The debate on “Organics” and “Hydroponics”
There is a huge popular debate about the value of “organic” fertilizers and methods, many people would like to apply “organics” to hydroponics. Currently accepted organic fertilizer
components are dependent upon organisms in the soil to convert the “organic” materials into a useable form for plants.In hydroponics we provide the minerals required for plant growth directly, completely eliminating the need for soil and soilorganisms. The result is much higher growth rates, yields and even crop quality than organic methods can achieve. This is not what some people want to hear, but it is the simple scientific truth – and practically all scientists and educators in the fields of agriculture and chemistry know it and will be the first to agree. In fact, the kinds of materials which are permitted for use under “organic” regulations are not of sufficient purity to be used for hydroponic culture.
With this in mind it’s important to recognize the reasons that “organically” grown produce is gaining such popularity. Consumers want to buy produce which is not tainted with hazardous chemicals or poisons. There is an increasing public demand for methods which are gentle on our delicate planet and which don’t harm the soil, water or ecosystems. Hydroponic farming methods fit properly into this system of values if used appropriately. Hydroponics protects soil because it doesn’t use soil.
Less water is required for hydroponic culture and consequently more food can be cultivated with less water. The fertilizers we use for hydroponics are ultra-pure and leave no residue in the cultivated fruits and vegetables. Since hydroponic technologies are more efficient than soil methods, more people can be fed with less area and ecological impact.
THE ORGANIC HYDROPONIC DEBATE OPENING PANDORA’S BOX
As seen in the Growing Edge Magazine During the 1980’s, Americans increasingly became more healthconscious. Cholesterol was ruled out and exercise became a part of our daily routines. Today this still holds true, but even more so. What we put into our bodies is carefully scrutinized, even our fruits and vegetables, which has made “organic” a buzzword of the ‘90s. People are buying organic skin care products, “organic shampoos” and even “organic clothing”. Everybody seems to want “organic” and hydroponic growers are quite aware of this.
Why, then, are there hardly any “Certified Organic hydroponic growers” in the United States? Many go through a great deal of trouble to grow their crops “organically,” but even though they follow most guidelines, they still cannot get the recognition or certification necessary to sell their produce to most restaurants or natural food stores as “organic”. What is it that is separating organic from hydroponic methods? Why can’t these two technologies work together under today’s American states’ certification guidelines?
We would think that this is an easy question to answer, but it isn’t. In the United States there are numerous different definitions of “organic”, many of which differ significantly. Each state has its own regulations for labeling produce as “organic”. Additionally, there are 36 non-governmental organizations which can certify” produce as organic. For example, California growers who wish to sell their produce as “organic” must register with the California Department of Food and Agriculture and pass their inspection. However, California grower’s can also obtain certification through the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), which actually has higher standards for organic than the state has.
The CCOF certification is optional, but produce with California state registration and CCOF certification may be offered for sale within the state as “certified organic” If the grower chooses not to seek CCOF certification, the produce can be offered for sale in California as “organic,” but not “certified organic”. Any produce grown outside of the United States can be sold as “certified organic” in the country if one of the 36 non-governmental organizations certifies it. In fact, produce from any state can be granted certification from one of the non-governmental organizations, even if it does not meet the organic standards for the state in which it is being sold. Pretty confusing!
What this all means is that the “organic” label is a matter of bureaucratic definitions, which can vary from state to state, and country to country. In order to bring some kind of standard into play, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – along with state government regulators, non-governmental certifiers, consumers, industry interest groups, food processors and various special interest groups – is writing a federally mandated set of “organic” standards. No state will be able to apply more stringent standards than those of the federal. Sometime this spring, the federal standards will be released for a 90 day comment and review period, and by the end of 1996 or early 1997, these standards will become law, or “Frankenlaw”; we’ll have to wait and see.
The basic objectives of “organic” practice include the following:
Avoidance of pesticides, by use of natural pest controls (also applied by many hydroponics growers).
