jeff wrote:
A logical premise, yet hydroponics can be very cost effective and
need not be expensive.

For sure, a bit more than sticking a seed in a hole in the ground
and hoping it grows.

Most cases, hydro foods are much easier to grow; using much less
water to grow much more food on much less acreage.

It almost looks like an extension of drip irrigation, which many
here (including myself) are using. The difference being the soil less
medium and recycling the water. It also appears to me that
hydroponics is almost exclusively done indoors such as in a
greenhouse.


Not so. There are commercial setups with waist-high troughs outdoors that
grow greens on a large scale. But this is in a more temperate climate than
most of north america or europe.

I imagine this is to keep from contaminating the system
and the fact that the plants have to be elevated to recover the
nutrients and fluid.

In the trough system the nutrient flows down the trough which is on a slight
slope, this could be done a few inches off the ground but it is up high for
ease of access without stooping. Labour is a significant component of cost
in the fresh produce market.

So, it looks to be a wise choice for greenhouse gardening and a step
too far for those of us in the great outdoors. Do I misread that?

Jeff

It's a completely different view of the growing world, different skills
required, different costs. I am not so sure about it being inexpensive
although it may be cost effective. Hydroponic lettuces only work because
people will pay high prices in the supermarket for nice fresh produce so it
may be effective to set up hydro systems on crap soil where you would have
to do much work to improve the soil if it keeps up freshness and down
transport costs. Also there are some crops which are not really suited to
hydro, I cannot see pumpkins being very cost effective for example.

David