Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
I do not know if it has been posted before ...
I do recall a discussion between Monte and Tanada Re: use of water in the Southwest for alfalfa production, a practise which is devastating for the water resources in a semi-arid area and I did a little bit of checking on the web.
Apparently Sandia Labs have been looking into the issue, given the role water supplies may play in future conflicts (a US-Mexico conflict is not what I had in mind though )
Quote:
A method that uses about one-hundredth of the fresh water usually needed to grow forage for livestock might leave more water available for human, residential and industrial uses, according to a September 8 press release from the Department of Energy (DOE) Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico....
Preliminary indications are that hydroponic greenhouses in New Mexico, for example, could reduce the current 987,000 cubic meters of water used in agriculture to 13,500 cubic meters to produce an equivalent amount (dry weight) of livestock forage. This equivalent yield could be produced on less than 404 hectares instead of more than 105,000 hectares -- the current amount used for New Mexico production of alfalfa. Eighty percent of New Mexico's water use is agricultural. More than half goes to grow forage, mostly alfalfa. Similar water-use conditions exist in many countries.
Interesting it, isn't it? _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12582 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
Building all those greenhouses seems pretty resource and energy intensive...
Less resource intensive growing methods are permaculture and Biointensive, but they require more human labor. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
I think that JD would tell you that a vegetarian diet has a better return.
One cow requires 2 acre pasture/year.
A steel greenhouse for that cow (at $20/sq.ft) cost $1,760,000. A simple quonset hut (at $7.00/sq.ft) for said cow would be $616,000.
So for a cool $18,000,000 the farmers raises 10 steers and nets $10,000. Bad investment. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:21 am Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
I think that both Ludi and pstarr missed the points of this post , which
1) concerned water management (a reduction be a factor of 73).
2) indirectly tried to raise the issue of land use; if "we" are only interested in the service that land provides, then why the hell should we keep irrigating 105K acres of land when 404 would do fine (a reduction by a factor of 262). The difference i.e. 104500 could revert to wildlife.
3) there are almost no pesticides in that kind of agriculture, or at least this is my understanding (I may very well be wrong on that)
4) energy inputs are primarily in the form of electricity which can be generated locally. The greenhouses that were operational in Ohio in the 60s required the same amount of energy as the emboddied energy in food that has travelled 1000km. And they were 1/2 order of magnitude less efficient than the ones we use today
5) Regarding materials: most of the GHs now use special polymers (which can be derived from hydrocarbons or sugars) and are less costly to maintain than the ones that were around in the 60s.
6) To answer your question Ludi regarding energy efficiency this form of agriculture (at least the experiment conducted in NM), resulted in savings of 7300% and 26200% in terms of area and water. I doubt that the energy use increased by the same amount
The point about cost is valid, but given pstarr's track record with numbers I sincerely doubt they are correct. However since this is his business he might be right for a time (but I would like to see some numbers first).
In any case, it is instructive to see people object a promising idea just because it is based on technology _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12582 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
Based on practicality. Greenhouses are only used to raise very high-value crops, because they are very expensive to operate. Pest problems in greenhouses are often severe (whiteflies, aphids), though this could be solved through careful integrated pest management strategies.
My suggestions are based on technology as well, as technologies which require fewer energy inputs.
You show your bias just as much as anyone, EnergySpin. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 1:54 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
Ludi wrote:
Based on practicality. Greenhouses are only used to raise very high-value crops, because they are very expensive to operate. Pest problems in greenhouses are often severe (whiteflies, aphids), though this could be solved through careful integrated pest management strategies.
My suggestions are based on technology as well, as technologies which require fewer energy inputs.
You show your bias just as much as anyone, EnergySpin.
Don't you agree that in certain situations, land and water should be conserved? In any case, many more people are looking into this ... including the cornell dpt of agriculture. Any technology that limtis our impact on agriculture is a good technology. I do not mind paying double for something if I can conserve x73 the amount of water and x 262 the land area. Do you? _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 2:17 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
EnergySpin wrote:
I think that both Ludi and pstarr missed the points of this post , which
1) concerned water management (a reduction be a factor of 73).
water management in isolation is bad energy economics
EnergySpin wrote:
2) indirectly tried to raise the issue of land use; if "we" are only interested in the service that land provides, then why the hell should we keep irrigating 105K acres of land when 404 would do fine (a reduction by a factor of 262). The difference i.e. 104500 could revert to wildlife.
