What is the future of agriculture?

This week I came upon two very different articles online regarding where our food comes from. They both focus on how technology has impacted the way we farm, but come to different conclusions about the benefits of current farming technology. I think they raise some interesting questions about what role technology should play in food production in the future.

The first article, on NPR.com, discusses an art project conducted by photographer David Liittschwager, wherein he photographed all the species that pass through a cubic foot of area in different locations around the world. The result is a unique way of visualizing an area's biodiversity. Locations such as a public park in South Africa and a tree in Costa Rica contained more than a hundred different species of plants, insects, and animals. He also examined a typical Iowa cornfield - part of a huge system of industrial monoculture that provides much of our country's food supply. How many species did he find there? Eight. Including the corn. Over two nights and three days of observation, he didn't even find a single bee.

This total lack of biodiversity strongly contrasts the previous state of the Iowa prairie landscape, where a century ago hundreds of species coexisted in a complex system. Liittschwager's work raises questions about the benefit of our industrial agricultural system. What are we losing when we eliminate almost all species in a natural ecosystem? To what extent does the health of the soil and the crops depend on the complex network of interrelationships that we have destroyed without fully understanding? Industrial agriculture on this scale requires energy input in the form of fertilizer produced by burning fossil fuels. How long can we sustain these practices before we run out of materials or permanently alter our atmosphere and climate?

Another perspective on technology and farming comes from wired.com, where you can find photographs by Freya Najade of another technology-dependent method of food production: self-contained robotic farms. These facilities can produce food, without soil or sunlight, separate from any natural ecosystem. They are touted as possible models for production of food on the moon or in space, and similar systems have been developed to grow food in urban spaces previously considered unusable for food production. These systems, like the industrial corn farm mentioned earlier, feature a stark lack of biodiversity, but instead of destroying an existing ecosystem to create these farms, unfarmable areas have instead been transformed into a place where food is produced. Using computer-controlled systems, food can be grown locally, closer to consumers, and with less effort by humans, increasing efficiency. However, we don't fully understand the consequences of using these systems, which exist completely outside the natural environment or season, and which require the input of energy in the form of electricity and heat to function.

So, where do we go from here? What will be the role of technology in the future of food production? We have already used technology to enormously increase the efficiency of food production, with mixed results. The US spends, per capita, the least on food and the most on health care compared to almost any other industrialized nation. Industrial agriculture is changing our climate and eliminating biodiversity in our environment. Currently, the way we produce food is efficient but destroys our health and local ecosystems. Some proponents of systems such as biodynamic agriculture say that going back to a method of farming where we avoid monoculture and grow a diversity of plants on smaller farms that also include uncultivated natural spaces is the way forward. Could we also use more advanced technology to grow food outside of natural systems, farming previously unfarmable areas with the help of computers and other advanced technology. Can technology allow us to farm more efficiently, with fewer people, and closer to the consumers of food? I suspect that both of these approaches will be tested in the no-so-distant future, as we try to address the complicated problems with our current systems of food production. It may be that the best solution is a synthesis of old wisdom about how to care for plants and the soil and new knowledge of how to manipulate energy, information, and plant biology.

(Image: hydroponic farm 035, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from missdrummajorette's photostream)

Old is gold...

I rarely talk about materials science on this blog, but today is your lucky day if you get excited about the physical properties of matter. As it turns out, all glass baking items are not created equal, because all types of glass are not created equal. A report in the Bulletin of the American Ceramic Society (also covered in this Scientific American Podcast) reports on changes in the material that Pyrex glassware is made from that affects its performance.

Prior to 1994, all Pyrex cookware was made of borosilicate glass (which is also what most laboratory glassware is made from). The advantage of this type of glass over normal glass is that it has a low coefficient of thermal expansion. This means that when the glass is heated, it expands less than normal glass. This might seem insignificant, but it can be important if the glass is going to be used in a way that results in it being rapidly headed or cooled, such as going from an oven to a refrigerator. Rapid changes in temperature can cause glass to expand unevenly, causing stress within the glass that leads to cracks or even breakage. Glass with a lower coefficient of thermal expansion is less likely to crack or shatter after exposure to rapid changes in temperature, making it ideal for kitchen (or laboratory) use.

However, since 1994, Corning has been licensing the Pyrex name to companies that produce products made of soda lime silicate glass, which is the type of glass found in most common glass items in your home. This glass is less likely to break when dropped (although this is not tested in the above bulletin), but has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is about three times that of borosilicate glass, making it more likely to shatter when exposed to thermal stress. In fact, the report says that a temperature change of 100 degrees F is enough to break the new Pyrex products, while a change of 330 degrees F was required to break the old borosilicate products. To put this in perspective, the difference between a raw, room-temperature roast and a hot oven is about 275 degrees F.

The take home message is that if you want the old, shatter-resistant formulation of Pyrex, look for older pieces (or, presumably, look for items that are labeled as being made from borosilicate glass). That casserole dish from the thrift store might be an even better deal than you previously thought. And, if you're a fan of pictures of glass shattering, definitely check out the full report from the ACS bulletin above!

(via BoingBoing)

(Image: IMG_5201, a Creative Commons 2.0 licensed image from gruntusk's photosream)

Food Fab

That's fab as in fabrication, not fab as in AB-solutely FAB. Or maybe it's both?

Salon has an interesting piece up about a concept food fabrication machine called the Cornucopia that is the idea of two MIT grad students. Basically, it uses tubes of ingredients that it can heat, cool, and otherwise manipulate into meals using a program.

It all seems very interesting, but I think in reality the best that this technology will achieve is being the centerpiece of a gimmick restaurant. Maybe I'm biased as a cook, but I think a machine will never replicate the experience of a meal well-cooked by a caring human. It still has to be programmed by a person and it seems cost-prohibitive into the foreseeable future. Plus it doesn't exist yet except in the minds of its creators. But maybe there's a place for this in a space station somewhere where some government or another can foot the bill?

For the mean time, you can build this DIY open-source CandyFab from Evil Mad Scientist and print yourself out some cool 3D sugar sculptures for just $500 and some precious spare time.