By Stephen Souza
The City of Davis and UC Davis have both grown from agricultural beginnings. The evolution of agricultural innovation at The Farm has become world class and so have other disciplines on campus. According to Andrew Hargadon, Professor and Soderquist Chair in Entrepreneurship at UC Davis, “Universities do create fundamental knowledge, papers and patents.
And the University of California Davis is one of the largest research universities in the country. With its Colleges of Agriculture & Environmental Science, Biological Sciences, and Engineering; a Vet School, Med School, Law School, and Business School, we are also one of the most diverse. That makes us very well positioned to address the large and interdependent problems that typify sustainability challenges.”
It is now time for the next step in this ever expanding role of knowledge incubation to provide an agricultural centered technology park on the eastern edge of Davis. The private sector owns 200 acres. We own 1,160 acres of land from Mace Blvd. to the Causeway, along with on an average day 5.9 million gallons of treated municipal wastewater discharged to the Willow Slough Bypass.
This soon to be tertiary treated recycled water could be used for agricultural or technological purposes. These are undervalued resources that can be utilized in an innovative private/public partnership Ag/ Tech Park.
There are both agricultural and Swainson Hawk mitigations required for any development on ag land. There are also allowable uses that can occur on ag land that are innovative and necessary for the sustainability challenges of today and tomorrow. By 2050, according to United Nations estimates, nine billion human beings will be living on planet Earth.
“We will need to produce more food in the first half of this century than we did in the previous 100 centuries combined,” declared Tony Kajewski, an engineering manager at John Deere and president of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Hydroponics, aquaculture, aquaponics or aeroponics are all-season farming methods that offer an economic boost to the City of Davis budget, are allowable under Davis Municipal Code 40A and can help feed a growing earthly population.
According to Kachan and Co. analyst Shannon Payne, “agricultural technology innovation hasn’t been as high profile as other clean-tech sectors like renewable energy or transportation, but it potentially has more immediate importance to us as a species, particularly if we start seeing crisis events around food availability.”
One solution for providing more food per acre is vertical farming or “cultivating plant or animal life within a skyscraper greenhouse or on vertically inclined surfaces. The idea of a vertical farm has existed at least since the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.” Wikipedia
Dr. Dickson Despommier, a professor of public and environmental health at Columbia University in New York, believes that “vertical farming has several potential advantages associated with it:
1. Year-round crop production as vertical farming multiplies the productivity of the farmed surface by a factor of 4 to 6 depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres).
2. No weather-related crop failures due to geological and meteorological events such as droughts, floods, earthquakes, wildfires or pests.
3. Vertical farming virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water.
4. The food is grown organically eliminating the use of herbicides, pesticides or fertilizers.
5. It converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water released into the air by evapo-transpiration.
6. It greatly reduces the occurrence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface.
7. It reduces the need of new farmland, restoring ecosystem functions and resources.
8. It adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals.
9. Vertical farming dramatically reduces fossil fuel use as no tractors or plows are required.
10.It opens new avenues for employment.”
“Sustainability is a general concept used to describe a community that considers the long-term affects of its decisions on future generations and the natural world. It is a tool that helps individuals, communities, states, and nations focus on what needs to be done to ensure that future generations and natural communities are stable and thrive.
In practice this means that a community recognizes that economy, society, and environment are mutually dependent and need to be balanced. To move toward sustainability, communities and individuals must incorporate this concept into both longterm and day-to-day decisions.
For most communities this requires a new mind-set. For Davis this means a renewed focus on established core community values of innovation and conservation and building on existing programs. This will allow Davis to take positive steps toward sustainability and provide an even stronger example of a community designed to address and adapt to the environmental challenges on the horizon.” City of Davis Part two of this series will focus on my idea of a master plan for an Ag/Tech Park.
Why limit the exploitation of local innovation to ag related industries? If it wasn’t for Schilling Robotics that BP well in the Gulf of Mexico would still be leaking oil. I was having lunch one day recently when four young guys from Schilling came in. Together they probably dropped $40 on lunch helping the restaurant business succeed too. While UCD has a history as an important ag center the ideas coming out of this community today could be in any field. What we need is a recognition that what we need is to provide space for organic growth of companies adding value to the community through innovation that enriches both the community and the world. While we may have an ag history and can easily rationalize supporting our emerging biotech hub there is no reason to limit ourselves. The question is do we want to be Xerox or Apple? Would we give away the graphical interface to another community because it doesn’t fit our preconceived ideas of what our business model should be?
