In 2022, FFAR continued to outperform, raising over $82 million in matching funds and bringing FFAR’s total awards to $605 million. A comprehensive list of all FFAR grant awards can be found on the FFAR website.

Visit the 2022 Impact Report to see how FFAR is maximizing investment in agricultural research.

Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research

The Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research (FFAR) builds public-private partnerships to fund bold research addressing big food and agriculture challenges. FFAR was established in the 2014 Farm Bill to increase public agriculture research investments, fill knowledge gaps and complement USDA’s research agenda. FFAR’s model matches federal funding from Congress with private funding, delivering a powerful return on taxpayer investment. Through collaboration and partnerships, FFAR advances actionable science benefiting farmers, consumers and the environment.

Connect: @FoundationFAR

“We are always looking to improve and expand the crop insurance resources we offer to agricultural producers, and the new Controlled Environment program will greatly benefit urban, specialty crop, organic and other producers who grow in controlled environments,” said RMA Administrator Marcia Bunger. “Controlled environment agriculture is a quickly growing sector in the Nation’s food production, and this new option is part of USDA’s broader effort to support urban agriculture and new and better markets for American producers.”

The Controlled Environment program is a dollar plan of insurance, which bases the insured’s guarantee on inventory values reported by the producer, and provides coverage against plant diseases when the plants must be destroyed under a federal or state destruction order.

The Controlled Environment program adds to two other federal insurance products available to nursery and innovative agricultural producers by providing benefits that are not available under the other programs, such as:

• Offer coverage for all Controlled Environment plants, including cuttings, seedlings, and tissue culture.
• Offer crop insurance coverage through a streamlined application and policy renewal process.
• Offer new crop insurance coverage specific to the disease risk to plants in Controlled Environment operations.
• Offer insurance for producer-selected plant categories for Controlled Environment that are not in other nursery insurance program.
•  Allow Controlled Environment operations to have single peril Controlled Environment insurance to be purchased as a standalone policy or in conjunction with other nursery insurance.

The first sales closing date is Dec. 1, 2023.

The Controlled Environment program will be available in select counties in Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

More Information

 RMA is holding virtual and in-person informational sessions this month. Learn more.

 Crop insurance is sold and delivered solely through private crop insurance agents. A list of crop insurance agents is available at all USDA Service Centers and online at the RMA Agent Locator. Learn more about crop insurance and the modern farm safety net at rma.usda.gov or by contacting your RMA Regional Office.

This article is first because I firmly believe labor is the biggest challenge we face today, as well as for the next 10 years in controlled environment agriculture (CEA), and in commercial horticulture and general production agriculture.

Victor Loaiza Mejia posted the following on LinkedIn on August 10, 2023: 

“I disagree with your assessment of the lack of ‘grower or production leadership’. Traditionally the greenhouse industry has had a legacy program (like Ivy League College) that benefited growers that come from outside the NAFTA countries. The local younger generation of growers and operators need opportunities to grow into these positions. They need mentoring and support.

“My vision of protected agriculture is more regional (USA, Canada, Mexico) than only thinking about the USA. As you mentioned in the article, the growing surface has decreased in the US but has increased in Mexico for example. The oldest greenhouse companies operating in the US and Canada are now some of the largest tomato marketers in the USA, purchasing greenhouse produce in Mexico at a very large scale, without really having ‘skin in the game.’ I see this as a big entry barrier for new companies based in the USA.

“The opportunity for small greenhouse companies is to resist the push to buy the newest closed greenhouse and buy only the necessary technology and develop their local market. Creating Cooperatives style of relationships with other small growers might be beneficial.”

Well, Victor, yes. That’s really all I have to say. Yes, I agree. I should have and could have selected my words better, while also providing more details behind my statement. If I would have, you would have seen that we are saying almost the same thing.

Now that we officially agree, let’s break this conversation down into the realities that drive the factors you highlight.

Where did the head growers, production managers, and vice presidents of operations come from in the U.S. controlled environment agriculture industry?  

The U.S. greenhouse vegetable industry started in the early to mid 1980s. (The Canadian greenhouse industry started a few years prior, and the Mexican greenhouse industry began about 10 years later.) Initially, the industry was almost 100% focused on growing tomatoes. Much of the industry was built off importing not only Dutch greenhouse technology, but also Dutch growers who were equipped with the training and knowledge needed to operate this new technology.  

As years went on, the U.S. continued to attract growers from the Netherlands, as well as nearby areas such as the United Kingdom and Belgium, which also had well-established glasshouse industries. Many of these early immigrants were well experienced with some education. They were young males eager to make their mark on a new industry in a new world thought of as “the land of opportunity.”

Now these same individuals have been in our small industry for 30-40 years. They are getting close to retirement, but many still work. This is an important part of Victor’s criticism and if you compare it with the graph below, you see why they have aggressively held on to positions of power.  

The industry does not have enough companies that can pay them the money they want or to promote others into key positions, while protecting their own careers and those of their friends. (Nothing new here. This occurs in all industries. Normally, industries have more companies and the impact is not so drastic.)

What about the other skilled labor needed to profitably operate a greenhouse vegetable facility?

Greenhouses require lots of skilled labor to operate successfully, especially when the operations are anywhere from 10-200 acres. You need IPM managers, labor managers, assistant growers, junior growers, packhouse managers, logistics managers and more. The list goes on and on. 

So where did these people come from? In many or most cases, Mexico. In the 1990s, the largest vegetable greenhouses in the U.S. were in southwestern Texas and southeastern Arizona — a short drive from the U.S.-Mexico border. This attracted young, educated Mexican (again mainly) men to jobs that paid well, provided year-round employment (not always the case in agriculture) and opportunities to work in a highly technical field that showed promise for advancement.

Now fast forward 30 years. These guys are ready and prepared to take over, but there are not enough opportunities for everyone to be in charge. This also means that as new companies open, we have a lack of ongoing opportunities to attract talent and give individuals chances to grow and develop the skills needed to run smaller or more niche organizations.

A change in politics. A change in opportunities. H-2A.

Simultaneously, we have seen a shift in our ability to bring labor into the United States. U.S.-based agriculture businesses rely heavily on worker visa programs to bring in groups of individuals to work jobs not often desired by locally available workers. The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. (The word “temporary” is key!)  But, this program and our attitude toward migrant workers has shifted significantly over the past 30 years.  

According to the USDA, “Hired farmworkers make up less than 1 percent of all U.S. wage and salary workers, but they play an essential role in U.S. agriculture. According to data from the 2017 Census of Agriculture, wages and salaries plus contract labor costs represented just 12 percent of production expenses for all farms, but 43 percent for greenhouse and nursery operations and 39 percent for fruit and tree nut operations.”

The tightening of our southern border means that we rely on the H-2A program more than ever.  According to a July 2023 article in NPR, “The number of guest worker visas issued each year has more than quadrupled over the past decade. But the program is rife with labor rights violations, and farmers who have come to depend on it don’t love it, either.”

As I stated before, U.S.-based greenhouse producers are competing directly with Canadian greenhouse growers, as well as Mexican greenhouse producers, for consumers’ wallets in produce aisles across the United States. This means, as the American portion of the greenhouse-grown industry, we need to be conscious of all costs (of which labor is a significant portion). It is safe to say that we have learned and can confirm that locally available labor is not as efficient as the labor we get through worker visa programs. 

Why is local labor not as efficient as our immigrant workforce?

I will not even attempt to answer this question. But, what I can report is that through interviews with major greenhouse tomato growing operations, it is estimated that you need 3-4 times the amount of local labor as you do immigrant, migrant or visa workers. (This number seems true regardless of pay and benefits, based on information we received from the recently announced bankrupt company AppHarvest.) 

Conversations with on-site labor managers makes me believe that one main reason this perception exists is because this talent pool is seen as an unskilled labor force. Labor managers all agree that is far from the truth. The truth is, many of these individuals are skilled based on experience gained at other farms. These skills make them eager to be employed based on “production output,” as they recognize that their production compensation will far out pace any hourly rate that they might be paid.

According to USDA statistics from October 2022, the H2A program has expanded since 2005. But has it expanded enough to keep up with the demand? Especially the demand of the controlled environment agriculture sector?  

Even if we could keep up with demand in the greenhouse (or vertical farm), these programs do not allow us to address the issue of finding talented operational managers with experience to run the facility based on the current glass ceilings that appear to be in place.

So questions around labor, management and leadership remain for the U.S.-based controlled environment agriculture industry. From finding the experienced staff needed to operate an efficient greenhouse to providing the most talented in that group the opportunity to advance and excel. 

And Victor, my response to your comment remains “yes.” Now my question back to you is, how will you and your contemporaries lead our industry in change?

