AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
I do think this holds true, no soil erosion from farming the ground, 80% less water usage, more produce in less time. These are major factors to think about when comparing to organic farming.
Is hydroponics better for the environment? I think it is.
- Thread starter AlphaPhase
- Start date
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
Just think about a raised hydroponic farm that is build above the ground so the land could even be free for use. So many possibilities that hydroponics could do in the future that organic simply could not.
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
I'd like to add this thought before I forget. A huge majority of people live in cities which simply can not grow anything. The people rely on farming because they can not grow their own. Growing any other method than hydroponics would be completely unorthodox. With that said, we need to think about the future, population increase, ect. How are we going to feed them when there is no more land to farm because it's all used up? Hydroponics would be a huge success to battle these problems. As I mentioned, hydroponic grown food has an average of 30% more yield with most foods. 30% more is huge. I agree that there is a place for organic farming for the home brewer, but it just doesn't make sense on a large scale, imo. That's the joy of being a home brewer, you can make the decision to grow however you'd like, but what's better for the majority? I'd like to note that organic compared to hydroponics from a nutritional stand point, they are the same.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
This was a good read but was not very accurate. His emphasis on the marketing of organic food somehow is bad left out the huge influence in the country that the conventional food industry has in the marketplace and in politics -- which completely dwarfs the organic food market.. He also treated organic agriculture as if its the same as conventional except they use different chemicals. This depends on the farmer and is sometimes true but the farmer is doing it wrong if it is. He is right about the wine industry -- European wine grapes are horribly deficient in pest resistance. He is also dismisses the fever pitch that people get into when they talk about food safety and conventional ag sprays and how the risk is overblown. He's probably right about this.
He got it right at the end of the article when he said: "We should choose farming methods that truly address our real concerns — safety and sustainability — not simply methods that satisfy an arbitrary marketing label." That I think is the point in this thread too.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
From a nutrients-used point of view, not so green. Maybe the other factors you mention yes. How much less energy does hydro consume compared to conventional? Would energy used in aeration be less than that used when tilling?
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
Nice article! That one I have not stumbled across, good read.
Fogdog- in the systems I think would be most suitable for farming would not use airstones, bbut would use water pumps to recirculate the water and get maximum growth with minimal water waste, either aeroponic or a ebb n flow hybrid system. I think it would drastically use less energy running the pumps, especially if the whole greenhouse is run on solar power (which would be very easy to do if using only the sun for lighting.) So with the diesel used for tractors to til and the fumes they emit, I would say imo that it would be far more green in that aspect. Gravity hydroponics could even be implemented, which only one pump would be used to pump water to the top tier in the hydro system and they system would be slightly slopping downwards which would recirculate back to the main water tank.
Fogdog- in the systems I think would be most suitable for farming would not use airstones, bbut would use water pumps to recirculate the water and get maximum growth with minimal water waste, either aeroponic or a ebb n flow hybrid system. I think it would drastically use less energy running the pumps, especially if the whole greenhouse is run on solar power (which would be very easy to do if using only the sun for lighting.) So with the diesel used for tractors to til and the fumes they emit, I would say imo that it would be far more green in that aspect. Gravity hydroponics could even be implemented, which only one pump would be used to pump water to the top tier in the hydro system and they system would be slightly slopping downwards which would recirculate back to the main water tank.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'm still boggled by the idea of raising wheat this way but that's just me.
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
IMO, I would not do wheat in a hydroponic system. Grains would be one of the few things I would keep in the fields. I don't believe that grains do well in hydro systems either. There are a few crops that do better in a dirt environment, and anything that does better in a dirt environment (yield, vigor) should stay that way, since in the end, we want the most bang for our buck.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Hydroponic wheat in an area with sandy soil could make sense. I'm picturing complex irrigation channels feeding a pure hydroponic, nitrate salt based nutrient.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
from the article:
A little bias, but the scientific community is playing dumb. The definition of organic or the science term of organic and the desire to have crops produced using "organic methods" are clearly two different things. There is no other way to describe having your food grown using whats created by mother nature and god (not man) other than natural. The word "Natural" on food labels means nothing anymore and the organic food label term was an attempt to have foods that do not include GMO's or synthetics derived from human engineering. Also he has gone out of his way to describe all products used for food consumption as organic, but then suddenly in the middle of the article differentiates the two as organic and synthetic. The means in which synthetics are created are presented but not detailed and assumed not to be harmful to the environment for lack of information, which is a pretty big assumption considering the topic. Science apparently does not apply to method, only elements and compounds. This is the true debate.
Not the goal. Healthy food that is good for you! and sustainable production.
Really? so why do we need synthetic nutes at all. Synthetic nutes are not good for microbial life in soil. They kill the bacteria and fungus. Worms and other bugs can not tolerate soil treated with these synthetic nutrients. With no life in the soil its mandatory to repeat the process of treatment.
This is where science fails. Anyone can look to the studies done on the synthetic sweetener aspartame. With all of the evidence showing the outright cause of cancerous tumors on mice it was simply scaled down to a negligible amount. The prolonged mass consumption over multiple years will vary from individual to individual. There is no proof that small amounts will not have the same detrimental effect over long periods of time but yet its still used in mass production by many unknowing consumers.
