Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
joe_jr317

hydroponics and water conservation

joe.jr317
14 years ago

I have read several times that hydroponics conserves water. I've read it on the web. I've read it in magazines. I've been told this at the two major hydro stores in Indiana. The claim is never coupled with a particular plant or a particular system. It always seems quite general. Thing is. . . I'm not quite understanding how this claim can possibly be made. Enlighten me folks. Especially on tomatoes.

The reason I am even wondering is because my tomato plants in the hydro are drinking 1.5 gallons up a day. About what they drank up last year at this stage. My peppers are not such heavy drinkers. 2 gallons a week in the hydro. I am currently using 3 methods of hydro and also using raised beds for my organic soil garden. I am using approximately 1 gallon per tomato plant every 3 days with intensive planting (12 to 18 inches spaced) in the soil garden. 1 gallon every 5 days for the peppers, same spacing. I have peppers in "self watering" pots, too. I have to feed these 2 gallons a week.

My yield is no better in the hydro than in the garden right now, but I have been a bit neglectful to my hydro. Actually, I have been equally attentive to the hydro as the soil. The difference is that the hydro is very demanding while the soil will produce despite neglect. Truth be known, I am battling BER in the hydro because of solution temps. The soil plants seem to have no such problem drinking 85 degree water (black rain barrels). It's just that they are buffered by a cooler soil. Anyway, when it's said and done, I will have lost many of my tomatoes that were produced in the last few days because of BER. Fortunately, that was a short lived neglect. Last year I got a much better yield with cherry tomatoes, and cayenne peppers, but not from any other plant. The cherry tomatoes got bigger, but the soil comparison was blown over by 45 mph winds and the stem cracked badly. So, obviously that affected yield.

The soil plants are still out producing so far. Even if I didn't neglect, here is what I am thinking: I have 26 nearly full size roma tomatoes on one of my soil plants and am using 1/3 gallon per day. I am not adding in the rain we got before we've hit a dry spell. That would tip the scales in the soil's favor even more. I can explain that if anyone is interested in how I figured that. In order for hydro to compete I would have to be able to reduce water usage on the hydro by nearly 500% or increase current yield to over 150 tomatoes by today. Frankly, I think this is entirely impossible. I'm afraid I must call BS on this water conservation claim.

Comments (25)

  • grizzman
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I believe the claim is based on the fact that you're only feeding the plant in hydro. in the soil, you're also feeding grass and weeds as well as just dumping water back into the water table and some is evaporating.
    How are you watering your soil garden? are you trying to be conservative in your approach? (watering early morning or late afternoon only) do you have a heavy mulch layer around your plants to combat evaporation? are you using drip irrigation? There are a number of things the soil gardener can do to conserve water. you probably don't live in an area with really porous soil (aka a sandy soil) In areas like that it is difficult to keep a consistent moisture level in the root zone.
    How often does it rain and how often do you water your yard?
    Tomatoes may not be the best comparison either. Remember a tomato is really just a weed with a tasty blossom. weeds are especially suited to thrive under adverse conditions. that's why there are so many different kinds.
    I would think things like lettuces might be a better comparison since they really thrive on having a lot of water.
    I know I didn't really answer your question, but hopefully I put a little food for thought out there for you to consider on our side of the fence.

    Oh one other thing. I believe there is much better control over how much fertilizer is dumped back into the earth versus soil gardening. Really ours could be totally recyclable if we really tried. Not really a conservation issue but a real environmental one.

  • joe.jr317
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    yes, I try to practice water conservation methods in the soil garden. I use a heavy layer of compost. I use compost and worm castings to fertilize the soil garden. Despite hearing from people that it won't provide enough nitrogen, especially for intensive planting, my plants look awesome. I did read somewhere that it is believed that humus (vermicasts and very finished compost) actually can take nitrogen from the air, so that might be why. Haven't verified that by looking up decent studies, though.