Urban Ag News would love to hear from you.  Please let us know your thoughts and comments.

The labs will be customized to carry out CEA vegetable production research unique to the Fort Pierce laboratory.AmplifiedAg has also supplied 16 vertical farming labs to the USDA-ARS U.S. Vegetable Research Lab in Charleston, South Carolina, designed to support its wide range of CEA research in vegetable growing processes, LED spectrum analysis, renewable energy, plant pathology, and plant breeding and selection for controlled environments. 

“The USDA has done a tremendous job of supporting research efforts in controlled environment agriculture, urban farming, and sustainable farming practices, and we’re extremely proud to be a provider for their continued innovation and research at ARS laboratories across the country,” says Don Taylor, CEO and Founder of AmplifiedAg.

In addition to supplying labs for third-party research, AmplifiedAg has an extensive R&D program that includes CEA cultivation of tomatoes, peppers, strawberries, potatoes, rice, medicinal herbs, and saplings such as Loblolly pines. The company is also collaborating with farms on the development of healthy fruits and vegetable transplants for greenhouse and field production.AmplifiedAg’s vertical farming labs – known as AmpLAB – are purpose-built research modules complete with a hydroponic propagation station and NFT channels for dual growing functions, and are fully integrated with proprietary environmental control systems and a SaaS-based farm software platform for total lab management. The software’s robust data collection enables USDA scientists with informed analysis to expedite research data. To create an all-encompassing laboratory, AmpLAB also includes a certified food-safe work zone with storage, sinks, and a dedicated workspace for researchers for experimentation and analysis in a clean, controlled environment.

September 06, 2023: Traditional territories of the Mohican and Wappinger people / Wappingers Falls, New York – Today, Lightstar Renewables is about to break ground on its permitted Old Myers project, the first agrivoltaics (dual-use) project in New York. The project marks a significant milestone for the agriculture and solar industry, fostering energy independence as well as environmental and land stewardship in New York. 

Located in Wappingers Falls, Poughkeepsie, Old Myers is a 2MW dual-use community solar project that spans a 15-acre site. The project facilitates the Thompson family’s ability to keep the site in agricultural production as well as generating stable lease income over 25 years. The project will begin construction during Autumn 2023 and is expected to reach completion by Summer 2024. 

Agrivoltaics (AgPV) projects are dual-use solar installations, meaning crop production and grazing can happen in and around the solar array. Solar panels are mounted at enough height and space to allow adequate space for crops to grow and livestock to graze. The solar panels also provide protection to crops from extreme weather events, including storms, early and late frosts, and heat waves.

The Old Myers project will harvest strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, and lavender, among other produce, resulting in active market produce production for this agrivoltaics project in New York. Lightstar will be working with local institutions to study the produce grown and document the financial and agricultural case studies that will be disseminated widely. The project will enhance food security for the local community while generating solar energy to make the local grid cleaner and more reliable. Moreover, renewable energy will be used across the crop-growing cycle to achieve carbon neutrality on the farm. 

“Some of the most prime farmlands in New York lack active crop growth and that hurts a farmer’s ability to generate income. Most often, land also misses the opportunity to leverage solar as it’s seen as competition with farming. What many don’t realize is that solar and agriculture are perfect partners — their synergies are crucial to the security and resiliency of our community for green power as well as localized food sources. Lightstar’s Old Myers dual-use project is a solution to this challenge — it combines crop production and sustainable energy production, proving harmonious coexistence is possible,” said Paul Wheeler, Founder and CEO of Lightstar. 

“This comes at a time when renewable energy must increase in order to decrease the energy cost burden, but not at the cost of valuable food production. Hence, Lightstar is meeting the urgency of this moment with its first-of-a-kind solar farm in New York. This project not only solidifies Lightstar’s position as a leading agrivoltaics and community solar developer, but it also furthers our strong pipeline of assets as part of our operational portfolio,” Paul added.

The US is in the midst of one of the largest intergenerational land transfers in the history of the country, making farmland susceptible to permanent development when it changes hands. Lightstar prioritizes the preservation and protection of this rich legacy and invaluable farming heritage by taking an innovative approach towards combining solar and farming to increase the land’s potential. Additionally, farm owners Sean Thompson and Brian Thompson will retain the land’s farming use while earning long-term reliable income from the solar project.

Lightstar has been engaged with the farm owners since early 2022 to help rezone the property at no cost to the farmers. As a result, the farm encompasses a greater solar and crop use case, further improving productivity and efficiency. The company will support the full lifecycle of the project by continuously working with the farmers and community members to ensure long-term success.

Sean Thompson, Landowner and Farmer said, “This project is a fantastic opportunity for our family farm to increase our capacity to produce a variety of healthy locally grown crops and at the same time demonstrate the viability and effectiveness of the dual-use solar concept. An added bonus is that this project will increase the vitality of our farm!  The crops we produce under the array will be sold directly to consumers as well as through local channels and will fill a food niche that is otherwise only satisfied by producers outside of our region. We are excited and looking forward to sharing our experience with agrivoltaics with our community. “

Lightstar has partnered with American Farmland Trust (AFT) to drive regenerative agricultural practices, and lead projects using  AFT’s Smart Solar℠ Siting Principles as a cornerstone of its solar and farming.

Ethan Winter, National Smart Solar Director, American Farmland Trust said, “Farmers and rural communities are essential to agriculture as well as to ambitious clean energy goals in New York and across the country. We applaud Lightstar Renewables for embracing AFT’s Smart Solar℠ Siting Principles and designing a project that will pair crop production and community solar, particularly in an area where farmland is at significant risk of conversion to urban development.  AFT encourages states like New York to take additional steps to incentivize and support agrivoltaic projects that strengthen farm viability, benefit local communities, and safeguard productive agricultural lands.”

Solar Agriculture Services (SolAg) has been Lightstar’s key partner on the project, offering knowledge, oversight, consultation and advisory. Commenting on the project, Iain Ward, CEO and Founder of Solar Agriculture Services, said, “SolAg is honored to partner with Lightstar on this leading-edge project that combines the production of nutritious food and clean energy. AgPV is a fantastic solution that increases the vitality of regional food production and builds the capacity of farmers and the lands they steward. We are excited about the future of agrivoltaics in New York State.”  

Residents and businesses will have access to electricity bill savings through discounted community solar subscriptions. The project will also create tax revenue for the local municipality. 

If you are a farmer looking to earn a passive income stream through a solar farm project, while still allowing for crop rotation or grazing, visit: Lightstar Renewables.

About Lightstar

Lightstar is a community solar developer and long-term owner and operator with a pipeline of over 1 gigawatt (GWs) of community solar farms in the US. Founded by a seasoned team of solar developers, our mission is to build solar for the land and community. We are leading the industry in community solar development that integrates local ecology and agriculture with every project. Stewarding the land the communities we serve are key to the success of the clean energy transition.

“We are celebrating the 30th anniversary of Sakata Seed de México and we are very proud of our
trajectory”, said Dave Armstrong, President and CEO of Sakata Seed America. “We are currently leaders
in several crops in Mexico, like broccoli, and this has been thanks to many growers, packers, processors,
and dealers who have helped us achieve these results. We are developing new crops such as hot
peppers, lettuce and melons, and we hope to become leaders in these new markets very soon. Mexico
has great growth potential due to its competitive advantages, mainly its highly-skilled workforce and its
weather, which allows it to produce all year round”, says Armstrong”

“We are very satisfied. We started in 1993 in Celaya, Guanajuato, with just 3 employees and are now a
market leading company with more than 100 employees, including workers from our experiment
stations in Culiacán, Sinaloa, and Yurécuaro, Michoacán”, says Eng. Mauricio Pineda, director of Sakata
Seed of Mexico. “We now have a network of 40 dealers in Mexico and two experimental stations with
genetic improvement programs. We are leaders in several crops. We have a new generation of broccoli,
chiles and tomatoes that is very important to us, in addition to our line of cool-weather crops such as
cauliflower, cabbage, spinach, cilantro and radishes, and we are launching new tomatoes, melons, bell
peppers, lettuce and hot chilis”, Pineda said.

SAKATA
Since its beginning, Sakata has been dedicated to the research, development and trade of plants and
seeds. What started as a small business of buying and selling materials between Japan and Europe has
become one of the leading global companies in the vegetable and ornamental seeds market. This
leadership is due to our commitment to building relationships with farmers, marketers, distributors, and
other people in the industry, getting to know the needs and trends of the market through the response
and launch of innovative products.

Sakata is a public company, listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange in Japan, and is dedicated almost
exclusively to development of vegetables and ornamentals genetics. It has a presence throughout the
world with subsidiaries in more than 30 countries and with research and production centers, thus
managing to meet the needs of different markets, doing research at the local level with the support of a
global corporation.