Caring for soil by recording nutrients and composting, and
Moderation of nutrient application with reliance on the bufferaction of humus derived from compost.
Soilless hydroponic cultivation moderates nutrient supply by the more exact measurements of soluble nutrient formulations, mixed to meet the optimum requirements of each plant species and growth phase. Many consumers select “organic” produce, believing that this is the only way to be assured of pesticide-free non—hazardous food. While “organic” farming methods do produce crops generally superior to and safer than those grown by agri-business practices, modern hydroponic techniques can put forth equally safe food that in many cases offers advances in nutrition and taste over their soil-grown “organic” counterparts. But to the consumer, it’s the label that counts, so an increasing number of growers throughout the United States are struggling to get organic certification in any way, shape or form.
Meanwhile, this whole situation poses an enormous dilemma to hydroponic growers who also want organic recognition for their produce. The primary problem for organic hydroponic growers is in the formulation of the soilless nutrient solution. A secondary issue, which concerns the federal regulators, is in the way used hydroponic nutrient and media such as rockwool are disposed of. Since “organic” is to a large extent a farming philosophy in support of a healthy environment, the federal concern is entirely reasonable.
Although the latter factor has no bearing on the quality and safety of the produce itself, the impact upon the planet is a real driving force behind the issue of “organic” farming. If hydroponic growers can find a way to completely recycle exhausted water, nutrients and media, then the argument in favor of “organic-hydroponic certification” becomes much stronger, but there’s still the issue of formulating a satisfactory organic hydroponic nutrient mix.
Organic nutrient regulations prohibit the use of many mineral salts and highly refined substances, including food and pharmaceutical grade ingredients that are extremely important for successful hydroponic nutrient formulation. Only unrefined minerals can be used on “organic” crops and these often don’t dissolve well or contain quantities of impurities, some of which are even relatively toxic but are “natural” and therefore “okay”, according to organic standards. For example, mined phosphate may contain excessive amounts of fluoride, good for teeth in very small quantities, but harmful to humans in excess.
Mined phosphate also can contain small amounts of radioactive elements such as radium, which releases radon, also not good for human health. Chlorides, too, are permitted for organic cultivation but though they are naturally mined, they can be bad for both plants and soil, especially if used in excess. Some soils used by organic farmers contain such toxic elements as selenium, which can accumulate in the plant tissues and produce. Amazing, isn’t it?
When refined, any impurities or toxicities such as those listed above are removed, but refined minerals make for non-organic produce. Blood meal, bone meal, fish meal and manures pose almost no potential safety hazards, but they don’t dissolve very well; they must be broken down through microbial action in the soil and therefore don’t work well in hydroponic applications. There is also a problem that sometimes arises when using manures. The Western Fertilizer Handbook, an important guide for American farmers, points out that many gastro-intestinal illnesses can he traced back to manures used on organically gown crops.
In the summer of 1995, a serious outbreak of salmonella poisoning resulted from an organic cantaloupe crop growing in soil fertilized with fresh chicken manure. The rinds of the melons had become contaminated and the bacteria caused serious intestinal illness for many consumers.
Another point that can be made is that strict vegetarians or animal rights activists may be offended by the use of blood, bone, horn, hoof and feather meals to grow their food, but these are primary nutrient sources for organic farmers. As you can see, this issue Is very complex and there are many points of view. Essentially though, “organic” farming is part philosophy and part methodology, but unfortunately defined bureaucratically.
Look out for Part 2 Tomorrow!
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 | Author: Invited Guest
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses







Friday, 4. December 2009
Dear Professional Garden Systems Blogger,
We liked your article on Organic and Hydroponic, but were disappointed in that it was factually incorrect in many areas. We think it would be great if you could post this CCOF response to your blog entry from the Guest Writer as it would correct the misinformation in the initial piece as it could undermine consumer confidence in organic and we hope this was not your intention. Here’s where the article was incorrect:
1. Firstly, the article incorrectly states “…….there are numerous different definitions of ‘organic’, many of which differ significantly…..each state has its own regulations for labeling produce as ‘organic”.
