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

ounevinsmoke

ounevinsmoke

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...
This is your original post... I made the biggest assumption about what you are comparing hydroponics to.
I apologize.

so what are you comparing Hydroponics to?
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Being synthetic tells you very little about a chemical. Whether a chemical is synthetic or not is probably the most superficial detail about the chemical.

Being "a chemical" in general tells you even less. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that's not made of chemicals.

There's a whole branch of science dedicated to this subject called Chemistry. It's often called the central science. You should probably learn chemistry before freaking out about anything with chemicals in it.

Synthetic urea is the same thing as regular urea. Nitrifying bacteria do not discriminate. They don't know whether it was man made or not, only you do.
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Synthetic urea is also a lot different than nitrate salts, which are used in hydroponics. Synthetic urea is used in fields without hydroponics, but in pure hydro, the N is supposed to be derived from mostly nitrates.

To lump nitrate salts and urea into the same category just because they're both synthetic is ignorant.

Making general statements like "synthetic chemicals kill bacteria and fungus" or "synthetic chemicals will give you cancer" is just absurd, and ignorant.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
The thing about population growth is that it's not sustainable. So we'll have 9B? Then will we have 11B then 16B population?

We should be looking into weapons systems and have some wars so we can get our population down some! lol

No, I'm sure the solution is to infect other planets too!! Then we'll have 16B on earth, and 5B on mars!
 
kogislife420

kogislife420

Active 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...
Just going to put my 2 cents in, outdoor growing is alot better then hydroponics because you use seasol and have no problems with insects :) You can harvest alot more from an outdoor grow because you have the sun, Ive seen bigger harvests outdoors on one plant using nothing but there own cattle shit and creek soil cost nothing but they came out alot better then they went in, organics is nothing bad about organic fertilizer, outdoors is free or can cost up to under 70 dollars it could be free if you have good soil already, JUST MY OPINION CARRY ON c:
 
R

resinousflowers420

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...
how is bones,blood and manure bad for the enviroment.these are natural substances,that break down natrually.they always have done.when a animal dies in nature,it doesnt become bad for enviroment.
 
Milovan

Milovan

Well-Known Member
AlphaPhase said:
Not, that's not true, I hope I'm not coming off as being that type of person. I like growing organic, I've grown every which way there is. But, with the drought here in cali, I'm just trying to compile a "x vs. x" summary so in the future I can make a decision. There's many reasons why I feel hydroponics is great, but we haven't touched base on organics strong points, only why hydroponics is or isn't better. There hasn't been any organic info posted except "I don't like the taste of hydroponics, I like organics". I'm just throwing info out there about hydroponics hoping some organic growers can shine some insight about how organic is better for the environment. In the future, I'd like to have a green house and I'd like to have solid info about both growing methods
Click to expand...
Don't hydro liquid neuts have very high #'s like 55 - 40 - 40 or higher and are these
chemicals?
Soil liquid neut #'s are very low.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
I am in the process of putting together a soil that consists of: leaf mold from my backyard, worm castings made from kitchen scraps, rock dusts from a local quarry, dandelions, nettle, comfrey, and horsetail all from my back yard.... and I will re-use this same soil over and over again.

I challenge anyone growing hydroponically to show me a recipe/method of theirs that has less of an environmental impact than that...
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
ounevinsmoke said:
Too bias of an article to take serious. To assume their is no evidence or studies is just blinding the reader.
Click to expand...
The article reflects the scientific consensus. You realize that science designs tests which let reality be the judge? That means, the only one who could be biased is mother nature herself, because she is the one giving us the results.

https://whatdoesthesciencesay.wordpress.com/aspartame/

Aspartame is one of those substances science-deniers like to demonize, and as a result there is a lot of misinformation out there. Denialist groups know how to push the public's buttons. It's your responsibility to teach yourself to recognize when your buttons are being pushed. If you think the article is biased, then you should have more evidence than the fact that it disagrees with what you already believe. Please point out the flaws in methodology, statistical analysis, ect. Otherwise you're just giving in to cognitive dissonance.


https://theconversation.com/i-bet-its-biased-one-easy-step-to-squash-expert-opinions-14945
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
AlphaPhase said:
I look at it like this, everything living leaves a carbon footprint, so in that context, organic farming leaves a bigger footprint. All the land needed for farming and live stock to produce the manure and other fertilizers is much greater than needed for hydroponic farming. About 40% of the earth is farm/ live stock land. Now, if you think about it, hydroponics produces much more yield per sq/f of space being used, meaning less land is needed to grow the same amount of food. So reducing farm land needed to provide the same amount of food is a huge factor. Deforestation and clearing out land to farm leaves MASSIVE carbon footprints, when hydroponically you could produce the same amount in 1/2 (roughly) the space that organic would need. Hydroponic greenhouses are the future. Aquaponic greenhouses, even better.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about livestock, or any animal waste/bi products? I don't use any. Plant and mineral based inputs only (unless you consider worm castings and animal bi product).

