
First Urban ‘Agrihood’ in America Feeds 2,000 Households for Free - lubbe444
http://www.intelligentnow.org/2017/02/first-urban-agrihood-in-america-feeds.html
======
pavel_lishin
> _Have you ever contemplated the fact that humans are the only species on
> Earth that pays to live on the planet?_

This sounds vaguely profound, until you realize that other species are also
predated on, starve to death, and die from trivially preventable issues.

~~~
DougN7
Humans don't have to work. We can sleep in the rain and hunt and gather to
survive like the animals.

Although I would argue hunting and foraging is work, so most animals don't get
out of it either.

~~~
lostlogin
We wouldn't have to work as much if automation is done right. However it sure
looks like we are going to use automation to further concerntrate wealth.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> However it sure looks like we are going to use automation to further
concerntrate wealth.

The only problem I have this statement is if you do not believe in the notion
of freewill, then yes this is accurate.

If you believe in the notion of freewill, then you would think instead of
seeing what's happening and think that all the wealth is being concentrated
into the top 1% of society unfairly, what's to stop you from being in that 1%?

Nearly every obstacle you will list, I can name several people who have
overcome those impediments to be successful. When you stop thinking the deck
is stacked against you, it frees your mind to think of what your capable of,
not of the greater odds that stacked against that will prevent you from
achieving what you want to.

~~~
rexpop
> what's to stop you from being in that 1%?

You wrote this like it were a rhetorical question, but let's talk about social
mobility. Wikipedia[1] will tell you that it's "movement of individuals...
between social strata." Surely you'll agree that "the 1%" is a prime example
of a social stratum, and that becoming a member of that stratum is a clear
movement.

Obstacles lie between them.

To overcome these obstacles one requires capital: economic, social and
cultural.

If you start without them, you'll not go far. Physics are relentless. It may
be impossible — within one lifetime — to navigate the socially constructed
maze from third-generation-diabetic-of-color to business services firm
partner, despite the two persons being physically proximal!

Yes, one can and must make decisions in this life, and if one has free will
then by all means, enjoy the faculty, but one is not free to purchase items
that aren't in store. One is not free to pull levers that aren't available.

You might ask "why do poor folk fall prey to predatory lenders? Why not invest
that windfall in a CD, or a more appropriate financial vehicle?" But that
question only exposes your naïveté: some folk have simply never heard of the
phrase "financial vehicle". They lack the cultural capital to even _see_ the
social constructs allegedly available to them. They are literally blind to
them.

Free will does not enable one to open invisible doors.

Apologies for this long-winded tirade: your rhetorical question struck me as
absurdly naive. You claim you "can name several people who have overcome those
impediments," but "several" is not a statistically significant number, and
will not convince a rational person that the United States has high social
mobility.

What's to stop one from being in that 1%? Massive, invisible, entrenched
social constructs requiring immense luck or capital to navigate. And then your
"free" will — certainly not free of biases, neuroses or addictions — can still
fuck it up.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility)

~~~
rexpop
[https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-
in-14...](https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-
still-the-richest-families-in-florence/)

------
carleverett
Urban farming is one of those things that "feels" good, but doesn't make any
economic sense. Why would you move farms, which are currently on the cheapest
land available, into cities, where the most expensive land is? I agree that
more vegetation in cities is a good thing, but the allure of an "urban farm"
is misguided. If these people are serious about providing food for as low a
price as possible, they should move their farm out of the city.

~~~
gyrgtyn
I think it makes sense for fragile veggies like greens.

Potatoes do fine on the truck ride in from the countryside, but baby arugula,
not so much. Potatoes are also a lot easier to plant and harvest by machine.

Lawns don't make any economic sense; convert them to leafy greens and fancy
perennials that are not economic to grow at a scale. Deliver greens to your
neighborhood via bike. They are light. Sell them to fancy restaurants for $15
a pound and not have to pay for trucking them in from 50 miles away.

Then, convert equal amount of farmland being used for green, back into wildish
stuff, so birds, bees, etc have room to live and improve (pollinate) the
staple crops.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Lawns don't make any economic sense;

Yes, they do; the fact (if this is the case) that you don't _personally_ gain
utility from them doesn't mean they don't make economic sense, neither
does.the fact that they generally aren't part of the production chain for a
product for sale.

~~~
Inthenameofmine
US style lawns definitely don't make economic sense. That stuff only happened
because of cheap energy, which in term is artificially cheaper/subsidized due
to not including negative externalities. In Europe lawns don;t make sense,
Asia neither.

------
TulliusCicero
This article is really dumb. It's only 3 acres, there's no way that satisfies
2,000 households' caloric needs, it's just a small supplement.

