Vertical Farming: Horizontal Plane vs Vertical Plane Production
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- Vertical farming comes with unique costs, like weird labor & equipment costs.
In this video, Dr. Nate shows you the ratios of growing space to total space for three kinds of vertical farming.
Don’t forget to like and subscribe to our channel and pop your questions in the comments below.
-----------------
Connect with us:
Website: zipgrow.com
Facebook: / zipgrowtm
Instagram: / zipgrowinc
LinkedIn: / zipgrow-inc
------------------
Learn:
UpStart University- university.ups...
Blog- zipgrow.com/zi...
Guides & Manuals: zipgrow.com/gr...
------------------
Shop:
shop.zipgrow.com/
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 79 | คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs อาเมียร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WfPSA1A0NHc/mqdefault.jpg)
This video would be a lot better if Dr Nate had used the metric system
@@larrytrail2865 Shut up and go back to your cave.
@@larrytrail2865 don't be so salty old fart.
@@TBWOC says the caveman still using imperial system
No way :)
TL;DR in a vertical system you can use both sides of a "surface", but in a horizontal system you can't grow plants upside down.
You got it!
But what about the plant density on a horizontal pane and a vertical one? One can easily notice that vertical panes have a less dense planting space by having the gaps between these vertical columns.
Exactly, which means the calculation were not accurate. Please also notice that the water flow is faster in a vertical towers. This means higher electricity coasts.
I'm intrigued, but skeptical. You performed a little bit of mathematical slight of hand. You rounded down the growing space for the 8x8 ft. tier design, while you rounded up the growing space for the 6 ft. center vertical plane design, resulting in a comparison of 2.6 to 2.7, when in fact they're both equal to about 2.67. Also, I don't know much about vertical farming, but it looked like you were growing your plants at a much lower density than the horizontal plane operations I've seen, meaning you're getting a lot lower yield per unit of growing space and possibly negating the benefits of the increase in available growing space you created. Perhaps you have a good reason for doing that, I'm not sure, but it's worth taking that into account in your calculations. I do think the decrease in labor costs is valid.
are these guys using zipfarm tech or is this their own similar product?
Vertical farming isn't THAT new of a concept. If it was the optimum way to grow hydroponically, you would be seeing all the large commercial hydroponic farmers using it. I think vertical grow towers are good for a home growing with limited space. But it is not that optimum way to get on a large scale.
Exactly, plant density is a huge issue.
Also this system makes the lighting very difficult and problematic and the processing of the towers needs a lot of space themselves.
he just shot himself with their mathematics. he said their system taking 6 feet by 8 right? with rack system u can have 6 8 feet gutters in 1 shelf 8 plant each gutter 8*6=48 plant times 5 rack =240 plant in their system they have about 128 plant in 6 by 8 feet space. he says he can make it longer let say you made it 30feet long how you gonna handle after plants grow?
its all about cost and production in same space and mostly they just kill more space
i am a student of envisci and this changed my life. thanks for sharing so much valuable content for free and making the world a better place!!
Dr Nate, I'm from Brazil. I'm learning a lot from your videos. I have 50m² of urban space, and I will try to build this system in the DIY style. I know it will be difficult, but here in my country nothing is easy. Much health and success for you.
you've got a plant density issue in the system you show buddy. Huge gaps between rails. You assumptions might be true if you assumed you could get the same plane density of a horizontal plane.
+Stoked for Saturday There should definitely be a revised calculation for this because your right, plant density is not accounted for. I now wonder if this system is just better in theory, or if it can be applied in practice as well. Assuming plant density is double in the traditional stacked horizontal plane then his model in the video, those comparisons he gets would therefore be unrepresentative of the actual productive space.
Hi +Jason Meunier and +Stoked for Saturday - You can plant the towers side by side or space them apart like you would spread plants in DWC or NFT from nursery to finish system. The assumptions are correct. Plant densities are fully accounted for. Thanks for watching and have a great weekend!
Remember, they literally sell the system they are saying is better....
Not saying they are wrong, just don't swallow it all whole
don't forget about other ways to build and places to buy towers
Haha funny how he says it is accounted but it is simply not. if you still think so then tell me where in the video you account it.
The density is hilariously low compared to any vertical farm.
The horizontal version simply makes more profit for them because you have to buy the stuff from them - things for horizontal farm are easily bought in any hardware store around the world.
If i would be able to edit etc i would make videos debunking this. anyone interested inmaking one? I would give you the correct calculations
dude. you flippen ROCK! I have done so much research for 2-3 months and seen 5-6 of your youtubes and everyone is awesome. thanks man
Thanks Rob! Glad that the videos are helpful. Let us know if we can help you with research.
