On a previous post, I discussed a very interesting open-source sensor/data logging alternative for Hydroponics called MyCodo, which offers a lot of features and flexibility for those growers with the time and skills necessary to implement their own sensor and data logging setup. However, many growers don’t have the time to do this on their own – or the time and willingness to hire someone to do it for them – and all they want is a solution that “just works” out of the box and that fits most of their data logging needs. In this post I am going to talk about three commercial solutions – in no particular order – that I’ve had experience with along with some of the advantages and disadvantages that each one offers you. Note that this post has not been sponsored by any of these brands. The statements below represent my opinions on the matter and the facts, to the best of my knowledge. I recommend you contact each company to ask specific questions pertinent to your needs.

Growtronix. This company offers a complete solution for monitoring and automation of hydroponic crops. Their sensors are hooked through cabled connections and they support a wide array of analogue sensors, both sold by them and by third parties. As long as a sensor can work on a 3.5-5V input and give an analogue reading, it can be installed in a growtronix setup. Their web interface is user-friendly, it allows you to view sensor readings and create control schemes using simple if logic statements. They have also shared the source code of their web interface with some of my customers in the past, so if you would like to customize things beyond their base web application, I’m sure you could figure it out if you have the time and programming skills. Growtronix support – per the experience of the customers I have you have used it – has been stellar.

There are however some downsides to using growtronix. Since everything is cabled you will need to lay cables across your rooms if you want to hook up multiple sensors within them. The system lacks support for third party i2c sensors, meaning that you can only connect analogue sensors and will miss on some interesting third-party sensor offerings. The data is also stored in a non-relational mongoDB implementation, which means that querying data and doing complicated data analysis will not be easy with them. Their control algorithm technology is also rather simple, to the best of my knowledge they do not offer more advanced control mechanisms beyond the if logic statements they allow the users to program.

Agrowtek. Similar to Growtronix, they also offer a complete monitoring and automation solution for hydroponic crops. However, they offer their own touchscreen computers to connect to their sensors, dosing pumps, and relay modules, so they do not have a dedicated web interface for their sensors that is hosted on any computer but you must purchase their own. Their “GrowControl” panels will hook with normal ethernet cables to any of the sensors they offer and you will be able to program all the behavior of the sensors and the relays from these stations. Their main advantage is easy setup, everything easily hooks up and you can then program things within the GrowControl panels to fit whatever simple control needs you might have. You can probably setup 200 sensors/relays in a day to control an entire facility using this setup. Their custom computer also gives you more stability, meaning crashes of the system are rare (according to the customers I have who have used them). From the three companies discussed in this post, this is also the only one to offer nutrient injection systems in their offering.

However, one big limitation of this company is how closed the ecosystem is. You have absolutely no ability to hook up third-party sensors and sadly their offering lacks some important and basic sensors for a medium to large scale hydroponic setup, specifically water content and water potential sensors. You are also becoming reliant on the availability of support from them and – if the company went under – it would be very hard for you to be able to fix or find replacements for their sensors or their control panels. Their control algorithms are also fairly simple and are limited to basic if-logic, similar to the Growtronix system. Data is also not logged into any database but as basic csv files, which means substantial effort will be needed to perform advanced data analysis tasks.

SmartBeeControllers. This company also offers a complete automation and monitoring solution for your hydroponic crop. Their main differentiating factor relative to the last two is that sensor stations connect wirelessly to your computer, allowing you to place sensors throughout your facility without having to set up cables through the entire place. Their sensor stations can hook up to a large number of sensors so, for example, you can use a water content station to hook up six of their capacitive water content sensors. They also require a computer server with the web software to communicate with – alike Growtronix – and their software has a focus on simplicity. In this case, control options are even more limited than in other cases, with basically only simple set-point logic available to control relays (to the best of my knowledge).

The SmartBee ecosystem is also quite limited and offers no pH/EC/ORP sensors or water potential sensors (tensiometers). You have no ability to hook up third-party sensors as well, meaning you’re stuck with this offering if you use them. Because of the wireless nature of communications, sensor readings and their stability can also be compromised due to excessive electromagnetic noise, which can be particularly problematic in a short room that has a lot of HPS ballasts. It is also true that in the past (2-3 years ago) their support seemed to have problems, with several complaints about their response time online. I do not know if their technical support has improved so I would advise you to seek recent opinions about it on social media if you’re considering them for purchase. The people I know who used them didn’t need to contact support, so I cannot comment on this aspect from my customers’ experience.

The above are three commercially available data logging systems for hydroponics. All of them should be easy to hook up and should provide you with basic data logging and control capabilities for your grow. In my opinion, the most complete one is Growtronix, given the ability to add third-party sensors – even if only analogue ones – and the quality of their sensors and web application software. However, if controlling the nutrient injection process electronically is important for your situation, then Agrowtek might be a better solution. None of them however provide advanced control mechanisms – like reinforcement learning-based climate control – and none of them provide access to all sensors that would be desirable, so a custom DIY setup might be best if these features are very important to you.