During the Spring of 2023, Sakata Seed Corporation celebrated its 110th anniversary since its founding
by Mr. Takeo Sakata.

The speakers and topics are:

Dr. Jim Owen, USDA-ARS, Water in Ohio – nursery use and return including reservoirs

Dr. Sarah White, Clemson, Reservoir water quality and management

Dr. Jeb Fields, LSU, Substrates and water management

Dr. Jake Shreckhise, USDA-ARS, Irrigation frequency and container color affect substrate temperature and controlled-release fertilizer longevity

Dr. Garrett Owen, OSU, Basics of substrate pH and soluble salts sampling and monitoring

Dr. Raul Cabrera, Texas A&M, Managing soluble salts in nursery and greenhouse production

Dr. Amy Fulcher, UT-Knoxville, TBD

Click here to enroll: https://cfaesosu.catalog.instructure.com/courses/water-management-and-quality-for-greenhouse-and-nursery-crop-production

OptimIA researchers are using crop modeling to identify the most favorable environmental parameters for growth and yield of indoor farm lettuce crops and how to prevent tipburn.

One of the research objectives of the OptimIA project, which is being funded by USDA to the tune of $2.4 million, is to study the aerial environment for producing indoor leafy greens. The aerial environment refers to air circulation, humidity, carbon dioxide concentration, light intensity, and temperature. Prior to preparing the project proposal, members of the OptimIA team surveyed stakeholders of the indoor farm industry to identify the challenges and needs of the industry.

“There was a lot of feedback related to environmental parameters, especially airflow,” said Murat Kacira, an OptimIA team member who is director of Controlled Environment Agriculture Center and professor in the Biosystems Engineering Department at the University of Arizona. “The indoor farm industry had a real need for optimizing the environmental variables related to light, temperature, humidity management and control. Leafy greens growers wanted to be able to understand plant growth, quantify the plant response, yield, as well as the quality attributes under various environmental conditions.”

Crop modeling predictions, potential

Kacira explains crop modeling is simply crop growth and yield prediction.

“Given setpoints for air temperature, photosynthetic active radiation, humidity, carbon dioxide enrichment, we were able to model crop growth and predict the kilograms or grams of lettuce yield on an hourly or daily basis and also at the end of the production cycle,” he said.

Kacira’s lab used modeling to focus on plant growth and yield predictions for lettuce in indoor vertical farms considering environmental variables, including temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide level and light intensity.

“Considering the co-optimization of different environmental variables, there are many combinations of those setpoints that are possible,” he said. “It takes a lot of time and effort to study all those combinations. A model we did was focused on plant growth and yield prediction for growing lettuce in indoor vertical farms considering environmental variables. Using modeling can help to narrow down the combinations or the possibilities that can occur.

Another modeling study enabled Kacira to identify the possibility of dynamic carbon dioxide enrichment.

“We looked at whether carbon dioxide enrichment should be done for the full production cycle from transplanting to little leaf harvest or whether it should be done during different phases of production leading to savings either for electrical energy or carbon dioxide use,” he said. “Also, we considered how carbon dioxide enrichment and control would be incorporated with lighting controls. For example, can the light be dimmed while increasing the carbon dioxide level to achieve a similar yield outcome, but with a control strategy enabling electrical energy savings during production.”

Determining best airflow distribution

Kacira is also using modeling and computer simulations to study airflow and airflow uniformity to design alternative air distribution systems to improve aerial environment uniformity and to prevent tipburn in lettuce crops.

“Early on we used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) space simulation and modeling to study airflow,” he said. “We looked at some existing air distribution systems to understand what would be the environmental uniformity and aerodynamics in indoor vertical farms. Then we studied what-if scenarios. We developed design alternatives that can deliver optimal growing conditions with improved aerial environment uniformity and help prevent lettuce tipburn.

“Our CFD simulations and experimental studies confirmed that vertical airflow compared to horizontal airflow was more effective reducing aerodynamic resistance with improved airflow and transpiration, thus preventing tipburn in lettuce.”

Some of the outcomes determined by Kacira and his team have been presented to OptimIA stakeholders and CEA industry members through seminars, webinars and research and trade publications. Kacira will continue using computer simulations, modeling, and experimental studies to design and test more effective localized air-distribution methods, environmental monitoring, and control strategies for indoor vertical farms.

Production techniques for preventing tipburn

Chieri Kubota, who is a member of the OptimIA team and professor and director of the Ohio Controlled Environment Agriculture Center at Ohio State University, and graduate student John Ertle studied various techniques for reducing or preventing tipburn. These techniques have application to lettuce crops produced in indoor farms and greenhouses.

“Growers can reduce the light intensity at the end of the production cycle to mitigate the risk of tipburn,” Kubota said. “If growers want to reduce tipburn and they can tolerate reduced yields, they can lower the light intensity towards the end of the production cycle.

“For example, when the daily light integral (DLI) was reduced by 50 percent for the final 12 days of production (out of 28 days), the incidence of tipburn can be largely reduced for cultivars sensitive to tipburn-inducing conditions. However, this approach reduces the yield and likely the quality of lettuce, while reducing the loss by tipburn. Therefore, efficacy of this approach is dependent on the cultivars and their growing conditions. More research needs to be done to refine this approach.”

Another technique growers can use to prevent tipburn is to stop growing lettuce before it enters the final 1½ weeks of the six-week growing period. This is what many growers are doing because they can’t take the risk of tipburn occurring. Plants are being harvested at this young stage.

Among the techniques that Kubota and Ertle examined, they found that the most effective in preventing tipburn was using vertical airflow fans. This technique was originally discovered by a research group at University of Tokyo in the 1990s and implemented into greenhouse hydroponics at Cornell University.

“We confirmed that when vertical airflow is applied under conditions that highly favor tipburn induction, tipburn can be prevented very effectively,” Kubota said. “We created an environment based on our previous knowledge which always induces tipburn. We confirmed the use of vertical airflow fans reduces tipburn.”

For more: Murat Kacira, University of Arizona, Controlled Environment Agriculture Center; mkacira@arizona.edu; http://ceac.arizona.edu/.

Chieri Kubota, Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; kubota.10@osu.edu; https://hcs.osu.edu/our-people/dr-chieri-kubota; https://ohceac.osu.edu/. OptimIA, https://www.scri-optimia.org/.

This article is property of Urban Ag News and was written by David Kuack, a freelance technical writer in Fort Worth, Texas.

OptimIA at Cultivate’23

If you are attending this year’s Cultivate’23, July 15-18 in Columbus, Ohio, you have the opportunity to hear OptimiA researchers, including Murat Kacira and Chieri Kubota, discuss some of the findings of their research. They will be speaking during the Essentials of Hydroponics Production – a tHRIve Symposium on Saturday, July 15 from 8-11 a.m.

The U.S. controlled environment agriculture (CEA) industry received lots of publicity over the past 10 years. From interviews on CNBC to articles in Forbes, investors and the general business community found interest in an industry that seemed new despite the fact that it was anything but.  

(If you are interested in the definition of and more information on the controlled environment agriculture and the indoor ag tech industry, please click here.)  

This new interest led to substantial capital invested into greenhouses, vertical farms, and other companies supporting the commercial ag-tech and horticulture industry. All this “noise” made it hard to discern what was real, hype or fabricated by overly creative (yet inspiring) pitch decks.

From this point forward, we must focus on a reset of known information. One that clarifies the reality of our U.S.-based commercial food producing horticulture market. This reset must take into account the benefits of all the money invested between 2017-2022 that led to building new farms.  

More importantly, it must encourage people, investors and business innovators to continue focusing on the benefits (mostly to growers or farmers) of our small but still-growing controlled environment agriculture industry.  

Note: The following information mentions ornamental and cannabis production because these segments contribute to our industry. However, they are not often included in the definition of controlled environment agriculture, indoor ag or vertical farming.

Industry Realities

Let us start with a handful of observations that you are free to comment on below.  We will do our best to respond as quickly as possible.

1) The cannabis industry began its path to legalization in 1996 when California legalized medical marijuana. Since then, 40 states followed California in legalizing medicinal use. But the real industry boom began in 2012 when Colorado and Washington legalized recreational use of cannabis.  

As of June 2023, 23 states have legalized adult cannabis use. This rapid growth impacted all commercial horticulture because growing cannabis uses the same inputs as all other crops. As such, the industry saw a drastic uptick in the sale of greenhouses, horticulture equipment, irrigation equipment, horticultural lighting and crop consumables (i.e., fertilizers, substrates and pest management products). 

The industry also saw massive expansion of companies providing wholesale supply, as well as new horticultural tech companies growing quickly with higher-than-normal profit margins.