    Consistent moisture in root zone is not only unnecessary, but can be detrimental in soil. I actually think that is an argument for how hydro is wasteful. Soil is more forgiving to the inconsistencies. Sandy soil can be corrected, if desired, to hold more water if you incorporate compost. That applies to anywhere in the world. It isn't practical on a farm scale, but totally doable on a gardening scale.

    I use two methods to water the soil garden. I use a hose occasionally so that I can spray the plants to get rid of any bugs like aphids. I do the same for the same amount of time on the hydro for the same reason. I don't use any pesticides. At least the soil plants can utilize the water that runs down. Mainly I use a watering can and milk jugs. The milk jugs have holes in the bottom and slowly let out the water. So, yeah, I guess that qualifies as drip irrigation. The watering cans and milk jugs make it easier to monitor usage. I can better direct the stream with a watering can and I always move about to ensure the water soaks rather than runs off.

    In calculating the rain water impact I compare the surface area of the garden to the surface area of the portion of the roof that I collect rain from for the hydro. The hydro has used up more rain by far and that is why I said that if I adjust for rain the scales tip even more in favor of the soil.

    I disagree with you on the fertilization. Or at least the fertilization in organic gardening. Organic fertilizers are going to be within the environment whether we use them or not. The fact that people are using them on gardens means they are being used faster rather than running off into waterways. For example: My compost makes use of yard waste, manure from someone else's horses who doesn't garden, and some food waste that would otherwise be lying somewhere in a pile or lagoon (manure) contributing almost exclusively to pollution through leachate. The worm castings would be in the ground, too. At least with the organic gardening, I can direct them to where they will likely be utilized before rain carries the phosphorous downstream. In other words, soil gardening (not talking about farming here) can actually reduce the amount of fertilizer that pollutes our environment if intelligent, conscientious methods are used.

    The reason I mentioned the fact that claims are always general is because I agree that this claim could be made of lettuce. But general claims imply the norm and the norm is tomatoes. Let's face it, everyone knows that tomatoes are the number one hydro crop. Thus general claims either imply tomatoes or are outright marketing scams exploiting people's desire to do good things for our environment.

    Hydroponics is fun and a great hobby and the reasons for doing it are beyond environmental stewardship, like being able to grow in the house year round. I just think that it is a humongous marketing scam in claiming that it is more environmentally friendly, especially in regard to water conservation. It seems to me that if the right practices are put in place, soil gardening wins that battle hands over fist.

  • gringojay
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi joejr,
    Specificly on tomatoes:
    the growers technique often stays the same throughout the life of the plant; there may be nutrient formula change(s), but few alter their fluid supply strategy.
    What is happening in the tomato plant can be simplified into 3 stages;
    (a) a transplant of +/- 8 true leaves every 4 days uses during the daytime 10 milli-equivalent (mEq) of water/ 100 gr. D.W. & during the night another 1.7 mEq
    (b) a flowering plant at first set every 4 days uses during the daytime 8 mEq of water/ 100 gr. D.W. & during the night another 1.2 mEq
    (c) a fruiting plant every 4 days uses during the daytime 3 mEq/ 100 gr. D.W. & during the night another 0.8 mEq
    This correlates to when flowering the tomato is essentially taking up a good deal of nutrients, but it is recycling to the hydroponic reservoir a good deal of surplus water.
    Then, as begins fruiting, the same tomato plant is decreasing further it's use of water & at the same time decreasing uptake % of nutes.
    Hydroponic pump times are not usually adjusted to these shifts, we are usually concentrating on maintaining the nutrient solution.
    In the ground, on the other hand, the human operator's good intentions are not set on a timer (so to speak).

  • grizzman
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Joe, I agree with you about organic gardening on the environment. Unfortunately (around here at least)organic is not the norm. Here most folkz pour on the miracle grow in hopes of giant plants and without regard to the soil.
    Also, the water conservation claim would probably hold more merit on a large scale operation(as you pointed out) where water control would be much more difficult.
    But yeah for the home gardener, there's probably not much conservation. In my experience, my hydro plants use a bit more water, but my soil ones could stand more. I tend to neglect the watering after the initial excitement wears off and this tends to make the soil plants suffer. For that, there's a tremendous benefit in hydro.

