Does any group collect data about how many city buildings have greenhouses on their roofs ?
Would the county agricultural agent (USDA) likely have this information ? Could this information be found out through some sort of building permit report. Who would know what was being grown in these greenhouses ? and if any, many use hydroponic systems ? Have any schools, universities become known for this practice ? If glass is no longer used, what is the material of the usual covering, or panels ? Are any of these greenhouses that might exist, producing in a commercial circumstance ?
Question answered by Dustoff
If the ghouses are not of a commercial nature and/or the owner/operator not contacted the County Agent, the CA would very likely NOT know of their existance.
Possibly building permits would be issued if the installation was registered as a permanent attachment to the building. Nonpermanent structures do not require building permits.
What is being grown is no doubt known only by those who operate them or have other knowledge of their existance.
Very possibly hydorponic systems are used, however hydroponic systems are touchy to maintain and are not the system for all users or products.
I grew various vegetables on the Horticulture/Plant Sciences building at Arizona State University in a test program with my professor. I have never seen or am aware of rooftop ghouses at institutions. For this type of use, rooftop ghouses are not practicle. For a hobby -- go for it.
Glass is still used and is a very efficient light transmitter, but costly. Mostly the use of glass is in the private sector, northern latitudes, in relation to high end estates because glass looks nice. Plastic double wall and triple wall panels are more economical, less maintenance, not as prone to damage, and do not require the beefed up supporting structure that glass requires. Plastic film is very popular among commercial growers due to its lower cost, but is much more fragile and prone to damage and must be replaced at intervals depending upon its grade and thickness.
As to roof installed, commercial ghouses a practice . . . I would think not due to simply accessability and the roof would need be designed for this type of hard wear, including service passages to the roof. Commercial ghouse operations must have tons of stuff produced to satisfy profitability. Accessability must be easy to insure profitabillity. On the ground ranges make this easy, elevation increases costs.
How does waste water from houses and buildings is treated and purified?
How does waste water from houses and buildings is treated and purified?
Question answered by bw022
Depends on where you live.
In some places it is piped into the nearest river, lake, or ocean. In others, it goes through primary treatment (allow solids to settle) and then is piped into the nearest river, lake, or ocean. In some cases, it goes through multiple layers of treatment (secondary treatment might consider of filters, bacteria to remove heavy metals, chemicals to kill harmful bacteria or reduce the PH level, etc.), and then it piped into the nearly river, lake, or ocean.
In some cases, treated water might be recycled back into housing for non-drinking water, into agricultural uses, etc. Some communities have separate water for say lawn watering, outdoor fountains, etc. vs. drinking water.
What Is The Possibility For Manufactured Land To Be Used For Agricultural Purposes?
For example, the Dubai palm tree islands are manufactured land. Would manufactured land, such as dubai palm tree islands as well as land that japan is manufacturing, be arable? Would it be possible to use manufactured land for agricultural purposes?
What I am in essence trying to understand is, if artificial manufactured land can be used to build farms on?
Prince Bharat Bhardwaj
Question answered by grpr1964
Yes - provided the soil material is sufficiently fertile, free from rocks and/or contaminants (polutants) and well drained. Large areas of the Netherlands are essentially "manufactured" land; essentially drained lakes and marshes that are below sea level. These support a combination of farming land, farm buildings and urban areas. You might arge that parts of England (Cambridgeshire, adjacent to the Wash) are similar.
Are there any laws governing land use as a restraint to construction of a house on agricultural ?
Agricultural Land - and how can one build a house on Land designated for agricultural use?
Question answered by Ten Kenorland
Try the city or county government. Ask about Building codes and land use.
Agricultural Land may restrict buildings to out buildings like barns and garages.
To change the designated use of the land you may need a variance and a public discussion about what you want to use it for and if the citizenry generally doesn't oppose, and the local government allows, it can be changed and you can build. That process takes time, though.
If you are patient, you can get what you want.
What do you prefer, a resort in the city or a resort in a province area?
My friends and I are planning to open up a resort. This area is in a province area where the surroundings are a small river, open areas, pineapple plants, and its more of an agricultural area. From there you would feel the relaxation. Other than, a resort where you want to have a small getaway, but you can't because you still feel that you are still in the city, or more industrial area.