There are sadly not a lot of open source solutions for data logging, visualization, and control that have all the features required to be decently expandable and allow for different use cases. Most open source solutions have been developed by individuals for their particular needs. The consequence of this is that the hardware is very specific and difficult to expand on and the software has been written to be hard-coded to the hardware, making true wide use by the DIY community hard. However, MyCodo – a project that was shared with me by a reader of the blog – seems to get rid of this paradigm, creating an open-source implementation that is truly expandable and that offers most of the features anyone would want in a truly flexible DIY setup. In this post, we will talk about this project, what it offers and how it could be expanded for hydroponic grows of all scales.

MyCodo is centered around a Raspberry Pi as its main computing hub. Once you install it, the project creates a web interface in the Raspberry Pi that you can use to manage inputs and the control actions that are derived from them. Most of the inputs that are supported by the MyCodo implementation are designed to be directly connected to the Raspberry Pi, such that the Pi acts both as the computing brains and the sensor/control hub for the implementation. When used in this way, only the Raspberry Pi is required, with whichever sensors and relays you want to add to it. This can already be powerful but has the problem that the Raspberry Pi is directly in the middle of the sensing/control environment and the entire implementation could be vulnerable to catastrophic failure due to interactions with the environment (say water getting on the Raspberry Pi).

Thankfully, the developer(s) of the MyCodo implementation had the vision to implement input/output options to use MQTT subscribe/publish mechanics. The MQTT protocol is a messaging system where a device in a network can listen to or publish to different “topics”. So you can have an Arduino that publishes messages under the topic “HumiditySensor1” that contain the humidity value measured at each point in time and you can have it at the same time subscribe to a topic called “HumidityControl” and when it receives an “on” message in this topic it turns on a dehumidifier. You can then use MyCodo to “listen” to the humidity sensor messages, execute its own control algorithms on it, and publish the adequate control action to the “HumidityControl” topic whenever it thinks that a dehumidifier needs to be turned on. This is the way in which my custom-built Arduino/Raspberry PI control implementation generally works.

MyCodo, therefore, has a lot of flexibility that is not shared by any other open-source implementations, at least among the ones I have found, for environmental control. Although there are no MQTT sensor stations implemented that I could find for the MyCodo, it should be fairly straightforward to build these sensing/control stations using Arduinos and the MQTT protocol and it should then be easy to add these stations to the MyCodo so that they can benefit from the system’s control interfaces. In a system like this – with independent MQTT enabled sensor/control stations – you can control small or large facilities and not depend on the use of a single raspberry pi to do the entire setup. This means you could use the MyCodo to control different rooms and be able to have a centralized sensing setup for all your needs.

I have decided to give MyCodo a try for my latest hydroponic system. You should expect some videos about this in my youtube channel along with a github repository containing the code for the sensing and control stations that I am going to build in order to use Arduinos for turning relays on/off and send sensor readings. A Raspberry Pi will be used as the central control hub for the project, hosting the MyCodo webserver and code.

If you’ve read my blog before, you know how important data logging is to having a successful hydroponic crop. Data allows you to monitor and tune the different variables in your grow, which allows you to give your plants the perfect environment through their entire growing cycle. However, deciding how to do this is not simple, you need to decide if you’re going to go with a company that sells some pre-made data-logging solution or you need to build everything yourself. In this post, I’m going to talk about several pros and cons of building your own data logging system for your hydroponic crop.

Pros

You have control over everything. The most important pro when building your own data logging solution is that you have total and absolute control over all aspects of it. If you want to support some type of sensors or have your data stored a certain way, there is nothing preventing you from doing this except your own skills and imagination. If you want to support an obscure messaging protocol, wireless transmission system, etc, it is all up to you. You won’t be limited by the management decisions of an external company and you will be able to build a system that perfectly caters to your needs.

You will be able to leverage low-cost hardware. When building your own system you will be able to get all the parts yourself. This means you will be able to substantially reduce costs. Of course, you’re incurring the important cost of your time but the hardware itself will be low cost and once you implement the basic setup you will be able to connect new rooms and build new logging stations for a fraction of the cost of buying one commercially.

Take advantage of new hardware quickly. As new technologies for monitoring environmental variables are invented or the desire to control new variables comes into play, your ability to fully control your setup will allow you to take advantage of new hardware that comes into the scene while companies will usually be very slow to respond to such changes.

A much deeper understanding. When you build all the monitoring setup yourself, you will create a lot of understanding about how the sensors work, how each one of them is calibrated, how data is transmitted, stored, etc. If you build your own monitoring setup you will gain a much deeper understanding than somebody who just buys an off-the-shelf product.

No need for patchwork approaches. When you decide to get a commercial solution for data logging, one of the issues that comes along is that you will get the setup from a company that supports some types of sensors but you will often face challenges if you want a sensor outside this offering. This will usually mean buying a setup that includes that sensor from a completely different company, measuring some variables with one system and some others with another system.