I suppose as long as humans insist on eating meat it's not a bad practice to use the bi products though
 
ounevinsmoke

ounevinsmoke

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
Being synthetic tells you very little about a chemical. Whether a chemical is synthetic or not is probably the most superficial detail about the chemical.

Being "a chemical" in general tells you even less. You'd be hard pressed to find anything that's not made of chemicals.

There's a whole branch of science dedicated to this subject called Chemistry. It's often called the central science. You should probably learn chemistry before freaking out about anything with chemicals in it.

Synthetic urea is the same thing as regular urea. Nitrifying bacteria do not discriminate. They don't know whether it was man made or not, only you do.
Synthetic urea is also a lot different than nitrate salts, which are used in hydroponics. Synthetic urea is used in fields without hydroponics, but in pure hydro, the N is supposed to be derived from mostly nitrates.

To lump nitrate salts and urea into the same category just because they're both synthetic is ignorant.

Making general statements like "synthetic chemicals kill bacteria and fungus" or "synthetic chemicals will give you cancer" is just absurd, and ignorant.
Click to expand...
lol, ok... Your attempts to discredit me as not being educated about chemistry have been noted....

urea is not being fed to Hydroponic plants. Your fighting for miracle grow here which is pretty shitty when it comes to MJ. Some have good experience with it, but personally it has too many disadvantages and I've seen many others have numerous problems with it.
I know plenty about chemistry. I know that when you attempt to create a specific chemical or isolate a specific compound for mass reproduction you leave out other things that are usually paired with it. For whatever reason these other substances that are "naturally" in a relationship with these substances serve a purpose and do not respond correctly in nature when the relationship is not present.

Attacking my personal character here is pointless. There are synthetic chemicals that have been proven to cause cancer. Science has proven this many times over. Look it up for your self. The only ignorant thing about it is you choose not to look into it for yourself.
 
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
ounevinsmoke said:
lol, ok... Your attempts to discredit me as not being educated about chemistry have been noted....

urea is not being fed to Hydroponic plants. Your fighting for miracle grow here which is pretty shitty when it comes to MJ. Some have good experience with it, but personally it has too many disadvantages and I've seen many others have numerous problems with it.
I know plenty about chemistry. I know that when you attempt to create a specific chemical or isolate a specific compound for mass reproduction you leave out other things that are usually paired with it. For whatever reason these other substances that are "naturally" in a relationship with these substances serve a purpose and do not respond correctly in nature when the relationship is not present.

Attacking my personal character here is pointless. There are synthetic chemicals that have been proven to cause cancer. Science has proven this many times over. Look it up for your self. The only ignorant thing about it is you choose not to look into it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I'm not attacking your personal character. I'm sure you're a great person, but I do think you should brush up on your molecular chemistry.
 
Milovan

Milovan

Well-Known Member
Tone5500 said:
The old taste factor the one thing soil growers hang onto to justify using soil . This is not fact just observation and opinan lol
Click to expand...
It's not just the taste factor. It's also smoother and the high lasts longer then hydro no shit.
 
Last edited:
C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
ounevinsmoke said:
I know that when you attempt to create a specific chemical or isolate a specific compound for mass reproduction you leave out other things that are usually paired with it.
Click to expand...
Be more specific. Which byproduct is found when you create which chemical?

Which byproducts are found in yara brand calcium nitrate?

In general, the reason there's byproducts is that nature has byproducts to begin with. Earth/soil is where we mined all the harmful stuff from. Where do you think harmful chemicals come from? All heavy metals, for example, come from the earth.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Saying someone is ignorant or unqualified is not an attack on character. In fact, its one of the few times ad hominems are relevant. I'm not sure if you know much about chemistry or not, but you do seem to be forgetting one of the most basic tenants of chemistry - the dose makes the poison.

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.
Click to expand...
"Radishes contain a substance that can cause goiters, oranges contain a toxin that could potentially cause birth defects, carrots contain the hallucinogen myristicin; there is practically no food that doesn't contain some chemical that could harm people in large doses." - Harriet Hall M.D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top