There are other land use issues-mining (silicon, iron ore, coking coal), heavy equipment manufacture (factories, transport systems), electrical generation (coal, uranium, and petroleum extraction), greenhouse footprint (wasted room for structure, maintanence, pumps, fans, watering system containment and distribution).
EnergySpin wrote:
3) there are almost no pesticides in that kind of agriculture, or at least this is my understanding (I may very well be wrong on that)
you sure are wrong on this. Out in the open there are natural predators. greenhouses are notorious incubators for mold, fungus, and specific pests and methyl bromide perhaps the most notorious greenhouse gas is absolutely necessary for large-scale industrial greenhouse production. This crap has been outlawed most everywhere in the world including the US but Bush has just handed out another exemption to his own law.
EnergySpin wrote:
4) energy inputs are primarily in the form of electricity which can be generated locally. The greenhouses that were operational in Ohio in the 60s required the same amount of energy as the emboddied energy in food that has travelled 1000km. And they were 1/2 order of magnitude less efficient than the ones we use today
First of all-what local energy? Few cattle are grown over coal beds or petroleum resevoirs. If you are suggesting biofuel energy production (which is highly questionable anyway) you need to know that alfalfa is a fodder and there is no waste. Secondly there are other energy inputs. These include the cost in money and energy of manufacturing, installing, and maintaining the greenhouse. It will not repair itself like a vegetable. Order of magnitude? care to share your facts. Glass was as transparent in the 60's as it is today. anyway it is water retention that is the measure for this system, not insulation and that has not changed one iota.
EnergySpin wrote:
5) Regarding materials: most of the GHs now use special polymers (which can be derived from hydrocarbons or sugars) and are less costly to maintain than the ones that were around in the 60s.
Glass is more UV-resistant, durable, and transparent. Your 'special polymers' are a junk substitute made affordable by cheap petroleum and a corrupt industrial agriculture system.
EnergySpin wrote:
6) To answer your question Ludi regarding energy efficiency this form of agriculture (at least the experiment conducted in NM), resulted in savings of 7300% and 26200% in terms of area and water. I doubt that the energy use increased by the same amount
You EnergySpin are a thermodynamic economist. You constantly ignore what you conveniently consider externalities in a discussion or system. Show me that your precious academics have calcuated the following;
1) The cost to circulate air, control moisture, to get water to the plants (rain does not get in to a closed greenhouse)
2) to either hand pick the vegetable from their cute little boxes or to ;
3) navigate heavy machinery through doors and around fragile edges
4) calculated the expensive wasted room around by the edge of the greenhouse where the tractors would not navigate. In the silly little greenhouses in the pictures that would account for most of the growing room.
5) the cost in extra pesticides for this warped, monocropped, unnatural, growing system.
6) cost in health care for the workers and to the greater environment from the use of fungicide Methyl Bromide--the worst greenhouse gas
EnergySpin wrote:
The point about cost is valid, but given pstarr's track record with numbers I sincerely doubt they are correct. However since this is his business he might be right for a time (but I would like to see some numbers first).
And how are my numbers wrong?
EnergySpin wrote:
In any case, it is instructive to see people object a promising idea just because it is based on technology
This government boondoggle, this academic exercise, this intellectual handjob promises nothing. Greenhouses have been used as long as glass has existed. There is nothing new about this technology and the economics behind it. What is transparent is your basic premise: 'if technology is good more is better.' _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:49 am Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
pstarr wrote:
water management in isolation is bad energy economics
Apparently you have not lived in an area with water shortages, right?
pstarr wrote:
There are other land use issues-mining (silicon, iron ore, coking coal), heavy equipment manufacture (factories, transport systems), electrical generation (coal, uranium, and petroleum extraction), greenhouse footprint (wasted room for structure, maintanence, pumps, fans, watering system containment and distribution).