There are other sites for Schilling. Maybe after the council votes down the Cannery project, FMC Technologies could just buy that site from ConAgra. An AgTech park could be an ideal solution for Mace 391.
Don: I can’t find the article right now, but I’m pretty sure that I was told in the article on the mystery group leaving Davis if no space was arrived at, that Schilling told the city that Cannery was a non-starter.
[i]There are other sites for Schilling. Maybe after the council votes down the Cannery project, FMC Technologies could just buy that site from ConAgra. An AgTech park could be an ideal solution for Mace 391[/i]
Did you make a mistake here Don. Are you now supporting an Ag Tech business park at Mace 391?
I am supporting an ag conservation easement on Mace 391 with specified uses. As I’ve said many times before, many of the land uses by ag tech companies are consistent with ag zoning. As noted on a prior thread in discussion with Mark West, the land uses allowable under ag zoning on an easement-conserved property are specified, and seem to be subject to the approval of the easement holder. E.g., 2 – 10% of the land can be covered, under some circumstances, etc.
What I’m not supporting is paving over Mace 391 to build a business park.
Okay – so to paraphrase, you only support the business of farming on the Mace 391 parcel. That is consistent with your previous position. I think by changing that to a more nuanced position that you support ag tech on Mace 391 is problematic since it implies that you would also support developing the bricks and mortar side of the ag tech business on that property.
One frustrating aspect of this ongoing discussion is the lack of real factual information from the owners of existing and prospective ag tech business on what they need. Some people have told me that it does not matter where their R&D and production farm land is located. Others have said that most want that farm-able land right next to their bricks and mortar facilities.
I would like to get this settled.
But in addition to this, there is another conflict over the suitability of the Cannery property for bricks and mortar business development. My understanding is that access to the Cannery property is too problematic for it to be used for a brick and mortar business park. If that is really the case, then any push to make it a business park should be invalidated.
My last point is that we should not limit our vision of suitable commercial economic development to only ag tech.
i hope a land use expert can weigh in on what are permissible uses for an ag easement.
“One frustrating aspect of this ongoing discussion is the lack of real factual information from the owners of existing and prospective ag tech business on what they need. Some people have told me that it does not matter where their R&D and production farm land is located. Others have said that most want that farm-able land right next to their bricks and mortar facilities.”
one of frankly’s more prescient comments.
[quote]Some people have told me that it does not matter where their R&D and production farm land is located. Others have said that most want that farm-able land right next to their bricks and mortar facilities.[/quote]
I’m sure some do, some don’t. Monsanto has offices on Fifth Street, a new facility in Woodland, and greenhouses in various places.
[quote]I think by changing that to a more nuanced position that you support ag tech on Mace 391 is problematic since it implies that you would also support developing the bricks and mortar side of the ag tech business on that property. [/quote]
The real question, as noted by Mark West, is what the easement holder would permit. If they can go up to, say, 10% land ‘covered’ then there could be some acreage in buildings, the rest mostly in farmland for their trials etc. Permissible greenhouse covering on ag soil is undoubtedly spelled out in detail.
I was actually kind of joking about Schilling and the Cannery site. We don’t know what the city council is going to do. I don’t really see 3 votes there for their housing project right now, but I could be wrong.
[i]one of frankly’s more prescient comments.[/i]
I don’t know how prescient it is, but this is one of DP’s most concomitant reflections of any point I have posted.
“Dr. Dickson Despommier, a professor of public and environmental health at Columbia University in New York, believes that “vertical farming has several potential advantages associated with it:”
Interesting and a little creepy.
I’d like to hear some of the downsides of the vertical farming concept. I’m mostly concerned about potential unintended and unpredictable consequences (which often occur when we attempt to “improve” natural systems) of moving to large scale models of this system. One thought off the top of my head, I worry it will lead to a decrease in open space which would have environmental impacts.
