Talk:Aeroponics

Other products

This article does not mention consumer systems like the AeroGrow's AeroGarden. Such units are inexpensive (~$180 US); how do they compare with the types of systems mentioned in the article? Also, what about hobbyists and do-it-yourself designs?

69.181.149.54 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

AeroGrow's AeroGarden is not a true aeroponic system. The AeroGarden design is based upon a NFT drip system (that dribbles down their seed pod) and a water reservoir (hydroponics). AeroGarden's advetising is false. Links to their commercial web site are not allowed under Wikipedia rules.71.208.57.133 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Check the AeroGrow's (AeroGarden) historical SEC filings, they licensed their aeroponic technology from AgriHouse (R. Stoner, inventor of the Genesis Growing System) cited in the body of the article. This article clearly discusses low-pressure systems. It would seem fairer to the original article on the subject of aeroponics not to list other hobby product links. Removing the above mentioned link would improve the objectivity of the article. It is akin to Wikipedia’s iPod article [1], you don’t see links to competing website offering hybrid ipod units (Microsoft, Sony etc). Wikipedia's intent is not to become a billboard for advertisements.

70.12.93.0 21:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

RE It would seem fairer to the original article on the subject of aeroponics not to list other hobby product links. Removing the above mentioned link would improve the objectivity of the article. It is akin to Wikipedia’s iPod article [2], you don’t see links to competing website offering hybrid ipod units (Microsoft, Sony etc).

This article is not about AgriHouse, it is about aeroponics (portable media player, not iPod in your analogy). While AgriHouse or its principals may own patents in the field, they do not own aeroponics technology as a whole. Removing competing or DIY product links would thus seem fairer to someone who stands to benefit from exclusive mention of its own products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.183.178 (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Factual Error

I think that the part about Oxygen needs to be reworded. All green plants do not use Oxygen to perform photosynthesis, they use Carbon Dioxide. The point of Aeroponics is to introduce air, not necessarily Oxygen.

A section has been added to cover the topic of the benefits CO2 in air. An air culture apparatus offers the ability for plants to have full access to all the available C02 in the air for photosynthesis.

--Agrihouse 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Plants, and especially their roots, require oxygen to grow. The section under question doesn't mention photosynthesis (or CO2), nor does it belong in this article. Putting that in this article is entirely out of place and IMHO it should be removed. I'd rename the section "Benefits of Air (oxygen)", to the simpler "Benefits of Air", and explain more clearly that it is the roots which need oxygen to grow. This is a direct benefit of aeroponics. --Dirus 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think that this article could be improved through a more neutral presentation of the material. It seems to be baised towards Aeroponics. --134.159.131.34 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The history page seems to show that most information came from Agrihouse, whose user page has links to www.agrihouse.com. This company appears to have a vested interest in aeroponics and this article feels a bit biased because of it. --BostonSportsXTC 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aeroponics from a historical perspective is still in it's infancy. People confuse it with hydroponics. The authors at AgriHouse have attempted to compile a complete unbiased and neutral history of aeroponics and the facts as it relates to the birth of the technology and its present day research at NASA. AgriHouse has contributed extensively to the open source of the article on aeroponics by making photos, facts, NASA research and references open to the public domain. There are still a lot of unknowns in the plant kingdom and creating artificial life support systems and sustainable environments for them. We welcome others to add to the list of references regarding aeroponically grown plants, plant physiology, sustainable environments, and historical facts on the subject of aeroponics. --Agrihouse 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

10 years later, the article is still written as an advertisement for 'aeroponics'. It is not neutral, there is no balance, it does not comply with Wikipedia's mandate. What are the relative costs of aeroponics compared to traditional production and to hydroponics, etc.? In practice, how much have malfunctions (lack of reliability) increased costs and delayed production? Are there any studies that suggest aeroponics yields a less desirable product, in certain crops (e.g. in texture, taste, micronutrients, nutrition, etc.)? Are there competing technologies which have strengths in certain areas? If aeroponics is all the article claims, then why has it not already 100% taken over crop production? What are its limitations? Will it raise the cost of food? Does it tend to encourage monoculture of certain strains (vs heirlooms)? How much electricity does it use (per relevant denominators), compared to traditional production? Does it contribute to climate change (via electricity consumption)? Etc, etc, etc. A more balanced article would benefit Wikipedia's readers, and lend more credibility to this field. Benefac (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