Cons

No one to support it. The biggest drawback of building things yourself – or hiring someone to build a custom system for you – is that you will have no one to help you debug your system when things go wrong. You will also have limited ability to delegate this work, as your highly custom system will demand somebody with a high level of skill to become familiar with it and operate it with the same level of proficiency as you do. A custom solution means all of this responsibility will fall on the shoulders of those who developed the system.

Limited by your knowledge. Although it is true that you will get a pretty deep understanding of the things you decide to incorporate into your system, you will also be very limited in the design and implementation of your system because of your particular limitations as an individual. A big company that develops a data logging system will have dozens of people working on it, and all of their experience will go into the decisions that were made in the sensor and software implementations. This can mean better sensor choices are made, more robust communication protocols are used, etc.

Not built for sharing. Custom-built systems usually have the problem that they are built with poor documentation. Sharing is normally not the priority and people will prefer to build “fast and dirty” in order to get things done. This means that the code is usually poorly commented and of a lower quality than what you get from a product that comes from a business. Although some people who build custom software that they intend to release as open-source implementations will often go to great lengths to provide great code quality this is rarely the case when the intention is not to make everything open source.

Big overhauls are a big problem. Since your custom building efforts will usually rely on one or two individuals, bad decisions that are made at the beginning of a project will carry a big toll during the entire life of the system. Poor decisions will be hard to overcome, as a lot of work will be needed to overhaul these “built from scratch” systemA big business with large teams will make fewer poor decision and those mistakes will be found out and fixed faster.

Messy hardware that often breaks easily. Due to the fact that people who build DIY implementations will go for rapid prototyping and functionality over robustness, sensor and data logging setups built in this manner will usually lack the roughness of commercial implementations. While a business dedicated to data logging wants to build systems with adequate sensor housing, and durability for transport, with customer satisfaction in mind, a person who builds this for him or herself might be ok with having a lot of exposed boards and cables. Overall DIY setups are therefore less robust, more likely to break, and more likely to suffer from electrical issues like poorly grounded circuitry.

Hopefully, the above pros and cons give you a useful idea of what you’re gaining and losing when you decide to build your own custom-built data logging system for hydroponics. While you will usually get much more flexible, lower cost, cohesive and personalized setups from custom building, this will usually come at the cost of higher support costs in time, lower reliability, lower build quality, and compromises in quality depending on where your strengths as a builder/coder are. For small setups, it is usually a no-brainer to go with a custom setup – because of how much you learn from doing this and how much you can experiment – while for larger setups careful consideration of the above cons is important.

When researchers started looking into growing plants without soil, they started to look for mixtures of nutrients that could grow plants successfully so that these formulations could be used to study other aspects of plant physiology. If you have a mixture of nutrients that you know grows a plant without major issues, then you can use that as a base to study other things, for example how plants react to some exogenous agent or how changes to temperature or humidity affect the uptake of certain nutrients (see this paper for a view into the history of hydroponics and standard solutions). The establishment of these standard solutions was one of the great achievements of botanists during the twentieth century, which allowed thousands of detailed studies on plants to be carried out. In this post, we’re going to be talking about these standard solutions and why they are a great place to start for anybody seeking to formulate their own nutrients.

One of the best places to find a comparison between these standard solutions is this paper. In it, the authors explore the relationships between the different solutions and how they are similar or diverge. In the table above, you can see a summary of the elemental nutrient concentrations found in this paper for the 12 standard solutions they compare (the paper states them in mmol/L but I have changed them to ppm as these are more commonly used units in the field nowadays). As you can see, some of the older solutions miss some elements or contain much smaller amounts of them – as they were likely present in the media or other salts as impurities – while more recent standard solutions do contain all the elements we now understand are necessary for plant life.

It is interesting to note that all of these solutions have been successfully used to grow plants, so their convergent aspects might show us some of the basic things that plants require for growth. As they highlight on the paper, the K/Mg/Ca ratio for most of these solutions is rather similar, as well as the N/S/P ratios. This means that most of these authors figured out that plants needed pretty specific ratios of these nutrients and these ratios are sustained with minor variations through the 12 solutions, developed across a span of more than 100 years. All the solutions developed from the 1940s have similar final concentrations and their starting pH is almost always in the 4-5 range, due to the presence of acid phosphate salts like monopotassium phosphate.

Nonetheless, there are several things that improved in the solutions as a function of time. The first is the inclusion of higher concentrations of all micronutrients with time, as macronutrient salt quality increased, the media sources became more inert and the need to add them to avoid deficiencies became apparent. The need to chelate micronutrients also became clear with time, as solutions starting with Hoagland’s solution in the 1940s started using EDTA to chelate iron, to alleviate the problem of iron phosphate precipitation in hydroponic solutions. This is clearly shown in the table below, where the authors show how the first three solutions had almost or all of their Fe precipitate out, while the newest solutions, like Cooper’s developed in 1979, had less than 5.5% of its Fe precipitated.

