Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T05:36:05.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Identifying the influential factors, benefits and challenges of hydroponic shipping container farm businesses: a snapshot of farmers' perceptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2021

Nicole Wagner*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor – Plant and Soil Science, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Texas State University, 601 University Dr., San Marcos, Texas, 78666, USA
Douglas Morrish
Affiliation:
Professor – Agricultural Education, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Assistant Dean – College of Applied Arts, Texas State University, 601 University Dr., San Marcos, Texas, 78666, USA
Marcella Juarez
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Texas State University, 601 University Dr., San Marcos, Texas78666, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nicole Wagner, E-mail: nwagner@txstate.edu

Abstract

This preliminary mixed methods study utilized an online survey and phone interviews to examine the benefits, challenges and user experience of farmers utilizing hydroponic shipping container farms (HSCFs). Due to the novelty of this crop production method, and thus the relatively small number of commercial farmers adopting this technology, 12 commercial HSCF businesses, of 46 identified online and via social media, participated in this study. Because population size was small, and 11 of the 12 farms had been in business a very short amount of time (two years or less), the following results are preliminary. The results showed that HSCFs gave farmers the ability to produce locally, sustainably and in new areas. Seventy-five percent of the farmers (n = 9) strongly agreed or agreed that the HSCF helped their farm become more productive, did everything they expected it to do and was efficient. Most participants were satistifed (n = 8; 66.7%) with their HSCFs; one was very satisfied (8.3%), while others were neutral (n = 1; 8.3%) and dissatisfied (n = 2; 16.7%). Participant expectations were most met regarding incorporation of technology, reduced resource use and efficiency; however, 50.0% of the farmers (n = 6) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the HSCF was profitable. Some farmers reported that HSCFs are efficient in production, although their units were not as productive and profitable, nor as user friendly as they expected. Regarding HSCF challenges, power usage and startup costs were ranked most highly, while finding labor was the least challenging. Following phone interviews with three profitable farmers, it was revealed that their success was due to growing local food that was in demand by their community. While this study identified several challenges of HSCFs, this technology may have benefits, for example in areas with limited arable land and water resources, and may offer some farmers a way to be profitable, especially by tapping the growing consumer demand for local produce.

Type
Preliminary Report
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bischoff, P (2014) This startup buys old shipping containers and turns them into urban hydroponic farms. Available at https://www.techinasia.com/startup-buys-shipping-containers-turns-urban-hydroponic-farms.Google Scholar
Bouchar, DM (1998) Hydroponic systems. Horticulture Engineering 13, 110.Google Scholar
Feldman, C and Hamm, U (2015) Consumers’ perceptions and preferences for local food: a review. Food Quality Preference 40, 152164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freight Farms (2016) An intro to hydroponics: 9 reasons to grow without soil. Available at http://www.freightfarms.com/blog/an-intro-to-hydroponics-9-benefits-of-growing-without-soil.Google Scholar
Freight Farms (2020a) Labor requirements for the Greenery. Available at https://www.freightfarms.com/blog/labor-requirements-for-the-greenery.Google Scholar
Freight Farms (2020b) Launch a successful farming business with Freight Farms. Available at https://www.freightfarms.com/build-your-business.Google Scholar
Gold, MV (2007) Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/sustainable-agriculture-definitions-and-terms.Google Scholar
Grebitus, C, Printezis, I and Printezis, A (2017) Relationship between consumer behavior and success of urban agriculture. Ecological Economics 136, 189200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Growtainer (2020) Available at http://www.growtainers.com/.Google Scholar
Hempel, C and Hamm, U (2016) How important is local food to organic-minded consumers? Appetite 96, 309318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hicks, SW (2017) Urban farming 2.0: from plow beams to leafy green machines. The Christian Science Monitor. Available at https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0726/Urban-farming-2.0-From-plow-beams-to-Leafy-Green-Machines.Google Scholar
Ikerd, J (2008) Marketing in the niches sustainabilty. In Francis, CA, Flora, C and Olson, PA (eds), Crisis and Opportunity: Sustainability in American Agriculture. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 193206.Google Scholar
Jovicich, E, Cantliffe, DJ and Stoffella, PJ (2003) Spanish Pepper trellis system and a high plant density can increase fruit yield, fruit quality, and reduce labor in hydroponic, passive ventilated greenhouse. Acta Horticulturae 614, 255262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, N and Lyons, G (2019) An overview of beginning farms and farmers. U.S. Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service. Economic Brief Number 29.Google Scholar
Kirschenmann, F (2010) Alternative agriculture in an energy and resource depleting future. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25, 8589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lages Barbosa, G, Gadelha, F, Kublik, N, Proctor, A, Reichelm, L, Weissinger, E, Wohlleb, GM and Halden, RU (2015) Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. Conventional agricultural methods. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12, 68796891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S and Lee, J (2015) Beneficial bacteria and fungi in hydroponic systems: types and characteristics of hydroponic food production methods. Scientia Horticulturae 195, 206215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michael, C (2017) The good, the bad, and the ugly of container farms. Available at https://medium.com/bright-agrotech/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-container-farms-d32f4f13f31b.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D (2008) Peak soil. New Internationalist 418, 1819.Google Scholar
National Young Farmers Coalition (2017) Annual Report Hope Grows. Available at https://www.youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Annual_Report_Final_Showing_Paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D, Hepperly, P, Hanson, J, Douds, D and Seidel, R (2005) Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55, 573582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma, J (2009) The status of biological control of plant diseases in soilless cultivation. In Gisi, U, Chet, I and Gullini, ML (eds), Recent Developments in Management of Plant Diseases. Springer, pp. 133146.Google Scholar
Raviv, M and Lieth, JH (2008) Significance of soilless culture in agriculture. In Raviv, M and Lieth, JH (eds), Soilless Culture. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 112.Google Scholar
Resh, HM (2013) Hydroponic Food Production: A Definitive Guidebook for the Advanced Home Gardener and the Commercial Hydroponic Grower, 7th Edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press Talore & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Royte, E (2015) Urban farming is booming, but what does it really yield? Available at https://ensia.com/features/urban-agriculture-is-booming-but-what-does-it-really-yield/.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2016) USDA unveils new ‘urban agriculture toolkit’ for urban farmers and agri-business entrepreneurs. Available at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2016/04/29/usda-unveils-new-urban-agriculture-toolkit-urban-farmers-and-agri.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) − National Agriculture Statistics Service (2015) 2014 U.S. Census of Horticulture Specialties. Available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Census_of_Horticulture_Specialties/.Google Scholar
Van Ginkel, SW, Igou, T and Chen, Y (2017) Energy, water and nutrient impacts of California-grown vegetables compared to controlled environmental agriculture systems in Atlanta, GA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 122, 319325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, KJ, Behe, BK, Currey, CJ and Lopez, RG (2020) Historical, current, and future perspectives for controlled environment food crop production in the United States. HortScience 55, 759767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, S and Lovell, S (2013) Environmental challenges threatening the growth of urban agriculture in the United States. Journal of Environmental Quality 42, 12831294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wortman, S, Douglass, MS and Kindhart, JD (2016) Cultivar, growing media, and nutrient source influence strawberry yield in a vertical, hydroponic, high tunnel system. HortTechnology 26, 466473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, E (2015) Meet the urban Chinese startup that can grow your lunch on demand. TechNode, Available at http://technode.com/2015/11/03/alesca-life-introduces-farming-service-model-indoor-farming/.Google Scholar