Is hydroponics better for the environment? I think it is.

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
.they switch to chems for larger yields. They get paid a flat salary . If they go below a certain number they get penalized. Some dont even get paid. The ones with small yields. The suppliers wont let them farm unless they upgrade their equipment out of their own pocket.

they don't get paid per bushel ot wait.

if they underperform they're given shitty unstable seed. They're under contract so they can't sell to any one else or take seed from anyone else. Its the same for chicken farmers too. Its a vicious cycle. How is that contradictory?

chemicals pollute. Those stalks have chemicals in them. Flushing plants only removes salts not nutrients. The stalk may break down . The chemicals left behind do not break down.
I don't accept the premise that your product is better, nor that you can produce it cheaper than me. You constantly admit that hydroponics (not what those farmers are using) will result in higher yields. They use dirt with urea fertilizers, not inert media with nitrate salts) . We use electricity to grow. If i yield twice as much per watt, it means I'm using half the electricity per gram of product. That means it's cheaper for me to grow hydroponically than it is for you to grow in dirt. What's weird is that most dirt growers admit this, yet instead of switching over, they bash the quality of their competitors with unfounded claims.
 
Last edited:

hyroot

Well-Known Member
I don't accept the premise that your product is better.
where did I say. That. This thread is about hydro being environmentally safe or unsafe. What does lighting or electricity have ro do with any of this.

organics is better and will produce better quality every time. . The yield solely depends on genetics.I will not give sick people chemicals ever.
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
where did I say. That. This thread is about hydro being environmentally safe or unsafe.

its is better. The yield solely depends on genetics.
You just made the argument that shady farmers switch to "synthetic chemicals" to improve their yield. If they get paid a salary, then someone else owns the crop and they're making the decision because it's cheaper and produces more. Isn't that basically what you said? What other reason would they do it? To poison people and create pollution?
 

hyroot

Well-Known Member
You just made the argument that shady farmers switch to "synthetic chemicals" to improve their yield.

I never said the farmers were shady. I implied who the work for are. Their supplier / buyer . Every one knows you can pump chems into plants to improve yield but the quality suffers. No one has ever claimed organics yields more. To produce organics for the same area costs about 12 times less than chems and synths and doesn't destroy the soil.

the guy who came up with npk and invented Chem fertz said 30 years later that he had it all wrong. The Chem fertz are destroying the land.

no till organics brought this country out of the dust bowl.
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
where did I say. That. This thread is about hydro being environmentally safe or unsafe. What does lighting or electricity have ro do with any of this.
I'm sure I can find hundreds of instances of you calling organic products superior than their "chemical" counter-parts. You keep talking about stalks with chemicals and poison in them. You're describing my products as poison. I do not agree with that.
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Every one knows you can pump chems into plants to improve yield but the quality suffers. No one has ever claimed organics yields more. To produce organics for the same area costs about 12 times less.
And you wonder why chuck made his avatar a copy of yours and has been giving you so much shit recently? You keep badmouthing our shit with these baseless claims! What are we supposed to do, nod and agree that your product is superior based on a bunch of voodoo juju, reasoning? You keep saying chemicals are harmful, but I don't think you know much about chemicals.
 

hyroot

Well-Known Member
I'm sure I can find hundreds of instances of you calling organic products superior than their "chemical" counter-parts. You keep talking about stalks with chemicals and poison in them. You're describing my products as poison. I do not agree with that.

you are twisting my words. I just said it is better quality . Its proven fact that using chemical fertz in crops is harmful to people and the environment
 

hyroot

Well-Known Member
And you wonder why chuck made his avatar a copy of yours and has been giving you so much shit recently? You keep badmouthing our shit with these baseless claims! What are we supposed to do, nod and agree that your product is superior based on a bunch of voodoo juju, reasoning? You keep saying chemicals are harmful, but I don't think you know much about chemicals.
chuck got banned genius. You must be drunk.

chuck likes troll on anyone he can . Him and one other person were the only ones who gave me shit.

if you think Chem are good for you then go back to school
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
chuck got banned genius. You must be drunk.

chuck likes troll on anyone he can . Him and one other person were the only ones who gave me shit.

if you think Chem are good for you then go back to school
Which school taught you that "chem is bad "? I don't recall learning what chemicals were bad and which were good. I believe you're thinking of a church, not a school. A chemistry class teaches chemistry, not voodoo poison sticks class..