The natural question when reading about standard solutions is: which one is the best one to use? Sadly, I don’t think there’s a simple answer. There have been multiple studies comparing standard solutions (see this one for an example). What ends up happening most of the time is that, while most of the solutions manage to grow healthy crops, one of the solutions happens to be more fit to the idiosyncrasies of the study because its conditions are better aligned with those that the authors developed the solutions under. A study revealing a solution to be better than another to grow plants under a given set of conditions does not imply that this solution will be the best one for all plants under all conditions. For this reason, the optimization of nutrient solutions to particular conditions using tissue analysis is still pursued in order to maximize yields.

My advice would be to view the above solutions as well researched starting points for your hydroponic crops. These solutions, especially the ones developed after 1940, will do a good basic job growing your plants. If you’re interested in making your own solutions, starting with a solution like the Hoagland, Steiner, or Cooper solutions is a great way to begin making your own nutrients. Once you have a basic standard solution working for you, you can then tweak it to maximize your yield and improve your crop’s quality.

When you get introduced to hydroponics and nutrient solution chemistry, one of the first concepts that you learn is chelation. A chelate is a molecule formed by a metallic ion and a chelating agent – which is also referred to as a ligand – where the metal ion is wrapped around very tightly by this ligand. The job of the chelating agent is to keep the heavy metal ion shielded from the environment, allowing it to exist in solution without forming potentially insoluble compounds that will take it out of the nutrient solution. However, these chelates can be unstable or too stable, both of which can hinder the availability of the nutrient to plants. In this post, we’re going to talk about what determines the stability of a metal chelate and how you can know if a given chelate will be able to fulfill its job in a hydroponic environment.

Since chelates are formed by the reaction of a metallic ion – most commonly a cation – which a ligand, a chemical equilibrium is established between the free metallic ion, the ligand, and the chelate. Every second, there are lots of chelate molecules being formed from reactions between metallic ions and ligands, and free metallic ions and ligands are being formed from the disassembly of the chelate. The process is in equilibrium when the rates of assembly and disassembly are the same. The equilibrium constant – also known as the stability constant or Kb – tells us how displaced this equilibrium is towards the product (in this case the chelate). When the Kb value is large, the concentration of the chelate at equilibrium is very large, while when Kb is small, the opposite is true. Since these numbers are usually very large for chelates, we express them as pKb which is -Log(Kb). These constants depend on temperature, but their values are independent of other chemical reactions. However, things like pH can affect the concentration of ligand or metal cation, which can affect the concentration of chelate, since the equilibrium constant’s value remains the same.

The table above shows you the pKb values for different metal ions and different ligands or chelating agents. Since the pKb scale is logarithmic, a difference of 1 indicates an order of magnitude higher stability. You can also find additional references to other stability constants in this link. These constants allow us to predict which chelates will be formed if different metallic cations and ligands are present. Let’s say we have a solution that contains Ca2+ and Fe3+ and we add a small amount of sodium citrate, what will happen? Since the constant for Ca2+ is 3.5 but that of Fe3+ is 11.85, citrate will chelate around 1 billion Fe3+ ions for every Ca2+ ion it chelates. In practice, this means that all the Fe3+ that can be chelated will be, while Ca2+ will remain as a free metallic ion. However, if we have Fe²⁺ instead of Fe³⁺ then Fe²⁺ has a constant of only 3.2, which means that one molecule of Fe²⁺ will be chelated for every 3 of Ca²⁺, meaning we will have around 25% of all the chelate formed as a chelate formed by Fe²⁺ and 75% as a chelate formed by Ca²⁺.

We can see in this manner how chelating only one heavy metal can lead to problems. Imagine that you purchase Iron EDTA and add it to your nutrient solution, but you have added Manganese from Manganese sulfate. Upon addition, the FeEDTA chelate will disassemble to generate as much Fe²⁺ and free EDTA as dictated by the equilibrium constant and the free EDTA will then get into equilibria with all the other heavy metals, since the constant with Mn is 13.6 and that of Fe is 14.3 the ligand will redistribute itself so that it complies with all the chemical equilibria present. This means that for every 7 Fe²⁺ cations that are chelated we will have around 1 Mn²⁺ containing chelate, so you will lose around 14% of the chelated Fe in order to chelate free Manganese. That free Fe²⁺ will be unstable and precipitate out, which will shift the equilibrium and cause us to lose more of the Fe chelate. This is how competing equilibria can lead to the slow but sure depletion of available cations in solution.

With the above references and charts, you should now be able to look into any chelating agent you want to use and determine how good of a choice it is for your solution and what is likely to happen once you put that chelate in. The ligand will chelate different metals in order to comply with all the equilibrium constants, so it is up to you to add enough so that all heavy metals are satisfied or add ligands whose affinity for a given ion is so high that the others are just unable to compete for it, almost regardless of their concentration.