• Overly high profit margins on the supply side were due to extremely high profits made by cannabis farmers. This happened because of a few key issues that we likely will not see again. The first was rapid farm expansion due to a race to be first in the market. Second is the semi-legal or illegal status of many farms, which always leads to high profits. And, finally, an emerging market was learning how to be commercial. Early-stage investors saw get-rich opportunities and spent almost anything to move their project to the front of the line. 
• The total acreage of legal cannabis production in the U.S. is small compared to commercial ornamental and food crops. In 2021, the average size of a commercial cannabis production operation was 33,900 ft squared (or about ¾ of an acre.)
• As more states legalize cannabis production, the increased volume of legally available weed continues to drive down the price per pound. As this price decreases, ag-tech equipment and supply companies also feel the pinch as operators become more aware of what they’re buying. (I am sure this makes perfect sense to anyone involved in agriculture. A perishable product’s price drops as availability increases.)

2) U.S. interest in vertical farming exploded in the mid-2000s. This was due in part to investment in and formation of Aerofarms in 2004; Dickson Despommier’s 2008 lectures and 2010 book; and numerous inspirational articles, architectural images, and stories from countries concerned with food safety and security. (See the Japan earthquake and tsunami of 2011.)

• All this (plus much more) inspired entrepreneurs, engineers, and technologists with little to no commercial agriculture experience to create business concepts and then pitch them to investors.
• Many of these pitch decks were based on successful Silicon Valley start-up business models that, to date, have struggled in the commercial horticulture and agriculture spaces.
• The investor market was blindly hungry for these ideas. The timing was perfect. At the same time, macroeconomic and political discussions were happening around the world. In 2004, the term “ESG” (environmental, social and corporate governance) was coined and used in a joint initiative led by the United Nations and 20 financial institutions. This report was titled “Who Cares Wins.” The financial industry believed investing in companies that embodied this strategy would win. After all, it would create resilient companies that contribute to sustainable developments, while strengthening the position of the stakeholder and bank. Not long after this, we started hearing thought leaders ask, “How are we going to feed 10 billion people by 2050?”  

3) The Netherlands Increased marketing and the promotion of venlo-style, Dutch-designed glass greenhouses as a proven and safe investment for growing select fresh produce. This coupled with early semi-automated leafy green production systems and unique placement of rooftop greenhouses (see Gotham Greens/Whole Foods partnership in 2013), plus the early failures of multiple vertical farms, led to the next round of investments.

• The Dutch horticulture industry was initially left out of the big spending.  While they have a long history in horticulture production, the new concepts, crops and money were focused on growing in a unique way. By 2015-2017, the Dutch industry knew they had to be more involved and worked together to improve their market position and awareness. By 2020, leading Dutch companies and Wageningen University Research (WUR) published a report comparing four cultivation methods. Using their interpretation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs as defined by the United Nations), it was determined (and then heavily marketed) that “high-tech greenhouses with soilless cultivation, where recirculation of drain water is obligatory, substantially contribute to achieving SDGs.” Read the full WUR 2021 report here.
• Many of these systems did not live up to their marketing claims. Companies did not have the experience to work with or provide guidance on localized issues such as crops, weather (not climate), labor and after-sales service.
• It takes many years to develop crop expertise in each system and for a labor team to come together and operate a growing system that produces the highest possible yields. When done at commercial scales, no proven technologies allow a farm to shortcut these realities.

4) Controlled environment agriculture went “public” and investment firms stepped up with BIG capital. This sparked big interest and even bigger promises from companies looking to get a piece of the money pie. From greenhouse operators such as AppHarvest and Local Bounti, to supply companies such as Scotts Miracle-Gro (owner of Hawthorne Gardening Company) and Hydrofarm, to investment firms such as Equilibrium Capital, COFRA Holdings and Cox Enterprises, the dollars invested in the industry raised to levels never seen before. We all know that when significant dollars get injected into a market, it often leads to “boom” level interest.  (See David Chen’s 2021 comments.)

• Many people are responsible for making this happen. From traditional banks facilitating the IPO to recognizable investors to famous personalities, these large investments and public offerings did not happen because a couple farmers decided to take their proven farm public. They happened because of good old-fashioned capitalism and marketing. They happened because people can be inspired by good storytellers. They happened because the financial markets were ripe for such a move.

5) Cheap, abundant capital along with over-promising suppliers and so-called expert consultants chasing dollars led to a boom-industry mentality.

• Interest rates in the 2010s through the early 2020’s were at historical lows.  
• There was (and is) lots of cash available looking for annual returns of 10-15%. (In other words, lots of rich people were and are looking for passive income.)
• The pandemic helped the situation due to significant amounts of capital injected into the economy. From retail cannabis sales to garden centers to grocery stores, this cash created a boom for everyone in the supply chain that supported these markets.

A brief history of CEA fresh produce production and greenhouse tomato example

In 2005, UC Berkeley professors Roberta Cook and Linda Calvin published a paper titled, Greenhouse Tomatoes Change the Dynamics of the North American Fresh Tomato Industry. For purposes of this discussion, we will use this paper as a foundation to define industry growth. Reason being, many of the largest investments went into companies that were farms based on assumptions gained from years of CEA industry data. 

The reality of this data is that prior to 2010, most of it was based on producing greenhouse tomatoes. Historically, this was a high cap-ex industry with low profit margins that relied on careful cost control, operational excellence, high yields and old-fashioned luck.  

The above paper also correctly defines the market as a North American one since the product produced in these facilities competes directly with their field-grown competitors for sales and shelf space. It also stated that U.S.-based greenhouses will be forced to compete with products grown in Canada and Mexico.  

All this remains true today (regardless of crops grown). In 2003, about 1,630 acres of greenhouse tomatoes were grown in the U.S. Twenty years later, our data shows a 20-30% drop in this figure. What changed during this time is the number of crops grown at a larger scale. The addition of more peppers, cucumbers, strawberries, leafy greens, and culinary herbs means that the greenhouse production area has increased to about 2,150 acres.  

This means that even with all the money spent over the past decade, our production area only increased about 20-30%. It is also important to note that we are not considering the metric tons produced on these acres. Yield improvements of about 20-40% (depending on crop) have been seen over the past 20 years.  

The take home message should be, Americans are consuming more tomatoes.  American retailers are just importing more and more of them each year.  Even the ones we grow in a greenhouse.

Greenhouse Grower recently released an article showing their account of the largest greenhouse vegetable growers. While we think this is a good start, our data shows their information is slightly understated, somewhat incorrect and easy to misinterpret.

We estimate that the USA CEA production area by acres is +/- 2200 acres.  We are excluding vertical farms due to lack of data.  And we do not count structures that do not have 4 walls, a door and some means of mechanically managing the environment.  This means we do not count hoop houses, but we acknowledge there are many successful farmers using hoop houses to profitably produce crops across the USA.

Why all this matters

For companies such as Urban Ag News, we are built on the hopes that our U.S.-based controlled environment agriculture industry is sustainable and capable of continued growth. Our data indicates that we still have work to do before we can be considered an independent industry. (We depend on the global commercial horticulture industry, including the ornamental and cannabis industries, to be viable.)  

Additionally, the data shows that ag-tech investments face fundamental problems. (See Agfunder Report  and state of CEA investments in this article in Produce Blue Book as well as one can download this Pitchbook Report.) To understand these problems, consider Professor Michael Porter’s work on competitive strategy. He states that for an investment to be justified, you need a big enough market — and the portion of that market you can access is where you make your profits. So, for instance, if you produce ag technology only suitable for a small area of production, it is unlikely that you will gain a profitable return.

Remember how in 2003 the data showed 1,630 acres of greenhouse tomato production in the U.S.?. In 2022, only about 1,250 acres of tomatoes were produced in greenhouses. In 2003, four large greenhouse operators controlled 67% of the production acres. In 2022, eight large greenhouse operators controlled 80% of the production acres. 

There is significant dependence on a few clients who control most of the acreage for ag-tech companies focused on the U.S. market. This means new ag-tech companies must be accepted by nearly all the commercial greenhouses to be viable.  

If the technology targets leafy greens and culinary herbs, then it is important to realize that the 2023 industry is even smaller (just under 400 acres). In addition, the leafy greens industry is further challenged by the fact that most players use different production methods, making it harder to find similarities among farms.

All of this means that true ag-tech companies must be ready and willing to explore new geographies that have similar existing markets, target new crops, or focus on more general technology. The easiest are Mexico and Canada in terms of travel. The hardest is Europe. But do not expect them to accept new ideas quickly, as there are just as many local companies competing for business.  

