Could this be the future of farming? Inside Europe’s biggest vertical farm

Published

8 months ago

January 5, 2025

admin

Outside it is the bleak midwinter. We are smack bang in the middle of some of the country’s best agricultural land.

But inside the cavernous warehouse where we’ve come, you wouldn’t have a clue about any of that: there is no daylight; it feels like it could be any time of the day, any season of the year.

We are at Fischer Farms – Europe’s biggest vertical farm.

The whole point of a vertical farm is to create an environment where you can grow plants, stacked on top of each other (hence: vertical) in high density. The idea being that you can grow your salads or peas somewhere close to the cities where they’re consumed rather than hundreds of miles away. Location is not supposed to matter.

So the fact that this particular one is to be found amid the fields a few miles outside Norwich is somewhat irrelevant. It could be anywhere. Indeed, unlike most farms, which are sometimes named after the family that owns them or a local landmark, this one is simply called “Farm 2”. “Farm 1” is to be found in Staffordshire, in case you were wondering.

Farm boss’s dizzying ambition

These futuristic farm units are the brainwave of Tristan Fischer, a serial entrepreneur who has spent much of his career working on renewable energy in its various guises. His ambition now is dizzying: to be able to grow not just basil and chives in a farm like this but to grow other, trickier and more competitive crops too – from strawberries to wheat and rice.

Only then, he says, can vertical farming stand a chance of truly changing the world.

The idea behind vertical farming itself is more than a century old. Back in 1915, American geologist Gilbert Ellis Bailey described how it could be done in theory. In theory, one should be able to grow plants hydroponically – in other words with a mineral substrate instead of soil – in a controlled environment and thereby increase the yield dramatically.

In one sense this is what’s already being done in greenhouses across much of Northern Europe and the US, where tomatoes and other warm-weather-loving vegetables are grown in temperature-controlled environments. However, while most of these greenhouses still depend on natural light (if sometimes bolstered by electric bulbs) the point behind vertical farming was that by controlling the amount of light, one could grow more or less everything, any time of the year. And by stacking the crops together one could yield even more crops in each acre of land one was using.

Look at a long-term chart of agricultural yields in this country and you start to see why this might matter. The quantity of crops we grow in each acre of land jumped dramatically in the second half of the 20th century – a consequence in part of liberal use of artificial fertiliser and in part of new technologies and systems. But that productivity rate started to tail off towards the end of the century.

‘Changing the equation’

Vertical farming promises, if it can make the numbers add up, to change the equation, dramatically increasing agricultural productivity in the coming decades. The question is whether the technology is there yet.

And when it comes to the technology, one thing has certainly changed. Those early vertical farms (the first attempts actually date back to the 1950s) all had a big problem: the bulbs. Incandescent bulbs were both too hot and too energy intensive to work in these environments. But the latest generation of LED bulbs are both cool and cheap, and it’s these bulbs you need (in vast numbers) if you’re going to make vertical farming work.

Here at Farm 2, you encounter row after row of trays, each stacked on top of each other, each carrying increasingly leafy basil plants. They sit under thousands of little LED bulbs which are tuned to precisely the right spectral frequency to encourage the plant to grow rapidly.

Mr Fischer says: “We’re on this downward cost curve on LEDs. And then when you think about other main inputs, energy – renewable energy – is constantly coming down as well.

“So you think about all the big drivers of vertical farming, they’re going down, whereas compared to full-grown crops, everything’s going up – the fertilisers, rents, water is becoming more expensive too.”

This farm – which currently sells to restaurant chains rather than direct to consumers – is now cost-competitive with the basil shipped (or more often flown) in from the Mediterranean and North Africa. The carbon footprint is considerably lower too.

“And our long-term goal is that we can get a lot cheaper,” says Mr Fischer. “If you look at Farm 1, we spent about £2.5m on lights in 2018. Fast forward to Farm 2; it’s seven and a half times bigger and in those three years the lights were effectively half the price. We’re also probably using 60 to 70 percent less power.”

It might seem odd to hear a farmer talk so much about energy and comparatively less about the kinds of things one associates with farmers – the soil or tractors or the weather – but vertical farming is in large part an energy business. If energy prices are low enough, it makes the crops here considerably cheaper.

But here in the UK, with power costs higher than anywhere else in the developed world, the prospects for this business are more challenged than elsewhere. Still, Mr Fischer’s objective is to prove the business case here before building bigger units elsewhere, in countries with much cheaper power.

In much the same way as Dutch growers came to dominate those greenhouses, he thinks the UK has a chance of dominating this new agricultural sector.

Business

Bank shares take fright as budget tax hike is floated

Published

21 hours ago

August 29, 2025

admin

Bank shares take fright as budget tax hike is floated

Shares in UK banks have fallen sharply on the back of a report which urges the chancellor to place their profits in her sights at the coming budget.