Hey @scapest (Maxim) in response to your 3 questions:
1. Plants orient using primarily via gravitropism and phototropism. With many plants phototropism overrules gravitropism (as it should, to ensure the plant’s survival). So we’re not cancelling gravity, we’re offering a more compelling biological incentive to orient the way we want them to. You can’t tell the difference between a head of bok choi produced in our system and that produced in a field, except ours is probably more nutritious and flavorful.
2. Same as a horizontal system. The efficiency of light delivery isn’t impacted.
3. Sure, but microgreens require dedicated systems no matter what. i.e. they guys growing stacked horizontal lettuce can’t just turn that system around and grow microgreens. Microgreens will always be grown in a system that is designed for them. Vertical plane systems for general crops will always be able to grow anything that a stacked horizontal system can grow.
Heres a free one for ya that can get you over 10:1. Remember those rolling book shelves in the old libraries? Where you would have 1 aisle way for 6 sets of book cases that were on rollers? You'd need better airflow obviously and a warehouse lighting system built to support it, but could get near 10 or 12 to 1. Probably missing something on my end, but just a thought I wanted to toss out. Thanks for the great content.
+Matthew Kahler Thanks for chiming in! Interesting idea for sure.
That is exactly what I was thinking. :)
Bright Agrotech To #3, I'm positive from a design stand point and nutrient film technique that you can make a stacked horizontal system that is a hybrid, gravity fed or all stages have houses and gravity fed to drain to pump. Have a lid with cup inserts, pull it off and your starter mat for micro greens, really could work with deep water filter, aero, probably any hydro system
Bright Agrotech if you designed lids to fit over the containers of typical stack horizontal that would allow the roots to work for NFT or even deep water
Hi Nate. Let me start by saying that the ZipGrow system you have designed and (unlike so many other companies out there with their "let me solve all your problems with my computer generated design") have put into production an awesome system that is actually getting out there to the urban farming communities and making great changes, thank you guys.
Now this is just my take on horizontal/vertical systems overall and I love mathematics and I do not have any "ifs and or buts" about how you guys are crushing it out there :-)
Installing a mezzanine to increase the height of horizontal plane and vertical plane growing space is the most practical method for making best use of the inside of a high ceiling warehouse space, after all the zip grow towers have an upper limit for their own height and to increase productivity in a high ceiling ware house there would need to be multiple floors as well.
Alternatively, and this is my concept for indoor horizontal growing, is the use of pallet shelving as the racking system (standard practice it would seem) but with the addition of walk-space connected between the pallet shelving to create different floors to work from and to narrow the space between the pallet shelving and also a space saver. The cost saving doing this is enormous just installing walkways and shelving can be taken to just eye level and a volume above that for ducting electrical wiring etc. (you put what you want there !) because each level only needs to be a bit more than head height.
This is a much safer than using scissor lifts and much cheaper than installing mezzanines and I have been going over this design with my local pallet shelving company with the hope of installing at least a small system by the end of next year and I'm not looking to sell this concept as I'm sure someone has been doing something like this already.
Thanks again for another great vid and I enjoy the comparison content you guys put out.
did it work?
Thanks for the video and really breaking this down. I agree with your calculations on square feet, but am not so convinced on labor costs, which might be a larger culprit than rent per sqft. The way I see it, rafts are easy to work with because you have no media to clean or replace (also have less water loss/temperature issues than drip emitters). Maybe others would agree but I think doing a video debunking my concerns would be overwhelming evidence towards your product. But for now, I think the reason stacking is so popular is because of the 'raft' concept not the horizontal vs vertical concept (which you explain so well).
This is only intended to spark conversation, I love what you guys are doing.
Alex
Hey +Alex Beads! All really great questions and concerns. I’ll do my best to address them in a later video. I think that they can all be very easily addressed.
+Alex Beads Vertical would be far cheaper in labor and material costs as you don't have to build a structure to support a small car as you would with rafts. The way i see it, you could have 1 maybe 2 guys building frames for vertical where as horizontal you would need a least 2 to 4 guys to build them.
There might be less loss of water in raft systems but you need to buy the water first. In Australia depending on what water rate u have for town water its about $30 for 2600 Gallons of water and about $135 to get that same amount trucked in.
Then theirs the cost of the scissor lift hire or repayment per week plus any maintenance, charging costs, insurance and people needing licenses to operate one legally. Also add to that the cost of floor space for turning into rows the smallest lift i could find had a 6ft turning circle meaning you really need 8ft.