The same competitive strategy applies to greenhouse operators and producers as well.  The market is highly competitive and as the data shows, much of that competition is coming from Mexico, Canada or the open field.  Greenhouse businesses must be solving a clearly identifiable problem while providing a value proposition (ie product) that is clearly “better, faster or cheaper” than the product that is already existing on the market.

Successful companies need capital, time, people and patience. Dutch companies invest heavily to access U.S. markets. Same goes for horticulture companies from Mexico, Canada, Israel, Spain, China, Sri Lanka and any other areas that can produce horticulture technology, supply, consumables and (yes) fresh produce.

We Must Know to Grow

While some might read this article and see it all as doom and gloom, we do not. As stated earlier,  we see it as important information to know and understand, so we can accept a reset. Our industry still has tremendous upside.  

For the industry to reach its potential, we must understand the following before we can grow:

1) With rising interest rates and increased company failures being announced, investment dollars are harder to come by. We must keep those dollars working and staying in the U.S. (or in your local economy or at least with companies investing in your local industry or economy.)

• If we believe in local, we need to encourage growth within the U.S. (You could make the same argument for any other country and companies looking to build their industry.)
• We know that many of the dollars invested were sent overseas because in excess of 250 acres of greenhouses were built in the U.S. by Dutch greenhouse builders from 2020-2023.
• The more dollars we keep local, the more this money can be used to develop research, education, data and technology that solves problems specific to growing in a local market.

2) We must increase the number of American-led companies “growing” or operating successful commercial horticulture businesses. The current lack of grower or production leadership shows that we do not have the expertise to run these facilities. Keeping dollars in the U.S. should promote the opportunities and education needed to get interested people into the right positions. If we do not do this, then we must change our current political position on immigration and start making it easier to bring in talent from other countries.

• We also need to be honest on our access to labor. It is among the largest costs for any company. Regardless of opinions on tech, we need access to labor in a way that keeps us competitive.

3) Currently, the cost of running U.S. CEA businesses is high because:

• Scalability has not been demonstrated for vertical farms.
• Growers are regional segregated from one another. So supporting businesses have a hard time servicing them as cost-effectively as condensed markets such as the Netherlands or Leamington, Canada.
• Labor costs are high. Local people do not want the jobs and struggle performing the work as effectively as individuals from countries such as Mexico working on visa programs. Unfortunately, visa programs are difficult to navigate, costly and politically unpopular.
• Distribution costs are high and often opaque to the grower depending on the size, scale and distribution or customer relationships the farm has built.

Once we overcome these obstacles, we can and will have a thriving industry. After all, we will still have the same problems we faced when people became excited about our industry. 

Traditional farms will continue to be impacted by changing climate patterns and extreme weather events. Fresh produce with little to no pesticides will continue to be sought after by consumers. And we will still need to protect our fresh water sources from nitrogen runoff and agriculture (as well as industrial) contamination. 

More about the authors:

Chris Higgins is the chief editor at Urban Ag News as well as the President of Hort Americas.  He has been active in the commercial horticulture industry since 1996 and has been focused on controlled environment agriculture since January 2004.

Nathan Farner is the General Manager at Hort Americas. Nathan built his career on helping companies with merger integrations, information technology implementations, business process optimization, and data governance.

All information in this article is property of Urban Ag News, Chris Higgins and Nathan Farner.  Any reproduction of this information can only be done with written permission.

Notes:  If there is a significant amount of interest in further facts and figures not covered in this article (like more information on legal cannabis market or production area of vertical farms) we will be happy to prepare follow up articles.  Please comment on what you want to learn below.

[Ithaca, New York] – The Greenhouse Lighting and Systems Engineering (GLASE) consortium is thrilled to introduce Gretchen Schimelpfenig as their new Executive Director. With an impressive background in Civil Engineering and extensive experience in the controlled environment agriculture (CEA) industry, Gretchen brings a wealth of knowledge and passion to her new role.

Ms. Schimelpfenig’s educational journey includes an M.S. in Civil Engineering from Stanford University in 2014 and a B.S. in Architectural Engineering from the University of Wyoming in 2012. As a licensed Civil Professional Engineer in California and Vermont, she has demonstrated her commitment to innovation and sustainability.

At GLASE, Gretchen will spearhead collaborative efforts with academics and industry stakeholders to drive groundbreaking advancements in greenhouse technology and systems. Her primary focus will be on reducing the environmental impact and increasing the profitability of the CEA industry by pioneering and commercializing emerging solutions.

In addition to her role at GLASE, Gretchen currently serves as a senior engineer at Energy Resources Integration (ERI), where she assists greenhouse growers and indoor farmers across the country in implementing cost-effective energy management strategies to maximize efficiency. Her expertise in this field is further highlighted by her previous position as the Technical Director of Resource Innovation Institute (RII). As the author of RII’s Lighting, HVAC, and Facility Design & Construction Best Practices Guides for CEA in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Gretchen has already made significant contributions to the industry.

“I firmly believe in a carbon-neutral and climate-smart future for controlled environment agriculture. High-performance systems are the key to increasing greenhouse energy productivity,” says Gretchen Schimelpfenig, PE.

As the new Executive Director, Gretchen Schimelpfenig will lead GLASE in forging new partnerships, creating opportunities for knowledge exchange, and driving the adoption of cutting-edge solutions across the industry. Joining GLASE as a member means becoming part of a visionary community dedicated to transforming the future of controlled environment agriculture.
To learn more about GLASE and how to become a member, visit www.glase.org.

About GLASE

The Greenhouse Lighting and Systems Engineering (GLASE) consortium is a public-private collaboration that stands at the forefront of LED systems engineering, plant photobiology and physiology, and greenhouse environmental controls. Committed to pioneering and commercializing breakthrough greenhouse technology, GLASE brings together a diverse range of stakeholders in the controlled environment agriculture industry. For more information, visit https://glase.org/membership/.

About ERI

Energy Resources Integration (ERI) is a clean energy consulting firm developing a sustainable future for our planet through cost-effective energy management. Since 2011, ERI’s team of professional engineers has supported over 20 utilities across 8 states and worked with hundreds of agricultural, industrial, and commercial businesses as an energy advisor to support and accomplish sustainability goals. ERI executes strategies for businesses to foster a clean energy future. For more information, visit https://www.eripacific.com/contact-us/.

More importantly, will consumers pay a higher price for controlled-environment-grown produce?

Over the last five years, leafy greens have been the “it” crop for indoor farm production. Most indoor farms have started with leafy greens, primarily lettuce, and have looked to expand their product offerings to include herbs, microgreens, strawberries and tomatoes.

The OptimIA project, which is funded by USDA, is studying the aerial production environment and economics for growing indoor leafy greens in vertical farms. While much of the research of this four-year project has focused on managing the environment for vertical farm production, the economics related to this production is a major objective of OptimIA researchers. Based on feedback from commercial vertical farm growers, one of the primary areas of research is to develop economic information, including costs, potential profits, and to conduct an economic analysis to determine the strategies to improve profitability based on that information.

OptimIA researchers at Michigan State University who are focused on the economic aspects of vertical farm production include: Simone Valle de Souza, an ag economics professor; Chris Peterson, an emeritus professor in the Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics; and PhD student Joseph Seong, who is developing his thesis on the economics of indoor agriculture.

“I was invited by the other OptimIA researchers to use mathematical models that take into consideration the biology and technical parameters to determine the potential revenues and costs,” Valle de Souza said. “My team of economists is looking to identify the economic tradeoffs from the implementation of multiple environmental factors that the other OptimIA researchers were optimizing or planned to optimize as part of the project. Our job is to identify the optimal parameters for profitability in controlled environment production. As part of the OptimIA project, we tackled two aspects of economic analysis: production and resource-use efficiency and consumer preferences.”

Maximizing profits

As part of the economic analysis, Valle de Souza considered the variable costs of labor, electricity, seed, substrates and packaging materials. Based on the information collected from commercial indoor farm growers, labor was the largest cost at 41 percent of total variable operating costs, followed by electricity at 29 percent, seed and substrates at 22 percent and packaging materials at 7 percent.

“We did a sensitivity analysis to determine what would happen to profits if wages increased,” Valle de Souza said. “We conducted a series of simulations and determined on average a 1 percent increase in wages would reduce profit per square meter for a day of production by 6 cents. A 1 percent increase in the price of electricity would reduce profits by 5 cents per square meter per day. The contribution margin to profit is normalized on a per square meter per day of production so that we can make comparisons.”

While many growers might look to lower variable costs to increase profitability, Valle de Souza found that increasing the price of lettuce could be the better way to go.

“A 1 percent increase in the price of a head lettuce could increase profits by 60 cents per square meter per day,” she said. “Our analysis showed a revenue maximizing strategy is superior to a cost minimizing strategy. Reducing variable costs could result in savings of 5-6 cents in profit. However, during simulation scenarios that we tried, a revenue maximizing strategy could proportionately increase profits 10 times more by as much as 60 cents.”