  • davemichigan
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Joe, of course it is a marketing scam. They are expert in telling you some correct but misleading data.

    The bottom line is this: if there is an optimum amount of water that a tomato plant needs to drink to give you optimal result, the amount should be the same whether it is hydroponics or soil.

    But as grizzman pointed, the claim is made considering when you water the plant, you also water grass and weeds. Also, by caterpillar action, if you pour a gallon of water on the ground, the water spreads to the surrounding and later gets evaporated, whereas if you put it in a container, it is contained there. Thus you "save," especially if you are paying the gallon of water.

    But it doesn't take into consideration that when you grow soil, nature often gives you "free" water, and depending on your soil type, your soil might actually be conserving water for you (because when it rains, it is not just the tomato area gets the rain but the surrounding as well). And on top on it, you collect rain water, so you are getting even more free water.

    So in a theoretical sense, hydroponics might "save" you water if you have to pay for all water that you use; but in reality you might save a little in soil if your area has a lot of rain and you collect rain water because you don't have to pay for the water.

    So what they claim is not wrong. It is just a deliberate use of correct data for misleading purposes. Marketing scam? Yes of course. That is true in ANY marketing. They cannot use false data, so they have to use misleading right data.

    But as you said, it is a fun hobby. Unless it gets to be a carefully controlled commercial situation, you have to pay for your hobby.

    I once thought hydroponic can save, but if you consider the container, the medium, the fertilizer, etc., it is not really that much saving. I have bad clay soil, but with the cost of container, medium, I can buy good soil ammendments. Then the marketing scam also says you can reuse the container and medium. Well, you can re-use soil too. You just need to amend them or fertilize them from time to time, and you need fertilizer for hydroponics as well.

    And unless you don't have soil space, if you calculate the fertilizer and pH nicely for soil gardening, you will have great results too, probably even easier as millions of people or farmers are doing it.

    But just think of it as a hobby. If you like scientific thing, it is a nice hobby.

  • grizzman
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    why do I prefer hydro. . .
    less bugs.
    less bending.
    no weeding.
    less thought into watering the garden.
    I like the tinkering and technicality of it.
    I don't pay a lot of attention to the other pros and cons.

  • jean-luc
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Most claims like the one of water conservation with hydroponics can't be generalized anyway. Also, you can always seek arguments that undermine a claim, as you can bring up arguments that sustain the claim. One pro argument would be NASA's extensive research on Hydroponics in space, where water is rare and "expensive". They would certainly not opt for it and do such extensive research, if the claim was completely wrong in the first place.

    Being most objective and still sceptic, one could say that the claim of water conservation with hydroponics can not be generalized as it does not apply to tomato and other crops. But buy looking for- and only naming examples which tell us that there is no- or little conservation, without seeking for examples, where we have clear conservation, one is not objective in his argumentation either.

    Then again, if there aren't any applications of hydroponics, plants, conditions or else - where we can observe and prove distinct water conservation, (compared to traditional gardening in soil) the claim is clearly FALSE. In that case, even NASA should switch to compost and water, or at least eliminate water conservation as an argument ;-)

    Another question pops up in my mind here: what about "waste" nutrient solutions, which have some toxins and a screwed-up PH, - anyway a solution that needs to be replaced? Anybody knows about recycling or cleaning techniques, distillation, ionization or else? I actually dilute it 1/3 and distribute it around garden, trees and even "bless" the neighbourhood flora with it ;-)

  • joe.jr317
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As far as I know, NASA goes with hydro for one reason and that is to go soiless. It isn't the rarity of water. In fact, water is easier to recycle than that which is also rare in space: A healthy soil food web, which is highly difficult and nearly impossible to maintain in space with current technologies. Plus, soil is way too heavy. The impracticality of hauling around tons of soil and maintaining it's biology is the reason for hydro in space. I've never read where NASA experiments with hydro in space because of water conservation. Only that they are trying to improve conservation in their hydro techniques. The argument concerns the impracticality of soil alone because it's a golden argument.