As Rachel Reeves stares down a growing deficit – estimated at between £20bn-£40bn heading into the autumn – the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said there was an opportunity for a windfall by closing a loophole.

It recommended a new levy on the interest UK lenders receive from the Bank of England, amounting to £22bn a year, on reserves held as a result of the Bank’s historic quantitative easing, or bond-buying, programme.

Money latest: Ryanair changes cabin bag sizing

It was first introduced at the height of the financial crisis, in 2009.

The left-leaning think-tank said the money received by banks amounted to a subsidy and suggested £8bn could be taken from them annually to pay for public services.

It argued that the loss-making scheme – a consequence of rising interest rates since 2021 – had left taxpayers footing the bill unfairly as the Treasury has to cover any loss.

The Bank recently estimated the total hit would amount to £115bn over the course of its lifetime.

The publication of the report coincided with a story in the Financial Times which spoke of growing fears within the banking sector that it was firmly in the chancellor’s sights.

Her first budget, in late October last year, put businesses on the hook for the bulk of its tax-raising measures.

Ms Reeves is under pressure to find more money from somewhere as she has ruled out breaking her own fiscal rules to help secure the cash she needs through heightened borrowing.

Other measures understood to be under consideration include a wealth tax, new property tax and a shake-up that could lead to a replacement for council tax.

Analysts at Exane told clients in a note: “In the last couple of years, the chancellor has been protective of the banks and has avoided raising taxes.

“However, public finances may require additional cash and pressures for a bank tax from within the Labour party seem to be rising,” it concluded.

The investor flight saw shares in Lloyds and NatWest plunge by more than 5%. Those for Barclays were more than 4% lower at one stage.

A spokesperson for the Treasury said the best way to strengthen public finances was to speed up economic growth.

“Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms,” they added.

Business

Controversial P&O Ferries boss Hebblethwaite to quit

Published

23 hours ago

August 29, 2025

admin

Controversial P&O Ferries boss Hebblethwaite to quit

The man dubbed “Britain’s most hated boss” for his controversial policy of sacking hundreds of seafarers and replacing them with cheaper agency staff is to quit.

Sky News can exclusively reveal that Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive of P&O Ferries, is leaving the company.

Sources said he had decided to resign for personal reasons.

Money latest: The exact time to book train ticket at bargain price

Mr Hebblethwaite joined the ranks of Britain’s most notorious corporate figures in 2022 when P&O Ferries – a subsidiary of the giant Dubai-based ports operator DP World – said it was sacking 800 staff with immediate effect – some of whom learned their fate via a video message.

The policy, which Mr Hebblethwaite defended to MPs during subsequent select committee hearings, erupted into a national scandal, prompting changes in the law to give workers greater protection.

Under the new legislation, the government plans to tighten collective redundancy requirements for operators of foreign vessels.

In a statement issued in response to a request from Sky News, a P&O Ferries spokesperson said: “Peter Hebblethwaite has communicated his intention to resign from his position as chief executive officer to dedicate more time to family matters.

“P&O Ferries extends its gratitude to Peter Hebblethwaite for his contributions as CEO over the past four years.

“During his tenure the company navigated the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, initiated a path towards financial stability, and introduced the world’s first large double-ended hybrid ferries on the Dover-Calais route, thereby enhancing sustainability.

“We extend our best wishes to him for his future endeavours.”

A source close to the company said it anticipated making an announcement on Mr Hebblethwaite’s successor in the near term.

A former executive at J Sainsbury, Greene King and Alliance Unichem, Mr Hebblethwaite joined P&O Ferries in 2019, before taking over as chief executive in November 2021.

Insiders claimed on Friday that he had “transformed” the business following the bitter blows dealt to its finances by the COVID-19 pandemic and – to some degree – by the impact of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

P&O Ferries carries 4.5 million passengers annually on routes between the UK and continental European ports including Calais and Rotterdam.

It also operates a route between Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is a major freight carrier.

The company’s losses soared during the pandemic, with DP World – its sole shareholder – supporting it through hundreds of millions of pounds in loans.

Its most recent accounts, which were significantly delayed, showed a significant reduction in losses in 2023 to just over £90m.

The reduction from the previous year’s figure of almost £250m was partly attributed to cost reduction exercises.

The accounts also showed that Mr Hebblethwaite received a pay package of £683,000, including a bonus of £183,000.

“I reflected on accepting that payment, but ultimately I did decide to accept it,” he told MPs.

“I do recognise it is not a decision that everybody would have made.”

The row over his pay was especially acute because of his admission that P&O Ferries’ lowest-paid seafarers received hourly pay of just £4.87.

Mr Hebblethwaite had argued since the mass sackings of 2022 that the company would have gone bust without the drastic cost-cutting that it entailed.