Data is key. It will help you obtain high yields and improve with each additional crop cycle. Having sensor measurements not only allows you to diagnose your crop at any given point in time but also allows you to go back and figure out what might have happened if something went wrong. With all the commercial offerings now becoming available, it is starting to become harder and harder to evaluate which data logging system might be ideal for you. In this post, I seek to share with you 5 things that I always look for when evaluating data logging systems for a greenhouse or grow room. These are all things that will enable you to store sensor data adequately and take full advantage of it, ensuring you’re not handy capped by a poor starting choice.

Sensor compatibility. One of the first things that I look for is which sensors I can add and what restrictions I might have on sensors that are added to the system. I like to have systems where I can connect any 3-5V analog sensor I want. I also want to be able to connect sensors that use common protocols, like i2c sensors. I also like to know that for things like pH and EC, the boards have standard plugs I can connect to, to make sure I can replace the electrodes given to me by the company with others if I wish to do so. Freedom in sensor compatibility and in the ability to replace sensors with sensors from outside the company are both a must for me.

Expandability. Many of the commercially available data logging platforms are very restricted and can often only accommodate a very small number of sensors. Whenever you’re looking for a data logging solution that will need to be deployed on a medium/large scale, it is important to consider how this implementation can expand, and how painful it would be to make that expansion. Being able to easily add/remove sensors to a platform is key to having a flexible and robust data logging solution.

Not cloud reliant. It is very important for me to be able to use the system, regardless of whether the computers are online or not, and to have all the data that I register logged locally in some manner. Systems where an internet connection is needed for data logging or where data is not stored locally are both big show stoppers when it comes to evaluating a data logging system. There is nothing wrong with having data backed up to the cloud – this is indeed very desirable – but I want to ensure that I have a local copy of my data that can I always rely on and that logging of data won’t be stopped because there is some internet connection issue. Also bear in mind that if your sensors are cloud reliant you will be left without any sort of data logging system if the company goes under and those servers cease to exist.

Connectivity of sensors is robust. In many of the more trendier new systems sensor connectivity is wireless. This can be perfectly fine if it is built robustly enough, but it is often the case that connections based on WiFi will tend to fail under environments that are filled with electromagnetic noise, such as when you have a lot of HPS ballasts. It is therefore important to consider that if you have such an environment, having most of your sensors connected using cables, or using a wireless implementation robust to this type of noise is necessary.

Have a robust API to directly access your data. Since I do a lot of data analyses using the data from hydroponics crops, I find it very crippling to be limited by some web interface that only allows me to look at data in some very limited ways. I want any data logging system I use to allow me to use an API to get direct access to the data so that I can implement a data structure and analysis the way I see fit. Having your data available through a robust API will allow you to expand the usage of your data significantly and it will also ensure you can backup your data or structure the database in whatever way you see fit. An example of this is sensor calibration logging and comparisons, while commercial platforms almost never have this functionality, having an API allows me to download the data and compare sensor readings between each other to figure out if some sensors have lost calibration or make sure to schedule their calibration if they haven’t been calibrated for a long time.

Ability to repair. When making a data logging choice, we are making a bet on a particular company to continue existing and supporting their products in the long term. However, this is often not the case and we do not want to be left with a completely obsolete system if a company goes under and ceases to support the product they made. I always like to ensure that the systems that are being bought can continue working if the company goes under and that there is a realistic ability to find parts and replace sections of those products that might fail in the future if this were to be the case. Open source products are the most ideal because of this fact.

These are some of my top six priorities whenever I evaluate a commercial data logging solution for deployment. From the above, not being cloud reliant and having a robust API are the most important, while sensor compatibility can be ignored to an extent if the system is only being deployed for a very specific need (for which the sensors provided/available are just fine). Which of the above you give the most priority to depends on how much money you’re going to be investing and how big and robust you want the implementation to be.

Whenever I am hired to duplicate a company’s fertilizer regime based on commercial products, I always emphasize that I cannot use the labels of the products as a reference because of how misleading these labels can be. A fertilizer company only needs to tell you the minimum amount of each element it guarantees there is in the product, but it does not have to tell you the exact amount. For example, a company might tell you their fertilizer is 2% N, while it is in reality 3%. If you tried to reproduce the formulation by what’s on the label you would end up with substantially less N, which would make your mix perform very differently. This is why lab analysis of the actual bottles is necessary to determine what needs to be done to reproduce the formulations.

How bad is this problem though? Are companies just under-reporting by 1-5% in order to ensure they are always compliant with the minimum guaranteed amount accounting for manufacturing errors or are they underreporting substantially in order to ensure all reverse engineering attempts based on the labels fail miserably? I have a lot of information about this from my experience with customers – which is why I know the problem is pretty bad – but I am not able to publicly share any of it, as these lab tests are under non-disclosure agreements with them. However, I recently found a website from the Oregon government (see here), where they share all the chemical analysis of fertilizers they have done in the past as well as whatever is claimed on labels.

