Skip to main content

Should Hydroponic Production be Eliminated "Organic" Consideration?

Hydroponic cultivation is considered to be an important technology in the future production of some specialty crops in urban centers.  The concept is simple.  Indoor farms offer the capacity to grow high-value specialty crops in confined, climate controlled space.  They repurpose poorly-used city space, and hire skilled and unskilled workers in population centers. 

Most of all, these operations limit the carbon footprint of specialty crop production, which now does not need long-distance transportation.  In some cases the plant products can ease the deficiencies associated with fresh fruit and vegetable scarcity in urban food deserts, areas under-served by large produce retailers. 



Dr. Wan Feng describes the effects of bioponic organic fertilizers on lettuce production in a hydroponic system.  While no synthetic chemicals are used, it may not be sold as "organic". Photo from ICCEA Panama, May 17, 2017.


In many cases producers are able to grow crops without pesticides, as they can control environmental conditions to deter fungal and bacterial pathogens.  Insects may not be an issue in a carefully devised controlled environment.  These realities seem to match the values and goals of organic crop production. 

But hydroponic growers were not allowed to obtain organic certification because they use synthetic fertilizers. Delivery of proper amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and needed micronutrients are best delivered by providing them in the liquid media as precisely mixed by fertilizer manufacturers.

Innovative growers started to use alternative sources of fertilizers in a hope to be able to market their carefully-grown crops as organic. They began introducing fertilizer concoctions derived from animal and plant waste, with some success.  The products are more difficult to use, sometimes produce a bad smell, but generally work as an alternative to prepared fertilizers.

Still, in 2016, the  Organic Standards  indicated that these methods would not be allowed to have the organic classification. 

This is yet another example that illuminates the arbitrary nature of what falls under the 'organic' designation.  

If the goal is to produce more with less, to mitigate the use of synthetic pesticides, and to provide a high-value crop for farmers-- why would this technology be forbidden?  It is a lot like how transgenic crops are disallowed categorically for use in organic cultivation.  

Technologies that cut costs for farmers, lessen impact on the environment, and provide better food for people (even more than existing organic standards) should be included in the organic designation.  

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…