Agriculture, like most industries today, is feeling the effect of rapidly evolving technologies. Greenhouses, controlled-environment systems and hydroponics sit alongside artificial intelligence and automation in a fast-moving landscape. Yet despite the influx of technology, capital, and data, many new-age agricultural projects still struggle or fail. The reason is rarely a lack of knowledge or skill. It is the persistent belief in deep-rooted myths about modern agriculture.
These myths shape investment decisions, technology and infrastructure choices, and how systems are implemented on the ground. Recent research points to system design, economics, and human-technology integration as the dominant factors in whether a modern farm succeeds.
Myth 1, indoor farming is a plug-and-play solution
A common assumption is that an indoor farming model can be replicated across geographies with the same output. Benke and Tomkins (2017) describe how, once a farm is built and fitted with lighting, climate control, and automation, production outcomes are often expected to be predictable and easily transferable across locations.
Recent lifecycle and benchmarking analyses tell a different story. Energy use is consistently the most decisive factor for indoor farms, and it has more influence on productivity than almost anything else (Miserocchi & Franco, 2025). Two identical indoor farms with the same technology, size, procedures, crops, and growth recipes will perform very differently if their energy access and energy needs differ. Most other factors can be replicated, but local energy economics cannot.
The high-profile cases bear this out. AeroFarms, regarded as one of the most technologically advanced operators in the sector, raised more than $230 million and built multiple facilities along plug-and-play lines before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023. The same pattern played out at Bowery Farming, one of the highest-funded startups in the space at over $700 million raised, which ceased operations in late 2024 after aggressive plug-and-play scaling across multiple regions.
It is not all bad news. Plug-and-play has worked in cases where operators treated indoor farming as a customisable operating system rather than a finished product to be deployed unchanged at every site. Gotham Greens runs multiple facilities, but each one is customized to local energy, climate, and logistics, and they also draw on natural sunlight to reduce energy needs. Lufa Farms expanded by staying within the same urban region, where energy and logistics requirements are similar, demonstrating that an indoor model can repeat within a single context but does not transfer easily to unrelated regions.
The myth collapses under real-world conditions. The contrast between the failures and the successes shows that the most recent infrastructure and the largest funding rounds will not save a farm if its design ignores local energy prices, market demand, and logistics. Indoor agriculture works when it is calibrated to the system it is being plugged into, not simply copied. The sector's well-documented "trough of disillusionment" is, at its core, evidence that indoor farming systems cannot be replicated across contexts without accounting for energy, cost, and operational differences.
Myth 2, more technology automatically means better farming
Indoor agriculture has become almost synonymous with technological advancement, where sensors, artificial intelligence, automation, and data processing combine to optimise production. From this comes the persistent equation: more sensors plus more data plus more automation equals more profit. The bankruptcies of several high-tech indoor farms show how shaky that equation is. Surviving companies are responding by simplifying their models, narrowing their focus, and stripping out unnecessary complexity.
Recent research and operational data show that indoor farming performance depends less on the amount of technology and more on how well that technology is integrated into the biological, economic, and operational system of the farm (Heuvelink et al., 2025; Lovat et al., 2025). Higher levels of technology do not guarantee higher profits, but they almost always introduce new costs, new risks, and new failure points. Technology does not always shield a farm from risk. Sometimes it simply repackages it. Several operators built some of the most sophisticated systems in the industry only to face bankruptcy or closure after raising hundreds of millions of dollars.
There is no one-size-fits-all in agriculture, and indoor farming is no exception. Climate-control automation and energy-optimisation tools have improved yield consistency and resource efficiency in well-designed systems (Heuvelink et al., 2025). Indoor farming sits at an attractive intersection of agriculture and technology, and it makes farming look fresh and ambitious to a younger generation. There is real value in seeing more technology introduced to agriculture, particularly in regions like Africa where the leap could be transformative.