Its your call. What type of resort are you willing to go to? How far are you willing to travel for that ultimate relaxation and at the same time the enjoyment?
Question answered by Nick Sh
Hm no cars, buildings, clean air , green, green , green.. a lot of people would prefer a province area, but depends on many things. :)
What is the best way for neighbors to fight a rezoning application at city hall?
Now that sewers are in (we put our wallets where our hearts were at to save the watershed and our lake by reducing the pollution from failing septic systems), it seems the city doesn't care who wants to downgrade the R-1 zoning to R-2 just to jam in as many houses as possible to make money for the developers and destroy the integrity and character of our town--it has always been known for its rural, open, agricultural nature. We are having our property values stepped on and losing our privacy and quality of life. Most disturbingly, the proposed subdivision will interfere with a wildlife connector along a creek between two parks. HELP!
Question answered by Usher
You have your work cut out for you and the results may not warrant the time and energy invested, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
The key to your situation is money and influence. The other guys have both and you have neither.
On the "influence" issue:
1) The politicians who run the show where you live have to run for reelection at some point. If you and others are willing to go door to door and get petitions signed by enough voters (emphasis on "registered" voters) you may raise a few eyebrows.
2) You form a committee and the committee decides what the petition should say. If you can't get enough people to join a committee, that will tell you the level of non support and lack of interest there is in the community. The bottom line is sacrifice - less time in front of the TV - more time networking on the phone and computer.
3) Make a connection with the local news media and get your story in print - politicians hate publicity, at least the unfavorable type. Keep that connection going, with routine updates through the local news media. If you quit, they'll quit.
4) Hold and announce public meetings on the topic - ask for off hours use of public or private buildings with enough room for participants. Tip - the bigger the space, the greater the likelihood of a bad outcome. Why - large spaces create an image problem as far as filling a room is concerned. Better to have standing room only in a small space than empty seats in a large space. Do a head count prior to a meeting and then reduce that number by a fudge factor. Rule of thumb: committment of the mouth (lip service) is a lot easier than committment of action (getting one's butt off the sofa).
5) Assign some task to each potential attendee, even if trivial, to ensure participation at meetings. That makes it harder for potential no shows.
6) Find out who the "spies" are. Someone near you is "in bed" with the other guys but won't be waving a flag announcing it. Count on them to feed your every move to the opposition.
7) Get somebody with a real set of brains and preferably experience on your team. Be careful about appointing executives who travel frequently - poor attendance and part time engagement is analogous to an absentee general during war.
8) Find out if environmental issues are involved. State and local officials may have already been "bought off" by the developer. See if you can get the Feds involved if that appears to be the case.
On the "money" issue:
1) Your local officials and politicians are supported by local business owners, especially during reelection campaigns.
2) Local businees owners need your dollars to stay in business. If you withhold those dollars, they feel pain. They make it possible for your local politicians to screw you (sorry for the language) but that accurately describes the process. Rosa Parks, a poor black lady with minimal influence in her community, forced a bus company in Alabama to roll over - you can do it too.
3) If you successfully organize a boycot of certain local businesses (pick one or two businesses who are in bed with the enemy) and put the hurt on them, guess whose phones will ring next. That's right - city hall. Don't attempt to boycott everyone - be picky and focus the pain.
On other issues:
1) Let the politicians who are hurting you know where you stand and that you and many others have something they will eventually need - votes.
2) Consider running for office yourself and see if there are others who are like minded willing to do that.
Bottom line: carrot and stick
Carrot is support during reelection campaign, stick is the business boycott.
You may already be too late - money may have already changed hands from the developer with more on the way, but worth a shot. You can at least work to punish those who are hurting you.
What is a good speech topic that is funny and agriculture related?
I need a speech for a contest (sort of pageant) that is agriculture related in any sort of way. It would be great if i could make the audience laugh with it. I am good at writing speeches, just the topic is not where i am strong at. Last year I bored the crowd with a speech about agricultural evolution, interesting but has no humor. I have experience on a farm, if that helps.
Question answered by bikinkawboy
If you have any experience with livestock, how about something to do with animal psychology, as in why animals do what they do. You could tell a funny story but relate it to how the animal thinks. I could go on all day on that subject, but here's a couple.
