As the global population continues to grow and urbanise, the way we produce and distribute food is evolving. The debate between centralised and decentralised farming has gained traction, with each approach offering unique benefits and challenges. Understanding these differences is crucial for shaping the future of agriculture and ensuring food security in a sustainable way.
Defining Centralised and Decentralised Farming
Centralised Farming refers to large-scale agricultural operations, typically located far from urban centres. These ‘big farms’ produce vast quantities of food, relying on economies of scale to keep costs low. Centralised farms often specialise in single crops, using advanced machinery and technology to maximise efficiency. Transportation is vital to deliver crops from farm to store.
Whereas, Decentralised Farming involves smaller, local operations, such as home hydroponic systems, community gardens, or urban farms. This approach focuses on producing food closer to where it will be consumed, reducing the distance between farm and table. Decentralised farming can range from individuals growing vegetables in their homes to local cooperatives running small-scale farms in cities or villages.
A Hybrid Approach combines elements of both centralised and decentralised farming. This model might include container farms in urban areas or small-scale CEA farms integrated into local villages. The hybrid approach aims to balance the efficiency of centralised production with the sustainability and resilience of local food systems.
Centralised vs. Decentralised Farming: Pros and Cons
Both centralised and decentralised farming offer distinct benefits but also face challenges. Centralised farming is efficient and meets large-scale demands, yet it is vulnerable to climate change, market shifts, and environmental issues due to its reliance on monocultures and long supply chains. Decentralised farming is more adaptable and sustainable, promoting local food security and reducing environmental impact, but it struggles with scalability, consistent production, and higher setup and maintenance costs. Understanding these trade-offs is key to creating a balanced and resilient food system.
Economic Feasibility:
Centralised farming is often more economically viable due to its ability to produce large quantities of food at lower costs. These large-scale operations benefit from economies of scale, allowing them to invest in advanced technology and infrastructure. However, they also require significant capital investment and are more vulnerable to market fluctuations.
Decentralised farming, while potentially more expensive per unit of food produced, offers economic resilience. By distributing production across multiple locations, decentralised farming reduces the risk of large-scale crop failures and can adapt more easily to local demand. However, the initial setu p costs for home hydroponics or urban farms can be a barrier, and these systems often require ongoing maintenance and specialised knowledge.
Technical and Supply Chain Considerations:
Centralised farms rely on extensive supply chains, leading to delays, food waste, and higher carbon emissions. They often depend on significant inputs like fertilisers and pesticides, impacting the environment. The packaging required for long-distance transportation further contributes to the carbon footprint.Centralised farming may struggle with crop diversification. While monoculture is common, managing diverse crops simultaneously can increase risks and costs, despite potential benefits to farmland stability and nutrient recycling.Decentralised farming reduces long supply chains, resulting in fresher produce, lower transportation costs, and reduced environmental impact. It requires less packaging, potentially lowering the overall carbon footprint. However, these systems may face challenges with consistent production, especially in areas with limited resources.Container farms and advanced hydroponic systems can address some challenges in decentralised farming, offering better control over growing conditions and easier multi-crop cultivation. However, they require investment and technical expertise.
Supermarkets and Complementary Systems:
Centralised farming has long been the backbone of supermarket supply chains, providing a steady and reliable source of food products. However, as consumer demand shifts toward locally sourced and sustainable options, supermarkets are beginning to incorporate decentralised systems into their supply chains. This could involve partnerships with local farms or in-store hydroponic setups that allow customers to purchase ultra-fresh produce.
A complementary system, where centralised and decentralised farming coexist, could offer the best of both worlds. Supermarkets could continue to rely on centralised farms for staple products while offering unique, locally grown items from decentralised sources. This approach could enhance food diversity, reduce the environmental footprint, and meet the growing demand for transparency in food production.
Human-Centred Design:
Centralised farming, while efficient, often disconnects consumers from the origins of their food, reducing awareness and appreciation of the farming process.