How about wind+solar for this type of structure? This is what Sandia have been working on. In any case, people use machinery+equipment+oil+electricity to cutlivate the same land area, so the footprint is additive.
pstarr wrote:
you sure are wrong on this. Out in the open there are natural predators. greenhouses are notorious incubators for mold, fungus, and specific pests and methyl bromide perhaps the most notorious greenhouse gas is absolutely necessary for large-scale industrial greenhouse production. This crap has been outlawed most everywhere in the world including the US but Bush has just handed out another exemption to his own law.
. I will check on the CH3Br , thanks for the info.
But I did a little bit of checking after Ludi pointed out the IPC problem. Apparently most of the new structures are fully contained to minimize the pest problem; and in any case the land differential is so huge that pesticides will be used in fewer amounts.
pstarr wrote:
First of all-what local energy? Few cattle are grown over coal beds or petroleum resevoirs. If you are suggesting biofuel energy production (which is highly questionable anyway) you need to know that alfalfa is a fodder and there is no waste. Secondly there are other energy inputs. These include the cost in money and energy of manufacturing, installing, and maintaining the greenhouse. It will not repair itself like a vegetable. Order of magnitude? care to share your facts. Glass was as transparent in the 60's as it is today. anyway it is water retention that is the measure for this system, not insulation and that has not changed one iota.
I am not suggesting BF and they are not using glass. They are using a polymer which filters UV out (radiation at these wavelengths inhibits plant growth), and the rest of the energy can be used for solar heating etc. There is even a commercial product that does that. These designs are different from the "classical" greenhouses.
1/2 of magnitude is 3 times less ... check the link to the commercial product. They are using solar panels + filters to split the incoming solar radiation to a part that the plants can use and a part they do not use. The second one is used to pwoer the sensors. Will you read the links for once?
pstarr wrote:
5) Regarding materials: most of the GHs now use special polymers (which can be derived from hydrocarbons or sugars) and are less costly to maintain than the ones that were around in the 60s.
Glass is more UV-resistant, durable, and transparent. Your 'special polymers' are a junk substitute made affordable by cheap petroleum and a corrupt industrial agriculture system.
[/quote]
Vintage pstarr ...
pstarr wrote:
6) To answer your question Ludi regarding energy efficiency this form of agriculture (at least the experiment conducted in NM), resulted in savings of 7300% and 26200% in terms of area and water. I doubt that the energy use increased by the same amountYou EnergySpin are a thermodynamic economist. You constantly ignore what you conveniently consider externalities in a discussion or system. Show me that your precious academics have calcuated the following;
1) The cost to circulate air, control moisture, to get water to the plants (rain does not get in to a closed greenhouse)
2) to either hand pick the vegetable from their cute little boxes or to ;
3) navigate heavy machinery through doors and around fragile edges
4) calculated the expensive wasted room around by the edge of the greenhouse where the tractors would not navigate. In the silly little greenhouses in the pictures that would account for most of the growing room.
5) the cost in extra pesticides for this warped, monocropped, unnatural, growing system.
It is in the links ... the seawatergreenhouse technology has been published in at least 10 journals (this is different from the Sandia experiment, but it shows you that more than 1 groups have done so)
pstarr wrote:
6) cost in health care for the workers and to the greater environment from the use of fungicide Methyl Bromide--the worst greenhouse gas
Will check on that ...
quote="pstarr"]"]The point about cost is valid, but given pstarr's track record with numbers I sincerely doubt they are correct. However since this is his business he might be right for a time (but I would like to see some numbers first).[/quote]And how are my numbers wrong?
[/quote]
I distinctly recall the wild claims you made about nuclear+bf
quote="pstarr"]"]In any case, it is instructive to see people object a promising idea just because it is based on technology[/quote]This government boondoggle, this academic exercise, this intellectual handjob promises nothing. Greenhouses have been used as long as glass has existed. There is nothing new about this technology and the economics behind it. What is transparent is your basic premise: 'if technology is good more is better.'[/quote]
My premise has nothing to do about more is better. Greenhouses have been around for ever (even the romans used them). But managing them in a cost-energy-water efficient way is a new kid on the block.
