for agriculture, to learn about the growth of crops and about livestock management. The difference is that this ocean farming is a new endeavor by a small group. It's not like CS or math where independent researchers can download a compiler or pick up a notebook and verify or extend other studies, you need years of work and large amounts of money.
Would there be pull requests for this if they opened it to the public?
We agree, but you could as well say thus that closed software is not really closed since you can learn software in schools. It's different from having easily accessible knowledge, when it's hard to get actual data on many subjects (in some cases, this data is even actually protected by law).
>It's not like CS or math where independent researchers can download a compiler or pick up a notebook and verify or extend other studies, you need years of work and large amounts of money.
It's not so much of a problem. There are enough people out there that are ready to test the ideas and techniques. If you could find say a set of various setups that worked for a set of given conditions (with a good description of costs, encountered issues and output) then you could have people who can test it by themselves while changing the parts they don't like, and contribute their own data. There's a huge amount of money spent on experimenting already, however it's basically all done in a closed manner.
BTW, if you have "the secret guild" feeling out of my comment, it's because discussing with my physician friends, they clearly advocated for some principles in this spirit (irrevocability of the physician's opinion, unilateral defense of their interests regardless of any moral issue, etc). It may vary depending on your country, of course.
Think about all the bad programmers you are aware of, and think about how many are employed. I believe medicine is trying to avoid that, somewhat understandably, with collateral damage against people who would otherwise be good doctors but are unlucky. Calling it a conspiracy might be a bit of a reach. Take that sentiment into watching Patch Adams, for example, and the big bad mean medical establishment might make a smidgen more sense. On grounds of dignity and tradition is one thing, but competency is another and I think the root of the conflict.
This is all interesting of course when you also, correctly, notice that there are many bad doctors and lawyers all the same. My ex-wife's divorce attorney needed help from my own understanding notary procedure (yes, really). But hard to say whether there are fewer with the system in place. Maybe there are.
Again, no opinion being shared on whether I agree with the practice or not (I'm honestly unsure, if you want the truth), just an observation. Maybe some of the issues in our industry, particularly incredibly lax security practices, might be mitigated with a bar to entry similar to medicine. I simply don't have that answer and I can see arguments on both sides.
It's not accurate.
We definitely know from the UK, Australia and Africa, that properly trained nurses can do well, many of the doctor's jobs, while increasing accessibility.
My colleague is working towards becoming a licensed engineer in software. I'm learning a lot about formal methods from him in order to build more reliable software, faster.
If we really were software engineers then there would be a state of the art and if you employed any practices short of that you'd be liable for damages your software causes. And you'd probably go out of business pretty fast.
There is a Wikipedia article on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture
As well as an office of Aquaculture in the US NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration):
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/index.htm
Maybe these resources could help you find information & resources to learn more about ocean farming/aquaculture.
My buddy has started commercially farming oysters and other seafood the last few years. The info is not widely available, but you can find it if you look. Many existing farmers (at least half) are fully willing to share knowledge with each other, give you a tour, etc. The fact is they are more in competition with traditional oystermen than they are with other farmers from another region. Another great source of information is the aquaculture folks in your state's DNR (or similar department). Set up a meeting with them and ask away.
This struck me as particularly interesting. Corn, arugula, tomatoes and lettuce are all a product of selective breeding. To what extent has this been applied to "sea vegetables" and what might the possibilities look like?
> New farms are being built in polluted areas like Bridgeport and the Bronx River in order to soak up the nitrogen and carbon, pull out heavy metals, and re-build reefs.
They're pulling out the heavy metals. Where do those heavy metals go? Into the food? I limit my intake of certain foods because of their heavy metal contents; do I have to do the same for their seaweeds?
> It’s a good point. We have two types of farms: those that we place in pristine waters that are tested weekly and those that grow in polluted water. These “pollution farms” like in the Bronx river, farm ecosystem services, with none of the crops going into the food system. Key is traceability of our crops.
That said.. the small footprint of these farms means you could probably localize this impact, or pick areas that are at a lower risk for farming.
Potentially the biggest hurdle here would be regulatory issues to prevent the above issues from happening without stifling the industry.
Super interesting subject.
Seems like you could potentially find places where the farms would do more good than harm, even ignoring the food production aspect: They claimed that the farms make good habitats for various types of marine life, serve as effective storm breaks, etc. I wonder if they might even be able to improve local ocean chemistry in some cases (absorbing fertilizer runoff, stabilizing pH, etc.).
