Talk:Hydroponics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hydroponics article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Culture types need clarification

This section in general is kinda vague and cursory, but in particular I don't understand the difference between static solution culture and deep water culture. They seem the same to me. Also I added the organoponics article text to the organoponics section in this article, since it wasn't clear what organoponics was before. 69.91.145.100 00:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heading

Would this be a good image for this page? Stumbled across it just now, but am ignorant of hydroponics. Lupin 07:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LUPIN: It might not be a good example of a hydroponic system (the fact that it's in a bathtub implies it might actually be a foam fractionator for a saltwater fishtank or, if hydroponic, used to grow illegal "weedy" plants). If you are looking for pictures to demonstrate small-scale or commercial hydroponic systems, there are plenty on the internet (provided to ask for permission and/or reference them properly) - or you can use pictures from my M.Sc. thesis at the University of Guelph. Please feel free to ask me questions about hydroponics in general - both small and commercial scale. I'm familiar with many types, including deep flow, NFT, trickle flow, ebb and flood, and container hydroponics, having worked with several outfits in Leamington, Ontario and made many of my own. Send me a note at nathan.owengoing@gmail.com.

Nathanow 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice- "weedy." Nevertheless, that's a legi-err- use of hydroponics and certainly qualifies as agriculture (except with hydroponics, there's no ager. 171.71.37.103 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] major overhall (or overhaul?)

I added the Commerical section, gave links to examples of the different hydroponic methods, and added information to many sections.

If you do any edits please add to this discussion.

I deleted this from the commercial section: "In addition to its regular employees, Eurofresh employs 180 Arizona inmates full time and pays them $2/hour."
It has nothing to do with hydroponics. Glippy00 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrected the opening and added some noncommercial references. Corrected and greatly expanded the history section. Will work on some other sections as time allows. The article overhypes hydroponics in several places. Plantguy 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I cut the Uses and Problems sections because they mainly hyped hydroponics. The accurate info from those sections was put in new sections on Soilless Culture, Advantages and Disadvantages. Also added some more references. The page seems to have too many subheads in the media section with very little info under most of those subheads. Plantguy 00:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Section & 'Organic'

This section seems very US-centric. I can provide some info on the situation in Australia, such as the 'Organic' certifying board adding "..in soil" to the organic definition, but does anyone have any info regarding Europe? I am double-checking source material before I add the Aussie info.. stay tuned. LowKey 12:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, the organic certifying board is the Soil Association whose title says it all - Hydroponic production is not organic.--ReddyRose 10:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Organoponics section seems unclear to me. I assume that organoponics is a type of hydroponics, but the current section is just random statements about hydroponics, rather a description of Organoponics. I am not very knowledgeable in this area or I would attempt to improve it. However, I thought I should bring it up so those in the know can take a look.

71.119.125.17 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Adam | wikipedia@adamweston.com | 3:21, 30 Jun 2007

I removed the Organoponics section. It isn't a form of hydroponics. I did add it to the See also section, just in case someone might be looking for info on it in this article. Gh5046 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've removed all the links to onlinehydroponics.com from the body of the article, and commented out the "external links" link to it. Is there a compelling reason (per Wikipedia:External links, of course) that this links needs to be included?
brenneman(t)(c) 04:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, so that's where all the information came from! I guess it could qualify as a source per WP:V, however there are much better sources to use. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 12:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Gericke

According a source I have he was from the University of California, Berkeley not University of California, Davis. Maybe he ws fromboth I am not sure.

[edit] New draft

Since this article is entirely unreferenced, and it's a rather large article, I figured it would be easier to re-write the article. Blanking the article may be a bit much, so I am starting a draft for re-writing the article at Hydroponics/Draft. All facts added there must be sourced, or else it will be reverted. Once the draft attains the quality of the current article (but with referenced statements), it will be copied over to the main Hydroponics article. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 01:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck on the new draft, Messedrocker. It looks a little thin though, and the only reference for a two-sentence entry is to another encyclopedia! Glad you held back from blanking the existing article. PBarak 13:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you view the content of the source well? I'm a bit concerned that I cited a subscriber database, which might be frowned upon since not everyone can check on it. I'll probably end up replacing it with better references, anyways. —THIS IS MESSEDImage:R with umlaut.pngOCKER (TALK) 01:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the encyclopedia brittanica ref you put there was behind subscription password protection. Pardon me for asking, but do you know something about hydroponics? PBarak 02:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Use of the term

I have started a small page on turf management . One section covers golf courses and from some very brief checking on literature i have used the term hydroponic in the article.However i am not 100% if this is correct or indeed if it is a bastardised use of the word. Any help would be appreciated. IndianSunset 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sand greens in golf courses are not technically hydroponics because the fertilizer is applied in solid form, much of it slow-release, rather than as a mineral nutrient solution. Also, I believe the sod used for sand golf greens is not totally soil-free when installed. American football often uses sand fields called PAT (Prescription Athletic Turf) for the Purdue University system. Plantguy 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantages section

I don't trust a source over 50 years old to be accurate about a technology that is now mainly computerized and researched by NASA and large corporations that rely on getting the most out of limited space.

