9 September 2026

^{An Infarm Growing Center (IGC) with multiple state-of-the-art production modules. Infarm collapsed and exited Europe in 2023, filing for bankruptcy for its regional operations, including its Dutch subsidiary, after burning through more than $604 million amid soaring energy costs and financial strains.}

 

For a while, shoppers in European supermarkets could watch their herbs growing beside the shelves.

Basil and coriander sat inside glowing glass cabinets installed by Infarm, a Berlin startup that promised to bring agriculture into cities. Instead of transporting produce from distant fields, supermarkets could harvest it metres from where it was sold.

It looked like a small preview of a much larger revolution. Investors poured billions into vertical farming companies whose crops grew in stacked layers under LED lights, protected from drought, frost and insects. Software controlled their water, nutrients and artificial daylight.

Then the cabinets disappeared.

Infarm withdrew from several European markets and laid off hundreds of employees. Its Dutch subsidiary was declared bankrupt in 2023. In the United States, Bowery Farming ceased operating in 2024 after raising more than $700 million and reaching a valuation of $2.3 billion. AeroFarms entered bankruptcy protection before restructuring. Plenty followed in 2025.

So why did so many vertical farms fail? They replaced almost everything nature provides free with expensive equipment and electricity.

 

What is vertical farming?

 

Vertical farming involves growing crops in stacked layers inside a controlled environment. Most vertical farms use hydroponics, meaning that plants grow without conventional soil. Their roots receive water containing carefully measured nutrients.

That water can be collected and circulated again, allowing farms to use considerably less of it than many conventional growing systems.

Inside a controlled building, crops are sheltered from heatwaves, floods and many pests. Farms can operate throughout the year and close to the cities where their produce will be eaten.

Every detail can be adjusted. LED lights provide selected wavelengths. Sensors measure temperature, humidity and carbon dioxide. Software can change the conditions according to the crop and its stage of development.

Biologically, much of this worked. Economically, not so much.

 

Why vertical farms use so much electricity

 

An outdoor plant receives light from a star 150 million kilometres away. The farmer does not receive an invoice.

In a windowless vertical farm, LEDs must turn electricity into artificial sunlight. Plants capture only part of that light through photosynthesis. Some of the electricity becomes heat, which cooling and ventilation systems may then have to remove.

Thousands of leaves release water vapour, requiring dehumidification. Pumps circulate water and nutrients. Sensors, computers and automated equipment remain active for long periods.

Even with improving LEDs, the farm cannot escape the chain of energy conversions: electricity becomes light, light becomes plant material and only some of that material becomes food.

European energy prices exposed the weakness in that model. What had appeared to be a predictable operating cost became expensive and volatile.

A 2025 review of vertical farming energy efficiency placed electricity consumption for lettuce at approximately 10–18 kilowatt-hours per kilogram, although performance varies considerably between facilities. Outdoor fields receive sunlight directly, while greenhouses can use a combination of natural light and supplementary lighting. A completely enclosed vertical farm must supply all its usable light artificially.

Nor does “local” necessarily mean “low-carbon”. Reducing refrigerated transport can cut emissions, but food miles are only one part of a product’s footprint. If an indoor farm runs on a carbon-intensive electricity grid, the emissions from lighting and climate control can outweigh the savings made by growing closer to consumers.

 

Why vertical farms grow so much lettuce

 

Not every crop fits comfortably inside a stack of shelves.

Lettuces, herbs and microgreens are compact, mature quickly and command relatively high prices. This made them natural candidates for vertical farming.

Unfortunately, they also provide few calories and already face competition from efficient conventional farms and greenhouses. Consumers might pay more for locally grown, pesticide-free leaves, but generally not enough to cover substantially higher production costs.

Staple crops present the opposite problem. Wheat, rice, maize and potatoes require more light, space or growing time while selling for much less per kilogram. Lighting an indoor wheat field could cost more than the resulting grain was worth.

The industry had set out to strengthen the global food supply. Its most commercially suitable product was a premium bag of leaves. Thing is though, people cannot live on salad alone.

 

Why vertical farming companies failed

 

The vertical farming boom coincided with an era of cheap investment.

Startups raised enormous rounds and constructed highly automated facilities before proving that their existing farms could make consistent profits. The expectation was that greater scale, better software and more automation would steadily reduce costs.

