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.
Image: Farm 2 of Fischer Farms
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.
More on Farming
Related Topics:
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.
Image: The tunnels are 12 levels high and bathed in bright LED lights
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.
Image: The farm is growing basil but the ambition is to grow much more than simple herbs
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.”
Image: Just over a month after the basil was seeded, it is now fully grown and trays of the crop are moved to the harvesting machine
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.”
Image: Farm boss Tristan Fischer speaks to Sky’s Ed Conway
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.
The cyber attack on Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), which halted production for nearly six weeks at its sites, cost the company roughly £200m, it has been revealed.
Latest accounts released on Friday showed “cyber-related costs” were £196m, which does not include the fall in sales.
Profits took a nose dive, falling from nearly £400m (£398m) a year ago to a loss of £485m in the three months to the end of September.
Revenues dropped nearly 25% and the effects may continue as the manufacturing halt could slow sales in the final three months of the year, executives said.
The impact of the shutdown also hit factories across the car-making supply chain.
Slowing the UK economy
The production pause was a large contributor to a contraction in UK economic growth in September, official figures showed.
Had car output not fallen 28.6%, the UK economy would have grown by 0.1% during the month. Instead, it fell by 0.1%.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Reacting to JLR’s impact on the GDP contraction, its chief financial officer, Richard Molyneux, said it was “interesting to hear” and it “goes to reinforce” that JLR is really important in the UK economy.
The company, he said, is the “biggest exporter of goods in the entire country” and the effect on GDP “is a reflection of the success JLR has had in past years”.
Recovery
The company said operations were “pretty much back running as normal” and plants were “at or approaching capacity”.
Production of all luxury vehicles resumed.
Investigations are underway into the attack, with law enforcement in “many jurisdictions” involved, the company said.
When asked about the cause of the hack and the hackers, JLR said it was not in a position to answer questions due to the live investigation.
A run of attacks
The manufacturer was just one of a number of major companies to be seriously impacted by cyber criminals in recent months.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:53
Are we in a cyber attack ‘epidemic’?
High street retailer Marks and Spencer estimated the cost of its IT outage was roughly £136m. The sum only covers the cost of immediate incident systems response and recovery, as well as specialist legal and professional services support.
The Co-Op and Harrods also suffered service disruption caused by cyber attacks.
The future ownership of the Daily Telegraph has been plunged back into crisis after RedBird Capital Partners abandoned its proposed £500m takeover.
Sky News has learnt that a consortium led by RedBird and including the UAE-based investor IMI has formally withdrawn its offer to buy the right-leaning newspaper titles.
In a statement issued to Sky News, a RedBird Capital Partners spokesman confirmed: “RedBird has today withdrawn its bid for the Telegraph Media Group.
“We remain fully confident that the Telegraph and its world-class team have a bright future ahead of them and we will work hard to help secure a solution which is in the best interests of employees and readers.”
The move comes nearly two-and-a-half years after the Telegraph’s future was plunged into doubt when its lenders seized control from the Barclay family, its long-standing proprietors.
RedBird IMI then extended financing which gave it a call option to own the newspapers, but its original proposal was thwarted by objections to foreign state ownership of British national newspapers.
A new deal was then stitched together which included funding from Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere and Sir Leonard Blavatnik, the billionaire owner of sports streaming platform DAZN.
Under that deal, Abu Dhabi-based IMI would have taken a 15% stake in Telegraph Media Group.
In recent weeks, RedBird principal Gerry Cardinale had reiterated his desire to own the titles despite apparently having been angered by reporting by Telegraph journalists which explored links between RedBird and Chinese state influences.
Unrest from the Telegraph newsroom is said to have been one of the main factors in RedBird’s decision to withdraw its offer.
The collapse of the deal means a further auction of the titles is now likely to take place in the new year.
Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have scrapped plans to break their manifesto pledge and raise income tax rates in a massive U-turn less than two weeks from the budget.
I understand Downing Street has backed down amid fears about the backlash from disgruntled MPs and voters.
The Treasury and Number 10 declined to comment.
The decision is a massive about-turn. In a news conference last week, the chancellor appeared to pave the way for manifesto-breaking tax rises in the budget on 26 November.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:53
‘Aren’t you making a mockery of voters?’
The decision to backtrack was communicated to the Office for Budget Responsibility on Wednesday in a submission of “major measures”, according to the Financial Times.
The chancellor will now have to fill an estimated £30bn black hole with a series of narrower tax-raising measures and is also expected to freeze income tax thresholds for another two years beyond 2028, which should raise about £8bn.
Tory shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith said: “We’ve had the longest ever run-up to a budget, damaging the economy with uncertainty, and yet – with just days to go – it is clear there is chaos in No 10 and No 11.”
How did we get here?
For weeks, the government has been working up options to break the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT on working people.
I was told only this week the option being worked up was to do a combination of tax rises and action on the two-child benefit cap in order for the prime minister to be able to argue that in breaking his manifesto pledges, he is trying his hardest to protect the poorest in society and those “working people” he has spoken of so endlessly.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
13:06
Ed Conway on the chancellor’s options
But days ago, officials and ministers were working on a proposal to lift the basic rate of income tax – perhaps by 2p – and then simultaneously cut national insurance contributions for those on the basic rate of income tax (those who earn up to £50,000 a year).
That way the chancellor can raise several billion in tax from those with the “broadest shoulders” – higher-rate taxpayers and pensioners or landlords, while also trying to protect “working people” earning salaries under £50,000 a year.
The chancellor was also going to take action on the two-child benefit cap in response to growing demand from the party to take action on child poverty. It is unclear whether those plans will now be shelved given the U-turn on income tax.
A rough week for the PM
The change of plan comes after the prime minister found himself engulfed in a leadership crisis after his allies warned rivals that he would fight any attempted post-budget coup.
It triggered a briefing war between Wes Streeting and anonymous Starmer allies attacking the health secretary as the chief traitor.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:26
Wes Streeting: Faithful or traitor? Beth Rigby’s take
But the saga has further damaged Sir Keir and increased concerns among MPs about his suitability to lead Labour into the next general election.
Insiders clearly concluded that the ill mood in the party, coupled with the recent hits to the PM’s political capital, makes manifesto-breaking tax rises simply too risky right now.
But it also adds to a sense of chaos, given the chancellor publicly pitch-rolled tax rises in last week’s news conference.