The Oregon database is available in pdf form, reason why I had to develop a couple of custom programming tools to process all the information and put it into a readable database. So far I have only processed the fertilizers that were registered in 2015, but I am going to process all the fertilizers available in their database up until 2018 (the last year when this report was uploaded). However, you can already see patterns emerging for just the 2015 data. That year there were 245 fertilizers tested, from which 213 contained N, P, K, Ca, S or Mg. If we compare the lab results for these elements with the results from the lab analysis, we can calculate the average deviation for them, which you can see above. As you can see, companies will include, on average, 20%+ of what the labels say they contain. This is way more of a deviation than what you would expect to cover manufacturing variations (which are expected to be <10% in a well-designed process) so this is definitely an effort to prevent reverse engineering.

Furthermore, the deviations are by no means homogeneous in the database. The above graphs showing the box plot and median deviation values, show us that most people will actually be deviated by less than 5% from their label requirements, but others will be very largely deviated, with errors that can be in the 100%+ deviation from their reported concentration. In many cases, companies also have negative deviations, which implies that the variance of their manufacturing process was either unaccounted for or there was a big issue in the manufacturing process (for example they forgot to add the chemical containing the element). These people would be in violation of the guaranteed analysis rules and would be fined and their product registrations could be removed.

With this information, we can say that most people try to report things within what would be considered reasonable if the label is to remain accurate (deviations in the 1-5% range) to account for their manufacturing issues but many companies will choose to drift heavily for this and report values that are completely misleading relative to the labels. These companies are often the ones that are most widely used as they are the ones who want to protect themselves from reverse engineering most aggressively.

Take for example General Hydroponics (GH). Their FloraGro product is registered with an available phosphate of 1%, while the actual value in the product is 1.3%, this is a 30% deviation, far above the median of the industry. They will also not just underreport everything by the same amount – because then your formulation would perfectly match when you matched their target EC – but they will heavily underreport some elements and be accurate for others. In this same Floragro product, the K₂O is labeled as 6% and the lab analysis is 5.9%, meaning that they reported the value of K pretty accurately. However, by underreporting some but not others, they guarantee that you will skew your elemental ratios by a big margin if you try to reverse engineer the label, which will make your nutrients work very differently compared to their bottles.

As you can see, you just cannot trust fertilizer labels. Although most of the smaller companies will seek to provide accurate labels within what is possible due to manufacturing differences, big companies will often engineer their reporting to make it as hard as possible for reverse engineering of the labels to be an effective tactic to copy them. If you want to ever copy a commercial nutrient formulation, make sure you perform a lab analysis so that you know what you will be copying and never, ever, rely solely on the labels. I will continue working on this dataset, adding the remaining fertilizers, and I will expand my analyses to include micronutrients, which are covered by Oregon government tests.

When growing plants, either in soil or hydroponically, we are interested in giving them the best possible conditions for nutrient absorption. If you have ever searched for information about plant nutrition and pH, you might remember finding a lot of charts showing the nutrient availability as a function of the pH – as shown in the image below – however, you might have also noticed that most of these images do not have an apparent source. Where does this information on pH availability come from? What experimental evidence was used to derive these graphs? Should we trust it? In this post, we are going to look at where these “nutrient availability” charts come from and whether or not we should use them when working in hydroponic crops.

Information about the above charts is not easy to come by. People have incessantly copied these charts in media, in peer reviewed papers, in journals, in websites, etc. Those who cite, usually cite each other, creating circular references that made the finding of the original source quite difficult. However, after some arduous searching, I was able to finally find the first publication with a chart of this type. It is this white paper from 1942 by Emil Truog of the University of Wisconsin. The paper is titled “The Liming of Soils” and describes Truog’s review of the “state of the art” in regards to the liming of soils in the United States and the differences in nutrient availability that different pH levels – as set by lime – can cause.

The paper is not based primordially on judicious experiments surrounding nutrient availability but on Truog’s experience with limed soils and the chemistry that was known at the time. He acknowledges these limitations explicitly in the paper as follows:

I also emphasize that the chart is a generalized diagram. Because adequate and precise data relating to certain aspects of the subject are still lacking, I had to make some assumptions in its preparation and so there are undoubtedly some inaccuracies in it. There will be cases that do not conform to the diagram because of the inaccuracies, or special and peculiar conditions that are involved, e. g., conditions that are associated with orchard crops.

“The liming of soils” by Emil Truog

It is therefore quite surprising that we continue to use this diagram, even though there have been more than 80 years of research on the subject and we now know significantly more about the chemistry of the matter. Furthermore, this diagram has been extended to use in hydroponics, where it has some very important inaccuracies. For example, Truog’s decision to lower nitrogen availability as a function of pH below 6 is not based on an inability of plants to absorb nitrogen when the pH drops, but on the observations done in soil that showed that below this value, the bacteria present in soil could not effectively convert organic nitrogen into nitric nitrogen, the main source of nitrogen that crops can assimilate. In hydroponics, where nitrate is provided in its pure form, nitrate availability does not drop as the pH of the solution goes down.

