Aqua-farming shellfish is the closest thing to free protein we're going to get.
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.
My biggest concern is that along with the nitrogen and phosphate runoff come pesticides and other less savory compounds that then bio-accumulate in the farmed shellfish.
I visited a farm in British Columbia about ten years ago that was raising bivalves (geoducks I think) and they'd worked out how to raise them all the way from fertilization through all the microscopic stages. In retrospect, they probably had to do that because clams aren't polite enough to attach to something, en masse, that you can collect on the beach.
Honest question: How does that scale up? At first guess, I'd imagine there's insufficient area in (non-polluted) river mouths to create a large enough sustainable supply for world-wide demand.
>> Aqua-farming shellfish is the closest thing to free protein we're going to get.
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.
We need open source resources on how to build and maintain farms like this. Unfortunately these guys are not sharing yet, at least I couldn't find any detailed information. I'd love to try this myself, but as a complete novice i'd need a lot basic information - like what species to grow, how to get seeds and plant them, etc.
I couldn't agree much. If you look outside of CS and mathematics, where FLOSS principles are widely represented, in most domains it is very hard to access the knowledge. Besides the experts protecting their expertise, there are some fields where they actively try to discourage any such dissemination of knowledge to protect the interest of the trade -medicine, where there is also a question of accountability- or to protect society as a whole -the knowledge to make weapons and explosives. Obviously, these are important arguments you have to deal with when trying to convince somebody that open knowledge is a benefit to society.
There's also quite a deal of effort that goes into making these resources available, so it's not just a problem of opening things.
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.
Upvoted! (And I don't know, why you were downvoted) If we're doing software the open source way (and thus securing the sustainability of the software "eco" system), why not do the same for food production (and secure the sustainability of food production). Just this morning I talked to a woman on the Sunday market and she told me about a guy who, even thou he has his own green houses and makes a living doing that, gives all that info to who ever is interested (best produce to grow, best timing for the market etc.) Concentration of this knowledge (or even patents) in the hands of a few is bad, bad, bad.
If you or anyone else is seriously interested, leave your email and I'll shoot you a note.
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.
> Imagine being a chef in 2015 and discovering that there are thousands of vegetable species you’ve never cooked with. It’s like discovering corn, arugula, tomatoes, and lettuce for the first time.
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?
I'd imagine there would be some impact on the native ecosystem. You can't prevent the seed from escaping the aquafarm and (potentially invasive) oysters and kelps growing where they normally would not, displacing local species.
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.
If there are many thousands of edible sea plants, maybe plants and shellfish local to the region could be used.
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?
Oysters and kelp are already everywhere. The sea has currents that transport everything that is in the sea everywhere. Stuff grows when it reaches a suitable climate.
I felt the "we will employ anyone" message was one that was also very important here. If we can train people to be sea farmers and give them a mission that is both good for the world and good for their own self esteem, I think that would be at least as valuable as the food grown, if not more so.
It's a great idea, the issue is scalability. To have an aquatic farm that touches the bottom, you could only use the ocean area with depths between 20 and 200 feet. Higher than that, and you have surface turbulence. Lower than that, and there is not enough light for lots of plants or fish. That narrow range of depths is a small sliver along our coasts. An area the size of Washington state, as mentioned in the article, between 20-200 feet, (without doing the math) would probably run along the entire west coast of the U.S. (assuming you could overcome the political hurdles of coastal development).
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.
Well on the bright side, the south of the north sea (English, Belgian and Dutch coast and the area in between) is about that depth. That's an enormous farming are opening up there. Enough to feed Europe and then some...
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.
This kind of farmers revolutions crop all the time in history, thanksfully! I'm a bit sceptical about the taste of seaweed having being in Japan already, but of course he is right.
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.
"sceptical about the taste of seaweed having being in Japan..."
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.
Good thing is that taste is acquired. Taste is the least important thing for an individual. For a silly population it's probably the best marketing tool. So yes, it will take time to adjust to the taste of the ocean.
Better that than killing ~3 trillion ocean animals yearly and destroying the oceanic ecosystems.
We should focus our attention on taking humans out of the food industry altogether. Here's a model I've been thinking about that should make it possible to create a free food society:
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).
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.
I wasn't aware of how much more carbon can be trapped or ethanol produced with these plants. Also interesting that beneficial nutrients from fish mainly come from plants as well.
It sounds good, but nothing is zero impact. If an area the size of Washington state could feed the planet, it would imply that the solar energy hitting an area of that size is sufficient to produce all the food the planet needs. It seems unlikely to me, but I admit I haven't done any calculations (I don't even know how big Washington State is). More likely, those farms use "free food" that comes their way via ocean currents? So the effective harvesting area would be much bigger.
Washington State has an area of 184827 square kilometers.
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.
It seems to me that it uses as food the extra CO2 and Nitrogen that we are dumping into the sea. So the actual impact would be a better CO2 and Nitrogen balance!
This is great, and I hope it get's opensourced and more widespread.
One thing of ecological importance that could be emphasized more, is that the shell of shell-fish represents a stable carbon sink. It's not so much that sea-gras extracts more anorganic carbon than land plants, because that organic carbon is likely going to end up as CO2 one way or another. But shells allow to effectively remove excessive carbon from the global carbon cycle.
> "Imagine a vertical underwater garden with hurricane-proof anchors on the edges..."
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.
I love this idea but am sceptical on the idea of hurricane proof anchors.
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.
Very interesting idea, I wonder how is it affected by pollution from ships. Ship pollute much more than cars because they burn the lowest quality of fuel and somehow managed to withstand regulatory pressure.
So is this 3d farming still producing great food if all the water is polluted by ship waste?
A couple of years ago I researched how viable it would be to farm noble crayfish. I just figured it would be kind of cool to have ponds filled with them. My napkin calculation was "lol no" but I never gave it a real thought. Was mostly wondering about interesting uses for a pond :P
There were some prohibitive issues with diseases as well.
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.
[+] [-] rukuu_001|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bradleyjg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 13of40|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beambot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petra|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ordbajsare|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] reqctomaniac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicrook|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] binarray2000|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hammock|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] AlexC04|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Devlin_Donnelly|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mwc|10 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] jstsch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Smaug123|10 years ago|reply
> 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?
[+] [-] icefo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seabrookmx|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jacobolus|10 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] monk_e_boy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuaheard|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] brohee|10 years ago|reply
See depth charts on http://www.doggerbank.nl/index-old.htm
[+] [-] dineshp2|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rurban|10 years ago|reply
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/
http://foodforthoughtfilm.com/, ...
[+] [-] delackner|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] pitchka|10 years ago|reply
Better that than killing ~3 trillion ocean animals yearly and destroying the oceanic ecosystems.
[+] [-] thangalin|10 years ago|reply
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-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_mining
[+] [-] adwn|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] foxhop|10 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/5FBEMb-Ra14 | related - its my systems I'm building, recorded yesterday, during rain storm.
[+] [-] mac01021|10 years ago|reply
What is the word you keep saying in the video that sounds like "hoboculture"? I spent about 90 seconds failing to look it up.
[+] [-] givinguflac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _0w8t|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] facepalm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noir_lord|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] aurelianito|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ib84|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SeanDav|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] stcredzero|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] amelius|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reqctomaniac|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polskibus|10 years ago|reply
So is this 3d farming still producing great food if all the water is polluted by ship waste?
[+] [-] fsloth|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kriro|10 years ago|reply
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)
[+] [-] Swannie|10 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] somberi|10 years ago|reply
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/02/a-new-leaf