OptimIA economists determined a 1 percent increase in the price of a head of lettuce could increase profits by 60 cents per square meter per day. A 1 percent increase in wages would reduce profit by 6 cents per square meter a day. A 1 percent increase in the price of electricity would reduce profits by 5 cents per square meter per day. Graph courtesy of Simone Valle de Souza, Mich. St. Univ.

Optimal length of production

Another part of the analysis done by the OptimIA economic researchers was to estimate the optimum length of the lettuce production cycle.

“In terms of production cycle length, we compared the trade-off between costs from one extra production day and revenues from yield that could be achieved from one extra day of growth,” Valle de Souza said. “We tried to estimate how long growers could allow lettuce plants to grow to take advantage of the fast growth rate the plants experience at the end of a production cycle. Using estimates of plant growth and plant density under an optimized space usage defined by our OptimIA colleagues at the University of Arizona, we found that under specific environmental conditions, day 19 after transplant, or 33 days from seeding, was the ideal harvesting day.”

Even though maximum revenue could be achieved earlier, at day 15 after transplant, costs per day of growth were higher for shorter production cycles. The contribution margin to profit, which was estimated as the difference between revenue and costs in this partial budget analysis, was larger at 19 days after transplant. After 33 days, profit starts to decline because the speed of plant growth rate is not as fast as the increase in costs associated with growing.

“We have determined the economic results from space optimization, estimated optimal production cycle length under given conditions, and the economic results from alternate scenarios of light intensity, carbon dioxide concentration and temperature,” Valle de Souza said. “In collaboration with our OptimIA colleagues, we are now working on a final optimization model that will associate optimal profitability with resource-use efficiency.”

Opportunity to educate consumers

Another aspect of the OptimIA economics research looked at consumer behavior and preferences in regards to indoor farms and the crops they produce. Using a national survey, the researchers determined whether consumers are willing to buy lettuce produced in indoor farms and how much they would be willing to pay for the enhanced attributes of produce grown in indoor farms.

“The survey showed no consumers rejected the innovative technology being used by indoor farms,” Valle de Souza said. “There was a group of consumers who were very supportive of the technology and completely understood what an indoor farm is. Another group of consumers were engaged, but not very convinced of the technology. Another group was skeptical of the claims of indoor-farm-produced leafy greens and were less willing to consume them. This same group said they had no knowledge about indoor farms and how they work.

“There were no consumers who had knowledge about indoor farms and rejected the leafy greens grown in these operations. Some consumers are still cautious given their little understanding about how the production systems work.”

Based on the survey results, Valle de Souza said the indoor farm industry has an opportunity to educate consumers about its production technology.

“The indoor farm industry could promote information materials that explain the benefits of a fully controlled growth environment,” she said. “Growers could explain how this technology eliminates the use of pesticides, how it can improve crop quality attributes, along with the environmental benefits of significantly lower water consumption, reduced land use, and the ability to deliver fresh produce to consumers in urban areas.”

Consumer willingness to pay more

Consumers surveyed by OptimIA researchers indicated they were willing to pay a premium for lettuce with enhanced attributes.

“We tested for taste, freshness, nutrient levels and food safety,” Valle de Souza said. “Consumers were willing to pay a premium for these attributes, especially in urban areas.

“Rural dwellers usually have their own backyards in which they can grow vegetables. They are used to seeing vegetables growing in the soil using sunlight. Rural residents were not as convinced about the need for indoor farms to produce leafy greens. Another interesting survey result was that consumers, in general, are not very decided if they prefer produce grown in indoor farms, greenhouses or outdoors.”

For more: Simone Valle de Souza, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics; valledes@msu.edu; http://www.canr.msu.edu/people/simone_valle_de_souza.

OptimIA Ag Science Café #40: Consumer Varieties for Indoor Farm Produced Leafy Greens, https://www.scri-optimia.org/showcafe.php?ID=111156.

This article is property of Urban Ag News and was written by David Kuack, a freelance technical writer in Fort Worth, Texas.

Serge Boon (owner of Boon Greenhouse Consultancy) is in no way new to the challenges and ever-changing landscape of the commercial greenhouse industry.  Serge grew up in the Netherlands (the land of greenhouses.) He is a native of Westland, (one of the largest greenhouse regions in the world), he rode his bike past rows and rows of greenhouses every day, and has been working in them since the age of 12. He has held almost every job in the horticultural industry, from grower to researcher to upper management.  Along the way he has learned everything from technology to best growing practices. 

Boon Consultancy’s most valuable offering might be their ability to translate complicated technical jargon into easy-to-understand language, that can be shared with ambitious and intelligent newcomers to the industry that are looking to change their communities’ access to safe, fresh and healthy fresh produce.

“Higgins will strengthen our relationships with industry vendors and customers across the world of horticulture,” says Boon.  “His 25-year commitment to the industry and ultimately our clients will only help to ensure that our diverse list of clients continues to be successful in a quickly changing and always challenging fresh produce world.”

About Boon Greenhouse Consultancy:

Providing agricultural consulting services for both niche and major businesses in the horticulture industry, particularly in the modified seed industry by designing plans that help businesses thrive by developing efficient, effective procedures that will save time, money, and energy.  

About Christopher Higgins:

Mr. Higgins 25 years of horticulture industry experience spans the full gamut of the industry.  From supporting production greenhouse facilities to running his own businesses and hosting industry education events, his knowledge and network is vast.  You can learn more about Chris, his businesses and his work as an advisor for industry grants as well as nonprofits by visiting his LinkedIn page.

Grapes are an economically important commodity, supplying fresh, dried, and processed markets worldwide. Although grapes are not a crop you immediately consider a beneficiary of CEA technology, it may be possible to adapt field agriculture, putting in measures to circumvent climate change and disease. 

The last few years I’ve been attempting to grow my own grapevine indoors, so when Chris Higgins shared the main photo I felt excited to learn how they were using LED lights to help fruit mature on vines in California. 

Could CEA also work for my grapevines?

Scotland is not known for wine but with changing climates and carefully chosen hardy varieties it could provide some competition for our national drink. Success at home is just around the corner as I begin season three with my black Hamburg grape (Schiava Grossa) grafted on S04 rootstock. It’s hopeful too, as earlier than expected it is producing trusses. The learning curve is not as steep as you may think and the trick is to not give up with a fruitless vine. 

We will take a look at the growing environment, the diseases that can be encountered and the pests that need to be eliminated by controlling some of the processes. Then we will examine some real Californian vineyards and how they are adapting and integrating CEA technology to increase efficiency and yield, battling against ever changing climates and earlier than predicted seasonal frosts. 

Year 3 indoors black Hamburg (dessert grape)  in central Scotland

Wine has an important role in world trade

Grapes were one of the earliest fruits cultivated for use as a beverage, and statues in ancient Roman culture were often adorned with grapes and wine decanters. In fact, many of the production principles first developed in ancient Rome can be found in winemaking today. Wine is classed as a cultured beverage and body, flavor, aroma, keynotes and vintage all play a part in how we decide to consume it. Aside from commercial vineyards, many vines can be cultivated under glass. This can be a lean-to, a conservatory, a polytunnel or a glasshouse, it doesn’t really matter. Mine are grown in a conservatory with great levels of natural light and temperatures rising to 105°F which helps ripen the fruit. 

The global wine market was valued at USD 417.85 billion in 2020 and growth is expected to expand to 6.4% CAGR by 2028. According to a recent report Italy, France, and Spain were the top three producers of wine worldwide as of 2022. In the Americas, Chile has the leading share of exports, almost three times more than the USA and Canada. Changing consumer preferences are evident with demand for fresh fruit, looking for year-round availability and consumers more willing to pay more for imported out-of-season fresh grapes.

Growing and Grafting Vines

Choosing the right rootstock is vital to ensure a successful harvest since the parent vine, Vitis. vinifera does not provide adequate resistance against phylloxera Vastatrix, a deadly root infection caused by the aphid-like insect, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch). Phylloxera weakens the vines causing root galls making it susceptible to fungal infections. It has plagued vineyards, decimating crops in California, and completely devastated vines planted on AXR1 type B rootstocks. It is estimated to have cost the industry $6 billion to uproot valuable mature vines and replant with vines grafted onto sturdier rootstocks. 

To overcome this disease, grapes are grown on rootstocks from a variety of Vitis species selected from native areas or hybrids that use native species to form new rootstocks. The most commonly used are Vitis rupestris, V. riparia, V. berlandieri, and V. champinii. A grafted vine consists of the scion which is seen above ground and the rootstock which provides the root system and lower trunk joined at the graft union (protected with wax like above). 