NASA references, sources and related articles reference links have been included to substantiate the neutrality of the information in the aeroponic article and it's content. --Agrihouse 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed non-NASA links from the NASA Aeroponic Links section for better neutrality. --Agrihouse 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Numerous edits and claims of disputed neutrality are not being substantiated. This is being done without regard to following wikipedia rules for discussions prior to editing. Reference and contributions should be cited in the discussion page before making drive-by changes to the subject matter. Agrihouse 07:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole article does sound like a rather breathless and enthusiastic advertisement. Needs a drastic cleanup and re-order of information to avoid duplication of material as well as a logical flow. What are the disadvantages of aeroponics?220.233.61.207 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; what are the drawbacks of aeroponics? Reading the article, I found only a few mentioned (albeit accompanied with assurances that solutions have been found); most are in the "Water and nutrient hydro-atomization" section and the "Advanced materials" section. Here, I removed the happy-sunshine-and-rainbows fluff that accompanied them.

"Water droplet size is crucial for sustaining aeroponic growth."

"Mineralization of the ultrasonic transducers requires maintenance and potential for component failure. This is also a shortcoming of metal spray jets and misters. Restricted access to the water causes the plant to lose turgidity and wilt."

"NASA has funded research and development of new advanced materials to improve aeroponic reliability and maintenance reduction."

"Degradation of the spray due to mineralization of mist heads inhibits the delivery of the water nutrient solution, leading to an environmental imbalance in the air culture environment."

By the sound of this, there are reliability and maintenance problems associated with aeroponics. But this article is so biased that I cannot discern the magnitude of these problems. Here is one passage used to "negate" the above criticisms:

"Special low-mass polymer materials were developed and are used to eliminate mineralization in next generation hydro-atomizing misting and spray jets."

What are these "special low-mass polymer materials?" Yada, yada, yada, I propose tagging this article with a "biased" tag. I mean, there must be some reason why aeroponics isn't commercially widespread, why it isn't commonly utilized in agribusiness (unlike vast fields of crops sprayed with pesticides). --Humanist Geek (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has a very high number of references to "R. Stoner", and-corporations/organizations affiliated with him. Note that user Agrihouse -- now banned -- uploaded content provided by Richard Stoner as personally created by him (photos), implying a very close relationship, and thus not a good source of unbiased material. I have trouble believing that so few other people have contributed to this field. I do not doubt the facts cited by Agrihouse/Stoner nor the references provided. However, this is heavily skewed towards one person's contributions in a manner that invites accusations of bias and lack of neutrality. Until other contributions are added, this article should be renamed to reflect the content, (Stoner's contributions to aeroponics?) or tagged as biased.173.206.176.14 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

I think this article really needs to be expanded upon. The idea of growing large harvests in multistory buildings using aeroponics sounds like an exciting proposal to create self sustaining city blocks in a future of ultra-dense city. populations. Imaging an entire city block with a 100 storey building devoted to crop growth using aeroponics.

Assuming one acre of physical space and by stacking aeroponic installations every 4 feet one could expect an effective 200 acres of crops to be grown in the building. Of course the reality of market economics would dictate that probably only the basements of buildings would be used for aeroponic facilities because of their non existant commerical or residential value, however it is still in interesting prospect for self sustaining cities.

yes

Totally what I was thinking. Here's to a crunchier, greener future.

oh- but I think that people should manage the crops and harvesting, not machines/robots.

You can collect CO2-rich exhaust and mix it with household gray water to grow food crops. If the crops become unedible, you use it to feed animals. -- Toytoy 06:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the energy requirement of growing aeroponic crops in the basement of buildings would completely nullify any potential value. Now, growing on the rooftop and perhaps the walls makes a lot more sense. The main advantage I can see for roof top growing using aeroponics is the higher yield and lower pumping costs. In practice it may not be so clear cut given the large embodied energy of the system compared to soil based crops. --Jaded-view (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aeroponics - new material discussion

I agree the subject of Aeroponics needs to be edited. Some of the statements made are not correct a lead the reader to think aeroponics is like hydroponics. They are vastly different.

