Hydroponic farming is missing one very important ingredient, and a whole way of thinking that goes along with it.
Hydroponic farming is missing one very important ingredient, and a whole way of thinking that goes along with it.
April 13, 2015
March 23, 2020 update: A federal judge in a U.S. District Court in California this week ruled that hydroponic farmers continue to be eligible for certification under the USDA Organic label.
Long time supporters of organic food need to realize that the ground is shifting beneath their feet. Rapidly. Ever since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was given control of the word in 2000, the integrity of the “USDA Certified Organic” label has been on a downhill slope.
We now have 4,000-cow dairies with very limited access to pasture and 1,000-acre vegetable fields fed fertilizers of suspicious provenance producing food that is called organic. But, even more dismaying, we also now have certified organic hydroponics.
What’s wrong with that?
For starters, there isn’t any soil in hydroponic production. One of the appeals of organic food is that it is grown in a biologically active, fertile soil. That type of soil adds immeasurably to the plants’ nutritional value.
In an ideal farming system, soils are nourished, as in the natural world, with farm-derived organic matter and mineral particles from ground rock. Green manures and cover crops are included within crop rotations to maintain biological diversity. It’s a “plant positive” rather than “pest negative” philosophy, focused on growing vigorous, healthy plants and animals imbued with all their natural powers of resistance.
The original USDA definition of “organic” stressed “soil biological activity” as one of the processes enhanced by organic practices. But to many farmers’ dismay, the agency rewrote that definition in 2002 to remove any reference to the word soil.
Then, in 2010, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the group of farmers, scientists, and public interest advocates in charge of recommending changes to the organic standards, strenuously objected to the inclusion of soil-free farming in the standards. In their recommendation, they wrote:
The abundance of organisms in healthy, organically maintained soils form a biological network, an amazing and diverse ecology that is ‘the secret,’ the foundation of the success of organic farming accomplished without the need for synthetic insecticides, nematicides, fumigants, etc.
Despite this objection, Miles McEvoy, the director of the National Organic Program (NOP), has unilaterally allowed organic hydroponics. And many of the organic certifying agencies have jumped right on the bandwagon and started certifying hydroponic operations.
Now, investors are pouring money into hydroponic “vertical farms” where production is hermetically sealed in huge warehouses filled with LED lights and nutrient pumps.
Some of the regional certifying agencies have refused to certify hydroponic operations. That’s a step in the right direction, but what will they do when the produce from “vegetable factories” begins putting their local soil-based growers out of business?
Back in the 1990s, I engaged in long conversations with many of the organic bureaucrats who participated in establishing federal organic standards. I told them that organic should be left alone as the historical word for the overall concept. The quest to figure out how to grow the most nutritious food with the least environmental stress is still a continuing process.
I suggested that anyone selling food without chemicals should create their own label and explain the standards enforced by that label. Such a system was in use in Europe up until the late 1990s. Labels like Nature et Progres, BioFarm, Lemaire-Boucher, Demeter, and even the Swiss supermarket chain Migros, all published the standards to which their chemical-free labels adhered and enrolled farmers who sold under their label. Customers had a range of choices as to how much purity they wished to pay for.
The benefit of that system was that when new research came out, the customers could see which labels had responded, and shift their purchases as they saw fit, forcing the other labels to shape up. In other words, it was a system driven by customer pressure. If one of the labels allowed hydroponics, the customers would know and could decide for themselves, and customers who were aware of the nutritional benefits of plants grown in soil, would patronize the other labels.
Under present organic standards, customers who believe in a soil-based agriculture don’t know when their food is produced hydroponically because that information is nowhere on the label.
Fertile soil is the most important factor in organic growing because of all its known and yet to be discovered benefits on the nutritional quality of crops. Hydroponic growing removes the crucial soil factor and replaces it with soluble nutrient solutions that can in no way duplicate the complex benefits of soil.
The traditional motto of organic growing is “Feed the soil, not the plant.” Hydroponic growing is based on the opposite strategy. 2015 is International Year of Soils. Let’s mark this important milestone by insisting that the USDA keep the soil in organic farming.
October 9, 2024
In this week’s Field Report, MAHA lands on Capitol Hill, climate-friendly farm funding, and more.