Great rant Nate! I always knew vertical farming is the way to go. This video fills in the "holes" on the vertical vs. horizontal argument. Good stuff!
+T Richards Glad to hear you enjoyed the rant! Thanks for being part of this community.
I have three problems with this system. 1. Nobody cancels gravity meaning leafy greens will get deformed. If you sell your produce to restaurants then it probably wouldn't matter that much how it looks; however, if you sell it to grocery stores then you may have a problem. 2. Maths sounds good here, but what I didn't hear is that how many harvests would you get using vertical plane compare to horizontal plane. How much light exposure do plants get with this system and how evenly the light covers the growing area? 3. Also, vertical plane system limits farmers with what plants they can grow. Obviously, this system is limited to growing plants such as lettuce; however, you won't be able to grow microgreens, for instance.
+Maxim Telish Yeah the math is really tailored to make their system look superior. You made a number of my points. You mentioned microgreens. You can space them such that you can get 6 tiers in an 8' space. A vertical system can't come close to that. It really does matter what crops you want to grow. Planting tomatoes in a vertical system would be silly and you can't grow root vegetables. I can make something that performs the same as their system from stacked Arrowhead water bottles for next to nothing. I don't have anything against their system but saying it's far superior based on some biased math I found a little annoying. If you really want to maximize output get Rotogardens but the cost is prohibitive. In the same footprint you can blow away their output and you don't get bend veggies but they aren't cheap. If you can swing the upfront costs though rotogardens use far less energy and they can handle a wider range of crops. They also have about the fastest to harvest time I've seen. They all have their place.
+Cary Howe and +Maxim Telish, thanks for getting involved in the convo. As you mentioned correctly, this type of vertical plan farming is not a good fit for microgreens or tomatoes since microgreens are much too small and do best in long trays, and tomatoes are naturally vining crops already using the vertical plane. Tomatoes do best in dutch bucket style hydro systems - if you're looking for more info on growing tomatoes, there are a lot of great channels out there. One of our favorites for dutch bucket growing is +mhpgardener (th-cam.com/video/nXy32Dr4Z4A/w-d-xo.html). Just a few notes that we wanted to make sure we communicate better: On gravity - we talk about tropisms in this video: th-cam.com/video/2SQEOKPK60E/w-d-xo.html (there's a blog post associated to that which will help too if you're interested). Remember, while this video in particular is about production on the vertical plane, this type of growing technique gives growers the benefit of access (i.e. not having to scale a ladder or ride a scissor lift when planting, managing pests, or harvesting) and it allows you to move the product to the process (i.e. wheel an entire rack of towers to a contained space for pest management and reducing your exposure to the rest of your greenhouse - which helps with immediate problem ID/management. Thanks again for tuning in to the video and for your comments, guys! Have a good one.
Wow. After getting past my difficulties with your horizontal plane calculations, I can see the elegance of your vertical model. Stunningly elegant in the elimination of so many production cost variables. Well done, sir -- and well thought out. Hat tip to you!
i cant wait to upgrade from my diy towers. even with my diy im getting those numbers, in full sun. this video is exactly what i needed to show to young farmers, landlords, ect. well done and a delight to watch. it answerers the questions of why? and how? the commercial applications are important worldwide- 90% less water.
A really important consideration is that horizontal stacking is still important for hydroponics if you want to use robots and export your crops to external markets around the world.
How many pounds of food are you growing compared to horizontal on a floor plan with equal square feet? Horizontal growing looks like it's far more dense, which leads me to believe that you would grow more that way.
The actual growth you get per unit of area is greater because you can control the environment at a high level of accuracy. C02 concentrations, light exposure, water distribution systems, etc.
jojo300001 I feel like you answered my question without actually answering my question. I understand the claim being made. I'm asking for more information pertaining to that claim.
Confused in metrics.. anyone else come from metrics?
The math is still the same. but a meter is about 3 feet.
The ratio is unitless. You should focus on ratios. Even you do the math on metric system, the ratios will be equal.
he doesnt know anything about it this business all about cost and production not space taking. i can produce more with rack system
You have to physically visit each unit to harvest, transplant, etc. which makes it more energy intensive to automate. Frontal access water channels are more efficient for full automation. Growing predictable, low hight crops such as lettuce and Basil, you can eliminate the need for fully functional walkways and have tighter levels. The municipal bylaw is also avoided regarding the walkway if they don't hire employees, which is enabled by full automation. While your arguments are valid in commercial, large scale production, I believe owner-operated small scale systems are exempt from some of the conditions you explained. Both horizontal and vertical plane systems have their merits for different purposes, and I will say that the large horizontal plane systems I've seen are inefficient as the grow beds must also be visited individually rather than fed through a production line. You can grow more plants per sq. ft. using vertical plane, but you lose some automation efficiency and increase the upfront costs of automation vs. channels. I've settled on a horizontal plane configuration for my aquaponics shipping container greenhouse design, with a focus on reducing labour input and providing for owner operators. I believe that for less than the price of a vehicle, a person should be able to buy their freedom, there are many roads to this goal.