That logic works more readily in software, where a product can be distributed to millions of additional customers without constructing another factory. Farms scale differently.

Every facility needs a building, lights, climate-control equipment, water systems and workers. Plants continue to grow according to biological cycles rather than investor timetables. Roots obstruct equipment, leaves vary in shape, pathogens enter controlled environments and delicate produce must be harvested and packaged.

When interest rates rose and venture investment became harder to secure, companies with expensive facilities and persistent losses ran out of time.

Bowery stopped operating in November 2024. Plenty filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March 2025 after scaling back projects and struggling to obtain new capital. It emerged from restructuring two months later with a more concentrated strategy based around strawberries.

The first boom had attempted to expand before the underlying agricultural economics were ready.

 

Did vertical farming fail?

 

Not entirely.

The idea that enormous windowless farms would soon supply cities with a significant share of their food has collided with energy costs, crop prices and the expense of building new facilities.

Controlled-environment agriculture has not disappeared, however. It is becoming more selective.

Plenty has shifted its attention towards vertically grown strawberries, a more valuable crop than lettuce. Strawberries are delicate, vulnerable to weather and expensive to harvest, potentially giving controlled production a more plausible economic advantage.

GrowUp Farms in Britain illustrates both the remaining opportunity and the sector’s fragility. Its Kent farm produces bagged salad for major supermarkets using renewable electricity, but the business entered administration in 2026. Its operating assets, brand and flagship facility were subsequently acquired by Sun Capital Partners, allowing production to continue under new ownership.

Survival in vertical farming does not necessarily mean that the original business model succeeded. It can mean fewer crops, fewer facilities, new owners and much tighter financial discipline.

The technology may also make more sense in deserts, on islands and in Arctic communities, where water or arable land is scarce and imported fresh food is expensive. The calculation changes when the conventional alternative already carries unusually high costs.

 

Could hybrid greenhouses replace vertical farms?

 

The most promising successor may not be a completely enclosed vertical farm at all.

Hybrid facilities combine controlled indoor production with conventional greenhouses. Sunlight supplies much of the energy, while LEDs extend the growing day or compensate for poor weather. Plants can begin life in tightly controlled indoor conditions before moving into natural light.

A Norwegian study by SINTEF modelled another possibility: transferring surplus heat from an enclosed vertical-growing section to a much larger greenhouse. Heat that would otherwise require energy to remove could become useful elsewhere in the facility.

The concept does not eliminate every problem. Surplus heat is mainly available when the LEDs are operating, which may not coincide with the greenhouse’s greatest demand. It nevertheless shows how indoor farming could become part of a larger energy system rather than an isolated electricity consumer.

The result looks less like science fiction. It also avoids paying to replace the Sun completely.

Other businesses are developing smaller farms for specific customers or selling growing equipment, software and expertise rather than financing enormous farms themselves. Indoor production can also be valuable for seedlings, pharmaceutical plants and crops where consistency or cleanliness commands a premium.

 

Can new technology rescue indoor farming?

 

Scientists continue to look for ways to produce more plant growth from fewer resources.

Researchers at Linköping University in Sweden, for example, developed a conductive hydroponic scaffold called eSoil. Barley seedlings given five days of low-voltage electrical stimulation accumulated approximately 50 percent more dry biomass after 15 days than unstimulated plants.

The experiment is intriguing, but it has not shown that mature barley produces more grain. Nor does stimulating roots remove the need to light, cool and operate an indoor farm.

That distinction captures the challenge facing the entire industry: a technology can make a plant grow faster without making the farm profitable.

More efficient LEDs, heat recovery, improved crop genetics and better automation will continue to narrow the gap. But each innovation must be evaluated across the complete facility rather than celebrated as an isolated breakthrough.

The future of vertical farming may therefore look more like an extension of conventional agriculture than its replacement. It will use technology where precise control creates sufficient value and retain sunlight wherever it remains the cheapest source of energy. Turns out that sometimes you can't compete with nature.

 

 

Liked this article? You can support our independent journalism via our page on Buy Me a Coffee. It helps keep MoveTheNeedle.news focused on depth, not clicks.

👉 https://buymeacoffee.com/movetheneedle.news