But operators should not lose sight of the basic principle. They are farms that use technology, not technology companies that farm. Focus belongs on the fundamentals, like proper inputs, growing environment, and nutrients, with as little tweaking as possible beyond that. Most indoor farms focus on leafy greens and herbs, which account for the great majority of production in the sector (Pennisi et al., 2025). These crops have been grown successfully for decades without the technological controls that some companies now layer on top, and the additional tech does not guarantee profit. It does guarantee additional cost and additional risk.
Companies like Oishii present a different angle on this myth. Their focus is high-value, niche product. Premium Japanese strawberries and tomatoes carry their own production challenges, including longer growth cycles, more energy use, sensitive pollination, and tight environmental tolerances. Oishii responded by directing technology where it creates the most value, which is at the fundamental level. They use solar-powered climate-controlled environments and managed pollination systems. The combination of targeted technology, solar offsetting their energy bill, and a premium product is what has made the model work.
Their success points toward where the future of indoor agriculture lies. Not in flashy tech or limitless funding, but in disciplined, market-driven innovation that aligns technology with genuine need.
Myth 3, farmers are resistant to technology
A common narrative paints farmers as stubborn and slow to adopt new technology. Industry and research evidence tells a different story. Farmers are not the problem. The problem is the interaction between the new tools and the systems already in their environment, which determines whether those tools are practical and worth using (Klerkx et al., 2019).
Farming is a decision-heavy activity, often carried out under uncertain conditions, so farmers do not have time to entertain innovations that fail to fit into or improve their current operations. This shows up clearly in indoor farming, where most innovations are energy-dependent. No farmer wants to introduce technology that brings new energy, infrastructure, and maintenance costs without a clear payoff, especially when more innovation does not necessarily translate into more profit.
Then there is the knowledge and technical expertise required. Rose et al. (2021) note that digital agriculture tools are only effective when they align with real decision-making processes, yet many platforms require significant time and training to interpret outputs before any action can be taken. Modern indoor farming systems do not just introduce new tools. They ask users to develop new technical skills, interpret multiple data streams, and navigate complex interfaces full of graphs, dashboards, and sensor outputs. Instead of simplifying the work of growing, these systems can shift the farmer's role from producer to data analyst. When a farmer has to spend additional time learning software, interpreting trends, and troubleshooting just to answer basic questions about irrigation, light, or plant stress, technology adds friction rather than removing it. Many agtech solutions have prioritised data generation over actionable insight, limiting their value to the people they were meant to serve.
Myth 4, produce from indoor farms is healthier and safer
Indoor farms are commonly marketed as cleaner and more controlled than traditional farming, which feeds the assumption that their produce is healthier and safer to eat. Indoor systems are often promoted as pesticide-free and grown under highly controlled environments, reinforcing the perception of superior cleanliness. Reduced reliance on chemical inputs further supports this image, with Benke and Tomkins (2017) describing how controlled-environment agriculture is associated with reduced pesticide use and improved food safety, contributing to its "clean food" framing.
Most of this is real, and most indoor farms are clean. But the broader claim that indoor produce is automatically healthier and safer is not backed by scientific evidence. Both nutritional quality and food safety depend on a combination of biological, environmental, and operational factors, not on the production system alone (Pennisi et al., 2025). Indoor farming does reduce exposure to certain contamination pathways like soil and wildlife, and the produce often looks cleaner and more uniform. But visual appearance is not a reliable indicator of microbial safety or nutritional value.
On nutrition, natural sunlight provides the full light spectrum that drives flavour, nutrient density, and plant defence chemistry. Artificial grow lights do a very capable job, but they do not replicate sunlight perfectly. In some cases, the mild environmental stress that field-grown plants experience can stimulate the production of beneficial compounds such as flavonoids and phenolics.