Not to mention that it's 'free' because of volunteers. I can also feed myself
for close to free by growing my own vegetables...but it's way more efficient
to just work and pay for food.

~~~
riebschlager
Agreed. It's a little bizarre how gardening went from being a default feature
of American life to REVOLUTIONARY INDUSTRY-DISRUPTING IDEA in less than one
generation.

~~~
chillingeffect
There are indeed numerous statistical inaccuracies.

However,

Let's see if we can pick out the good here.

When you say it's a little bizarre, you're right. We are massively estranged
from almost all forces that supply our life. Just as the average American has
no idea how to host a website from scratch on DO, most don't know where their
food comes from, how to fix their car, has no financial literacy and no civic
literacy.

After years of animal husbandry, our leaders have moved toward treating the
vast majority us like agricultural elements, simply repeating one small action
of a larger whole for our whole lives. Projects like this can _help_ get us
out of the matrix.

As most people who try to grow food learn, it's not a one-size-fits-all
activity. The art of food production has many, subtle, non-sexy details. Real
world experience counts for an awful lot.

I'm not saying we must all live in tipis, playing homebuilt instruments around
a fire, wearing dresses from from potato sacks, BUT living life out of debt
with a strong degree of self-sufficiency and freedom from The Invisible Hand
of corporate life will bring us a lot closer to our pursuit of happiness than
the apparent Ponzi scheme of centralized economy.

------
meowpants
> despite the fact that there is presently more than enough resources to care
> for every citizen

This is wrong. The fact there are more than sufficient resources to care for
every citizen does not preclude the need to pay for something.

Suppose that I self-sacrificed by under consuming and taking a risk. Instead
of enjoying my free time and spending my money, I choose to spend many days
building bricks. After a while, in a hut-less society, someone might ask why
they need to pay for my bricks, when there are more than enough to build huts
for everyone.

Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital
are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Raw materials may be abundant and "free", but labor, investment, and capital
> are not. They're they product of blood, sweat, and tears. Hardly free.

Renewable energy and automation are free once bootstrapped. Its the initial
investment that requires concessions to give it away.

Given enough of both, I don't need your labor nor capital.

~~~
djrogers
Ever heard of maintenance?

~~~
TeMPOraL
This. I think it's actually an important issue that's not being talked about -
to actually create the automated future of surplus, we need to significantly
reduce the effort that goes into maintaining things. We need to start creating
self-maintaining systems.

------
jelliclesfarm
Farming is a business. Industrial farming is a giant business. Even urban
farming like this project requires inputs, labour, seeds, water and most
importantly land. Food isn't free. I can't even...argh. Anyways...1. Even for-
profit small farm in 3-5 acres can barely break even because farmers don't pay
themselves. They usually cannot survive without a second job. Farming goals
are out of the window if they want to start a family. Because babies are
expensive. Secondly: when someone says a three acre farm can feed 100s if
people, they probably include produce like lettuce which are not calorie or
nutrient dense. You can sautéed a lb of spinach to two tbsp of cooked spinach.
It's a lot of space(and $) to grow a lb of spinach! Squash and pumpkins etc
are very heavy. You can grow 1000 lbs of produce from 100ft. But what does it
really mean? Diverse food choices that are calorie and nutrient dense should
be the key words. Having said that, this is very laudable and necessary as
America has many food deserts in urban Area where people do not have access to
fresh organic food. Definitely appreciate projects like this.

~~~
biounit
There are some small-farm techniques that are successful - from a profit
standpoint - when optimized. [http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/jm-
fortier/](http://modernfarmer.com/2016/10/jm-fortier/)

~~~
stuckagain
Yes, but a 5-acre farm will sustain maybe half a dozen people, not thousands
of people. The article is simply absurd.

------
wang_li
What does "feeds 2,000 households" mean? This is a three acre project. From
what I can find it takes about half an acre to provide a single person's
caloric requirement for a year.

~~~
randomfool
Their website says 50,000lbs of produced since 2011, so 10,000lbs a year for
2,000 households = 5lbs of produce per household per year.

For reference, an average 1kg rabbit eats 2.6oz of greens a day, or 57lbs a
year.

So it sounds like they can feed one rabbit per household for one month of the
year.

\- Agrihood numbers: [http://www.miufi.org/america-s-first-urban-
agrihood](http://www.miufi.org/america-s-first-urban-agrihood)

\- Rabbit numbers: [http://rabbit.org/suggested-vegetables-and-fruits-for-a-
rabb...](http://rabbit.org/suggested-vegetables-and-fruits-for-a-rabbit-diet/)
[http://www.cookitsimply.com/measurements/cups/lettuce-
shredd...](http://www.cookitsimply.com/measurements/cups/lettuce-shredded-
chopped-0070-0g142.html)

------
djrogers
> enough food is produced around the world to feed 10 billion people. However,
> because 70% of the mono crops which are grown are feed livestock intended
> for slaughter, a distribution problem exists.

No, the distribution problem is largely political - in fact modern famine and
starvation is almost always a problem with local government, or the warlords
that pass for it.