The company insisted at the time that those affected by the redundancies had been offered “enhanced” packages to leave.

Last October, the then transport secretary, Louise Haigh, said: “The mass sacking by P&O Ferries was a national scandal which can never be allowed to happen again,” adding that measures to protect seafarers from “rogue employers” would prevent a repetition.

“This issue has been ignored for over 2 years, but this new government is moving fast and bringing forward measures within 100 days,” Ms Haigh added.

“We are closing the legal loophole that P&O Ferries exploited when they sacked almost 800 dedicated seafarers and replaced them with low-paid agency workers and we are requiring operators to pay the equivalent of National Minimum Wage in UK waters.

“Make no mistake – this is good for workers and good for business.”

The minister’s description of P&O Ferries as “rogue”, and suggestion that consumers should boycott the company, sparked a row which threatened to overshadow the government’s International Investment Summit last October.

Sky News’s business and economics correspondent, Paul Kelso, revealed that DP World had withdrawn from participating in the event, and paused a £1bn investment announcement.

The company relented after Sir Keir Starmer publicly distanced the government from Ms Haigh’s characterisation of DP World.

Business

How the US trade war is now targeting you from today

Published

1 day ago

August 29, 2025

admin

How the US trade war is now targeting you from today

Donald Trump has cancelled a loophole from today that had allowed consumers and businesses to be spared duties for sending low-value goods to the United States.

The so-called de minimis exemption had applied across the world before Trump 2.0 but the president has taken action – and the UK may soon follow suit – as part of his trade war.

The relief had allowed goods worth less than $800 (£595) to enter the US duty-free since 2016.

But now, low-cost packages face the same tariff rate as other, more expensive, goods.

The reasons for the latest bout of protectionism are numerous and the ramifications are country and purpose specific.

What is changing?

It was no accident that China was the first destination to be slapped with this rule change.

The duty exemption on low-value Chinese goods was ended in May as US retailers, in fact those across the Western world, complained bitterly that they were being undercut by cheap clothing, accessories and household goods shipped by the likes of Shein and Temu.

From today, Mr Trump is expanding the end of the de minimis rule to the rest of the world.

Why is Trump doing this?

The president is not acting purely to protect US businesses.

More duties mean more money for his tariff treasure chest, bolstering the goodies already pouring in from his base and reciprocal tariffs imposed on trading partners globally this year.

The Trump administration has also called out “deceptive shipping practices, illegal material and duty circumvention”.

It also believes many parcels claiming to contain low-value goods have been used to fuel the country’s supplies of fentanyl, with the importation of the illegal drug being used by the president as a reason for his wider trade war against allies including Canada.

How will it apply?

Under the new rules, only letters and personal gifts worth less than $100 (£74) will still be free of import duties.

Charges will depend on the tariff regime facing the country from where the goods are sent.

Fox example, a parcel containing products worth $600 would raise $180 in extra duties when sent from a country facing a 30% tariff rate.

It has sparked chaos in many countries, with postal services in places including Japan, Germany and Australia refusing to accept many items for delivery to the US until the practicalities of the new regime become clearer.

What about the UK?

All goods not meeting the £74 exemption criteria now face a 10% charge because that is the baseline tariff the US has slapped on imports from the UK.

We were spared, if you remember, higher reciprocal tariffs under the so-called “trade deal”.

How will the process work?

All shipping and delivery companies will be wading through the changes, with the big international operators such as DHL, FedEx and the like all promising to navigate the challenge.

Royal Mail said on Thursday that it would be the first international postal service to have a dedicated operation.

It said consumers could use its new postal delivery duties paid (PDDP) services both online and at Post Offices.

But it explained that business customers faced different restrictions to individuals.

Businesses would be charged a handling fee per parcel to cover additional costs and duties would be calculated based on where items were originally manufactured.

While business account customers could be handed an invoice for the duties, it explained that consumers would have to pay at the point of buying postage.

No customs declaration would be required, it concluded, for personal correspondence.

Is the US alone in doing this?

The answer is no, but it remains a fairly widespread relief globally.

The European Union, for example, removed de minimis breaks back in 2021, making all e-commerce imports to the bloc subject to VAT.

It is also now planning to introduce a fee of €2 on goods worth €150 or less to cover the costs of customs processing.

Should the UK do the same?

The UK has been under pressure for many years to follow suit and drop its own £135 duty-free threshold as retailers battle the cheap e-commerce competition from China we mentioned earlier.

A review was announced by the chancellor in April.

Sky News revealed in July how the total declared trade value of de minimis imports into the UK in the 2024-25 financial year was £5.9bn – a 53% increase on the previous 12-month period.

Any rise in revenue would be welcomed, not only by UK retailers, but by Rachel Reeves too as she looks to fill a renewed black hole in the public finances.