Why does this video not have more views! great information. I'm always looking for calculations and proof of methods for me to be convinced, and i'll say that this convinced me. I can't wait to start growing with this method.
Make sure you send some photos of your system our way when you get setup, +Heith McCracken! And let us know if you need help planning it all out. We're happy to lend a hand.
This is why I subscribed, great video
+Dimrain13 We're glad to have you as a subscriber!
Another problem with stacked vertical production is the facilities need an insane amount of power - frequently megawatts of power.
So true, Maybe the vertical would be more suitable for indoor growing as outdoor the Sun wouldn't hit all of it evenly vertically and especially not for a long time.
Doesn't an aisle serve stacks either side? Would bring the calculation to 4x8 and 2x8 per stack.
It seems many believe the best way is horizontal plane. That is probably due to a natural sense of self orientation. Plants don't care. They want to live and do what ever they can to do so. How many trees grow from nearly sheer mountainsides? A lot. What seems to have been missed is the ability to expand rows of towers to accommodate access as needed then collapse to a more dense format. In the horizontal system you needed room on both sides, Dr Nate's system only needs one free space which can be shifted between each module cluster. And they are rapidly serviced with his modular ZIP columns. Bring a fresh one, and swap it with the ready to harvest column. That is fast. It also provide a much larger area for the plant to grow. So taller vegetation can be harvested as well. Even better, another floor above, do the same thing. Easy in a 20' high warehouse. Smart man.
Now if we can just get wheat, corn, and other grains to grow only 2' high.
Hi Neil, thanks for the video. I had a big question starting at 3:17, because (if I'm following your calculations correctly) your modelling is based on one access row for every plant row. However, if I were laying out a horizontal production facility, I'd have one *center* access aisle for every *two* rows of plant production, which doubles the (in)efficiency ratios of the horizontal model, if I'm thinking straight. Am I missing something?
Thanks for your work. I am going to give your system some serious consideration & evaluation. -- Daniel.
I like this video, and the premise, but I think there is an important piece missing in the explanation.
In your horizontal models, you said something about needing 4 feet above the plants for proper ventilation, disease control, etc... (aka - 4 feet for healthy plants). When you switched to the vertical models, you recommended 6 feet on center, which only gives 3 feet of "air" for each plant. Didn't you just reduce the amount of space needed for healthy plants by 25%?
ok, a little mistake about the horizontal one. you said the path would be 4" but if you had horizontal on both sides, you should divide it and it would be 2' for each. your vertical growing is better, but the not accurate math, bugs me. thanks
I like the system you propose here but if i have to be honest it seems to me your plant density is much much lower than the flatbed systems. Your yield per square foot will be a quarter of what they are doing just looking at your plant spacing. your calculations only apply to space availeble to produce and not for the actual square feet of greens in the growbeds.
Your system definately seems easier to work with wich will iompact labour costs.
GREAT basic math application.. Totally going to use it in my classroom - if ya dont mind.
Should use the metric system.
No
Sq. Footage is not the key. Could you share what is the number of plants in both cases? Because the customers would not buy Sq. F. but amount of product.
You're a genius 🤯🙌🙌
Would you post a photo of the horizontal plane you are talking about? When you compare the cost of a fork lift (even renting) then it's a no brainer. The image you provided for the horizontal plane (at :36) doesn't look like you could use a fork lift on it.
This was extremely helpful. Thanks!
Insanely awesome!! this is what i was working on !! you just cleared the few ambiguous thoughts i had! great work !! Subscribed!! :)
+Hrishi Shinde Glad to hear it! We're happy to have you in our TH-cam community. Have a great rest of your week.
i subscribed to your channel, just after watching this video
I think one factor that is also important is the density per square feet. It seems like the horizontal is way denser..
Thank you very much for taking time and effort to share your incredibly important knowledge!!
We are happy to do it, John. Thanks for watching and being part of our TH-cam community!