It will take significant practical experience and study to tease out all the effects and figure out the most sustainable techniques. At any rate, it’s likely better than most of the existing fish farms in the ocean. How are those currently regulated?
"Even the best land-based farms pollute, sending nitrogen into our waterways, so we use our kelp to capture that nitrogen, turn it into liquid fertilizers, and send it back to organic farmers to grow their wonderful vegetables. When the nitrogen then runs back into Long Island Sound, we capture it again."
It seems like, at least in theory, these types of farms can also help limit the damage caused by land-based human activity to coastal ecosystems.
That could make for some interesting secondary food stuff harvesting. :D
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_New_York_City [1] http://www.nypl.org/blog/2011/06/01/history-half-shell-inter...
To make it scalable, the farms must be able to function in the open ocean, regardless of depth. If he could figure that out, it would truly be an aquatic revolution.
See depth charts on http://www.doggerbank.nl/index-old.htm
The awareness about such initiatives is still very limited. This model could go mainstream with awareness and support from the Government.
This model could be especially useful in developing countries, with a coast line of course, though it was not clear from the article if this is applicable to fresh water bodies like lakes and rivers.
The cons or potential pitfalls/problems of this model have not been explored yet. It's something worth looking at.
Just see the land farmers revolutions, fighting industrial farming with new methods. Organic farming (the "bio" label), sellers collectives, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). Previously they had to fight the big mills and banks, now the industry, the government and Monsanto just to keep the nature and ourself healthy.
There's a whole film festival for new farming http://www.mefarms.org/community-kitchen/food-farm-film-fest... with lots of recommendations.
"The Real Dirt on Farmer John" (my favorite) http://www.angelicorganics.com/ and esp. http://learngrowconnect.org/
Thanks for settling that then! Nori is just the start. Kombu, a seaweed, is the basis of most soup broths in Japanese cooking, since it has a savory flavor. It would be surprising if there aren't other untapped delicious seaweeds out there for those of us who are not so set in our ways.
But on the hand he surely knows what he is doing with a successful 20 acres farm, so I rather believe it tastes good.
When I was 12 I hated beer, blue cheese and olives. Nowadays I'd have that for dinner and count myself lucky.
I remember being unwilling to eat the coffee crisp out of my Halloween candy bag because it tasted too much like coffee. Now I drink 4 cups a day black as night.
I imagine that if you forced yourself for a week (or some timeline), you'd love the taste of whatever seaweed came along.
I think that the demonstrable environmental impact may be enough for some people to force themselves.
The problem is that this doesn't necessarily scales up, it's very nice for over-priced niche markets like high end restaurants but if you are going to feed the world using this type of agriculture it can be just as destructive as any other type of mass production on a scale that can feed nations not to mention the world.
Better that than killing ~3 trillion ocean animals yearly and destroying the oceanic ecosystems.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/KfGtn.png
Not just free as in no cost, but free also as in liberty. Imagine not having to work for food. Food weaves a recursive economic penalty into all facets of society.
What's especially amazing about 3D vertical ocean farms is that they can provide nutrient inputs to the model illustrated above. Harvested, transported, and delivered automatically, with power from renewable resources.
If people want to grow their own food, that's fine. The point is, we have the technological prowess to create a society where we needn't spend time nor money on food out of necessity. Trading our productive years for food is a huge driving force behind capitalism, which has not proven itself to be the most environmentally-friendly regime (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions).
Think about this.
By the time viable nuclear fusion comes along (50 years?), we could have a self-maintaining, open source, free food infrastructure to solve one problem common to every living human: hunger. The energy consumption required to power the infrastructure could be switched from limited renewable sources to fusion sources to help support the global population (with power left over for some growth).
See also:
http://www.ted.com/talks/caleb_harper_this_computer_will_gro...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/01/japanese-...
Fusion is by no means cheap. To quote myself from a different thread:
Even if/when we get commercially viable fusion, there's no reason why it should be significantly cheaper than energy from nuclear fission – you'll still need extremely complicated, high-precision, high-technology machines, generators, cooling towers, buildings, skilled workers, some amount of regulation, and disposal of nuclear waste. Oh, and if your fusion design is a tokamak, it might easily be more expensive than energy from fission reactors.
If you want electrical energy that's some orders of magnitude cheaper, you'll need a break-through in fundamental physics.