Studies have shown that sheep have the best memories of all domestic livestock and they are supposed to be able to recognize something like 50-100 different sheep faces for up to two years after last seeing the other animal. Sheep also have a flocking instinct, meaning where one sheep goes, everyone goes. Sheep have also always been prey animals, meaning that if the situation looks dangerous or even suspicious, they are programmed to flee. At least the smart ones do, the dumb ones stand there waiting to see what the commotion is about and get eaten. I had a ram who stuck his head into a bucket, somehow he got the bail over his neck and when he raised his head, the bucket flipped over his head. So here was this animal whose body looked like a sheep, but there was no face for the ewes to recognize, giving them cause for concern. The ram couldn't see and for him this was in a frightening situation and was blundering around the lot, trying to make his way to the ewes because he knew there was safety in numbers. When the ewes saw this strange, unrecognizable animal coming toward them, instinct told them to run away as a group because there was safety in numbers. So they ran to the other corner of the pen and the ram hearing them run figured there must be something wrong because sheep don't run away for no reason. Instinct told him to run and join the group because yes, there is safety in numbers. Every time he ran toward the ewes, they ran away, causing the ram to try even harder to join the group, which frightened the ewes even more. By the time it was all said and done, the ewes had torn the lot fence down and were standing in the middle of the pasture while the ram bounced off buildings, posts, trees and everything else in the lot until I was able to remove the bucket. Except for me having to fix fence, this comical situation perfectly illustrated natural survival instincts that sheep have and everyone in the lot, including the ram, were doing exactly as nature programmed them to do.
Or the time we had drought, the pasture was burned up and the best grass on the farm was in the yard. So I fenced off the yard and turned the sheep in. I had come in for lunch and was standing in the kitchen when I saw an old ewe walk around the corner of the house. A couple more sheep saw her and figuring she knew where she was going, decide to follow. A bunch more saw them and assuming they knew where they were going, they figured they'd better follow as well. Pretty soon the entire group (200+) were all going around the corner of the house. The first old ewe had went around all corners of the house and as she rounded the last corner, she spied the tail end of the group ahead of her. Sheep being sheep, she figured she had better follow them because they seemed to know where they were going. I laughed as the entire flock was trotting repeatedly around the house like a merry go round. No one knew where they were going or even why they were going, but the sheep ahead of them seemed to know where they were going and this was good enough reason for them to follow. After they made about 3-4 round trips, one individual sheep showed a little initiative and broke from the group. Another followed suit and within seconds, the entire group had disbanded and went in all different directions on their own personal business. That was an excellent example of herd mentality, something that even people display at times.
Has anyone ever done a corrolation between worldwide construction and global warming?
All the roads and buildings store energy. Cities are warmer than nearby countrysides. What percentage of global warming is due to our slowly paving the planet?
Question answered by Gwen
A watt of solar energy is a watt of solar energy no matter where it strikes the earth. It's how efficiently that energy gets from the surface of the earth to the TOA as radiation that matters. Other than the loss of biota and the use of fossil fuel to do the constructing, buildings and roads (not counting the vehicles that use the roads or the energy used to run the buildings) have very little effect on climate change.
The loss of natural habitate and agricultural lands from construction bring other problems for humans and the environment than does global warming.
What will farming be like in the future?
I am interested to know what it will be like to farm in the future. Do you think we will have the vast countryside we have now? Do you think more food will be grown in towns and cities? What kind of technology and what plants and animals will we have? What will the agricultural industry be like in 25, 50, 100 years or beyond?
Question answered by paul h
As I see it , hopefully we will have more crops grown locally in urban areas/cities using aquaponic or hydroponic methods or high-rise buildings called vertical farming used to grow abundant amounts of crops with less energy required, lower transportation costs, less water, less insecticides, fewer chemical fertilizers, and year round crop production which is less affected by droughts or inclement weather....hail, frost, floods, etc. We have a local company here in town...Milwaukee, WI...called Growing Power that grows over a million pounds of food and 10,000 fish per year among other things from a 3 acre site using aquaponics...far more production than regular farming methods and they utilize the compost in the buildings in winter to lower or eliminate heating bills..
.Not all crops can be grown with these methods so some large scale farming will still probably take place.