October 2, 2024
October 2, 2024
October 1, 2024
September 30, 2024
September 25, 2024
September 25, 2024
It should certainly be labelled as being produced hydroponically though, in case one day we do find soil has something healthful that we can't (yet) replicate.
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/responsibly-grown
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/business/whole-foods-to-rate-its-produce-and-flowers-for-environmental-impact.html?_r=0
Let the hydroponics organics drive the glyphosate-mad industrial vegetable farmers away from their current Frankenfood methods.
But beware (always) of the money-driven industrial agriculture complex, that will attempt to "water down" regulations regarding what can be put in the water to produce a lot of cheap produce.
That said, separate labeling makes total sense, whether it be large hydroponics, aquaponics, or in-soil organic. Let "in-soil organic" be the Gold Standard.
Japan has taken the lead in this area, converting old electronics factories into salad green production farms such as one in Tokyo owned by Toshiba which maintains strict cleanroom controls, the same which are used to manufacture semiconductors. Because of this there are no diseases and pests, the produce lasts longer on the shelves, is healthier, and you don't even have to wash it before consumption.
Why don't you establish your own system--just like Kosher has done--and you can create different levels of purity for your standards. And stop trying to keep others from competing using your arbitrary rules.
Once people realise this then actual organic sales will be effected.
Such a shame.
And they don't all just grow in a tub of water as you fail to mention. Many use perlite/vermiculite with broken down peat as their medium. AKA Promix which correct me if I'm wrong is used by many an organic soil gardener. Increase your knowledge of new hydoponic plant growth before your next one :)
Synthetic hydroponics uses synthetic fertilizers that provide nutrients for plant growth in readily available ionic form. The nutrient solution is kept sterile or as close to sterile as possible. Many toxic chemicals are used throughout the process and the inputs are often energy intensive and environmentally destructive.
Organic hydroponics is an emerging trend and involves the same natural biological cycles that make soil. Organic hydroponics uses all organic materials and s process similar to compost
With the pending world water issues AP makes sense. Creating a natural fish food, duck weed, soldier fly larva, veg scraps....? and including vermiculture in the growing beds should create rich biology to nourish the plants.
The sooner we can get these results the quicker we can concentrate our real food efforts to maximize resources and efficiency.
I don't consider hydroponics to be organic, as they are too reliant on (mainly) fossil inputs. I don't know what the standards are in the UK but I'll be sharing this on fb to ask my more knowledgeable friends.
If the UK 'Organic' label doesn't include hydroponics, that's another reason to oppose TTIP, as we'd be forced to adopt the US 'lower standard' or be sued.
YES there IS a 'difference' .. have you heard of BioPhotons for starters? .. check out the following PDF .
richarddeanjacob.santafe@yahoo.com
see this >
http://jubilee101.com/.../A-New-Food-Paradigm---19pages.pdf
I have yet to figure out how a business can operate producing hydroponically grown plants (we experimented with it). The cost is prohibitive - the water and electricity required are horrendous (far more costly than land, and requiring far more water). To call it "organic" as though it is somehow organically superior is a joke given the massive amounts of resources it requires.
It does not make sense nutritionally, economically, or environmentally.
My question, Elliot, is how do you feel about container growing? Must organic cultivation be in the ground? Must it use only sun for energy?
The organic regulations allow for recirculating container growing in a soil-less medium made of organic matter and water soluble organic "soil amendments". Where does container growing end and hydroponic growing begin? In a situation that would be typically considered hydroponic, we've simply reduced the size of the container. All of the beneficial fungi and bacteria can still be functionally included in the system. Any evidence that this would produce inferior nutritional value?
In Australia we managed to remove the label 'organic water' because it's not a product of agriculture. Neither is hydroponics: nutrient chemicals in solution are not themselves organic.
When are regulators going to stop listening to lobby groups and operators whose only desire is to get around the rules for their own advantage, to dupe consumers and to contribute nothing?
Did you know, they even use human waste on organic food?
Please, next time talk to someone who has worked in a greenhouse, or someone who knows the science behind growing plants, before posting this article that makes it painfully obvious you do not know what you are talking about.
When you can replace everything the plant needs, and measure those parameters, it makes it silly to say that we must grow in soil.
Lastly, I have been around the organic market for 10 years, and have never heard this motto “Feed the soil, not the plant.”
Everything has a trade offs - we need to look at the entire picture.