Wikipedia defines hydroponics as follows:Lawrence took exception (he said it wasn't true) and cited you, and wanted me to look for your earlier posts on this subject, (which i did not intend to do), but then he reposted them, so I read them and must admit that water (or swamp, or compost tea) can be a (very) biologically active medium.
*Hydroponics* is a subset of hydroculture and is a method of growing
plants<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant> using mineral nutrient
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient> solutions, in water, without
soil<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil>. Terrestrial plants may be
grown with their roots<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root> in the
mineral nutrient solution only or in an inert medium,
Which the way I understand hydroponics: There's no soil, no
soil-food-web, no soil biology - it's not even agriculture (much less
permaculture), which helps explain why I become distempered if I eat
even a little (something which I would not knowingly do).
... I have mixed feelings about hydroponics, like aquaponics and many otherNot a heck of a lot. This is what I ate today:
tech-heavy forms of food production (which is most of modern ag: How much of
your food uses a tractor?)
Hydroponics makes sense to me in limited cases, such as where soils are toxic andI may live in a city at present (because politics and ag policy is what I am doing) but my food (what keeps me alive) is brought in from outside (but nearby).
organic matter, access to land, and the other pieces of "natural" agriculture
are limited, and where tech resources are easy to get. Cities, in other words.
Hydroponics and such can't be considered regenerative, so I can see why
anyone slightly purist would loathe them.
I would like to see us all growing food in healthy soil,
In (narrow) terms of nutrition, soil is a delivery medium to get minerals
into plants.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.