Thank you for this! Really helped me with my architectural thesis, based on urban farming. :)
Centralized Vertical Farm is about space use efficiency. What if the same vertical growing concept is done at home? For example, a home CEA at 2 ft x 2 ft footprint can produce 90 heads per month or 2~3 lettuce per day, enough for a smaller family. Since there is minimum labor cost, one could harvest fresh daily at only $0.50 per head with highest nutrition value since the crops is harvest on demand. The growing metrics is not about size but high quality pesticide-free crops for the family.
Thanks for this video. I haven't done the math yet and this video really helps. Another thought on rafts verses vertical production. You've sold me on square footage, but what about actual production levels. It is possible to concentrate young plants with raft production and space them out as they grow. How do you take that into account. It would be great to see a video comparing production levels (in # of plants) and labor costs of raft vs. vertical. Keep up the good work!
Hey +Nathan Birks! Yes, you can do that with raft systems but it involves moving every single seedling by hand from nursery rafts to production rafts. In our tower system we do the same thing with nursery racks, but we move 10-14 plants at a time, making us 10+x more efficient when it comes to re-spacing labor. Hope that makes sense.
I don't see what the opportunity cost is beyond the 3rd tier. What opportunity is lost? It seems that in the presented model labor cost is the variable to optimize against. Could there be automation technologies that push beyond?
This channel doesn't seem to be producing much any more but if ever in the mood, I would love a good discussion on automation in cultivation and harvesting!
I want to point out a slight rounding issue. The 8x8 system will have 2 2/3 and the 128/48 vertical layout will also be 2 2/3. Other than that It looks pretty neat and makes sense.
True that! A few other people have nailed me on that mistake. I'm just going to own it in the comments as that's a bit easier than reshooting the video. Thanks for pointing that out! I should probably give Daniel Roeske a prize or something as he's the first person that caught that. Good eye!
I think that these numbers work with lettuces, but not with herbs such as cilantro. Because you have to use some growing textile covered by seeds (like AeroFarms do) and in this case you can't put them vertically + these vertical towers will not cover the same square space as the growing textile, because you have gaps between towers and only a narrow slot where to plant the seeds. Basically you want to have a sea of green rather than separate plants.
What the hell is a scissor lift? Anyway I am making a tiny hobby Hydroponic garden with horizontal style. This thing is so small it's laughable. If I get one tomato it will be the event of the year. I'm just trying to learn and understand on a small scale. I love this Nate guy passionate about his work -- great. I'm just soaking up the knowledge right now.Keep up the good work Nate. Knowledge is power.
I may be a couple months late to the party, but your answers to Maxim helped me a lot. I don't think you answered an important earlier question regarding plant sites per SF which speaks to the a key tenant: Yield. So, by literal example, how many lettuce heads per SF in your vertical plane vs typical (or various) horizontal systems?
Hi +GRIUG - I don’t like plant site numbers because they are too easy to fudge. There actually isn’t a correlation between plant sites and yield. In reality they can be independent variables. That being said, plant sites are almost unlimited depending on the height of the tower. Most of our 7’ towers allow around 14-15 plants if they’re planted on a 6” spacing. Up to 21 on a 4” spacing. If we were to use a 10’ tower, that would be 21 plants on a 6” spacing or 30 plants on a 4” spacing. At 1 square foot per tower, that last spacing and tower height would be 30 plants/sq. ft. It’s just completely variable and totally crop dependent. Hope that helps!
What if you created a system where the plant racks move up and down, you could always deal with plant management on the first plane. The racks would go underground instead
11:25 you are not beating the ratio, doing the maths right you end up with 2+2/3 or 2.66 in both cases.
Yes, they're more efficient labor-wise, but they're also more efficient volumetrically. If you were to take vertical plane racks and apply them to the same volume of space as horizontal racks, you'd find that they're more than twice efficient- that's why we can get the same ratios at half the height. . . mathematically, they're just better.
Your vertical system brings special problems such the lighting. Also processing of the towers needs a lot of space ...
HI @Bright Agrotech the video was really nice i would like to know how to build such a tower system
:)
I like your channel but calculating in metric system would be much easier 😉
I agree with you Kurt.
It's really crazy dr. Nate!!
This vertical system is extremely impressive. I wonder could you do a video talking about the "Ferris wheel" method. This solves the air flow and accessibility problems for taller horizontal systems.
I think that this vertical plane system is without doubt the best for leafy crops and some fruiting bodies which make up many of the high yield and turnover cash crops. However I have seen similar rack systems however with (slightly) diagonally stacked horizontal growing lanes. This still uses the same principle however I think it could be superior for growing some crops like root vegetables and sprouts have the highest yeild in wide "grassy" trays.