Also, I dispute the sense of it. Why cant plants be spaced closer together? As long as they get their nutrition I don't understand this. --mboverload@ 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Hydro Aquatic Technologies 1995, Resh 1993 as quoted by the US EPA website says that plants may be space closer together.

Well, Mboverload, Plantguy is right about hydroponics being more complicated than 'geoponics'...and he used one of the classic hydroponic papers to reference it, which means that he's referencing this all the way back to the source instead of later derivative work. (People 'trust' Hoagland and Arnon everytime they put together a modified Hoagland solution!) Yes, it's computerized and sensored, etc., and done by NASA and in Antartica. That's pretty much proof that it's more complex than farming soil, which is one of the stated disadvantages of hydroponics.

I disagree with the statement that it is more complex than farming soil. Just because it can be computerized, doesn't make it more complex. Many conventional agricultural systems are now computerized. -Phratom

Some hydroponic systems are not computerized other than a timer to turn on the sump pump for watering. In fact, many systems such as the large-scale one that I am currently constructing are based on very basic physics. An ebb-and-flow systems relies on gravity to drain the growing beds once the sump pump is turned off--a very simple design. -Phratom

Plant spacing of mature plants is dependent upon light interception, not nutrition, so hydroponic systems have no particular advantage there except perhaps juggling spacing of immature plants, but that can be done in container-media, i.e., geoponics, too. PBarak 00:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Plants CAN in fact be spaced closer together. This gives the advantage of being able to farm more plants in a smaller space--it has important implications on increasing pressures from urbanization such as what is currently happening in Central Valley, CA. The reason that they plants can be spaced closer together is because they do not need to establish an extensive root system to find food. Rather, the food comes to the roots, thereby allowing the plant to allocate more carbon to what is happening above the ground. This is another 'advantage' of hydroponics and should be noted in the section. e.g. Plants can be spaced closer together and grow at a more rapid rate due to allocation of carbon to functions other than root growth. -Phratom

Please cite a peer-reviewed research article that experimentally supports this claim that hydroponic plants allocate less carbon to roots and more to the harvestable part. Roots do not find food, they find mineral nutrients. They make food via photosynthesis. If plants have to be spaced farther apart in soil to obtain enough mineral nutrients, they need fertilizer.
Some hydroponic systems have the advantage of allowing plant spacing to be varied during the crop. That can maximize light interception by closer spacing when plants are small. In field agriculture, once you plant the seed or seedlings in the ground, the crop spacing is set.

Mboverload, rather than eliminating sections saying they don't have references, please just mention in the Talk section statements you feel require a footnote, and I will try to provide one. The entire article had no references before I added several from noncommercial sources. Since its inception, hydroponics has been plagued by overexaggeration. Hoagland and Arnon (1950) is still valid; it's basic work. In science, once something fundamental is established, it is not republished every few years. Most hydroponic books are written to promote hydroponics; they are not completely objective. Sources that claim hydroponics is vastly superior to geoponics don't the have research to back it up (Gericke did not). He quickly faded from the headlines once Hoagland and Arnon published their work. I have never even been able to find out when he passed away.

There are many current studies that should be referenced. These studies support the 'hype' that has been placed on hydroponics. I am currently conducting one of these such studies. -Phratom

By all means provide some peer-reviewed sources that support the hydroponics 'hype'.Plantguy 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Israel produces 95% of its own food--mainly using hydroponic methods. Their systems help curb problems with arid environments, lack of suitable soil, and other environmental concerns. They are much better for the environment than conventional agriculture which is heavily dependent on pesticides and water. -Phratom

Do you have a source for your statement that "Israel produces 95% of its own food--mainly using hydroponic methods"? It does not seem accurate. Maybe Israel produces 95% of their fresh fruits and vegetables but Israel imports most grains, oil seeds, coffee, cocoa, meat and sugar according to a hydroponic magazine.[1]. In most cultures, grains provide most of the dietary calories. Plantguy 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

For more up to date peer-reviewed research see: Meier Schwarz 'Soilless Culture Management", M.H. Jensen "Hydroponic Vegetable Production", LS Marsh "Greenhouse Hydroponic Lettuce Production", and others. -Phratom