Image by Wine Folly

Pruning is an artform and traditional viticulture techniques require patience and skill passed down through generations. Below are a few training techniques used in viticulture but you can learn more by following Dan from apicaltexas with great videos on pruning techniques in the field. 

Developing the vineyard should factor the best rootstock suited for particular environmental conditions. Soil type, pest resistance, tolerance to drought, wetness, salinity, and lime must all be considered when siting a vineyard.

Most experts suggest loamy soil as the best type of soil for grape growing. A crumbly mix of sand, silt, and clay when blended with other soils in the right amounts offers the ideal soil type. This is because the clay in loam drains well but also contains moderate amounts of water and nutrients within the preferred pH range (pH 6.5-6.8). Sonoma and Napa Valley are both loam soil regions. 

Even though grapevines are considered relatively tolerant to water deficits, growth and yield can be reduced in drought-like conditions. Drought tolerant rootstocks enable the scion to grow and yield even when water supplies are limited, a desirable trait if irrigation is likely to cause waterlogging in heavy clay soil. Acidic soils are common in many viticultural growing regions, and liming is common-practice to increase soil pH. The salinity of irrigation water and rising water tables can also affect productivity in grapevines which can have a  detrimental effect on wine quality.

Rootstocks can have a pronounced influence on the mineral nutrition of the fruiting variety. Vigorous vines can deplete zinc levels while increasing the uptake of potassium with regular soil analysis crucial to produce the best fruit. 

While growing under cover may not suit large scale vineyards, certainly the early stages can be started off under greenhouse control much like blueberries. A drip irrigation system will work well to ensure a good source of minerals is available at the root base with free drainage. 

If you are planning to grow in containers, a half barrel size is more than adequate with a light multipurpose compost. There’s no doubt selection of soil can be tricky because the soil type needs to work for both the vine and the rootstock. Remember sandy soil seems to have an advantage in resistance to phylloxera.

Microclimates & Disease Prevention 

Year one begins with training the cordon or guyot from the rootstock to produce two dominant shoots. Year two and the tendrils will form without fruiting but it is not until year three that fruit trusses will become visible on most vines. These can then be trained as desired with supports. How vigorous the growth develops will hugely depend on whether it’s grown as scions or as dominant root stocks. 

Mildew, powdery (Erisyphe necator) and downy (Plasmopara viticola) mildew are the predominant diseases encountered in viticulture. These favor successive periods of hot and humid conditions. Suppression of grapevine powdery mildew is problematic with resistance built up to systemic fungicides. This can also lead to weakened vines and susceptibility to Botrytis (botrytis cinerea) another fungal disease which affects almost every part of the vine, usually caused by high humidity coupled with strong winds. Mitigation traditionally introduces better airflow through the truss and canopy, pinching out individual berries can assist, allowing for circulation to circumvent rot problems. New ideas using light treatments are being trialed at Cornell university and UV treatments applied once a week up to 200 J/m2 on Chardonnay vines have proven to reduce powdery and downy mildew conidia germination by almost 100% and 50% respectively. 

Image sourced from David M. Gadoury, Cornell.

LEDs have also been shown to boost yields. RB light encourages leaf growth and fruit maturation but little experimentation has been possible due to field positioning of grapes. Perhaps in the future we will see these autonomous tractors lighting up fields at night.

Frost damage

The French prevent early bud loss by using fire candles between vines. It’s a risky business balancing crop loss from frost with fire damage if not controlled. Water sprays are often employed to protect against frost damage by forming ice crystals around the buds during cold weather. 

Microclimates play a significant role in wine quality and cool ocean breezes inland result in thicker skins on the berries resulting in more color, tannin and concentration of flavor.

Field light spectrum can assist fruit bud development 

Improving knowledge of environmental triggers for bud burst in grapes can help to optimize plant productivity, especially in marginal climates. In particular, an improved knowledge of the physiology of bud burst is fundamental to enable better crop management.

The point where a quiescent axillary bud commences regrowth is governed by both metabolic and signaling functions, driven by light, energy, and oxygen availability. Several grapevine studies have investigated the influence of low-intensity light on shoot physiology, suggesting that it is adapted to a low-light environment. Removing the apex can result in axillary bud outgrowth, as can changes in light intensity and quality. Axillary bud outgrowth is regulated by signals from the apex, which contain several light quality and quantity sensing pigments. These phytochromes sense red and far-red light, while cryptochromes and phototropins are involved in the perception of blue light. Accumulating evidence supports the function of photoreceptors in blue light perception resulting in activation of photomorphogenic gene expression, stimulating bud outgrowth.

Field trials with inter-canopy LED lights in California. Reach out if you need advice, we are here to help. 

These photoreceptors regulate the expression of different transcription factors to coordinate light-dependent photomorphogenesis. 

An early indicator of the transition to bud burst is ‘sap-flow’ preceded by an increase in xylem pressure leading the an increase in auxin and sugars in the sap.

Applying light theory helps improve knowledge of the physiology of bud burst which is fundamental to better canopy and crop forecasting, as the timing and coordination of this event will influence flowering, fruitset, and ripening.

Indoor low intensity RB LED lights – in Scotland year 2 with no trusses but plenty of tendrils and good vine growth.

Pests

Leafhoppers, cochylis and Lobesia botrana are dreaded pests that cause considerable damage to grape crops. IPM plays an important role in scouting for early damage to prevent disease. Prevention by spraying crops with regulated fungicides helps limit damage.  

Micropropagation of new grape varieties 

Starting Clean

Fungal and viral infections have plagued vineyards particularly in California where in the 1980s the deadly root infection phylloxera returned, completely devastating vines planted on AXR1 rootstocks. 

Viruses reduce plant vigor and delay bud break, and can be transmitted through vegetative propagation. Rapid micropropagation techniques can produce clean, disease-free, and vigorous plant material in a shorter time period, compared to conventional propagation techniques. 

There are many reasons why breeding is important to the wine industry, and my friends at PCT wrote a neat article on why growing clean clones is one of the most efficient methods to scale grape plantlets. 

New growth from a nodal cutting of my black Hamburg in initiation MS media growing under different low intensity LED spectrums.

A number of micropropagation techniques can be employed to clone grapes. Meristem culture induced from nodal cuttings can help to eliminate endophytes and produce virus free clones like above. 

Sweet seedless grapes like cotton candy are produced via embryogenesis. Others like Selma Pete, a white grape, are grown for the raisin market. The power of breeding a particular variety for a select market can pay dividends. 

Health properties of grapes

Health properties of grapes and grape juice are well documented particularly the black varieties which have higher anthocyanin levels, with known anti-inflammatory properties. Grape juice is a great way to boost immune systems and stay healthy. What we do know for sure is that resveratrol is well absorbed in the body and offers some exciting anticancer properties. Probably best to consume through black grape juice if you are concerned about the alcohol content in wine. 

Turning grapes into wine 

‘The older the vine the better the wine’ is a common saying in the industry, meaning the skin to pulp ratio increases creating a more intense flavor. Vines can be anywhere from 20 years to 120 years old and still produce good quality fruit. Some growers also believe older vines with deep root systems are more efficient at transferring minerals. 

One thing’s for sure, there’s more science in wine making than you can shake a stick at! It’s chemistry without cooking. Even for hobbyists it’s a great pastime and relatively cheap to get started. As a student I was taught how to make wine in demijohns, it was a relatively simple process. Yeast varieties can also have a significant effect on alcohol production. My final year degree project was to establish the budding rate of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the most common species of yeast in winemaking. Ah, that stirred tank fermenter with all those sensors, part biology, part engineering…..

Begin with good quality grapes and crush and press down hard until the bunches are smashed and the juice is released. For reds, ferment the juice, skins and seeds after removing stems. 

At least 5 gallons of white grape juice can make five gallons of wine. Pour the juice into a demijohn. White grape juice is green to start and as it oxidizes it will turn a brown color during fermentation. Add wine yeast at a comfortable room temperature. It will foam as it releases carbon dioxide within a day or two, which signals the start of the process. Use an airlock to keep oxygen out and allow the carbon dioxide produced by to escape. 

Red ‘must’ can be fermented in a large open container with just a towel, add wine yeast, and give it a good stir. It may begin to ferment in as little as 12 hours.

Red wines need to be stirred, at least twice per day when fermentation is going strong. You’ll see skin floating on the surface but just stir down regularly. Red wine should be around 80°F during fermentation. Test the sugar levels of the fermenting juice periodically with a basic hydrometer. It’s measured in degrees Brix, which equals sugar percentage will reduce to -2 Brix once fermentation is complete.

