With the help of LED lighting plants are grown in indoor spaces, using closed nutrient and water cycles. As of now, the same method features under a number of different labels: indoor farming, vertical farming, hydroponics, aquaponics, Aquaponic Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA), and even, sometimes, urban farming.

Let’s take a closer, critical look at these supposed advantages and compare them with so-called “nature-based solutions” for a modern agricultural system as promoted by the FAO. (This article is drawn from the “Greenwashing and high tech” report by Andre Beste.

…

It is claimed that a controlled quasi-sterile environment has advantages over natural growth. But, even a hospital is not completely sterile and particularly in clinical facilities resistant bacteria become a problem fast. With indoor farming too, there is a risk that humans cannot fully control such germs. No artificial techno-sphere will ever compare to the equilibrium microorganisms achieve naturally.

…

The arguments the proponents of indoor farming make regarding water consumption can only be called frivolous. Statements about low water consumption may be appropriate in comparison to highly industrialised irrigated monocultures in a desert. Compared with sustainable agroecological field systems however, the argument is utterly lopsided. Agroecological systems not only absorb, retain and filter rainwater which then goes towards groundwater recharge, such systems also protect from erosion and flooding, and they have a positive influence on microclimates and thereby help balance local temperatures and precipitation. Indoor farming can do none of the above

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here