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

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...

So glad Heisenberg could float by, so much sense so concisely put.

I've been away collecting some facts to refute your contention that hydroponic gardening/farming is more environmentally sound, not just now but in the future too.

Facts:

Organic gardeners never need a PPM or pH meter.

They make better footwear choices.

They work in soil.

Cheaper cost per crop

The flowers are prettier.

Organic gardeners smell better.

More farm spaced utilized to included a wide variety of life forms thus creating a mostly self-sustaining ecosystem.

Chicks fucking dig organic farmers.


These are facts based on the research things that I've chosen to lo look at. I think you're just going to have to accept it.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
GrowTeam said:
Great thread. Have a few questions floating around in my head.


4) Two humans. Male female. They are trying to have a baby. They can't. The doctor says, they can do IVF. The sperm and egg are combined in a lab in a laboratory dish. Would the organic farmer view the human as a synthetic human?
Click to expand...
Why are you discriminating against clones?
 
AlphaPhase

AlphaPhase

Well-Known Member
Very well said. Agreed!

Gaberlunzie said:
Speaking of aquaponics, let's be careful not to forget about organic pollution, like the kind that can result from fish feed and an over-accumulation of fish waste - including some nasty bacteria like e-coil and salmonella. Irresponsible farming is irresponsible farming no matter the method.

Nobody said that hydro is going to replace soil farming either. I've said from the beginning of this thread that both are going to be important moving forward. It's the members of the organic church who refuse to acknowledge the merits of hydroponics and the increasingly important role that it will play in the future for an increasing population as well as bringing food to regions of the world where traditional means of agriculture aren't an option. Soil will always be here, hydroponic technology is the future. I don't know why that fact has to be so polarizing.
Click to expand...
 
AlphaPhase

AlphaPhase

Well-Known Member
I have to give you credit, you went out there and you came back with outstanding information! This is a purely organic summary of organics lmao. Fabulous footwear by the way 8-)

CC Dobbs said:
So glad Heisenberg could float by, so much sense so concisely put.

I've been away collecting some facts to refute your contention that hydroponic gardening/farming is more environmentally sound, not just now but in the future too.

Facts:

Organic gardeners never need a PPM or pH meter.

They make better footwear choices.

They work in soil.

Cheaper cost per crop

The flowers are prettier.

Organic gardeners smell better.

More farm spaced utilized to included a wide variety of life forms thus creating a mostly self-sustaining ecosystem.

Chicks fucking dig organic farmers.


These are facts based on the research things that I've chosen to lo look at. I think you're just going to have to accept it.
Click to expand...
 
Gaberlunzie

Gaberlunzie

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Not a member of any church I am. To me, a safe, reliable and sustainable food supply should be more important than the method. Hydroponic veggies, are already in the store and might be the best choice if you want a winter tomato. You might have missed an earlier part of this thread, IDK. I went over this with AP and kind of ended up with veggies being the only good application for hydro. Nuts, fruits, grains, beans, are possible but would it be practical? Hydro grown fruit and nut trees, really? A hydro field of wheat, millet rye or rice? If it's just hydro grown veggies then we aren't talking about the major share of what needs to be produced.
Click to expand...
Again........................nobody said anything about replacing soil farming. Of course there are certain things that make more sense to be grown in soil, like grain, as you said. There is no debate there. That said, I don't really understand what your issue is. Are you suggesting that there is no benefit to locally grown hydroponic fruits and vegetables that could perpetually serve to nourish severely malnourished people all over the world ? (I'm pretty sure a starving individual wouldn't mind being labeled a vegetarian) Or are you suggesting that the 40 percent of the Earth's population who reside on coasts and whose cities are progressively becoming more vertical wouldn't be pragmatic in growing what they could on rooftops, basements, and balconies so as to increase space for soil farms while also reducing the carbon footprint from shipping as well as reducing the loss of nutritional value of those fruits and vegetables due to early harvesting?

I don't think you are suggesting those things sooooooo.........what's your beef?


Mmmmmm yummy, hydroponically grown grapes.

image.jpg
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
Again........................nobody said anything about replacing soil farming. Of course there are certain things that make more sense to be grown in soil, like grain, as you said. There is no debate there. That said, I don't really understand what your issue is. Are you suggesting that there is no benefit to locally grown hydroponic fruits and vegetables that could perpetually serve to nourish severely malnourished people all over the world ? (I'm pretty sure a starving individual wouldn't mind being labeled a vegetarian) Or are you suggesting that the 40 percent of the Earth's population who reside on coasts and whose cities are progressively becoming more vertical wouldn't be pragmatic in growing what they could on rooftops, basements, and balconies so as to increase space for soil farms while also reducing the carbon footprint from shipping as well as reducing the loss of nutritional value of those fruits and vegetables due to early harvesting?