There is also growing interest and research in saline -tolerant crops or halophytes which could open up an extra half million square miles of land to grow food or energy crops and allow for carbon-neutral biofuels to replace or supplement fossil fuels..These would also reduce the needs for fresh water supplies to grow crops and allow for more water sources for people or animals.
GM modified tobacco plants could also be used to produce biodiesel and offer another sales outlet for tobacco farmers without resorting to unhealthy smoking products. It's also a non-food crop that does not affect food production as other food crops like corn, soybean, etc.. might if used to make biofuels.
Another interesting field is biochar or Terra Preta soils which were developed in the Amazon centuries ago to sustain a large population and agriculture with poor soils/rainforest leaching effects. TP or biochar can improve crop yields up to 800 percent over poorer, depleted soils in some plot tests and it also sequesters carbon for centuries ....mitigating some global warming concerns. If such soil methods had widespread use in poor countries or areas with depleted soils like the Ukraine/Russia, it would also reduce the need for deforestation...more crop yields for the same amount of land and improve economies.
These are just some up and coming developments in modern agriculture to feed a growing population on Earth and provide for eco-friendlier carbon-neutral or negative biofuels or sequester carbon.
Biochar/Terra Preta soils....
What was the difference between Lenin's New Economic Policy and Stalin's policy of collectivized agriculture?
In regards to who owns farmland, agricultural productivity, what the farmers get out of it?
I don't understand what they both did.
Or could someone link me to a website that shows what the two policies did?
Question answered by Spellbound
NEP was only meant to be a temporary measure to kickstart the economy after the disasters of WWI and the Civil War. Marxist orthodoxy claims that in order to achieve Communism the means of production must be owned by the workers.
NEP still had the banks and large enterprises under government ownership, as per War Communism, but it allowed small businesses and farmers to own their businesses. By the mid 1920s NEP was creating a prosperous class of business owners and some farmers were also prospering.
NEP was seen as a failure by the Marxist Bolsheviks because it was an economic success and the reason for the shift in policy in 1928 / 29 was because of ideological considerations.
The main disadvantage was that it was not creating an urban working class, nor was it modernising Russian industry as fast as was considered necessary - as Russia felt isolated and encircled, the threat of invasion snuffing out the revolution was never far from the minds of the leading Bolsheviks.
It was not a failure as a business model, in fact it was remarkably successful, creating some social divisions between the prosperous "NEPmen" and other workers.
Under NEP the farmers owned agricultural production but the land was owned by the village soviet - although rents were set very low.
Collectivisation was begun for ideological, political and economic reasons;
Ideological - Stalin was a Marxist and, as such, was concerned that the farms being in private ownership would create a class of bourgeois farmers, in fact this was beginning to happen under the New Economic Policy as some peasants began to improve their land and make enough money to employ people to work for them. Collectivisation was put in place to turn peasants into workers. The collective would own the land and the buildings, the Machine Tractor Station would own the large machinery, tractors, harvesters and so on and the farmers would be employees, paid a wage by the farm.
Political - The peasants had a long history of radicalism and terrorism in Russia, the Narodnik movement that turned into the Socialist Revolutionary Party had been responsible for the assassination of Tsar Alexander I and hundreds of of other attacks on lesser figures. In order to clamp down on any potentially counter-revolutionary movements in the countryside collectivisation - each farm had a soviet with a party member - was imposed on the peasants.
Economic - Farming in Russia was primitive and WWI and the Civil War had seen agricultural output drop considerable. NEP and the associated agricultural policies had seen output rise, but by nowhere near the amount needed in order to create a surplus large enough to export in order to fund the first phase of the Five Year Plans. Collectivisation brought mechanisation, rationalisation to the many small plots that peasants worked on and put in place the distribution and supply networks needed to modernise agriculture and to produce enough grain for export.
The Collective farm owned the land, and the agricultural output: the farmers were paid a proportion of the profit (if there was one) at the end of the year. Later in the Soviet period there was a shift in collective farming, more and more became Sovkhoz (State Farms) where the farmers were paid a wage regardless of the output of the farm.
The Industrialisation of Soviet Russia: Years of Hunger - Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933 v.5: Years of Hunger by R Davies and S Wheatcroft