Suggested additions of new material:

Aeroponics is the process of growing plants in an air/mist environment without the use of soil or an aggregate media.

Aeroponic is derived from Latin meaning 'aero' (air) and 'ponic' (culture). Thus aeroponic growth refers to growth achieved in an air culture. “Aeroponics” refers the methods and apparatus used to cultivate, grow and sustain plant and crop growth in an air culture. To grow aeroponically refers to the processes necessary needed to achieve a sustainable aeroponic growth.

Aeroponic systems are normally closed-looped systems providing macro and micro-environments suitable to sustain a reliable constant air culture.

Brief History of Aeroponics

In 1944, L.J Klotz first discovered vapor misted plants facilitated research in his studies of diseases of citrus and avocado roots. In 1952, G.F Trowel grew apple trees in a spray culture. It was F. W. Went in 1957 first termed the air-growing process “aeroponics” while growing coffee plants and tomatoes suspending the roots in air and applying a nutrient mist to the root section.

Soon after its development, aeroponics took hold as a valuable research tool. Aeroponics offered researchers a noninvasive way to examine roots under development. This new technology also allowed researchers a larger number and a wider range of experimental parameters to use in their work.

Aeroponics is the ideal tool for the study of root morphology. The absence of aggregates offers researchers easy access to the entire, intact root structure without the damage that can be caused by removal of roots from soils or aggregates. It’s been noted that aeroponics produces more normal root systems than hydroponics.

Aeroponic growing is the process of growing plants in air. In the aeroponic system the plant is suspended into an enclosed air environment where the lower portion stem and roots protrude into the aeroponic chamber. The stem and root system is sprayed/misted for short durations with a hydro-atomized spray for a short duration.

In a true hydroponic apparatus the plant root system is totally submerged in water. Oxygen must be added to the water solution in a hydroponic system to prevent the root system from becoming waterlogged. Without oxygen a waterlogged plant cannot survive. Thus adding oxygen to water on an ongoing basis is necessary, one kg of water holds 8 mg of oxygen (max). Oxygen is vital sustained growth in a hydroponic system.

In a true aeroponic apparatus the plant is suspend in totally in air. The plant will have access to 100% of the available oxygen in the air. The increase level of oxygen surrounding the stem and root system accelerates root growth. The intermittent spraying/misting of the water-nutrient solution provides the necessary moisture and mineral uptake to sustain the developing plant. Plants and crops grown in a true aeroponic environment can spend 99.9% of the time in air.

Numerous inventions have been developed to facilitate aeroponic spraying and misting. The key to root development in an aeroponic environment is the size of the water droplet. In commercial applications a hydro-atomizing spray is employed to cover large areas of roots utilizing air pressure misting.

Water droplet size is crucial. To large of water droplet the less oxygen is available to the root system. Too fine of a water droplet such as those generated by the ultra-sonic mister produce excessive root hair without developing a lateral root system for sustained growth in an aeroponic system. Mineralization of the ultra-sonic traducers requires maintenance and potential for component failure. This also a shortcoming of metal spray jets and misters.

To date, NASA funded research has determined hydro-atomized mist of 5- 50 microns is necessary for long term aeroponic growing. For long term growing the mist system must have enough pressure to force the mist into a dense root system(s). Repeatability is key to aeroponics and this includes the hydro-atomized droplet. Degradation of the spray due to mineralization of the mist head inhibits the delivery of the water nutrient solution. This leads to imbalance in the air culture environment. Special low-mass polymer materials are used to eliminate mineralization in next generation hydro-atomizing misting and spray jets.

Hybrid aeroponics include nutrient film technology (NFT) floods the root system with a nutrient solution and then allows the root to be exposed to air. Dry sections of the root system prevent adequate nutrient uptake. Another types of hybrid aeroponic system is the combination of air culture and hydroponics.