The food-safety record also complicates the cleaner-equals-safer narrative. Multiple E. coli outbreaks linked to leafy greens in North America between 2018 and 2022 show that contamination can occur across production systems, often through water, handling, or processing pathways rather than the growing environment itself. Hydroponic and vertical farming operations rely on recirculated water, shared nutrient delivery systems, and centralised environmental controls, all of which can spread contamination quickly if it does occur.
Growing produce in an indoor farm does not guarantee its quality, but it does provide stronger traceability. Continuous monitoring throughout the system makes it easier to identify the source of any contamination and trace specific batches post-sale if a recall is needed. Both indoor and traditional systems can produce healthy, safe food when they are managed properly. Neither system is inherently superior on quality grounds.
Myth 5, indoor farming is remote agriculture
The fifth myth holds that indoor farming is a form of remote agriculture, where crops can be grown and controlled from anywhere using cameras and sensors. It sounds compelling and makes for an attractive pitch to investors. The reality is different. Indoor farming remains fundamentally dependent on on-site human operations.
Post-2022 analyses of the indoor farming sector found that many companies investing heavily in centralised, tech-driven systems discovered that operational success depended less on remote control and more on execution at the facility level. This aligns with broader findings in digital agriculture, which show that technologies are most effective when they support decision-making rather than try to automate it entirely (Rose et al., 2021). Data alone does not replace the need for physical oversight. There are things the eye sees that data cannot, as anyone who has actually farmed will recognise.
Another constraint is how interdependent the systems inside an indoor farm are. If the heating fails for a few minutes, the loss can run to a full season's production. Issues can be monitored and detected remotely, but effective response is almost always in person. Farms also depend on physical infrastructure such as energy, water, and internet connectivity, and where any of these is unreliable the remote-control vision is simply not feasible.
Indoor farming is a site-specific operation supported by digital tools. Even the most sophisticated farms have on-site teams that monitor and run the automation. Digital systems do offer real value. They allow operators to oversee multiple locations, gather more data, run forecasts, and identify issues quickly. The goal should be to make operations visible, accountable, and manageable without adding extra cost. Technology can show what is happening on the farm, but it cannot replace the physical actions needed to grow, maintain, and harvest a crop.
I am currently working on a project called GreenAcres that aligns with this myth in spirit, but does not attempt to replace on-site operations. Instead, it bridges the gap between remote stakeholders and physical farms, providing real-time visibility while preserving the importance of local execution.
Closing thought
Indoor farming remains a beautiful system to think about and to design, from greenhouses to vertical towers. It is not defined by the myths above, but by the realities that shape industry performance. A pattern emerges across all five. Indoor farming does not eliminate complexity, and it is not made easier by adding more technology. The complexity is converted into energy, capital, and skill demands instead. Success will depend on how well the human and technological aspects of these systems work together.
References
- Benke, K., & Tomkins, B. (2017). Future food-production systems: vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 13(1), 13–26.
- Heuvelink, E., Hemming, S., & Marcelis, L. F. M. (2025). Some recent developments in controlled-environment agriculture: on plant physiology, sustainability, and autonomous control. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 100(5), 604–614.
- Klerkx, L., Jakku, E., & Labarthe, P. (2019). A review of social science on digital agriculture, smart farming and agriculture 4.0: New contributions and a future research agenda. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91, 100315.
- Lovat, S. J., Noor, E., & Milo, R. (2025). Vertical farming limitations and potential demonstrated by back-of-the-envelope calculations. Plant Physiology, 198(3), kiaf056.
- Miserocchi, L., & Franco, A. (2025). Benchmarking energy efficiency in vertical farming: status and prospects. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress, 58, 103165.
- Pennisi, G., Gianquinto, G., Marcelis, L. F. M., Martin, M., & Orsini, F. (2025). Vertical farming: productivity, environmental impact, and resource use. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 45, 57.
- Rose, D. C., Wheeler, R., Winter, M., Lobley, M., & Chivers, C.-A. (2021). Agriculture 4.0: Making it work for people, production and the planet. Land Use Policy, 100, 104933.