    Remember folks, I'm not attacking hydro here. I love it. I'm attacking the environmental (particularly the water conservation) claims.

    Also remember that rain is taken into account in my overall figures, as I mentioned. I calculate the area of the garden and compare it to the amount of rain collected in rain barrels from the same area of my roof to determine the amount of rain the beds got. I divide that by the number of plants. Also, I am counting what I put on the beds in total. Not what I think the plant might be drinking. What a couple here are missing is that weeds are not an argument for conservation here. Even if the weeds or grass are drinking half of that 1/3 gallon a day (which I don't have weeds in my raised beds), it doesn't change the fact that I'm using only 1/3 gallon a day (1 gallon every 3 days) and the tomatoes are looking no less than freaking awesome while the weedless hydro is using 1 1/2 gallons a day.

  • jean-luc
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Argumentation is fun but sometimes a loss of time too. I was only using NASAs research as an EXAMPLE of a pro argument only, - I don't even know if water conservation is part of the reasons they opt for hydro, and I do not care. I do not see any sense here in "attacking" what ever either, because those claims have done no harm so far.

    "What a couple here are missing is that weeds are not an argument for conservation here. Even if the weeds or grass are drinking half of that 1/3 gallon a day (which I don't have weeds in my raised beds), it doesn't change the fact that I'm using only 1/3 gallon a day (1 gallon every 3 days) and the tomatoes are looking no less than freaking awesome while the weedless hydro is using 1 1/2 gallons a day."

    But perhaps you are missing the fact that you actually can not compare a single soil with a certain humidity from previous rain and water content with soil less culture, from your experience only. What if we deal with a sandy and completely dry soil instead, and start from zero? I bet that only the water needed for base irrigation would last in a hydro for weeks.

    Here in Thailand rice paddies get flooded with millions of cubic meter of good fresh water on a 2-3 day basis. Here you can observe real vaste of good drinking water, and you don't even need to calculate how much water would be saved when using partially hydroponics!

    Anyway, for my understanding there should still be less water consumption in a controlled and recycled environment, as in open land. A smaller surface has less water evaporation as well. No argument can actually disprove such obvious and logical things. And as soon as we consider many different conditions and kinds of soil; and instead of staying in the box, investigate a little further or look around the word, - there is a very different perspective showing up..

    Your experience and observations are fine and seem to be conclusive for this single case. But all of this is far from being scientific and no prove of anything either. With those you couldn't win any debate with someone who is googeling like hell to make a case against your claim. Lucky you, that no-one of that sort showed up yet... ;-)

    No offense, but I'm done with this topic... I've got other fish to fry...

  • joe.jr317
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I must have misunderstood the following by you, Jean-Luc.

    "I don't even know if water conservation is part of the reasons they opt for hydro, and I do not care."

    Yet, a couple posts back it seemed you were saying it is an argument for water conservation:

    "One pro argument would be NASA's extensive research on Hydroponics in space, where water is rare and "expensive". They would certainly not opt for it and do such extensive research, if the claim was completely wrong in the first place. . . .
    In that case, even NASA should switch to compost and water, or at least eliminate water conservation as an argument ;-)

    Did I misunderstand that? Maybe you just meant an argument for doing hydroponics in general. In that case, there is no argument because I don't think anyone was arguing against hydro in general. Somehow, I think it is more like the Hydroponic Nutrient thread where you tried to correct me with bad information and when I called you on it you tried to cover by claiming you were only curious about my spiritual diet and social interests. You are really sensitive to having your claims corrected, aren't you?

    Maybe I wasn't quite clear. I just meant that 1/3 gallon is 1/3 gallon of water no matter if I have one weed or 10,000 weeds. The constant is the amount of water used in this equation, not the number of weeds/grass in the bed that might rob water from tomatoes. The weeds would only be an issue if they were obviously inhibiting growth in comparison to the hydro plants and causing me to use MORE water.