Merry Xmas _________________ "Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:26 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
Energyspin, you proposed a ridiculous high-tech solution in isolation to a simple common-place problem –lack of water for forage crop. I don’t care what kind of fancy mathematics, colorful scientific language, or persistent blogging you employ, no cattle rancher is going to build your stupid greenhouse. $1.8 million to raise a cow just doesn't cut it in the real world. You need to turn that idea over. It is done. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Apr 28, 2005 Posts: 3665 Location: West shore Lake Eire, MI, USA
Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
EnergySpin wrote:
I do not know if it has been posted before ...
I do recall a discussion between Monte and Tanada Re: use of water in the Southwest for alfalfa production, a practise which is devastating for the water resources in a semi-arid area and I did a little bit of checking on the web.
Apparently Sandia Labs have been looking into the issue, given the role water supplies may play in future conflicts (a US-Mexico conflict is not what I had in mind though )
Quote:
A method that uses about one-hundredth of the fresh water usually needed to grow forage for livestock might leave more water available for human, residential and industrial uses, according to a September 8 press release from the Department of Energy (DOE) Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico....
Preliminary indications are that hydroponic greenhouses in New Mexico, for example, could reduce the current 987,000 cubic meters of water used in agriculture to 13,500 cubic meters to produce an equivalent amount (dry weight) of livestock forage. This equivalent yield could be produced on less than 404 hectares instead of more than 105,000 hectares -- the current amount used for New Mexico production of alfalfa. Eighty percent of New Mexico's water use is agricultural. More than half goes to grow forage, mostly alfalfa. Similar water-use conditions exist in many countries.
One of the things Monte pointed out in our discussion of water rights in the South West USA was that Lettuce requires less water per acre/hectare to grow than alfalfa. I have started wondering how many cattle you can raise on an acre of Lettuce vs Alfalfa as their primary food supply? Anyone know? I am famillier with grass raised cattle, we had a dozen steers and cows growing up, but I know they will eat anything green that has ahalfway decent taste like Lettuce. Goats and Sheep on the other habd will eat dang near anything that grows including thorn bushes and pine needles if they lack grass to chew on. _________________ Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12582 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:40 am Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
I don't have a problem with greenhouse technology except that it is too expensive for most people to afford. I'm more interested in technologies which are available to the less affluent such as myself. No way in hell could I afford greenhouses to raise my food. But those who can afford them are welcome to use them. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12582 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
Incidentally, EnergySpin, it isn't very helpful for you to say "so and so missed the point." You end up doing that a lot, because you are often very unclear in your posts. Rather than having to constantly say "so and so missed the point" it would be more helpful for you to actually post the point, state it clearly, rather than expect us to decode it and then make fun of us when we can't do so. In other words, please learn to communicate more clearly. I know you can do it. Thanks.
Regarding permaculture and biointensive as low-energy technology to solve the land use and water shortage issues, both these technologies have advantages. Permaculture is a high-yield system which provides habitat for other creatures, biointensive can produce many times the yield as conventional systems for a fraction of the land, water, and energy use. It's been estimated if we turned to biointensive in place of conventional agriculture, we'd use only about 4% of the land surface for our needs, versus the current 40-60%. _________________ No original ideas are contained in this post.
Joined: Sep 16, 2004 Posts: 4464 Location: Southwest WI
Posted: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
Was that .pdf a scientific article or an advertisement for 3M..? I have no beef against greenhouses. Locally there are very few, but one does a hell of a business because they can sell good tasting tomatoes during the offseason at a high price.
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Efficient Water Management Practices in Agriculture
GREENHOUSES TRAP SOLAR ENERGY INTO QUALITY FOOD and require little fossil fuels if everyon has a small greenhouse you dont need ANY fossil fuels as each person can take care of his own.
Plants are much more efficient at trapping energy than solar panels.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
)
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