Don Shor: “[i]The real question, as noted by Mark West, is what the easement holder would permit. If they can go up to, say, 10% land ‘covered’ then there could be some acreage in buildings, the rest mostly in farmland for their trials etc.[/i]”
I think you misunderstood my point Don. Even if the funding agency would allow this sort of development, you would first have to convince that Land Trust that it was a good idea. I think you would have a difficult time finding an example of where the Yolo Land Trust allowed any ‘new’ development beyond a barn or similar out building on a property under their control, let alone allowing 5-10% to be covered in concrete for Ag industrial buildings. Even if they did agree to such a development, it would have to be negotiated up front as part of the easement and there is no indication that is happening at this time. So as a practical matter, your support of an ag easement is completely inconsistent with your statement that “[i]An AgTech park could be an ideal solution for Mace 391[/i].”
I will go out on a limb and say that if the easement is put in place, the land will remain in perpetuity much as it is today.
I agree with Stephen that these systems are the future of farming in many places around the world, especially where growing seasons are short and available land and water is scarce. I am so interested in the approach that I am incorporating some into an experimental system in my backyard. Even with this interest however, I do not see this as an economically viable business model in our region for the simple reason that we are living in the middle of one of the most fruitful areas on the planet, with plenty of available land and water to feed our community. Consequently, I do not expect to see commercial scale vertical farming coming to a theater near you anytime soon.
It is however a fascinating research problem, and a fun backyard project.
Here are few links to more reading. Mark enjoy the first few. 🙂
http://www.houwelings.com/files-2/sustainability.php
https://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/may/15/revolutionizing-the-industry-environmentally-in/
http://www.japan-aquaponics.com/cow-powered-commercial-aquaponics.html
http://www.slideshare.net/appledragon/large-scale-hot-climate-aquaponic-farm-requirements
http://www.thetechnologyfarm.com
http://www.ivatr.com/about-ivr/case-studies/
http://inhabitat.com/tag/vertical-farm/
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Some people have told me that it does not matter where their R&D and production farm land is located. Others have said that most want that farm-able land right next to their bricks and mortar facilities.
[b]I’m sure some do, some don’t. Monsanto has offices on Fifth Street, a new facility in Woodland, and greenhouses in various places. [/b]”[/i]
In the firefighter thread the word “nuanced” is getting a workout. Interestingly enough it applies to Don’s argument above as well. The nuance here is that Monsanto is a large enough organization that it has several different lines of business that operate independently of one another, and the Monsanto facilities in Woodland are in a different line of business than their Davis facilities are in. On the other hand, the Monsanto greenhouses on Second Street are in the same Monsanto line of business as their offices and laboratories on Fifth Street are in.
Given their druthers, Monsanto would prefer to have all their Davis facilities on the same campus, adjacent to one another, but like Mick Jagger says, you can’t always get what you want.
I don’t have the language from the FRRP NRCS program to post into the discussion, but it is my understanding that the federal restrictions allow only 2% of the easement acreage to be covered with impermeable surfaces, including greenhouses. IF my recollection is correct, that would mean for the Mace properties that only 7.25 acres could be impermeable surfaces, including ranch house, accessory buildings, equipment shed or yard, roadways, or other farmstead needs. (It should be noted that the Mace 391 is now referred to as Leland Ranch and comprising 364 acres since 27 acres is being held out to explore a potential community farm concept.)
I will try to get the exact citation from city staff over the next few days. I couldn’t look it up on the USDA website due to the shutdown, but this is where it would be located when the USDA NRCS website works again: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/nh/programs/easements/farmranch
Stephen brings up some interesting points when discussing vertical farming. There is a fair amount of research going on in this area, including at UCD.
One of the leaders in this research area is University of Florida, especially in hydroponics. A recent paper discussing the effectiveness of the farming technique for vegetable production can be found here: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS40500.pdf
As Mark and others pointed out, this is unlikely to be something we heavily apply in Davis (or even the Central Valley) due to our rich soils and considerable ag lands. But the research and corporate scale use of these techniques are already starting to show up in some strange places. Anecdotally, the City of Dublin, California has instituted a farmer’s market that requires that the food being sold come from localized sources. I am told by staff at the City of Dublin that in order to meet that requirement, some enterprising individuals have taken to using nearby warehouse space to conduct hydroponic gardens to grow a large variety of vegetables. The ‘farmers’ highlight the produce as pesticide free, hydroponic, and sustainable due to the lower use of water and other nutrient inputs, thereby taking a potential negative aspect and making it positive.
I am not suggesting that this the future of all agriculture, simply pointing out that given a set of circumstances, people will find creative ways to fill the need. And it is not always the most obvious way.