    If anyone does show up with some googled studies, GREAT! I tried to do so myself, but I'm not a search engine guru. If I'm doing something wrong or there is a much better method of hydro for conservation of water, I'm inviting that info to be presented. The point here is that I've gone the route of listening to anecdotal claims rooted in BS marketing and would like to see real evidence since I couldn't find it at home.

  • grizzman
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Come on Joe, that's two threads now (at least that I was following) where you've started arguing with people. Please step back and realize that the written word comes off sounding as harsh as your mind lets it and chill out.
    I appreciate your comments and contributions to the site, but I don't want every thread you contribute to, to turn into a bickering match.
    With that out of the way, I must say it seems illogical either plant (in soil or water) would consume more water than the other in ideal conditions. At the end of the season, weigh your dead plants and see which has a greater dry weight. that could be one difference. also, maybe the plants in water spend more energy on roots than the ones in soil, so the plants don't look any bigger though they really are. this may make them more productive near the end of the season too. and finally you mentioned how you calculated the amount of rain water contributed. but what about the rain hitting the ground around the garden. that contributes as well. generally, the soil maintains an even moisture level across the yard/ you don't normally have dry spots and damp spots(at least within the same soil type). Again, I don't have any research that suggests hydro conserves water better, these are just other variables that may come into play.

  • jean-luc
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "With that out of the way, I must say it seems illogical either plant (in soil or water) would consume more water than the other in ideal conditions. At the end of the season, weigh your dead plants and see which has a greater dry weight."

    That plants themselves would consume less or notably less water in Hydro sounds a way illogical to me too, but I am not sure if the claim says so. I didn't say so anyway, I actually said that soil having a larger surface and where you have much less control over water evaporation or even vaste, must obviously consume more water.

    If there is any water conservation with hydroponics, it must be the cultivation method (the technique) and the much better control you have, that makes this possible.

    Also, the control you actually have with hydroponics does not vary much, while the one you may have over different soil conditions may largely vary with the proper conditions of each soil. Especially if you consider it from a perspective that goes beyond your own garden, or well known conditions which may be controlled much easier than other cultures and environments.

    @Joe,
    "Come on..." was actually exactly what I was about to write before I saw what grizzman wrote. You said in the other post that what you meant wasn't about philosophy but about nutritional diet. Well, mate - this is not about argumentation and rhetorics competition either, you bet.

    Please, at least leave it on a level where people (and I) do not feel obliged to defend and justify every single word they may have said earlier. Anyway, I will not exchange any more "argument" with you at this (mutual) low level of understanding and cooperation. Yeah, I truly thought this was about cooperation and recreation from arguing ;-)

  • freemangreens
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don't know about the rest of the crew here, but my 'end game' is to have a completely automatic garden. I'm back into aeroponics lately and after tomorrow, I'll have a solar-backed, 12-volt, totally automatic mater-growing system. Pictures to follow.

    I have finally figured out how to make a really-cheap battery-operated timer that sprays the roots for ten seconds every sixty seconds. The only thing I really have to do is keep the nutrient (at the proper EC and pH) level topped off.

    As for water consumption, all I'm growing with the aeroponics is tomatoes and each plant consumes about a pint of water per day. Even if each one takes a quart a day, if I compare the hydro water usage to my lawn's usage, my lawn sprinklers spit out ACRE FEET of water!

    I think that's where the comparison is made in general. Soil-grown stuff loses a lot to evaporation. Hydro is pretty self-contained and I think that's where the 'less-water-usage' comparisons originate.

    Just my take on things.

  • dennyg
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Folks,

    I can add nothing to the debate on soil vs. hydroponic water usage.