Decentralised farming inherently supports human-centred design by involving communities in food production. Local farms, community gardens, and urban agriculture projects not only provide food but also create social spaces, educational opportunities, and a stronger connection between people and their food sources. However, a key challenge in decentralised CEA farming is determining who will maintain and manage individual pieces of equipment on an ongoing basis, which can be resource-intensive and requires local expertise.
Geographical Location:
The benefits of centralised versus decentralised farming can vary significantly based on geographic location. In smaller towns or rural areas, decentralised farming can thrive as residents are often closer to the land and have more space to cultivate food. However, for those living near large centralised farms, the advantages of decentralisation may be less apparent, as they already have access to fresh, locally sourced food.
In urban areas, decentralised farming can be particularly beneficial, offering fresh produce and reducing reliance on long supply chains. The integration of urban farming into city planning can also help mitigate the environmental impact of food transportation and provide green spaces in densely populated areas.
Scale:
Centralised farming benefits from economies of scale, allowing large farms to produce food efficiently and consistently. These operations can invest in advanced technology, ensuring a steady supply for global markets. 'Thanks to economies of scale and effective use of limited resources, potential cost savings support a push towards a more centralised system'(Karan). However, centralised farming can have significant environmental impacts, such as soil depletion and higher emissions. It is also more vulnerable to disruptions like extreme weather and market volatility due to its reliance on monocultures and global supply chains.
Decentralised farming, in contrast, promotes local production, reducing transport costs and emissions while strengthening community ties. It is adaptable to changing local demands and conditions, enhancing food security. However, decentralised systems often face higher production costs, leading to higher prices. They may also produce too little, lack sufficient sales volume, and struggle to meet the demands of larger populations, making it difficult to achieve economic sustainability. However, this limitation could be resolved in restaurants which need less volume than shops and have food experts on hand.
Future Models:
'Centralisation involves rigid and lengthy supply chains with high environmental and cost impacts. Distributed manufacturing, based on local production at small scale, represents an alternative that could provide flexibility to the currently established centralised supply chains, together with environmental and social benefits.' (Almena)
The future of farming likely lies in a hybrid model that leverages the strengths of both centralised and decentralised systems. For example, local farm shops could incorporate decentralised farming by growing produce on-site with CEA systems. This model not only reduces transportation costs but also meets the increasing demand for transparency and locally sourced food.
Scaling decentralised farming is possible but requires investment in technology, education, and infrastructure. Innovations such as vertical farming, container farms, and home hydroponic systems could allow decentralised systems to produce food at a scale that meets urban demand. Meanwhile, centralised farms could focus on producing staple crops and foods that require large-scale production to be economically viable.
GyroPlant technology can significantly contribute to decentralised farming efforts by enabling efficient, substrate-free growing in small-scale controlled environments. This innovation supports local food production, reduces transportation costs and emissions, and enhances food security in urban areas. By integrating with automated systems and promoting a circular economy model, GyroPlant technology offers a sustainable solution that complements traditional centralised farming, potentially creating a more resilient and adaptable hybrid food system for the future
Conclusion
As the world grapples with the challenges of growing crops in a sustainable way, the debate between centralised and decentralised farming will continue. Each approach offers unique benefits and faces distinct challenges, but a combined, hybrid model could provide a balanced solution that is more sustainable, adaptable, and responsive to local needs. Whether through community gardens, urban farms, or advanced hydroponic systems, decentralised farming has the potential to complement centralised production and create a more resilient and equitable food system for all.
Sources: Edwards-Jones, G. (2010). Does eating local food reduce the environmental impact of food production and enhance consumer health?
Verghese, K., et al. (2015). Packaging's role in minimising food loss and waste across the supply chain.
Lin, B. B. (2011). Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change.
Benke, K., & Tomkins, B. (2017). Future food-production systems: vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture.
A. Almena, P.J. Fryer, S. Bakalis, E. Lopez-Quiroga, Centralised and distributed food manufacture: A modeling platform for technological, environmental and economic assessment at different production scales, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 19, 2019.
Karan, E.P., Asgari, S. & Asadi, S. Resilience assessment of centralised and distributed food systems. Food Sec. 15, 59–75 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01321-9
Comments