Phratom - By all means add some citations. I'm not sure the books you mention are peer reviewed like scientific journal articles. Most books are not peer-reviewed. The book on Soilless Culture is not necessarily all hydroponics. Drip irrigation, greenhouse production and soilless culture are not the same as hydroponics. A lot of people claim a method is hydroponic when it really isn't. Plantguy 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

NASA uses hydroponics for its Controlled Ecological Life Support System because it would be too expensive to ship soil to outer space or the space station. Solution culture hydroponics is an excellent research method but has limited commercial application for food production because of its greater costs. The only hydroponic produce I have ever seen in supermarkets is lettuce and a few herbs. Big corporations such as General Mills (Phytofarm) and General Electric (Geniponics) operated hydroponic factories in the 1970s and soon gave up on the technology as unprofitable. What large corporations are currently making big investments in hydroponics? Plantguy 01:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw a program about a month ago about a large hydroponic operation. I don't know when it was built but it definatly wasn't built in the 70s. I think they were using it to make flowers.
I accept most of your explination, but I fail to see how controlling every variable to absolute perfection doesn't make better plants. -mboverload@ 01:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that "controlling every variable to absolute perfection" often will make better plants. It also makes for much more expensive plants. Do you have a name for the company that you remember is producing flowers hydroponically? Most flower production is not true hydroponics. Most is soilless culture with an organic material as a medium, and some of mineral nutrients added in solid form to the medium. A lot of the advantages of greater production in hydroponics are due to the use of greenhouses. In cold climates, you can certainly increase yield per acre by producing year round in a greenhouse compared to one crop per year outside. Plantguy 00:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Thanks for taking the time to explain it =D. Sorry, I really can't remember. I found this article in a quick google search: [2]. I'm pretty sure that's not the one they were at, but I really can't be sure.If I come across the TV program again I'll be sure to message you --mboverload@ 01:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Another "large" flower facility: [3] --mboverload@ 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There are some hydroponic cut flower operations such as the two described in your links but neither of those is a very large operation. It would be nice to have some statistics of the percent of cut flowers produced via hydroponics. I added info on Eurofresh Farms to the commercial section. Their 256 acres is estimated to represent about a third of the hydroponic greenhouse area in the U.S. Less than 1,000 acres is a very small area relative to the millions of acres cultivated in the U.S. I'm sorry that Hoagland and Arnon's 1950 bulletin is not available online. It is really excellent and still relevant given all the hyping of hydroponics today, e.g. [4] Hoagland and Arnon stated,
"Widely circulated rumors, claims and predictions about the water-culture production of crops often had little more to commend them than the author's unrestrained imagination. Grossly inaccurate in fact and misleading in implication, most of these claims betrayed an ignorance of even the elementary principles of plant physiology."
Would you approve of adding back the Advantages section? Plantguy 22:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exageration is not a disadvantage

I object to inclusion of the following portion of the "disadvantages" section:

  • Hydroponics has been widely exaggerated as miraculous.[6]
    • Hydroponics will not always produce greater crop yields than with good quality soil.[7]
    • Hydroponic plants cannot be spaced closer together than soil-grown crops under the same environmental conditions.[8]
    • Hydroponic produce will not necessarily be more nutritious or delicious than soil-grown produce.[9]

I think these statements are true, and worth putting in the article. They are not, however, disadvantages to hydroponics. I have left them in the article, but will move them if there is no objection forthcoming. Lamont A Cranston 13:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the section on Disadvantages and also added an Advantages section before someone else deleted it for no valid reason. I readded it today. I have no objection if you want to make misconceptions a separate section but the items currently there are, as you say, facts that should be retained in the article. I feel they are disadvantages because such exaggerations amount to false advertising. Such exaggerations have given hydroponics a reputation as a "get rich quick scam" where hydroponics suppliers mislead their unwary customers. Plantguy 16:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the current version. My objection was that (before I changed it) the misconceptions were not differentiated from disadvantages. To my mind misconceptions of the public are not in fact a disadvantage. For example, the statement "hydroponics will not always produce more that soil" is true. It is not, however, a disadvantage to hydroponics. A disadvantage to hydroponics would be "hydroponics produces less than soil." The fact that some people hold an incorrect opinion is not a disadvantage to a system. Lamont A Cranston 00:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, the items you mention are not realy disadvantages but misconceptions. I think it would be better to make misconceptions a new heading and put it after disadvantages (or possibly somewhere else?). Apis O-tang 00:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also can't see how the following item is a disadvantage in itself?

"Most hydroponic crops are grown in greenhouses or controlled environment agriculture."