So in conclusion this vertical system is AMAZING!! It looks extremely profitable as leafy greens are some of the best hydroponic crops to take to market. However i think that you shouldn't rule out all forms of horizontal farming as it could be more effective for certain crops and niche markets.
The horizontal one would be 8 foot high while this one is 9 ft. For harvesting or maintenance each column will have to be brought down. Plus , please compare the total number of plants per square foot.
Very helpful to understand the pros of vertical farming. Are there only pros?
After reading many of the comments bellow, I see that there are still some preferring the stacking tiers over towers. What is it that you are not telling us about vertical, as in tower farming?
Thanks so much for your work on making farming cool again by the way :)
Jason, there are certainly cons- vertical plane can have higher capex per square foot of warehouse space, but typically the output is higher, but depending on the cost of the rent/lease it make make it very lucrative or a fools errand. The economics really vary from site to site and market to market. Vertical does require a level of technical knowledge that isn't necessary with other techniques. Other than that, vertical plane is very positive. A better question is whether vertical in general is better than horizontal, which is a really good question and again depends on the market, cost of warehouse space, value of resources, etc. Great stuff to dig into. I can only hope that we're making farming cool!
Thanks for your detailed reply.
I am at the "thinking" phase of an urban farm project and am comparing horizontal versus vertical. In my case, the rent is "reasonable" and it could be brought down to "acceptable" with a high(er) output.
Great video and you can't argue with the math/ There is a major concern that I have and that is the cost of setting a vertical system VS a horizontal system. The problem we have here in South Africa is the cost of importing something like a ZipGrow tower. or a Grow Wall. To import it into this country with all it's import taxes take the cost of a tower to between 150% to 200% if customs are feeling generous. More if they are feeling pedantic. Couple that with the Rand-Dollar exchange rate that just went through the roof, you would look at R1321 per tower if you bought them in 1000 tower batches. For the same amount, you could build a horizontal system that can house a lot more plants. True, your running costs will be higher but labour is fairly cheap here. Personally, I would prefer using a vertical system but I really don't know if the capital costs are worth it.
Hey +Rikus Vlok - Not to worry! We have a distributor in SA already! You can find all of our international partners here: www.brightagrotech.com/partners/
Math only works if you apply the 4 stack limit. Not sure it it is true or not on profitability.
Also you have to take the variance in cost. is vertical or horizontal cheaper. What is the ratio of expense?
Ultimately it is a cost per lb of production. Not a ration of growable area.
Would be interesting to ask amazon how they would do this with robots, camera and software. The tighter you can put the product and automate the factory, the better the results.
Thanks for the videos. I really appreciate the education and dialog.
was just racking my brain about this. then the perfect title pops up. then you say you're gonna legit quantify it with maths. mmmm. this the good stuff. thank you. lol
what about the yield differences, how does a plant react being on the side and pulled by gravity?
The tower systems are very efficient, more so than vertical plane, because you can grow multiple level without the need for a scissor lift or ladders. They are modular systems that fit to the needs of your space and require less labor, therefore increasing profitability. You can find out more about ZipGrow system vs traditional hydroponic systems here- zipgrow.com/zipfarm/ if you have specific questions about starting your own operation, please do not hesitate to email us hello@zipgrow.com
video shows tower that's about 8' tall not the 5' towers. I don't see it for sale in your web site. Also see that you are now leaning the towers by around 10 degrees maybe 15 degrees. Can you talk more about it. Are the 8' towers available for sale?
I ended up leaning my towers by about 15 degrees to reduce the chances of "leaking".
thanks Nate.
Hey +Shawn Ueda - sorry for the confusion there (and for the late reply!) these towers are 7' tall which is a standard size for our ZipFarm packages or we also have a 50 tower bundle of 7' towers. They're not as popular for the 4 or 8-pack bundles so we only carry them in larger quantities. But yes, you're correct with the angle of our towers in these systems. They can be adjusted slightly but the 10-15 degree window is standard for most setups. Hope that makes sense!
Thanks for answering a question I have been asking for ages. Great videos btw!
+Gunther Kraft Thanks! So glad to hear this was helpful to you. Have a great weekend.
This is wonderful and we hope that this technology will be in Egypt soon
Makes sense for indoor, artificial light growing. I don't see how it works for a greenhouse with natural light.
I assume the arithmetic accounts for a constant plant spacing for both the tarred and vertical? Could you go further concerning the arithmetic on the number of plants to sqft ratio. I think that would be more valuable to the grower
Think Zip Grow towers are great to solve our food problems. Have watched many of Bright Agrotech videos and learned a thing or two; however, I do disagree with Dr. Nate considering vertical plane production is better than horizontal plane production.