When the wine tastes like something you’d enjoy drinking, it’s time to bottle. Most white wines should mature after four to nine months whereas reds may take from six months to a year. You can learn more about winemaking from a course at Cornell or perhaps the ‘personality’ of wine from Jancis Robinson, an influential wine critic. Wine will benefit from a few weeks or months aging in the bottle, but who can wait that long? 

My top reds are Spanish and Italian and I’m partial to a Californian rose. Chris would not say no to anything from the Napa Valley. Slàinte Mhath. 

Janet Colston PhD is pharmacologist with an interest in growing ‘functional’ foods that have additional phytonutrients and display medicinal qualities that are beneficial to human health. She grows these using a range of techniques including plant tissue micropropagation and controlled environmental agriculture to ensure the highest quality control.

Unless otherwise stated all images are courtesy of The Functional Plant Company and property of Urban Ag News.

Researchers with the OptimIA project are working to solve the environmental control issues facing indoor farm growers.

While some might think that the environmental challenges facing indoor farm growers should be relatively minor and easy to overcome in a closed environment, they’d be wrong.

“Some of the challenges and bottlenecks facing indoor farms include insufficient airflow leading to a non-uniform environment, lighting that is wasteful and how light is delivered into the canopy,” said Murat Kacira, director of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Center (CEAC) at the University of Arizona and a member of the OptimIA project research team. “In addition to these challenges, there are those related to the humidity and water management in the aerial environment as well as identifying the best light quality, light intensity and light recipes for indoor farm crops.”

Prior to the start of the OptimIA project in 2019, surveys were conducted of stakeholders in the indoor farm industry, including growers, to determine what are the areas of greatest need for research.

“An indoor farm is a closed box,” Kacira said. “You know what goes in and what comes out, but it demands the resources to control that environment, which include controlling the light, temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide and all other processes to grow the crop to meet production expectations.  

“An indoor farm offers tighter control than in a greenhouse environment. There is not the same effect from the outdoor dynamics, for example the light intensity, temperature and water recirculation from the air. Being able to harvest the water from the air is easier in an indoor farm system compared to a greenhouse system. There is more controllability when it comes to an indoor farm compared to a greenhouse, of course with an additional expense for resource use to achieve such control.”

Focused on environmental control

Kacira and his team of graduate students KC Shasteen and Christopher Kaufmann at the University of Arizona are significant contributors on the environmental control aspects of the OptimIA project.

“We are also considering light because light brings the energy to the plants and then the energy has to be released for cooling and for proper transpiration and nutrient deployment from the roots,” Kacira said.

Kacira’s team conducted computer simulations to help improve airflow and to identify co-optimization of environmental variables for energy savings. Building upon computer simulation research outcomes, Kaufmann is conducting experiments in CEAC’s vertical farm facility to evaluate vertical and horizontal airflow system designs to mitigate tipburn on lettuce crops. Shasteen and Kacira worked on modeling with the co-optimization of variables, including light, temperature, relative humidity and carbon dioxide level.

“We have been able to quantify yield outcomes and to determine what the energy use would be for any of those environmental control strategies,” Kacira said. “These models and the outcomes and information that we have generated from this research are used by our OptimIA colleagues on the economics team. They are developing economic models for a variety of scenarios of profitability and economics for indoor farm applications and indoor farm systems.

“We are focused primarily on airflow system design and optimization, humidity management and co-optimization of environmental variables mainly for energy savings. Our collaborations also included Nadia Sabeh at Dr. Greenhouse on the humidity management side of the environmental control aspect.”

Real-world applications

Some of the research outcomes from the University of Arizona team related to airflow systems designs, concepts and recommendations have been incorporated into actual growing settings in commercial operations.

“We are able to incorporate some of our research results into commercial site trials through our collaborations,” Kacira said. “We have over 20 industry collaborators as part of the OptimIA project. Some of the collaborators showed interest in implementing some of the airflow system designs, environment control, and co-optimization of these variables into their operations. We will also have an opportunity before the OptimIA project ends to implement them directly and evaluate some of the research outcomes in commercial settings.”

Saving on energy costs

Sole-source lighting is the largest energy cost of indoor farms. Indoor farm energy costs account for at least 30 percent of the total operational costs. Other energy costs are related to operating fans, dehumidification and ventilation.

“The focus of the OptimIA research at Purdue University is to identify and try to reduce the energy costs related to growing indoor crops,” said Cary Mitchell, horticulture professor at Purdue University. “If an indoor farm grower is using sole-source lighting that is going to be the biggest energy cost. These indoor farms spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per year on electricity and it’s mostly for lighting.”

Mitchell has long been interested in energy as one of the profit-determining and profit-limiting parameters in indoor farming.

“All of the OptimIA researchers are interested in saving resources for growing leafy greens and culinary herbs indoors,” he said. “That is the common thread among all of us. Purdue researchers are focused on energy savings. “

Avoid wasting light

Mitchell and PhD graduate student Fatemeh Sheibani are working on close-canopy LED lighting. This lighting is similar to intra-canopy lighting that is used on some greenhouse crops including high wire tomatoes and fresh cut roses.

“One of our findings is if the separation distance is reduced between the LED light fixtures and the crop below without dimming the LEDs, the productivity of the plants goes up,” he said.

LEDs are a point source of light with much of the light radiating like a star in all directions.

“When LED fixtures are mounted overhead in an indoor farm much of the light goes to the side obliquely,” Mitchell said. “Not all of the light is going down towards the plants. There is a significant amount of photons wasted falling outside of the cropping area. There’s not much that can be done about it other than to move the lights closer to the plants.” 

Because LEDs are cool, unlike high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, the separation distance between LED fixtures and the plants can be decreased without burning the plants.

“The separation distance can be reduced so that most of the obliquely emitted photons actually are captured by the crop surface instead of going off the edge of the bench,” Mitchell said. “Regardless of whether growers run LED fixtures along the bench or across the bench, they don’t want gradients of crop growth. Growers want just as much growth on the edges as in the middle of the bench. This can cause growers to mount lights not only in the middle of the bench, but also out towards the edges. The further toward the edges the fixtures are mounted, the more photons are lost.”

Putting more light on the plants

Sheibani is studying two scenarios of close-canopy lighting. One scenario is as the LED lights are placed closer to the plants, the light is dimmed. Even though the light is dimmed, there is the same intensity of light at the plant surface because more laterally emitted photons are captured, but less electricity is used. In a second scenario, Sheibani placed the LED lights closer to the plants, but did not dim them.

“In this second scenario, placing the fixtures closer to the plants once again reduced the amount of photon loss,” Mitchell said. “In this case, for the same power and energy usage the plant yields increased because the effective light intensity increased. The plants grew faster and bigger. Each increment of closer spacing results in a higher energy utilization efficiency.”

In indoor vertical farms the traditional separation distance between the bottom of the LED fixtures and the top of the crop is 40-50 centimeters.

“We have tested separation distances between the fixtures and plants of 45, 35, 25 and 15 centimeters,” Mitchell said. “We found that energy utilization efficiency increases linearly as the lights are placed closer to the plants. This should be relatively easy to implement in most indoor farms, but may require some design modifications from equipment suppliers.”

Mitchell explained the reason the two scenarios were studied is because some indoor farms are equipped with non-dimmable LED lights.

“In the case of non-dimmable LED fixtures, when the lights are brought closer to the plants, the energy draw by the lights is the same, but the yield goes up, which means the plants grow faster,” he said. “This means the plants can reach the same biomass and be harvested earlier or the harvest date can remain the same and more biomass can be produced. This gives growers the option to use close-canopy lighting for what works best for their production needs.”

Mitchell points out that not every LED fixture commercially available works well in close-canopy lighting applications.

“There are some LED lights where the distribution of colors is not uniform, where there are clusters of blue light,” he said. “This is not a big deal with a 45-centimeter separation distance between the lights and the plants because with the amount of beam spread there is enough distance for the other colors to overlap the blue light. But when the lights are placed within 25 to 15 centimeters of the plant surface, there are clusters of blue light. Blue light inhibits leaf expansion and promotes leaf coloration. The result can be very strange looking crop stands if close-canopy lighting is done with LEDs with uneven light distribution. Fortunately for growers, most of the commercial LED arrays available today for horticultural lighting are quite uniform.”

For more: Murat Kacira, University of Arizona, Controlled Environment Agriculture Center; mkacira@arizona.edu; http://ceac.arizona.edu/. Cary Mitchell, Purdue University, Horticulture & Landscape Architecture; cmitchel@purdue.edu; https://ag.purdue.edu/department/hla/directory.html#/cmitchel.

This article is property of Urban Ag News and was written by David Kuack, a freelance technical writer in Fort Worth, Texas.