    However with regard to water usage in greenhouse-hydroponics the usage rate varies greatly from season to season. I have a recirculating drip system for about 11 tomato plants, 2 cucumber plants and 4 pepper plants. Last winter the greenhouse consumption rate was about 3 gal per day. Today the consumption is about 7 gal per day or approximately .4 gal per day per plant. Obviously the consumption goes up with increasing daylight, temperature, and foilage and fruit. A growing plant is a thirsty and hungry plant.

  • davemichigan
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Wow, this gets heated a little. I must clarify that my post on the marketing scam thing is done half jokingly (though there is always some truth that marketing stresses the advantage more).

    But in general, of course there is advantages and disadvantages of almost anything. It is true that we cannot generalize easily. If hydroponics beats soil in all cases, all commercial growers will convert to hydroponics soon. If soil always beat hydroponics, however, there should be no commercial hydroponics. But we see both.

    For me, it is a hobby that I am picking up (though not giving up soil gardening at all). Also, I have very hard clay soil right now. It will take me one or two years to improve the soil, but before the soil is improved, if I can take a couple of big containers and start growing things, there is cool.

  • joe.jr317
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Whoa, grizzman. I'd appreciate it if you would look at this thread again if you think I started an argument and also look at the Hydroponic Nutrients thread I mentioned. If you look above, you'll notice I just simply stated NASA's reasoning "as far as I know" for hydro. That was based on an article I read not long ago when someone else was claiming research done by NASA that seems to be non existent. Jean-Luc got huffy and referred to that as "Argumentation" in case you missed that. There was nothing argumentative at all about my post. My later post in response to his huffiness over my take on NASA was argumentative. No doubt about it. Yeah, I engage bull crappers. Not all of you do. Actually not many of you do. Shame on you. There are too many of them on this site (the entire site, I mean) that make it less informative than it can be and sometimes even very misleading.

    When you meet people in public you have a greater chance of telling if that person is honest or full of crap to impress others because of a low self-esteem. We pick up certain cues from body language and voice transmission that often we don't even realize we pick up. It's what gives us that good or bad vibe. It's what makes us say "there is something about him/her I can't quite place". It's what makes us trust someone or distrust someone upon first meeting them. Some people are better at it than others. It's referred to as judging a person's character. Online, you don't have the advantage of personal engagement so you have to rely on catching subtleties such as when a person gets upset over being corrected or his statement challenged and changes his story (as if the original isn't still written above). Especially when it happens in two threads in as many days. Does that not throw up a red flag to anyone else? Am I seriously supposed to just "chill" when these people come to spread nonsense?

    I admit that I can be overly aggressive. Got that way in the military. I'm afraid that isn't going to change much. Just being straight with ya. You may not appreciate my tact (or serious lack thereof), but at least you can count on me to be honest when I make a claim or admit I am incorrect when you come back with info that shows I was wrong. Or I should say I haven't given you any reason to doubt me.

  • gringojay
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi freemangreens,
    I'll be waiting for updates on your aeroponics work.
    Seems the NASA non-profit affiliate BioServe Space Technologies, working at University of Colorado labs in Boulder USA, claims the water use is reduced 98% & fertilizer need 60%.
    Sounds like water conservation to me.

  • grizzman
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Don't get me wrong. I appreciate straight forward. Just realize I didn't say you started the argument. I said your started arguing with people.
    I don't have a problem with you saying something is incorrect. in fact, I agree with the whole dirt in space argument you stated. I don't contradict discussions on NASA. LEDs or Nietchce, because I can't refernce the articles to contradict them ( or water coservation for that matter) The point is state your disagreement and move on. Correcting a mistake is not arguing. Continuing to go back and forth on the matter trying to "one up" the last post is.
    If a person refers to something but doesn't post a reference link, I take it with a grain of salt. It is not my job to make sure others(well except for my children) learn to do that or not. At least online, as opposed to IRL, a person should be able to link to a reference when they say something. we don't have that convenience on the street.
    When I read through the posts earlier, I believe the whole misunderstanding came from the fact english is not jean-luc's native tongue. When I read his post the first time, my initial reaction was similar to yours. It was only after you two started the tit for tat that I went bak, re-read his post and realized it just wasn't quite stated properly. In fact, I find most of his posts informative, but I usually have to re-read them a time or two to make sense of them. Its just a consequence of translation.
    I'm glad you didn't get all huffy at what I wrote and sulk about it. Like I said, I find your posts informative, even when you are arguing. I just tire of the arguing is all.
    Thanks again for your contributions. Please keep them coming.