~~~
ucaetano
Exactly, and this is exacerbated by obsolete and wasteful supply chains with
an excessive number of intermediaries.

This article from The Economist gives a good overview:
[http://www.economist.com/news/business/21591650-walmart-
carr...](http://www.economist.com/news/business/21591650-walmart-carrefour-
and-tesco-have-been-knocking-indias-door-without-much-luck-route)

~~~
djrogers
> obsolete and wasteful supply chains

Well, that and outright theft by warlords with AK47s and thugs riding around
in trucks...

[1][http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44147002/ns/world_news-
africa/t/so...](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44147002/ns/world_news-
africa/t/somalia-famine-aid-stolen-sold-markets/)

------
travmatt
From their website:

"""

The produce from our production farm (which produced over 50,000 lbs of
produce since 2011 years) goes to 1 of 4 places (listed in order of priority):

Individual households using a pay-what-you-can model. Think of it as a
suggested donation grocery store. (Note: we have supplied over 200 households
within 2 square miles supplied in the last 2 years)

Local Markets Thousands of lbs of produce go to over 5 markets within 5 miles)

Local Restaurants & Vendors thousands of lbs of produce supply locally-owned
businesses all over southeast Michigan)

Food Pantries: Local Churches

Coalition on Temporary Shelters (COTS) & Forgotten Harvest

"""

------
vanattab
Are there lots of problems with soil contamination when growing food in old
city lots?

~~~
pavel_lishin
As I understand it, there's lots of problems with things like this, and that's
one of the potential issues, but I would imagine that this mostly uses raised
beds with clean soil brought in from elsewhere.

We thought about doing some gardening when we had a backyard in an apartment
in New York, but even grass wouldn't grow in that soil - it didn't help that
the soil was littered with debris like glass, concrete, random bits of metal,
etc.

~~~
flyaway
It's pretty cheap to have soil samples tested, but it winds up just confirming
what you expect - our NYC backyard had 18x the upper limit for lead!
Definitely raised beds.

~~~
thatcat
Hydroponics is also perfect for polluted urban areas. Generally produces a
higher yield per area and absorbs co2 at a higher rate; with the caveat being
that there is potentially a higher rate of maintenance.

~~~
vanattab
Does it really absorbe co2 at a higher rate once you factor in the co2 used to
create the nutrients and chemicals you feed the plants?

~~~
pavel_lishin
As well as the fact that for every apartment-size space used by a hydroponic
farm, that's a family that likely has to commute into the city?

~~~
thatcat
Assuming you're not converting some dense residential zoned area into a garden
and no one moves away due to their dislike of hydroponics, I don't think it's
going to tangibly effect traffic rates which are show to fluctuate based on
availability. Ie. after reaching a certain point of urban density; if you
increase the availability of the road (by widening it for example), you'll
increase the number of people driving such that the availability is reduced
again.

If you want to reduce traffic and co2 further while increasing livable,
walkable space in dense urban areas - then that can be accomplished by
reducing the width of the roads.

~~~
pavel_lishin
The idea is that everything comes with an opportunity cost - do you build a
garden, or do you build more apartments?

The traffic comes from the fact that every family not living in the city, but
living near it, ends up commuting there anyway.

------
mdashx
How is it free? Isn't labor+supplies required to tend those gardens?

~~~
300bps
From TFA, "Volunteers are essential for MUFI to flourish." That explains the
labor part but I didn't see reference to land and supply costs.

It's a really nice idea I just can't imagine it's as scalable or sustainable
as the article seems to wish for.

~~~
dagw
They ask for cash donations from the families that get 'free' food, and they
also sell produce at local markets and to local restaurants.

------
rojobuffalo
This looks like a commendable project. But why do we need a buzzword like
"Agrihood"; can't we just call it a garden? It just seems like the language
throughout is over-reaching.

Regardless, any time more food is grown close to where it will be eaten, this
is a good thing. I just put up a new site this week focused on sustainable
food systems: [https://terra.farm](https://terra.farm). I'm adding content to
the wiki atm, so if anyone has suggestions on stuff that might fit, lmk.

------
threesixandnine
Didn't find the info on how many people and what equipment is used to run this
farm.