Each state does not have it’s own regulation for organic. Federal regulations under the National Organic Program of the USDA came into law in 2002 and the green and white USDA organic seal came into use. National organic regulations date to the OFPA (Organic Food Production Act of 1990), which was specifically designed to create a level playing field and to avoid the situation in which each state had different organic rules and instead. Where there had been different state definitions previously, now there is one Federal set of regulations under the National Organic Program (NOP). Third-party agencies such as CCOF, which are accredited by the USDA, are authorized to review and inspect operations for compliance to these rules. These agencies are also authorized to issue the USDA certified organic seal when an operation is in compliance.
The fact that your article references ‘federal standards will be released for a 90 day comment and review period, and by the end of the 1997, early 1997 suggests that it is very old and perhaps out-of-date and may have been written in the period between of the Organic Food Productions Act of 1990 and the NOP being implemented in 2002.
We believe that your guest writer may have also been confused by the fact that the third-party organic certifying agencies, in some states, but not in California, can include that States Department of Agriculture. But once again, whether a State Department of Ag, or a private, independent third-party agency like CCOF we all certify to the same federal National Organic Program standards (NOP). All agencies, whether state departments or independent operations are accredited and audited by the USDA and licensed to give the organic seal.
In California, while organic growers do have to register with the state, the state’s role is one of enforcement of the rules, not certification.
2. Secondly, the article incorrectly states that CCOF “has higher standards for organic than the state has”.
CCOF does not have higher standards than the state. There are only one set of standards, those of the NOP. CCOF does however have a reputation for a strict and conservative interpretation and enforcement of these regulations and our commitment to protecting the integrity of organic.
3. Thirdly, the article incorrectly states “The CCOF certification is optional……if the grower chooses not to seek CCOF certification, the produce can be offered for sale in California as ‘organic’ but not ‘certified organic.’
CCOF certification or certification from another accredited certifier is NOT optional if a grower has over $5,000 in annual production value. If this is the case, the grower must be certified if they wish to market their produce as “organic”. The grower MUST be registered with both the state AND certified by CCOF or another accredited agency if they wish to market their produce as “organic”.
We believe your guest writer here may have been confused by an exemption in the National Organic Program regulations whereby if a grower’s annual production value is less than $5,000, then they do not have to be certified. In this instance they are not permitted to sell their products as ‘certified organic’ as they obviously, have not been certified, but they are permitted to market their produce as ‘organic’ only. In this sense, certification is optional for the small grower. However, it is worth mentioning that, despite this exemption clause, many growers who make less than $5000 per year still choose to become certified as they feel it demonstrates their commitment to organic growing practices and provides the consumer with increased level of confidence.
3. Thirdly, the article incorrectly states that “each state has its own regulations for labeling produce as “organic’.
Each state does not have its own regulations for labeling produce as organic. Labelling requirements are also part of the Federal National Organic Program (NOP) regulations that apply nationwide. Certifying agencies operating within any given state abide by the federal regulations for labeling produce as organic as mandated by the USDA National Organic Program.
We hope that this letter will help clarify some of the issues that are discussed in your article. Please refer your readers to our website, http://www.ccof.org that is filled with useful information about organic agriculture.
Thank you for publishing these corrections.
Sincerely,
CCOF
Friday, 4. December 2009
I appreciate your response, however, I think the point that organic food production is not always cracked up to be what it is supposed to be is a valid point. Micheal Pollen was just quoted as saying “Many of these “certified organic farms” are organic on paper only and not in practice or in form” I personally have been to several organic farms that produced amazing organic produce but lack certification, and expressed there aggravation with the bureaucratic process. It also can’t be denied that Hydroponic gardening uses significantly less water then organic gardening, and I noticed you didn’t make any comments on the radioactive elements such as radium, which releases radon, and Chlorides that can be bad for both plants and soil. Both of these things are “ok” to use in organics.