Google any of the indoor vertical farming operations here in America - 'Aerofarms,' 'Green Sense Farms,' 'Green Spirit Farms,' 'Farmed Here,' 'Indoor Harvest,' 'Metropolis Farms' - and you'll notice they are all utilizing the horizontal approach. The same has been done abroad - Bright Box (Netherlands), as well as Mirai, Spread, and Toshiba plant factories in Japan. Google the latter three and you'll see that their levels/tiers are 8" apart. As such, their plant densities/yields are much more than Dr. Nate's math.
yea exactly, the math falls apart completely when the tier height for the horizontal system goes below 12". And to think he suggests that the tier height for horizontal systems are 36"-48"?? Plus it doesn't seem like the horizontal systems are affected by his claim of bad airflow and co2 depletion
the cost of operation in vertical look so expensive.
It can definitely be a high-cost undertaking. Oftentimes it's more similar to manufacturing than traditional gardening/agriculture.
The one thing I will say, is that every market has its own efficiency/cost curve over time. Vertical farming is a new market. Planar farming is not, and it has long since matured as a market.
I am seriously intrigued with the idea of creating a vertical garden to sell produce locally, but there is a big concern; product liability. What is the liability if someone says your product made them ill? Is there a licensing requirement or requirement to have insurance? Do you have to deal with the FDA and other watchdog groups? Can you address this please?
U could just as easily do a rail system like yours but make it horizontal. In fact, if u could put two rail stacks on a frame similar to yours and use a chain system to cycle them, removing any need to leave the ground. Rig lights to the bottom of each rail and use misters and u could probably get higher density at negligible increase to labour costs per plant.
The more I think about it the more thus sounds like one of those "As Seen On TV" ads
But wouldn't it be a lot more expensive to make this rail system? The motor, breakable pieces that I imagine would make the system immovable (like chains,gears?) I think it would be a much more fragile and expensive system, that even if the labor costs didn't increase per plan, they would increase a lot in building, running and maintenance.
There's a lot of other considerations there too that you can't rule out like humidity which can cause unwanted issues with the moveable parts as well.
+Renata Talvik
Why would u need a motor? Use a chain on the side, like a warehouse bay door.
As for moving parts, these things are some of the simplest things ppl make, u could 3d print the parts if u had to. Humidity would be much worse on the electronics than the hardware
Horizontal seems to work for Aero farms! Take a look @ their system. In their system, they don't have 3' in between tiers. You work on 6' centers, compared to Aero Farms you could have 3 more tiers in between. What would you do if you warehouse ceiling is 16' height?
Sounds true,. Can you provide a link to promising solutions with aero farms?
Incorrect. First that 4 feet distance between the stacks only should be calculated once. But for your vertical type you need it for every row.
The other main issue is lighting. If you want to give artificial light it is very dificult to do it fir your system as Im sure you had so much troubles and those strap led lights you use are not all that good as you know.
Also if you want to use the large scale it is far easier to use stacks compared with your vertical system.
If you put it on a vertical rotating conveyor system, you would not need scissor lifts.
At 15:07 you say you are making these videos to help people make indoor farming vertical farming profitable and to happen more. But why then do you write letters to people showing how to do their own vertical tubes accusing them of taking your food money?
onjoFilms I was gonna post exactly the same comment but you beat me to it
thought the exact same thing
did they really send letters?
ita still a machine. you still have to buy equipment and energy to power the thing.
Why is there a loss above four tiers? You dont need to increase staffing at a 1:1 ratio? What does the having a scissor lift have anything to do with increasing labour costs being that the lift is bought once as an ammoratized piece of CAPEX?
I suppose reduced risk/reduced insurance costs; ease of operation by staff?
vertical plane can be save a lot of cost compare with stacked beds, but what i can see is stacked beds look like produce more vegetable ( lecture or spinach) than vertical plane. I hope u have another video 1 sqm of vertical plane can produce ? kg, which more than stacked bed as well. Thanks for sharing information.
Yes, mathematic slight of hands.... Nothing can beat TEST MODELS. Build it and show us some yields!!!
I do both vertical and horizontal hidroponics. I think verticulture makes operational easier, but how about cost for electricity? Because for vertical the pump must 24/7 On. Pump for horizontal can be turn on only once a day/Dft. It do cut the cost for electricity
I really like the concept and tzhe way you answer to not so positive comments
Just by looking at it, it looks like you can just place a few hand full of leafy greens on 1 m^2 but using the other (not so good) method you can pack it pretty dense
So here is my question:
Why not stack the growing platforms way higer then 4 and change the method how you reach them?
