In the quest for sustainable and nutritious food production, two distinct farming systems have emerged as promising contenders: plant factories with artificial light (PFAL) and nonchemical farming (N-CF). A recent study published in the *Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment* (translated from Thai as *Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment*) has shed light on the nutritional and environmental impacts of these systems, offering valuable insights for the agritech and energy sectors.
The study, led by Wannaporn Hatongkham from the Faculty of Medicine at Ramathibodi Hospital and the Institute of Nutrition at Mahidol University in Thailand, compared the nutritional compositions and environmental footprints of kale grown in PFAL and N-CF systems. The findings reveal a complex interplay between nutritional value and environmental sustainability, with significant implications for food security and commercial agriculture.
PFAL technology is designed to optimize plant growth, productivity, and product quality while ensuring efficient use of water and fertilizers. In contrast, N-CF focuses on using natural materials and avoids synthetic inputs. Both systems aim to enhance food security, but their environmental and nutritional impacts differ markedly.
The study found that the proximate values of kale from both systems were similar, indicating that basic nutritional content was not significantly affected by the farming method. However, the antioxidant contents of kale grown in PFAL were significantly lower than those from N-CF. “The polyphenol, ORAC, and FRAP values of PFAL kale were substantially lower than those of N-CF kale,” Hatongkham noted. This suggests that while PFAL systems can produce food efficiently, they may compromise the nutritional quality, particularly in terms of antioxidant properties.
Environmental sustainability is another critical factor. The study measured carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with kale production in both systems. The results were striking: PFAL kale production emitted 168.61 kg CO2 eq. per kg of kale, while N-CF kale production emitted only 14.75 kg CO2 eq. per kg. “The environmental impact of PFAL systems is significantly higher due to energy consumption for artificial lighting and climate control,” Hatongkham explained.
These findings highlight the need for new policies that balance nutritional adequacy with environmental sustainability. “Process certifications that encourage reduced environmental footprints are essential,” Hatongkham emphasized. “However, these policies must prioritize the nutritional adequacy of food produced through various agricultural systems.”
For the energy sector, the study underscores the importance of developing more energy-efficient technologies for PFAL systems. Reducing the carbon footprint of these systems could make them more environmentally viable while maintaining their productivity advantages. Additionally, the findings suggest that N-CF systems, while less productive in controlled environments, offer significant environmental benefits that could be leveraged in sustainable agriculture practices.
As the global population grows and food security becomes an increasingly pressing issue, the insights from this study are invaluable. The agritech and energy sectors must collaborate to develop innovative solutions that enhance both nutritional quality and environmental sustainability. By doing so, they can contribute to a more secure and sustainable food future.
The study, published in the *Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment*, provides a crucial foundation for future research and policy development in sustainable agriculture. As Hatongkham’s work demonstrates, the path to a sustainable food future is complex, but with the right strategies and technologies, it is achievable.