I thus merged it with the third item, stating that hydroponics are usualy more expensive than traditional methods. Apis O-tang 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


We need to know what ingredients we need to start hydroponics!! November 2006

Link was added to Aeroponic as well --Agrihouse 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus

Why does this article focus solely on hydroponics in crop production? What about its use in residential houseplants, etc.? — Sam 00:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The only section that deals with crops is the "Commercial" section. The sections on media, nutrient solutions, and techniques all apply to any application of hydroponics.
If your complaint is that there isn't any mention of it being used for houseplants, find a source and add it. Be bold! 171.71.37.103 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Present and future" section doesn't really add anything

I'd like to remove it, and maybe relocate the small amount of information it has. While I do think this section can exist, it should cover likely future uses, not mention advantages, again. 171.71.37.103 18:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Box

There should be mention of Earth Boxes here, as there is a significant global movement for them. Maybe worth a separate article. http://davesgarden.com/guides/terms/go/1686/ JDG 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary

I think this article is long enough to warrant a glossary. Anyone want to tackle that? I also believe we should use a new term for hydroponic facility which should be included and also added to dictionaries, hydroponicum. This term is used in Scotland and Texas and probably other facilities as well (use Google et al.). The um suffix is a second declension neuter Latin suffix derived from arium, Latin for place, similar to museum. I am working on the lexicologists.Jvstuart 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't generally use glossaries. When you can just click a word to find out what it refers to in many cases, they're not necessary. As for the new term, please see WP:NEO; Wikipedia does not attempt to advance the use of new terms, and indeed avoids them until they're well-established.
For what it's worth, I rather think this article still needs quite a bit of cleanup. Chris Cunningham 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coir

Does this deal too much with CANNA Coco or exaggerated? If possible, tone down the use of the word CANNA, it is used 5 times in one paragraph. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with coco or CANNA that much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster2.0 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I also find it a little excessive, it seems like advertising to me, but I'm not familiar with the subject either. --Apis O-tang 05:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


CANNA are the leading manufacturer but Coco is made by plenty of other suppliers so in the interest of keeping it fair I would reccomend calling it "Coco Coir" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.201.107 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page semi-protected?

Yes, why? --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken care of. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


I was wondering that too, by looking at the log, on April fools day 201.196.12.54 had a war with the resident users and previously several attacks were done too.. that is quite strange the number of attacks, uranus or homeotic gene is understandable, but hydroponics? it seems a good call to have it protected although I am curious in knowning why is it targeted. --Squidonius (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory Line Removed

I removed a line from the Advantages/Disadvantages section.

Originally :

Hydroponics has been widely misconceived as miraculous.[9] There are many widely held misconceptions regarding hydroponics, as noted by the following facts:

   * Hydroponics will not always produce greater crop yields than with good quality soil.[10]
   * Hydroponic plants cannot always be spaced closer together than soil-grown crops (geoponics) under the same environmental conditions.[11]
   * Hydroponic produce will not necessarily be more nutritious or better tasting than geoponics.[12]

Hydroponics will grow 30% faster and cost less. They are also proven to be healthier and more productive.

I removed the last line... whether or not it's a fact (also note, that it has no source reference) it's a very poor place to put such a line. I'm assuming the person who decided to just stick that line there didn't happen to read what the three lines above it read. It's confusing to put something so blatantly contradictory after a list like that....

I don't care either way, it's not so much a factual thing. Just, it's a horrible place to put something like that. It's like me saying Santa Claus is a fat man, and then saying that he's not fat. Regardless of the truth content (which is wholly unverified) it just smacks of unfounded, contradictory opinion.

[edit] Sack and Column Culture

Column culture (also called Barrel Culture) consists of a metal, concrete, or plastic column with holes along the sides where starter plants are inserted. Nutrient solution is dripped from the top and allowed to drain through the bottom where the solution can be collected for recycling. Gravel and some other medium have been used. Tomatoes, Strawberries, leaf lettace, and red peppers have been grown.

Sack Culture uses black 0.15mm thick polyethylene as 6 inch diameter and 6 ft length columns filled with a peat-vericulture mixture. The bottom is tied, and usually the draining nutrient solution is not recycled. Occassionally a pure water flush is needed to lower the salt content.

Source: Hydroponic Food Production by Howared M. Resh,Ph.D, 4th edition pages 321 to 329.

71.114.183.105 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where to buy hydroponics and hydroponic systems

There are only a few places online to buy hydroponic systems. One of the best I found is at Dealzer.com They have over 40 systems that are considered the "Cadillac" of all hydroponic units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.213.156 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)