I don't think you are suggesting those things sooooooo.........what's your beef?


Mmmmmm yummy, hydroponically grown grapes.

View attachment 3373032
Click to expand...
I went through my question and I don't see where I was expressing a beef (of course we are talking about growing plants, so not beef literally). I was just questioning this idea that hydro was this huge untapped method. The fact that somebody who is starving because they can't buy food also couldn't afford the infrastructure and chemicals (no I'm not using the word pejoratively) needed for hydro seems to be overlooked. To me its doubtful that a large share of the food supply will come from hydro.

Take your example, grapes. It can be done but is it worth it? Top quality wine grapes sell for $2k/ton so that sets a mark for the best a farmer can get for grapes. In the Oregon Willamette Valley, vineyards struggle to make a profit (this I know). Vineyards pay the bills but they don't bring in much profit for about 12 years. How would hydrofarming grapes this way pay off? Ok, I can see maybe you could double production by closer spacing and cost of sprays might be less but it doesn't look worthwhile to me. Forget about building greenhouses to grow grapes.

Another example, weed, one of the most valuable crops there is. I think the members of this board know how much work owning and running a hydroponics system requires. Some people do quite well in what -- 10x10 or 20x20 rooms with weed prices being what they are and how much people are willing to pay for it. You know how much work managing a one acre grow would take. How about expanding that to 10,000 acres? Paying and training labor to do this would be a great problem to have if you could charge weed prices but even factoring in undried wt. what about getting back grape prices ($3.50 per pound in the grocery store) or maybe hops prices ($1.75/oz)

Hydro as a hobby for city people, sure I can see that. Its already happening. You might be on to one of the great growth stories of the decade.

I'm not "beefing" at you, merely pointing out that this is all a bit blue sky with little substance. Sorry if that sounds grumpy, I don't mean to sound that way. Actually I'm pretty new to RUI and honestly like most of the people I've met.
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I went through my question and I don't see where I was expressing a beef (of course we are talking about growing plants, so not beef literally). I was just questioning this idea that hydro was this huge untapped method. The fact that somebody who is starving because they can't buy food also couldn't afford the infrastructure and chemicals (no I'm not using the word pejoratively) needed for hydro seems to be overlooked. To me its doubtful that a large share of the food supply will come from hydro.

Take your example, grapes. It can be done but is it worth it? Top quality wine grapes sell for $2k/ton so that sets a mark for the best a farmer can get for grapes. In the Oregon Willamette Valley, vineyards struggle to make a profit (this I know). Vineyards pay the bills but they don't bring in much profit for about 12 years. How would hydrofarming grapes this way pay off? Ok, I can see maybe you could double production by closer spacing and cost of sprays might be less but it doesn't look worthwhile to me. Forget about building greenhouses to grow grapes.

Another example, weed, one of the most valuable crops there is. I think the members of this board know how much work owning and running a hydroponics system requires. Some people do quite well in what -- 10x10 or 20x20 rooms with weed prices being what they are and how much people are willing to pay for it. You know how much work managing a one acre grow would take. How about expanding that to 10,000 acres? Paying and training labor to do this would be a great problem to have if you could charge weed prices but even factoring in undried wt. what about getting back grape prices ($3.50 per pound in the grocery store) or maybe hops prices ($1.75/oz)

Hydro as a hobby for city people, sure I can see that. Its already happening. You might be on to one of the great growth stories of the decade.

I'm not "beefing" at you, merely pointing out that this is all a bit blue sky with little substance. Sorry if that sounds grumpy, I don't mean to sound that way. Actually I'm pretty new to RUI and honestly like most of the people I've met.
Click to expand...
I think you have this idea that large scale hydroponic setups use the same watered down nutrients as hobbiests on RIU. The overhead is a lot lower than you think. Hydroponics is incredibly cheap with DIY hydro nutes. I could absolutely see myself scaling it up and making it profitable for grapes.

399-7202702 image.jpg

Yes... Totally scalable.
 