Sources:

Florist Review Vol. 173 No. 4477 – September 22, 1983. Aeroponics Versus Bed and Hydroponic Propagation, by R. Stoner

J.M. Clawson, A. Hoehn, L.S. Stodieck and P. Todd, R.J. Stoner II, Re-examining Aeroponics for Spaceflight Plant Growth, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc Oct 2000.

--Agrihouse 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.180.248.241 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Merge

I believe that Aeroponic and Aeroponics cover the same topic and should be merged. Uiew 21:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Agrihouse 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Animated Gif

WHo is responsible for this

no idea, but its quite good. the question to be asked is: why is it so large and in the center of the page? Shouldn't it be on one side or the other and smaller? And the amount of pictures on this page! Think outside the box 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

it was uploaded by Agrihouse.

maybe cleanup, condense or split into multiple articles.

maybe cleanup, condense or split into multiple articles for better readability perhaps --Emesee (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The NASA section could make it's own article for sure. doviel (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

how to integrate these potato minituber research projects ?

i found this project, perhaps someone can integrate them into the appropriate section of the existing page ?

[3]

In Peru, the International Potato Centre (CIP) is introducing the technique of aeroponics, which requires only air, water and a nutrient spray, to grow potato seeds. (...) CIP is using aeroponics to improve the production of healthy seed potatoes, and to reduce their cost. The centre has set up experimental stations in La Molina, on the coast of Peru and in Huancayo, located over 3000 metres above sea level in the Andes, to test seed tubers grown in mid air.

The results, says Rosario Falcon from CIP's Germplasm Enhancement and Crop Improvement Division, are amazing. "For example, we obtained an average of 70 seed tubers in 180 days from one plant. Using soil in the greenhouse, we only obtain five to six tubers per plant in 90 days."

In fact, the mid air method has been up to ten times more successful than conventional techniques such as tissue culture, which take longer and are also more labour intensive. In addition, the aeroponically produced seeds can be harvested at any time and size that the grower requires, from five to 30 grams.

162.23.5.64 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

5.3ha aeroponics farm in singapore producing vegetable for market

[4]

162.23.5.64 (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Too Long

This is an interesting article, and has a massive load of interesting information. Possibly too much, however, for a single article on Wikipedia.

The cap seems to fall somewhere around 32KB, with the current article past 40KB. This, in and of itself, doesn't constitute a split, but this article has a lot of sections and this makes it very hard to sort through for someone who isn't doing in-depth research on the subject.

I'm also a little concerned by the amount of information and time spent on this page by a commercial entity, the glamous image portrayed (it seems to be portrayed as the perfect solution to growing, and in this entire article, there doesn't seem to be a single drawback section -- cost, for example, is one I can throw out just off-hand, for equipment and the like).

For now, though, the length presents the biggest structural challenge to this article. We need to find a better way to organize it, one that fits more into the style of Wikipedia, and where the subject can be assessed in a shorter amount of time. If possible, I would also love to see some contributions outside of a single commercial source, differing opinions, etc.

Once this article is organized better, the attention of an expert tag should most likely be posted.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_size

Carson (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC).

Propose NASA use of aeroponics be moved to it's own article and a summary left on the main page with a link.220.233.61.207 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sry - didn't realise wasn't logged in. Propose NASA section be moved to own article and a summary with link lift on main page. doviel (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Smartse (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article is too long, but I think the bigger problem is it doesn't seem to be organized very well. It comes off as rambling and incoherent, and seems to repeat itself in places. TastyCakes (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is sloppy at the moment. It repeats itself, cites sources inconsistently (including text-dumps of abstracts), seems to include big tracts of company (GTi)-specific history, and is very vague in places. I would also add that the article's neutrality is disputed. Wellspring (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Nutrients"

The page keeps talking about "nutrients", but what nutrients, specifically? You need to provide everything the soil would normally provide, which means.... what exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.58.63 (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Aeroponics is a plant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.17.221 (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Stoner Patents

we need some patents for his new spinning sprinkler, because it is new and never been done before, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.245.101 (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

see Low pressure aeroponic growing apparatus US Patent #6807770

An aeroponic growing apparatus is provided which comprises a novel low pressure liquid nutrient delivery system generated by centrifugal force utilizing a rotating cylinder device. The rotating cylinder device distributes liquid nutrient solution to the roots of plants by use of centrifugal force.

