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

AlphaPhase

AlphaPhase

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.
 
H

harris hawk

Well-Known Member
Hydro is not for the beginer depending on how one gets rid if "waste" could be either if grown outdoors. Indoors reduces enviromental issues to a minumin
 
Gaberlunzie

Gaberlunzie

Well-Known Member
Both methods (organic soil and hydro) are important for the future of environmental sustainability. And when I say organic soil, I mean true organics. If you have to order 100 items from the net to create your "organic" soil or if you're buying peat, sorry folks, it's not really organic........cover crops, leaf mold instead of peat, compost, on-site animal manure -- that's organic.

I don't think anyone can argue that hydro is not the future of farming and when it's executed correctly, not only is it very efficient, it's 100,000,000 times cleaner for the environment than the faux organics that I was describing above.
 
S

stak

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
Both methods (organic soil and hydro) are important for the future of environmental sustainability. And when I say organic soil, I mean true organics. If you have to order 100 items from the net to create your "organic" soil or if you're buying peat, sorry folks, it's not really organic........cover crops, leaf mold instead of peat, compost, on-site animal manure -- that's organic.

I don't think anyone can argue that hydro is not the future of farming and when it's executed correctly, not only is it very efficient, it's 100,000,000 times cleaner for the environment than the faux organics that I was describing above.
Click to expand...

How is peat not really organic?
 
H

harris hawk

Well-Known Member
Just that more time is involved - nothing wrong with that - but begining it would be easier to do a soil grow first and thwn nake you your mind. Hoe this helps !!
 
H

High Grade Only

Active Member
There are far too many variables in both mediums to make a blanket statement that one is "better" or less harmful than the other. IMHO, sustainability with the least amount of direct impact to the locality are the qualites that should be considered, though thats all subjective and i guess thats your point
 
ISK

ISK

Well-Known Member
Tone5500 said:
Why is hydro not for the beginner?? One could argue points that hydro (dwc) would actually be easier to maintain and grow then soil .
Click to expand...
I have said the same thing about hempy, which is even simpler than DWC...why do people insist that rookies should start in soil when they likely would produce better in hydro
 
A

althor

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
Both methods (organic soil and hydro) are important for the future of environmental sustainability. And when I say organic soil, I mean true organics. If you have to order 100 items from the net to create your "organic" soil or if you're buying peat, sorry folks, it's not really organic........cover crops, leaf mold instead of peat, compost, on-site animal manure -- that's organic.

I don't think anyone can argue that hydro is not the future of farming and when it's executed correctly, not only is it very efficient, it's 100,000,000 times cleaner for the environment than the faux organics that I was describing above.
Click to expand...
I will argue that it is NOT the future of farming.
I really dont like the hydro taste.
I am 100% soil and will always be 100% soil. I will leave hydro for people who prefer yields to pure tastes.
 
WeedFreak78

WeedFreak78

Well-Known Member
Water conservation is the biggest negative to hydro, but with some fairly simple, possibly even passive distilling you could recover most of your water from the "waste" product..then the question is what to do with the left over nutrient sludge..
 
Gaberlunzie

Gaberlunzie

Well-Known Member
stak said:
How is peat not really organic?
Click to expand...
Propaganda spread around by multi-billion dollar gardening companies regarding "sustainable" peat haresting aside:

"Peatlands degraded by mining activity do not revert to their former functionality; changes in hydrology and physical structure are hostile to Sphagnum re-establishment. Recently, degraded peatlands have been restored through the blockage of drainage ditches, seeding with Sphagnum, and application of mulch layer to reduce water loss. When degraded peatlands are restored, the ability to hold water is improved but CO2 continues to be released by high levels of bacterial respiration, which represents the decomposition of mulch and other organic matter. It takes a number of years for the photosynthetic rate of new peatland plants to outpace the respiratory rate: until this happens, even restored peatlands represent a net loss of carbon to the atmosphere and thus contribute to greenhouse gas production. These results have been reported by more than one research team, representing global peatland research." -- Washington State University
althor said:
I will argue that it is NOT the future of farming.
I really dont like the hydro taste.
I am 100% soil and will always be 100% soil. I will leave hydro for people who prefer yields to pure tastes.
Click to expand...
Well, I stand corrected. I guess I should have said "I don't think any informed person can argue" .............irregardless, you're arguing something that's unarguable.......I suppose you could try but you'd sort of be wasting your time, and everyone else's. Nobody asked if you preferred the taste of soil to hydro. I said both methods (organic soil and hydro) are important for the future of environmental sustainability(and they are) and that hydro is the future of farming and it is. You can feed more people growing in a smaller area and with less of an ecological impact than with soil growing, including less water usage when implemented properly.
 