  • joe.jr317
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Okay, grizzman. I'll try to work on it. But the nietzsche crap in the other thread dispelled any illusion for me that it is a language barrier so I guess we just disagree there.

    I have to ask, gringojay, could you please post a link to the specific research or something detailing it? I'm intereseted in reading it. I found where one part of their research says they have an aero system that uses 98% less water. . . than hydroponics. Don't know if that is what you are referring to or not. I also read an excerpt of an interview with an affiliate where he said that aeroponics is the choice of NASA because hydroponics is too energy and water intensive. Thanks for posting the name of the company. It provided me leads.

  • jean-luc
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Let's be honest guys: concerning ALL the arguments and claims that came up here, we only have one single argument that is sustained and covered by a reference. And that is gringojay's about BioServe Space Technologies' claim.

    As for me I actually didn't want to treat the topic in the way I normally do, because it truly isn't of much importance to me.

    In fact I know pretty well how to argument in a proper way and how to give reliable references, double check your claims and arguments before posting anything and so on. After 10 years, some 12.000 posts in 6 different languages in a dozen forums I've seen it all! From slippery slope, over argument by selective observation (as basically used in this thread), classical or even kinda bizarre "red herrings", - up to argument ad homien (attacking the individual instead of the argument(s), followed by "poisoning the well", to insure that the person (in question) is discredited for sure. Sometimes as a last resort, you can observe a "argument by personal charm", to catch-up if the ad homien argument didn't have any impact or if you were caught. The really last resort if nothing sticks, would be an "appeal to pity"!

    Indeed, I truly have seen them all and even would know how to use them if necessary :-)

    As for my basic personal and cultural background as well as my skills in English language, let me just say this: I grew up in a small country that is a constitutional monarchy, and I am living since some 10 years in an other so called constitutional monarchy at the opposite side of the world. English is only my fourth language "in order of appearance and also skill wise". After my original mother tongue, it is French, German and only then comes English. I have had one single year of English lessons, complemented with one year of English Literature (in a different language of course) for the rest I am about 90% + self-thought.

    I am only pointing this out to make this (point of interest or?) confusion a little clearer, and to avoid any false anticipation or speculation about it. I am not proud of any of it or claim any sort of special treatment, though! If there is any suspicion that something got lost in translation, the best way is to ask in case of confusion! As in "how did you mean that, or did you mean X or Z...or even you didn't mean XXXX, or did you=!!!?" LOL

    @Joe, let me just say this even if you will not like or approve it either: have you heard about EST-training? It teaches you amongst other crap, that ones personal, analyses, impressions and feelings ABOUT OTHERS have literally no connotation with the actual reality and the real person that is. You only create an image using what you believe is true according to your own concepts, mentality and perception. All this is covered by ones strong identification with those concepts and impressions. Even if we get consense or approval true others, it could only mean that there is accordance with impressions, concepts and ways of perceiving. Only if the identification itself gets compromised or destroyed, all of what you were thinking and feeling seems strange and absurd all of a sudden. But a tough and mean mind prevents such thing from ever being compromised. It needs to get broken first, weather softly, little by little or by heavy impact of destiny and causality - and in some cases by shear force ;-)

    You seem to not like philosophy that much, but what about this: some people only care what they believe they are from their own perspective, - others only care what others might believe they are. But in fact, what matters is what YOU believe others might think that you are. Which isn't real and true either - but that is what you need to actually deal with ;-)

    You don't even know a pinch of crap about me, my personality, intentions and motivation (in general, real life or in relation with this forum)- don't you!? It seems to me that you see me as an opponent that I am actually not at all. You didn't even realise when I gently teased you, agreed with you and when I was trying to complement what you were saying and actually cooperate, - or did you? Well, if you do not give up your all to quickly done and prejudistic points of view about me, you simply leave me no choice - I am obliged to completely ignore you to prevent further incidents or conflicts!