Inventors: Richard J. Stoner, II Robert E. Wainwright, W. Michael Bissonnette, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.70.32 (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nutritional value and taste

Any existing research on nutritional value and taste? I suspect there would be differences versus in-earth growing. How safe would it be to consume only aeroponics grown crops in the long term? Would that result in the underconsumption of some minerals and vitamins and the overconsumption of some others (of course, that's also possible with earth-grown crops and an imbalanced diet, though). 66.11.179.30 (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to see some info. I've heard that they can taist difrent. As far as nutritional value, though there probably is some minor difrences, I doubt that airoponics would substantially affect them. As far as eating too much of one nutrient, that's vary difficult unless your popping pills. Vadimkorolyov (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

new external links

Please add http://aeroponichowto.com to the external links section. The link is full of articles and images on aeroponic subject. Great resource on aeroponics. Dragonlildragon (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Checked that website. It does contain lots of valid Aeroponic information and should be added to external links.108.62.148.248 (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 108.62.148.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Http://aeroponichowto.com is verified a valid source of aeroponic information. Add the link to external links page. 108.62.229.177 (talk) 01:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — 108.62.229.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. It is an ad-driven site...the IP hopping and sock/meatpuppetry won't help you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your personal website. The link fails our inclusion criterias at WP:ELNO as well as WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Additionally, the site fails WP:RS and should therefore also not be used as a reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As per ad supported sites, its funny as an example bedbugregistry is included on external links for bebdbug page which is an ad supported site. I guess you all take a partisan approach to editing the pages. As per barek fails to meet criteria for inclusion, have you checked the link to nasa low mass aeroponics, real unvaluable link but it meets criteria. Again demonstrating how wikipedia editors practice bias approach to editing. Good luck in your future editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.19.109.249 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

this page hasn't been worked on for a while

The issues people complained about 3-7 years ago still abound. Are there any editors with knowledge of aeroponics that could be brought in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.238.40 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Farming on Mars

NASA planning scenarios also reveal the Mars surface crew will spend 60% of their time on Mars farming to sustain themselves.

That sounds like a statistic from a 1970s workshop. Given the state of automation in 2015, I suspect the time is closer to 15%. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Automation takes size, weight, and power that may not be affordable on a mission to Mars. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Additive manufacturing processes using in-situ processing of Martian regolith reduces all of those things.[5] Mars colonists will be working with fully automated farms run by robots. They will not be spending 60% of their time growing crops. It's time to remove that nonsense. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As it's probably not immediately verifiable, I'm not disagreeable to removal. I am making the more general comment that without some (likely trivial) research, you can't make a claim about whether it's "a statistic from a 1970s workshop" or that "the state of automation in 2015" is sufficient for a human mission to Mars. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If the answer isn't clear, that seems to prove that the claim is not well substantiated. I am not an space agriculture expert, but as far as automation goes, it seems silly to think that lots of operational labor would be required. Silly enough in fact to remove it, unless it is clearly established in the sources. Which isn't the case.76.105.216.34 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Benefits and drawbacks

In the "Benefits and drawbacks" section, it is not apparent to me that there are any drawbacks, except possibly the expense of setting up a system, which is only implied. Are there any others? Peter Chastain ^[¡habla!] 19:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Good question! perusing the earlier discussions, it seems there may be reliability/maintenance issues in addition to overhead costs, but it's hard to tell whether those are significant or not. the article still reads like a promotional piece, which presents aeroponics as an overall superior method. if there are drawbacks, these should be documented for the sake of neutrality and balance. Xcalibur (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aeroponics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109205215/http://aeroponx.com/ to https://aeroponx.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed and advertisement tags need to be explained, not just slapped on the page to be left indefinitely

Specific concerns have to be pointed out so that they can be solved. I see inline tags peppered around that are a little more helpful, but they're mostly concerned with sourcing or attribution. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Aeroponic culture

please give conclusion on aeroponic culture 59.95.13.202 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)