According to Lockheed Martin, compact fusion has the potential to produce (modular?) 10MW reactors about the size of a semi-trailer truck. This reactor size reduction comes with a corresponding cost reduction without depending on new physics.
http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html
Note: I'm not a nuclear physicist.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Back in February the Chinese EAST project (only $37 million USD) confined a plasma pulse of 50 million K for 102 seconds. Progress is slow, yes, but my point remains. When fusion is finally viable, we should strive to have an open infrastructure that liberates humanity from growing, harvesting, and distributing food. (Japan is well on the way, FWIW.)
Time and money are two compelling reasons. Another is climate change. Some estimates predict a decrease in certain crop yields (such as maize in South Africa) by up to 30%. OTOH, some crops will thrive with a higher CO2 concentration, while others will not tolerate the heat and coming droughts. Indoor farming eliminates global climate as a factor to growth.
You could have made the same argument about nuclear fission. Fission energy has been viable for decades, and yet we still don't have free energy. You didn't give any reasons why it would be different for fusion.
By the way, your reasoning is flawed: From your assumption that initial prototypes are expensive (which is valid), and the assumption that subsequent commercial designs will be less expensive (also most likely valid), you conclude that it will eventually be so cheap as to be essentially free (definitely invalid conclusion, with lots and lots of counterexamples).
https://youtu.be/5FBEMb-Ra14 | related - its my systems I'm building, recorded yesterday, during rain storm.
What is the word you keep saying in the video that sounds like "hoboculture"? I spent about 90 seconds failing to look it up.
247 acres to a square kilometer gives you 45652269 acres, article says 25 tonnes per acre, giving a yield of 1141306725 tons or about 160kg for every person on the planet.
This makes lots of assumptions but even if you half the efficiency you are in the ballpark of 80kg of nutritious plant matter per every person on the planet.
It would also work out at ~1600 shellfish per person on the planet.
Lots of assumptions but it's in the ballpark.
I love this idea but am sceptical on the idea of hurricane proof anchors. Hurricane resistant more likely. Although, in his defence, having these farms together with many anchors, makes them even more resistant. The author basically says this later in the article when he talks about the farms being storm breaks.
Surface waves cause circular motions in water. The closer you are to the bottom of the ocean, the smaller these circles get. The tendency is that the farther underwater you are, the easier it is to resist wave action. The issue isn't whether one can make things hurricane proof. The issue is the economic feasibility of making something sufficiently hurricane proof.
All that said, the linked TEDx talk is absolutely worth watching.
So is this 3d farming still producing great food if all the water is polluted by ship waste?
Sea farming would have to guarantee that it is protected from such pollution, with harvests rigorously tested on a regular basis.
If by chance anyone ITT does small scale freshwater "farming" I'd be interested in hearing some stories. Breaking even or a slight loss would be nice as well as I think it could be an interesting hobby (like beekeeping)
"What is most important, we guarantee to purchase 80 percent of their crops for the first five years at triple the market rate."
I assume 5 years at today's market rates. That would give them 5 years to stimulate a demand for the products? If that demand doesn't materialise, then we just end up with another crushing defeat for the worlds fishermen.
I'm extremely sympathetic to many of the ideas (though, maybe not the forward contracts), but I fear that if they are not profitable with a smaller, shorter, purchase support scheme, this is doomed.
Sounds the same as existing shellfish farms, as far as I know. Here's a story with a couple details on the process, from Maine -http://www.ellsworthamerican.com/maine-news/waterfront/lease...
Wonder what strategy places like Monsanto could use for that purpose? First approach that springs to mind is trying to discredit the approach... probably combined with something legal like trying to get it banned outright because "food safety".
Hopefully the industrialised agriculture profiteers can be warded off long enough for this to get legs. :)
I also love the general idea of using oysters as "cleaning as a service" (Bronx river). Pretty cool approach to give up some food farming for cleaning the water.
Pretty inspiring story :)
The idea is to use recycle matters to build a home garden. Nice and innovative. Also, its build has been open sourced. Worth to take a look.
I'd also like to see sections of ocean protected like we protect our national parks. No fishing, no motorized boats. Sort of make them "reservoirs" where natural life can be undisturbed.
I mean, I'm totally for trashing the environment when we don't need it anymore, but right now it's species-wide suicide.
There's a lot of local controversy because people believe that sharks living in the protected reserves are a danger to the people swimming off the city's beaches.
But politically this sort of conservation is very fragile. It's fine as long as no-one with any power wants to do anything profitable in the protected areas. But previous governments have caved in easily under commercial pressure.