C

CC Dobbs

Well-Known Member
AlphaPhase said:
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.
Click to expand...
I find your use of the word 'facts' at the beginning makes your argument unassailable. It's that kind of research and deep thinking that we need more of around here.
 
ounevinsmoke

ounevinsmoke

Well-Known Member
I think you would have to take a deep look at where these chemical nutrients come from and then make another assessment.
There are ways a non commercial grower can do organic grows that are 100% environment friendly, while Hydroponics will always have the carbon footprint of the chemical companies and most likely the nitrates in the unused hydroponic water.

You would definitely have to grow organically and hydroponically and ask yourself which one could you do without visiting a hydroponic store or garden center if need be.
 
S

stak

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
Propaganda spread around by multi-billion dollar gardening companies regarding "sustainable" peat haresting aside:

"Peatlands degraded by mining activity do not revert to their former functionality; changes in hydrology and physical structure are hostile to Sphagnum re-establishment. Recently, degraded peatlands have been restored through the blockage of drainage ditches, seeding with Sphagnum, and application of mulch layer to reduce water loss. When degraded peatlands are restored, the ability to hold water is improved but CO2 continues to be released by high levels of bacterial respiration, which represents the decomposition of mulch and other organic matter. It takes a number of years for the photosynthetic rate of new peatland plants to outpace the respiratory rate: until this happens, even restored peatlands represent a net loss of carbon to the atmosphere and thus contribute to greenhouse gas production. These results have been reported by more than one research team, representing global peatland research." -- Washington State University

Well, I stand corrected. I guess I should have said "I don't think any informed person can argue" .............irregardless, you're arguing something that's unarguable.......I suppose you could try but you'd sort of be wasting your time, and everyone else's. Nobody asked if you preferred the taste of soil to hydro. I said both methods (organic soil and hydro) are important for the future of environmental sustainability(and they are) and that hydro is the future of farming and it is. You can feed more people growing in a smaller area and with less of an ecological impact than with soil growing, including less water usage when implemented properly.
Click to expand...

How does any of this prove that "peat is not really organic"?
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
I don't think anyone can argue that hydro is not the future of farming and when it's executed correctly,
Click to expand...
Of course anyone can argue this point. I would certainly argue this. Your comment would say that you feel I am therefore "uninformed." Would you say that I am uninformed ?

And the OP's use of the words "facts" would be much more correctly stated as "my own personal opinion based on whatever data I've read to date"
 
Gaberlunzie

Gaberlunzie

Well-Known Member
stak said:
How does any of this prove that "peat is not really organic"?
Click to expand...
It doesn't if you choose to believe that an organic sticker is all that matters. Guano, for example, is organic but in many cases there are serious negative ecological repercussions associated with harvesting guano. Same with peat. Yes, coco is organic.......but that coco has to be shipped from halfway across the world. My point is, people who grow in this manner, while also thumbing their noses at people who grow using hydroponics, implying that somehow what they're doing is better for the environment, well, they're full of shit.

Rrog said:
Would you say that I am uninformed?
Click to expand...
If you don't realize that hydroponic technology is the farming of the future, Yes, you're uninformed as well.
 
S

stak

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
It doesn't if you choose to believe that an organic sticker is all that matters. Guano, for example, is organic but in many cases there are serious negative ecological repercussions associated with harvesting guano. Same with peat. Yes, coco is organic.......but that coco has to be shipped from halfway across the world. My point is, people who grow in this manner, while also thumbing their noses at people who grow using hydroponics, implying that somehow what they're doing is better for the environment, well, they're full of shit.
Click to expand...
Ahh, I get it. So then you use hydro nutrients that are produced locally to you? Or are they manufactured somewhere else and shipped in bottles that are more than 90% water?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top