Last edited:
Gaberlunzie

Gaberlunzie

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I went through my question and I don't see where I was expressing a beef (of course we are talking about growing plants, so not beef literally). I was just questioning this idea that hydro was this huge untapped method. The fact that somebody who is starving because they can't buy food also couldn't afford the infrastructure and chemicals (no I'm not using the word pejoratively) needed for hydro seems to be overlooked. To me its doubtful that a large share of the food supply will come from hydro.

Take your example, grapes. It can be done but is it worth it? Top quality wine grapes sell for $2k/ton so that sets a mark for the best a farmer can get for grapes. In the Oregon Willamette Valley, vineyards struggle to make a profit (this I know). Vineyards pay the bills but they don't bring in much profit for about 12 years. How would hydrofarming grapes this way pay off? Ok, I can see maybe you could double production by closer spacing and cost of sprays might be less but it doesn't look worthwhile to me. Forget about building greenhouses to grow grapes.

Another example, weed, one of the most valuable crops there is. I think the members of this board know how much work owning and running a hydroponics system requires. Some people do quite well in what -- 10x10 or 20x20 rooms with weed prices being what they are and how much people are willing to pay for it. You know how much work managing a one acre grow would take. How about expanding that to 10,000 acres? Paying and training labor to do this would be a great problem to have if you could charge weed prices but even factoring in undried wt. what about getting back grape prices ($3.50 per pound in the grocery store) or maybe hops prices ($1.75/oz)

Hydro as a hobby for city people, sure I can see that. Its already happening. You might be on to one of the great growth stories of the decade.

I'm not "beefing" at you, merely pointing out that this is all a bit blue sky with little substance. Sorry if that sounds grumpy, I don't mean to sound that way. Actually I'm pretty new to RUI and honestly like most of the people I've met.
Click to expand...
Look, all I can say in response to that is thankfully not everyone thinks like you do - the wealth of great minds at such institutions as MIT certainly don't. Look at how technology has evolved in just the last 100 years alone, slightly more than the average lifespan of a single human primate. Who would have thought in 1913 when Henry Ford developed the first mass-production assembly line that just 50 years later humans would land on the moon, and who in 1969 would have thought just 40 years later we would be developing the technology to send a rover to the icy oceans of Europa in search of life?

Anyway, the folks in question don't give a flying you know what about profit - they work for food. And with the billions of dollars of international aide allocated to Africa alone each year, I think it's well within the realm of possibility for hydroponic greenhouses to be set up in these regions in the near future and sustained relatively inexpensively as church just touched on.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
I think you have this idea that large scale hydroponic setups use the same watered down nutrients as hobbiests on RIU. The overhead is a lot lower than you think. Hydroponics is incredibly cheap with DIY hydro nutes. I could absolutely see myself scaling it up and making it profitable for grapes.

View attachment 3373106

Yes... Totally scalable.
Click to expand...
OK, well you'd have the advantage of being the first mover. When I wrote that, I saw how it could be done. I think it would be pretty close, you don't. One thing about wine grapes is the concept of Terroir. Selling hydro into that snobby entrenched market would be a challenge. The table grape market wouldn't care but they make about $750 per ton. I'd be happy to show you around my vineyard (about 1/2 acre hobby farm) and introduce you to some vineyard managers if you like.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Gaberlunzie said:
Look, all I can say in response to that is thankfully not everyone thinks like you do - the wealth of great minds at such institutions as MIT certainly don't. Look at how technology has evolved in just the last 100 years alone, slightly more than the average lifespan of a single human primate. Who would have thought in 1913 when Henry Ford developed the first mass-production assembly line that just 50 years later humans would land on the moon, and who in 1969 would have thought just 40 years later we would be developing the technology to send a rover to the icy oceans of Europa in search of life?

Anyway, the folks in question don't give a flying you know what about profit - they work for food. And with the billions of dollars of international aide allocated to Africa alone each year, I think it's well within the realm of possibility for hydroponic greenhouses to be set up in these regions in the near future and sustained relatively inexpensively as church just touched on.
Click to expand...
Your post made me chuckle. I've been frustrated by obstinate people in similar situations. OK, I'll get down off my hobby horse and stop shouting the Russians are coming. You guys have thought it through for longer than I have so I'll take your word for it.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
OK, well you'd have the advantage of being the first mover. When I wrote that, I saw how it could be done. I think it would be pretty close, you don't. One thing about wine grapes is the concept of Terroir. Selling hydro into that snobby entrenched market would be a challenge. The table grape market wouldn't care but they make about $750 per ton. I'd be happy to show you around my vineyard (about 1/2 acre hobby farm) and introduce you to some vineyard managers if you like.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't know much about the wine grape market, but if it's anything like the cannabis market, I'd be willing to bet that different wine makers/drinkers have different opinions on what the best methods of growing grapes are, if any.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
And about the wheat issue... In a lot of places in the world, people have foolishly built cities on the most fertile flood plains, while the rest of the country is desert. (Egypt).