Using the scissor elevater is not so good I can see that but why dont use some automated warehouse roboter system to lower the platform so you work on ground floor?
Anyway I like the stuff you are doing go on! (:
Good ideas and I see the benefit you're talking about. However a 2' aisle seems very narrow, especially assuming that your plants will grow in size (sort of the whole point), thus reducing the aisle space further. Also you could make the same point with a 3-5 minute video. If you are all about efficiency then please realize that 17 minutes is way too long to explain that your vertical method gives a better ratio of usable grow space.
we typically figure on 3'-4' aisles with vertical plane techniques- stacked techniques typically require 4-5' aisles. The 2' number describes the air space between stacked tiers in stacked techniques. The video is a bit long, but we prefer to take more time on things like this to make sure that we're explaining them clearly. Thanks for watching!
13:12 "you gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers in this racket"
If I were to build a vertical farm, I would look at your math differently. If I wanted to know how much product I could get from a given space, my data would be in cubic feet (cubic feet of product by cubic feet of available space). That being said, vertical plane production is even for efficient; even if you were to take into account the space between floors in a multi-story building versus an open warehouse that you would need for horizontal plane farm (assuming the height of your product is the same). I will let the math to you,so you can confirm this independently. Before watching your video I had the faulty assumption that horizontal plane vertical farms were more efficient, thank you for your insight.
If the plants are on a rotary system, so that's the plants can rotate from top to bottom, etc... Then the 4' space next to the 4'X8' setup, is not required. Also, the total growth volume is increased and so is fluid distribution. Right?
In your calculations, why don't you use the saved isle space for productive space?
Hi Zip Grow, I challenge you to do the math for microgreens! I saw that you were working on a microgreen version of your systems? Its that correct? Thanks!
Well I see all professionals here commenting and the Bright agrotech is doing a great work. I have a question if someone can help me with it. Can I use calcium ammonium nitrate instead of calcium nitrate? does it work?
Dr Nate, tks for the video. But in coming to the conclusion about vertical system being better choice than racking horizontal system, has it factored the diff in density of plants between the two systems? Horizontal seems so much more dense than the vertical system? Tks
How are you able to distribute equally the water when its vertical? A constant water flow?
Thank you for this valuable information
and in your video math was done wrongly you must compare heights to heights and areas to areas (and count the number of plants in the 3D space) and not heights to areas...you was right only for one thing: it's freaking crazy (your math)
Misused opportunity cost. You actually get less back from additional tiers because of the law of diminishing marginal returns. Other than that, I like your video!
Also, to add, it seems like you can plant less plants per square foot even though you have more square footage available. I believe it is still better than the horizontal though.
The system you are using looks like the 5 inch square post found in most box stores. Are they considered to be food safe?
You have to make sure you're people reaching up don't get repetitive use syndrome. My shoulders got jacked at a job where I had to reach up over my head...I think I worked it out to something like 1200 times a day. This reminds me of that. If you could crank them up and down through the floor like what's his name did with his giant canvases, that would be IDEAL.
Brah. Sounds good, makes sence. Now some crops wont do well growing like this, so still need a tier bed...
What about water and fertilizer costs on vertical plane vs. horizontal plane? I've seen other videos that have taken hp systems and use a misting technique to feed the roots and a reusable cloth type material for substrate. They claim a savings of over 90% in fertilizer costs and similar or higher savings in using reusable fabric vs. coconut husks or other types of material.
Intelligent idea
Pal, ya need to check out the singapor system!
what would help is make a video showing how you made your vertical rails.
they sell them
Hi. I quite like your system. Currently I am using the kratky method in my greenhouse due to having no access to power (just starting up) I thought about using the kratky method shallow water beds for lettuce production because it does not require power but in the future I'm thinking that this method may not work for large production. If I have a large greenhouse space in a rural area do you still recommend using a vertical system rather than taking up valuable floor space with nfp or water beds? Thanks! Chad
Is there any info on the inside mechanics of a vertical farming facility? not just "buy on eBay" recommendations that I found... ...
Thank you very much for this video!
Thank you very much for this video, it was nice to see the actual math on it.
Happy to help, Luis!
On back to back tiered systems the math is a fair comparison. However when you add the third dimension - the depth of flat tables, the number of plants quadruples versus any one row or column back to back system. So a total of 4 rows back to back would amount to 8 plant rows on the same level. So with consideration of depth, a vertical system just doesn't stack up, pardon the pun!