  • gringojay
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi joejr,
    NASA's "magazine" called Spinoff 2006 (repeated in 2008) states aeroponics:
    98% less water use
    60% less pesticide need
    80% increase dry weight mass (per sq. mt.)
    45 - 75% more crop yield
    This data seems to be from BioServe, which commercially spun off the Aeroponics International Co.'s ( AgriHouse's "Aero-garden") line of products.
    I believe James Clawson is the current Senior Researcher at the actual non-profit BioServe's University of Colorado section handling aeroponics.
    Try contacting BioServe: fax= 303-492-8883; telephone = 303-735-5308; office of director = 303-492-4010

  • gringojay
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hi freemans,
    I got my cheapest 12 volt submersible deep well water pump from Nemopumps.com ( ships from Vermont) in case you are looking to design with everything Direct Current.
    Housing is 6 in. tall x diameter 3&1/2 in. ...
    + On top is a 2&1/8 in. tall combination inlet (inlet faces side; threaded outside 3/4 in.) & outlet barb fitting (outlet's inside diameter= 1/2 in. & it faces upward)
    total height (housing + top fittings) = 8 & 1/8 in.
    Amp. = 7.0 (12 V.D.C. model ; also available 24 V.D.C. +? ? Amp.)
    Wire pigtails = #12 AWG (+ 2 shrink tube waterproof sealer sleeves)

  • joe.jr317
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    As Gringojay is pointing out, aeroponics fit the claim according to real research. Some of the research I found on aero specifically says that hydroponics is inefficient, directly contradicting marketing claims and gardening magazines. So, maybe the claim on aeroponics has been applied to hydroponics by marketing folk. I realize aero is a type of hydro, but everything I have read so far makes it clear they are two entirely different concepts when spoken of in the scientific community. Do you guys think of them as distinctive and not to be in the same category? If I ever lumped 'em together, I don't now. Aero seems to win hands down. Now I just have to prove it for myself.

  • freemangreens
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Gringojay:

    I'm using a 12-volt Rule 500 bilge pump. The little sign on the thing says 3 amps, but I'm sizing the relay for 8 just in case. The trigger mechanism is a real "MacGyver"; you'll like it. In fact, my handle on another forum (Wind and Solar) is just that, MacGyver!

    As soon as I find some cheap-o magnetic reed switches, it's a go.

    The key to the whole thing is the sump, which is the only thing I have to attend to. The roots get a 12-to-15 second spray each minute. The nutrient water drains through a small hole in the bottom of the 2-gallon plastic buckets I'm using as growing containers and runs downhill inside a plastic trough, through a cotton or fiberglass filter and back into the sump.

    The sump is encased in shiny-side-out aluminum foil, by the way, to prevent Mr. Algae from establishing squatters' rights.

    I'll throw some pictures and a tutorial on my Web page when it's a done deal and a link here for anyone interested. So far, it's been a really-entertaining build.

  • hex2006
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Sprinklerponics and similar methods are probably much worse than a simple dwc in relation to water conservation.
    Consider how much water is thrown airbourne during even a 10 second spraying interval. Most of it will be unused by the plant and simply aids in evaporative losses during spraying and the return to the reservoir.
    A true aeroponic mist uses a couple of teaspoons of water and although a lot is wasted there`s a good number of teaspoons in a gallon of water. Creating the atomized mist depends solely on water pressure, the higher the pressure the finer the mist and the less water you`ll need to use.

    Most pumps that have huge GPH flowrates wont generate enough pressure for aeroponics but are widely used for systems with sprayers and sprinklers.

Sponsored
J.E.S. Home Improvement
Average rating: 5 out of 5 stars3 Reviews
Loudoun County's Full-Scale Construction Firm