In order to feed/grow their population, they need to figure out a way to use their sandy soil to produce, or force people to move their cities from the floodplains to the desert so they can farm the floodplains.

I think hydroponics is perfect for this type of sandy soil, as I said earlier in this thread, because of the obvious drainage properties of soil, and it's inability to hold nutrients and water. Under these conditions, they might be best off growing everything hydroponically.

 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
I honestly don't know much about the wine grape market, but if it's anything like the cannabis market, I'd be willing to bet that different wine makers/drinkers have different opinions on what the best methods of growing grapes are, if any.
Click to expand...
I don't want to derail this thread. I'll be glad to talk wine market with you any time. People that make wine are passionate about what they do. Even hobbyists.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I don't think organic labeled food is more expensive because it's better. A lot of times things are more expensive simply because the supply is significantly lower and overhead is higher to produce it. The reason the stuff that's not labeled as "organic" is so much cheaper is because they're able to produce it cheaper, allowing them to undercut the "organic" growers in price.

If it was really cheaper to grow "organically", organic growers would be able to undercut the mainstream... or would simply be mainstream at the supermarket.

I put "organic" in quotes because of the synthetic urea not being allowed to be labeled "organic" despite it being organic.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
And about the wheat issue... In a lot of places in the world, people have foolishly built cities on the most fertile flood plains, while the rest of the country is desert. (Egypt).
Click to expand...
hooboy you got that right. The Santa Clara Valley in CA was an amazing place before it got paved over. It was called the Valley of Hearts Delight. Beautiful soil and climate.

How is the desert sand idea different from what IsraeI doing, where they drip irrigate/fertigate on the desert floor? I assume you are thinking of annual floods to flush the accumulated salts from the sand? Maybe I just don't understand how would this work.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
hooboy you got that right. The Santa Clara Valley in CA was an amazing place before it got paved over. It was called the Valley of Hearts Delight. Beautiful soil and climate.

How is the desert sand idea different from what IsraeI doing, where they drip irrigate/fertigate on the desert floor? I assume you are thinking of annual floods to flush the accumulated salts from the sand? Maybe I just don't understand how would this work.
Click to expand...
It would need to somehow use water pipes and pumps to get water from the nile to extend the range of the floodplains. Those giant bags of calcium nitrate would be hauled in via truck, and dumped into the irrigation systems to feed the grains.

With the sandy soil, I'm guessing the water will drain back in the Nile anyway. The sand makes a giant hydroponics flood and drain system.
 
bluntmassa1

bluntmassa1

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I don't want to derail this thread. I'll be glad to talk wine market with you any time. People that make wine are passionate about what they do. Even hobbyists.
Click to expand...
Yeah, wine sucks grapes are better. :bigjoint:You should be talking about hops they are actually related to cannabis and beer is better.
 
legallyflying

legallyflying

Well-Known Member
I would like to point out that the contention that hydro is more expensive than soil is total BS. I see guys spending thousands on soil, coco, perlite etc just to throw it away at the end of the cycle.

If we are staying on subject, I feel that hydro is better for the environment in the following ways...

1. LESS Waste. Soil farmers throw all that soil away at the end. All that soil is bagged in a big factory and shipped all over the country in diesel trucks. And it's heavy! Hydro substrate comes out of the faucet.

2. Less water usage. I don't know one soil guy that doesn't water plants until the drain out on to the floor. Wasteful. Lots of hydro guys collect AC condensate and use for watering. Soil can certainly do this to but hydro guys typically have the reservoirs and barrels etc to easier collect it.

3. The third and by far the biggest reason it's better for the environment is time spent running the lights. Hydro is fucking FAST. I grow DWC commercially and just shake my head when I hear veg times of two months etc for trees. Power generation is the biggest pollution producer, especially for you east and mid west states that are sucking on the coal teat. Less time with the light on per crop = less co2 production and pollution.

yes, it is definately more complicated and yes you need more gear, but once it's wired you are atoked. I see warehouse teams hauling huge buckets of soil around, lifting them, mixing them, and taking them to the dump. Ummmm.. no thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top