Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Hydroponics

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brigette Leach <avalonfarmshomegrown AT earthlink.net>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Hydroponics
  • Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:24:11 -0500

Thank you Adriana and Steve Diver.

I am glad that Adriana brought up the subject of water. Being in Michigan and at the center of one of the worlds largest fresh water sources, water use comes up in conversation fairly often.

When we discuss sustainability, shouldn't water, or access to water be discussed? In the last few months those of us in the Great Lakes Water Basin have been dealing with issues surrounding the Great Lakes Charter and the proposed Annex 2001. The charter is an international treaty which gives indiviual states and Canadian provinces the power to deny diversions of Great Lakes water. Annex 2001 is a legal document which when stated in it's absoute simplest terms seeks to define diversions and consumptive uses. Of course both documents are much more complex than this, but it would take volumes to explain. Our Governor proposed legislation as an attempt to provide legal standing for Michigan to deny diversions, and in order to prove that as a state, Michigan is fufilling its responsibility to use and protect GL waters. The long and the short of it is that all types of water use have been examined, including agricutural uses. Permits and fees were at the center of many of the discussions as the issue worked its way through our state legislature. Nothing has been passed as yet, but what's currently on the table is based in common sense, and more importantly science, and should not put Michigan agriculture at an economic disadvantage.

All of this strikes close to home because we farm in a county where center pivot irrigation is widely used, and the county to the south of us has been a national leader in center pivot irrigation for more than 40 years. Kalamazoo and St. Joseph counties have been an area prime for the production of seed corn and specialty crops because our land is well drained, unlike other areas of our state where fields are tiled and ditched to better drain them. Seed corn and specialty crops have certainly contirbuted to the economic sustainability of our area.

Listening to some of the environmental advocacy groups who weighed in on Annex issues, one would think that food production is a consumptive use, and that we are literally shipping our water out of the state in our milk (but they didn't know when they said it that Michigan is a net importer of fluid milk), corn, cherries, etc. Such a position ignores the water cycle. No one seemed to want to credit production agriculture with providing open space for waters to recharge, only as a consumptive use. Because of what we (irrigators) know from utilizing irrigation for so many years and the records that have been kept, we are able to prove that in our area even intense irrigation has not changed static water levels. Science to the rescue you could say.

I've heard/ read predictions that the Olgalala aquafer will be exhausted within 20 years, worst case scenerio, to 100 years, best case, and does not recharge. If water is being drawn from an aquafer that does not recharge, are we practicing "sustainably"? Food for thought.

As I've said before, there are many ways to define sustainability.

Adriana wrote:

Paul,
I beg to differ. I have been running commercial hydroponic greenhouses for over 8 years and you are making some grossly inaccurate statements. Just like any good farmer we also will use beneficial insects and minimally toxic products, and these only when absolutely necessary. We strive try to create a balance in our environment and practice integrated pest management. A "humus-intensive" greenhouse can be just as susceptible to insects and other diseases strictly by virtue of the high plant density and very healthy plants in a greenhouse gives bugs an "all-you-can eat buffet".

One area in which we are more "sustainable'" than dirt farmers is in water utilization - we typically use less than 20% of the water which is required in field culture. We also use a fraction of the fertilizers of conventional farmers and we do not leach any excess nutrients (be they chemical or organic) into the ground water.

Most hydroponic greenhouses use "chemical" nutrients, but there are operations which grow hydroponically using more "organic" nutrients - some of these use fish effluent from high density fish tanks to grow plants; this is called Aquaponics. A friend of mine in Brazil breaks down animal manures in a multi-stage biodigester with the end product being a water-soluble fertilizer that can be used in "water culture".

Paul I find the whole tone of your postings arrogant and offensive in that you seem to be placing your method as superior to others. We all have our pros and cons and reasons for growing what we grow the way we grow it. Let's all try to learn from each other in a less confrontational manner.

Adriana Gutierrez
Birmingham, AL 35244




Growers have no alternative but to drench hydroponic plants in fungicides and pesticides. This also makes them high maintenance and labor intensive. A more sustainable alternative is humus- intensive beds, and they can be in a greenhouse that opens in mild weather or just outdoors with some form of weather protection. Humus-intensive has long been demonstrated to be the way to grow the most and healthiest produce in the least space with the least water and least ongoing energy input.





















_______________________________________________
Market-farming mailing list
Market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming

Get the list FAQ at: http://www.marketfarming.net/mflistfaq.htm








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page