4 ms·

Hydroponics produces much higher yields given the same area of land, according to this study [0] yields of tomatoes are at least 6x higher given the same growin

Hydroponics produces much higher yields given the same area of land, according to this study [0] yields of tomatoes are at least 6x higher given the same growing area as soil, so if less land is needed growers could be local - the benefits of this aren't only environmental but there are communal benefits too. Ripping out hedgerows to create bigger fields in the name of 'efficiency' is driving down bird populations across the continent [1][2] - and I'm sure birds aren't the only type of animal affected. So why don't farmers switch to something like hydroponics? People can effectively operate small systems from home, which wouldn't cover all of their needs but a not insignificant portion. Fresher, better food with less impact on the environment. [0] https://scienceinhydroponics.com/2020/06/average-yields-per-acre-of-hydroponic-crops.html https://scienceinhydroponics.com/2020/06/average-yields-per-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farming-policies-bird-population https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/26/eu-farmi... [2] https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/how-you-can-help-birds/where-have-all-the-birds-gone/is-the-number-of-birds-in-decline/ https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/how-you-ca...

YellOh 4y ago
Interesting! Thank you for the links. I was thinking of intercropping; hadn't properly considered hydroponics. It does seem like hydroponics is drastically superior for space and water efficiency, though the comparison study I'm looking at claims it takes 82x the electricity[0] (though it's from a different climate). No disagreements on birds. Industrial farming may be efficient, but it's extraordinarily destructive to the local system. In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects (and therefore it was difficult to get local flora/fauna to return, even when making an active effort). A lot of the effects of industrial agriculture last longer than I naively expected. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/
- jwestbury 4y ago
  > In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects The effect you may be referring to here is the "plough pan," and it's not just a result of heavy machinery, but also specifically of plough design which features a mouldboard, which drags along the ground creating a layer of heavily compacted soil. Heavy machinery can cause this, too, but ploughing is much more effective at ruining land! This is being somewhat mitigated recently by the increasing use of chisel ploughs, fortunately!
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
That first link seems dodgy, in the sense of having something to sell. The yield increases are hard to believe also: one ton of peas per acre turning into nine tons, hmm. And how much would it cost to hydroponic-ify an acre of land, how much to run it, and what about issues such as sterilisation etc also if you want to maximise yields then you probably head towards monoculture again, and I guess we both agree that's a bad thing. As far as I know the only thing worth growing at home with hydroponics this actually makes commercial sense is Mary Jane, and that uses a lot of electricity. And radiates a lot of heat that can easily be picked up by helicopter with a thermal camera.

YellOh 4y ago

Interesting! Thank you for the links. I was thinking of intercropping; hadn't properly considered hydroponics. It does seem like hydroponics is drastically superior for space and water efficiency, though the comparison study I'm looking at claims it takes 82x the electricity[0] (though it's from a different climate). No disagreements on birds. Industrial farming may be efficient, but it's extraordinarily destructive to the local system. In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects (and therefore it was difficult to get local flora/fauna to return, even when making an active effort). A lot of the effects of industrial agriculture last longer than I naively expected. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4483736/

jwestbury 4y ago
> In a reclaimed farm I volunteered at, the heavy machinery compacted the soil so thoroughly that "regular" plants couldn't grow there until after years of dedicated soil-rejuvenation projects The effect you may be referring to here is the "plough pan," and it's not just a result of heavy machinery, but also specifically of plough design which features a mouldboard, which drags along the ground creating a layer of heavily compacted soil. Heavy machinery can cause this, too, but ploughing is much more effective at ruining land! This is being somewhat mitigated recently by the increasing use of chisel ploughs, fortunately!

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

That first link seems dodgy, in the sense of having something to sell. The yield increases are hard to believe also: one ton of peas per acre turning into nine tons, hmm. And how much would it cost to hydroponic-ify an acre of land, how much to run it, and what about issues such as sterilisation etc also if you want to maximise yields then you probably head towards monoculture again, and I guess we both agree that's a bad thing. As far as I know the only thing worth growing at home with hydroponics this actually makes commercial sense is Mary Jane, and that uses a lot of electricity. And radiates a lot of heat that can easily be picked up by helicopter with a thermal camera.