Several other such assumptions are present in his diagram. Since the changes in pH he observed are associated with lime content, the drops in availability are as much a consequence of pH increase as they are of increases in the concentration of both calcium and carbonates in the media. This significantly affects P availability, which drops substantially as the increase in pH, coupled with the increase in Ca concentration, causes significant precipitations of Ca phosphates. His diagram also ignores key developments in the area of heavy metal chelates, where the absorption of heavy metal ions can be unhindered by increases of pH due to the use of strong chelating agents.

Reading further into Truog’s paper, I found out that his diagram is actually an extension of a diagram that was created almost 10 years before, in 1935, by N. A. Pettinger, an associate agronomist at the Virginia Agricultural Experiment station. You can read this white paper here. In a similar fashion, Pettinger created a diagram that summed his experiences with different nutrients in soils at different pH values, where the pH was mainly increased or decreased by the presence or absence of lime. You can see big differences between both diagrams, while Truog includes all elements required by plants, Pettinger only includes the most highly used nutrients, leaving Zn, B, Mo, and Cu out of the picture. Pettinger also has substantially different availability profiles for Mg and Fe.

Although these diagrams are both great contributions to the field of agronomy and have been used extensively for the past 80 years, I believe it is time that we incorporate within these diagrams a lot of the knowledge that we have gained since the 1950s. I believe we can create a chart that is specific to nutrient availability in hydroponics, perhaps even charts that show availability profiles as a function of different media. We have a lot of experimental data on the subject, product of research during almost a century, so I believe I will raise up to the challenge and give it my best shot. Together, we can create a great evidence-based chart that reflects a much more current understanding of nutrient availability as a function of pH.

Calcium is one of the most difficult elements to properly supply to plants as its absorption is tightly linked to both chemical and environmental factors. It is very easy for growers to suffer from calcium-related problems, especially those who are growing under highly productive conditions. Issues such as bitter pit in apples, black heart in celery, blossom end rot in tomato, and inner leaf tip burn in lettuce, have all been associated with low levels of calcium in the affected tissues. In this post, we are going to discuss why this happens, how it is different for different plants, and which strategies we can use to fix the issue and get all the calcium needed into our plants’ tissue. Most of the information on this post is based on these two published reviews (1, 2, 3).

Problems with Ca absorption rarely happen because there is not enough Calcium available to a plant’s root system. In hydroponic crops, these issues happen when ample Ca is available to plant root systems and can present themselves even when apparently excess Ca is present in the nutrient solution. Concentrations of 120-200 ppm of Ca are typically found in hydroponic solutions and we can still see cases where nutrient Ca-related problems emerge. This is because issues with Ca are mostly linked to the transport of this element from roots to tissues, which is an issue that is rarely caused by the concentration of Ca available to the plants. Most commonly these problems are caused by a plant that is growing under conditions that are very favorable and Ca transport fails to keep up with other, more mobile elements. As the plant fails to get enough Ca to a specific growing point, that tissue will face a strong localized Ca deficiency and will die.

When looking into a Ca problem and how to fix it, we first need to understand which plant organ is lacking proper Calcium uptake. In tomato plants, for example, blossom end rot (BER) appears when Ca fails to reach a sink organ – the fruit – while in lettuce, inner tip burn develops because Ca is unable to reach a fast-growing yet photosynthetically active part of the plant. Since Calcium transport can be increased by increasing transpiration, we might think that decreasing the relative humidity (RH) might reduce BER but this in fact increases it, because transpiration increases faster in leaves, than it does in the fruit. In this case, solving the problem involves balancing Ca transport so that it reaches the fruit instead of the leaves. Pruning of excessive leaf tissue, lowering N to reduce vegetative growth, and increasing RH – especially at night – can in fact help under these circumstances, where Ca deficiency develops in sink organs. Reducing ammonium as much as possible can also help, as ammonium can also antagonize calcium absorption due to its cationic nature.

In plants like cabbages and lettuce, a different picture emerges. In this case, increasing the RH leads to worse tip burn symptoms, and decreasing it significantly reduces tip burn, as Ca transport is increased by the increased leaf transpiration. This can be a viable strategy if the temperature is not too high. Under high temperatures, reducing RH leads to too much water stress, which causes other problems for the plants. In these cases, a preferred technique to reduce tip burn is to increase air circulation, which decreases both the RH around leaf tissue and the temperature of the plant due to the wind-chilling effect, this can increase transpiration rates without overly stressing plants.