Generally, the people with the most fear of chemicals usually have the least amount of background in math and chemistry. It's those same uneducated folks that go around trying to reeducate the scientific community, rarely based in actual science. It's very much how political parties work these days. You're simply following the party lines. I wouldn't be surprised if you originally learned this crap from a political party.
 
Last edited:

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I'd just like to point out that the reason hydroponics tends to yield more than soil has to do with the fact that the plant is healthier and faster growing. This implies that soil often lacks in nutrition and frequently leads to deficiency. If you were instead raising a child (that happened to be a plant), it would be considered immoral to use organics and let his/her growth be retarded for ignorant reasons.

Imo, for indoor greenhouses growing fruits, Soil is a mistake regardless of whether it uses synthetic nutrients or organics. Hydroponically grown crops are generally the highest quality and have the best nutritional value. When I say hydroponically grown, I don't mean "chemical grown", i mean grown in an inert media with calcium nitrate.
 
Last edited:

Gaberlunzie

Well-Known Member
Nutrient run off is a problem. It happens in animal waste fertilization. It would happen with that sandy soil and syhthetics too...The damage to local watersheds would be increasingly bad for the balance of such a fragile ecosystem.....Just look at the lower Great Lakes basin and the algae blooms in lake Erie as a simple example of both forms of run off problems.



Off topic point: It was Ransom E. Olds that invented the Assembly line, not Ford....Ford made it move, increasing out/through put.;)

ON topic: (I must have been across the pond when this topic hit and missed it.. A GOOD ONE)!
This is a question that has been asked in lecture's I've given. This poses problems on several fronts. First off, many of these 3rd world countries are run by despot rulers who steal everything they can from the counties coffers. You cannot simply give monetary aid and expect it to get where/be spent on the intended project....Cost to scale problems are a factor and distribution of the end product comes into play also. To spend big $ on a large scale project involves many things.
Logistics becomes a very important player in this idea. Simply getting the needed fuel to distribute the end product, not to mention the supplies to the manufacturing facility are difficult at best....roads are basic and unpaved. Distances are great between many places on the African continent.
The materials needed to build a facility of more then local effectiveness is beyond hard to come by. Everything must be imported. Now you have to consider the actual nutrients involved. Not much going on there as far as making useable refined nutrients. Ok, P is mined there for the world. But not only is the refining done elsewhere. But the sustainability of mined P is becoming quite a question for the near future - world wide!
Ok, so I know at this point you'll bring up the experiments on making "synthetic P"....Yes, it is going on. There have been several results tested and found working....But guess what? The cost of manufacture is a severely limiting problem right now....
How about importing? Logistics and material cost....again!....The trade barriers between countries there are a consideration that cannot be ignored also.
Ok then, how about small scale facilities that work on a more local approach?
Logistical problems still make this a very hard proposition to do......Hell, in most area's water is a major limiting factor. Not to mention electricity!!! Most area's have none or are limited by generators that run on that hard to get fuel! Most electrical use in rural area's are dedicated to school's - That's a GOOD thing! The next is to pump water....
You said water is a problem,,,how so?
To get and keep water at usable levels for a hydroponic facility to actually be viable...would strip water from other use's....like watering cattle and farmed food stuff's grown. In Africa, cattle are like money....The "rich" out side of large metro area's have the most cattle....dowries are paid in cattle and are haggled over before the betrothal! Water in many area's is like gold....highly sought after! Most local proteins are chicken, goat and sometimes pork....Even then, it mostly saved for special occasions!