In fact, when the agricultural industry used DDT on crops for pest removal it was directly linked to cancer in many studies. The same company who created DDT created agent orange. Synthetic pesticides are usually not water soluble which makes them more durable on plants and sometimes make them linger in the environment they were applied only to show up in other organisms in absurd amounts throughout the neighboring ecosystem.
Proper use of organic methods are to ensure the consumer is receiving the healthiest most environmentally sustainable product with the least amount of negative aspects through out the products cycle from growth to decomposition. Its not just how much and how fast. Its the method it takes to create it, its carbon footprint, its relationship to the surrounding environment. Farmer to farmer all of these conditions will vary but attempts to regulate certain criteria for "Labels" are the only marker consumers of mass produced products can identify other than brand at the moment. Sadly large corporations have already taken steps to have their products identified as organic when just a few ytears ago they would not have been. its an ongoing effort in the food business and likewise in the chemical industry.
A little bias, but the scientific community is playing dumb. The definition of organic or the science term of organic and the desire to have crops produced using "organic methods" are clearly two different things. There is no other way to describe having your food grown using whats created by mother nature and god (not man) other than natural. The word "Natural" on food labels means nothing anymore and the organic food label term was an attempt to have foods that do not include GMO's or synthetics derived from human engineering. Also he has gone out of his way to describe all products used for food consumption as organic, but then suddenly in the middle of the article differentiates the two as organic and synthetic. The means in which synthetics are created are presented but not detailed and assumed not to be harmful to the environment for lack of information, which is a pretty big assumption considering the topic. Science apparently does not apply to method, only elements and compounds. This is the true debate.
Not the goal. Healthy food that is good for you! and sustainable production.
Really? so why do we need synthetic nutes at all. Synthetic nutes are not good for microbial life in soil. They kill the bacteria and fungus. Worms and other bugs can not tolerate soil treated with these synthetic nutrients. With no life in the soil its mandatory to repeat the process of treatment.
This is where science fails. Anyone can look to the studies done on the synthetic sweetener aspartame. With all of the evidence showing the outright cause of cancerous tumors on mice it was simply scaled down to a negligible amount. The prolonged mass consumption over multiple years will vary from individual to individual. There is no proof that small amounts will not have the same detrimental effect over long periods of time but yet its still used in mass production by many unknowing consumers.
In fact, when the agricultural industry used DDT on crops for pest removal it was directly linked to cancer in many studies. The same company who created DDT created agent orange. Synthetic pesticides are usually not water soluble which makes them more durable on plants and sometimes make them linger in the environment they were applied only to show up in other organisms in absurd amounts throughout the neighboring ecosystem.
Proper use of organic methods are to ensure the consumer is receiving the healthiest most environmentally sustainable product with the least amount of negative aspects through out the products cycle from growth to decomposition. Its not just how much and how fast. Its the method it takes to create it, its carbon footprint, its relationship to the surrounding environment. Farmer to farmer all of these conditions will vary but attempts to regulate certain criteria for "Labels" are the only marker consumers of mass produced products can identify other than brand at the moment. Sadly large corporations have already taken steps to have their products identified as organic when just a few ytears ago they would not have been. its an ongoing effort in the food business and likewise in the chemical industry.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
This is not even a question though. With ever increasing demand, technology, and the chemical companies running farmers out of business its almost guaranteed that Hydroponic agriculture will be the most dominant method for a long time. My way of thinking differs from yours because I only see one evil.
Do you prefer cattle fed corn in small stalls plagued with bacteria and antibiotics or cattle fed grass and allowed to roam freely. Does not matter right its just beef you can get at mcdonalds, which I personally cant stomach.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
I just dont like how people shit on anything Organic with mis information. haha
conventional farming methods vs Hydroponics both have benefits and faults when it comes to the environment. I would argue for Hydroponics 100% vs conventional farming methods when it comes to the environment
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
To reply to your reply, no I would not want cows fed like that, though that is how veal is made. Think of this. If everything was grown hydroponcally for the last decade, freeing up large amounts of farming fields, farm animals would be able to roam and be free range with all the extra land hydroponics would save, while producing more food, which means cheaper food (supply/demand). I'm not sure which hydroponic nutrients cause cancer, but I am going to say zero. Also, there is hardly any need to use pesticides growing hydroponics. I have never had one bug on my hydroponic plants, but the first plant I've grown indoors in soil in the past 5 years, did in fact, get bugs. So I threw it away. And even though that plant had bugs, rthey did not touch my hydro plants. There's so many benefits to hydroponics.
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
I grew strictly organic for at least 7 years, no one here is shitting on organics, it seems the only one shitting on things is you towards hydroponics. I clearly have said I like organic.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
Now you imply Hydro does not get bugs, cmon man. Your personal experience is such a small fraction of what other growers go through.
I never shitted on hydro, I am a hydro grower! As for nutrients that cause cancer, warning labels are on many of them.
ounevinsmoke
Well-Known Member
when I said shitting on organics I was replying to the article not you
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
It's not that organic doesn't work well to grow plants, all a plant needs is nutrients, so of course it does. Is it better for the planet and healthier for the people? Probably not. 
AlphaPhase
Well-Known Member
I've personally have never dealt with bugs in hydro, though it probably happens, but with far less crops. I've got a few 1000 hydro plants grown under my belt. Though I have recently dealt with root rot in my cloner for the first time. I'm not sure why bugs are far less active with hydro but I assume it's because there is no dirt and bugs love dirt
Similar threads