Since in most cases these Ca issues are associated with fast growth, most measures that reduce growth will tend to reduce the severity of the Ca symptoms. Reducing the EC of solutions, reducing temperatures, and decreasing light intensity are some of the most popular mechanisms to reduce Ca problems by reducing plant productivity. These might be the most economical solutions – for example, if artificial lights are used – but it might not be favored by many growers due to the fact that it requires a sacrifice in potential yields. A potential way to attack Ca issues through growth control without reducing yields is to use growth regulators in order to suppress vegetative growth. Synthetic and natural gibberellin inhibitors are both effective at this task.

A common strategy to tackle these Ca issues is to perform foliar sprays to correct the deficiency. Weekly, calcium nitrate or calcium chloride foliar sprays can help alleviate symptoms of tip burn and black heart. Spraying plants from a young age, to ensure they always have Ca in their growing tips, is key. When performing these sprays, primordially make sure all growing tips are fully covered, as Ca sprayed on old tissue won’t really help the plant, as Ca cannot be transported from old to young leaves.

Plant growing systems that recirculate nutrients are more efficient in terms of fertilizer and water usage than their run-to-waste counter-parts. However, the constant recirculation of the nutrient solution creates a great opportunity for pathogens and algae to flourish and colonize entire crops, with often devastating results. In this post, we are going to discuss the different alternatives that are available for disinfection in recirculating crops, which ones offer us the best protection, and what we need to do in order to use them effectively. I am going to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each one so that you can take this into account when choosing a solution for your hydroponic crop.

Disinfection of recirculating nutrient solutions has been described extensively in the scientific literature, the papers in the following links (1,2,3,4) offer a good review of such techniques and the experimental results behind them. The discussion within this post makes use of the information within these papers, as well as my personal experience while working with growers all over the world during the past 10 years.

In order to kill the pathogens within a hydroponic solution, we can use chemical or non-chemical methods. Chemical methods add something to the nutrient solution that reacts with the molecules that make up pathogens, killing them in the process, while non-chemical methods will add energy to the nutrient solution in some form or filter the solution in order to eliminate undesired microbe populations. Chemical methods will often affect plants – since the chemicals are carried away with the nutrient solution – and require constant adjustments since the levels of these chemicals within the nutrient solutions need to be controlled quite carefully.

Chemical methods include sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide, and ozone additions. From these choices, both hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide have poor disinfection performance at the concentrations tolerated by plants and are hard to maintain at the desired concentrations through an entire crop cycle without ill effects. Ozone offers good disinfection capabilities but requires additional carbon filtration steps after injection in order to ensure its removal from the nutrient solution before it contacts plant roots (since it is very poorly tolerated by plants). Additionally, ozone sterilization requires ozone sensors to be installed in the facility in order for people to avoid exposure to high levels of this gas, which is bad for human health. In all of these cases, dosages can be monitored and controlled to a decent level using ORP meters, although solely relying on ORP sensors can be a bad idea for substances like hypochlorite as the accumulation of Na and Cl can also be problematic.

The most popular non-chemical methods for disinfection are heat treatment, UV radiation, and slow sand filtration. Slow sand filtration can successfully reduce microbe populations for fungi and bacteria but the slow nature of the process makes it an inadequate choice for larger facilities (>1 ha). Heat treatment of solutions is very effective at disinfection but is energetically intensive as it requires heating and subsequent cooling of nutrient solutions. For large facilities, UV sterilization offers the best compromise between cost and disinfection as it requires little energy, is easy to scale, and provides effective disinfection against a wide variety of pathogens if the dosage is high enough. It is however important to note that some UV lamps will also generate ozone in solution, which will require carbon filtration in order to eliminate the ill effects of this chemical. If this wants to be avoided, then lamps that are specifically designed to avoid ozone generation need to be used.

If you want to use UV sterilization, you should carefully consider the power of the lamps and the flow rate needs in order to ensure that you have adequate sterilization. Most in-line UV filters will give you a flow rate in GPH at which they consider the dosage adequate for disinfection, as a rule of thumb you should be below 50% of this value in order to ensure that the solution is adequately disinfected as some pathogens will require radiation doses significantly higher than others. You can also add many of these UV filters in parallel in order to get to the GPH measurement required by your crop. UV sterilization also has a significant effect on all microbe populations in the environment (5) so consider that you will need to inoculate with more beneficial microbes if you want to sustain microbe populations in the plants’ rhizosphere.

With all these said, the last point to consider is that both chemical and UV sterilization methods will tend to destroy organic molecules in the nutrient solution, which means heavy metal chelates will be destroyed continuously, causing precipitation of heavy metals within the nutrient solution as oxides or phosphates. As a rule of thumb, any grower that uses any method that is expected to destroy chelates should add more heavy metals routinely in order to replace those that are lost. To calibrate these replacements, Fe should be measured using lab analysis once every 2 days for a week, in order to see how much Fe is depleted by the UV process. Some people have tried using other types of Fe chelates, such as lignosulfates, in order to alleviate this issue as well (6).