So what do think could maybe work?
Aquaponics on workable scales are possible for small to medium communities. That's right we're back to organic's! This solves problems on the logistical and financial fronts. Not only is vegetable matter supplied, but protein, in affordable forms (Tilapia) becomes available to those who cannot "afford" cattle.....In fact cattle supply more milk then meat in the "bush".....
You must remember that vegetable matter over there is legumes as in beans and peanuts with a cpl of other pod producers in there too, tubors - Cassava type melons mixed with a bean paste to make a poi like paste, and mainly corn, ground and like "mush" in the southern states here. The rainy season brings insects that they eat with joy! There are "Greens" of a sort. Most people fish on some level, area dependent.....Still, fish supplies a lot of the consumed protein on the continent.
Aquaponics fits this niece well. It will supply the protein and the vegetable matter.....Feeding the fish has several possible and sustainable methods. And yet still....It has it's limiting factors too. Feeding the Tilapia can involve more then growing duckweed as amino acids are needed.....BUT, duckweed will work to make edible size fish.....Then your looking at other plants in the soup too. plants for human consumption....There is still sludge "waste" that needs to be removed as it settles on the bottom of the culture "tank". This has benefits for outdoor soil farming as it is vermicomposted!!!!

The whole idea of hydroponics feeding the 3rd world is a nice thought.....sustainability is a real future concern...Water would HAVE to be stripped of nutrient content and reused by any workable means that are affordable, as fresh water is fast becoming a world problem....condensate stripping would work, but what do you do with the left over waste? Figure that one out and get rich! Hmm,,,,,light bulb! I ain't telling you what I just thought :lol:...

Natural nutrient supplies are dwindling = P,,,, and "synthetic" P is a ways away yet and we don't know if it will have any repercussions down the road healthwise...

There's a few thoughts from someone who speaks on the idea of sustainable farming practice, old world farming technique and modern farm organics along with natural farm cost reductions....

Doc
All great points and very similar to where @Fogdog was coming from. I understand the difficulties that accompany such a proposal and that's why the premise for every single one of my comments in this thread was how hydroponics is the farming of the future.

Of course there are quite a few hills to be climbed but there are folks far more intelligent than any of us who do think a network of hydroponic greenhouses for feeding developing/un-developed countries is not only feasible, but likely in the somewhat near future. We'll see (or maybe our great grand kids will see).

P.S. I didn't say Henry Ford invented the assembly line, I said he developed the first mass production assembly line, which he did by installing driven conveyer belts, reducing production time of the Model T from 12 hours to 90 minutes. :wink:
 

CC Dobbs

Well-Known Member
Why or why not?

Facts:

No animal products (bones,blood, manure)

Less water usage

No risk for diseases (e coli)

Less farm space to produce much much more product

No water run off in recirculating systems

Faster growth which means more harvests per year

Cheaper cost per crop

Less labor intensive

Healthier (much less harmful chemicals in hydroponic nutes than found in unrefined fertilizer... Such as radium and fluoride

What's everyone elses input? Unrefined vs refined Part 2.
Still ignorant as fuck.
 

CC Dobbs

Well-Known Member
Which school taught you that "chem is bad "? I don't recall learning what chemicals were bad and which were good. I believe you're thinking of a church, not a school. A chemistry class teaches chemistry, not voodoo poison sticks class..

Generally, the people with the most fear of chemicals usually have the least amount of background in math and chemistry. It's those same uneducated folks that go around trying to reeducate the scientific community, rarely based in actual science. It's very much how political parties work these days. You're simply following the party lines. I wouldn't be surprised if you originally learned this crap from a political party.
Actually it is the most educated that have the most realistic fear of chemicals and their potential drawbacks. Uneducated folks will make any claim that makes them feel good without regard to facts or evidence.
 
Top