Being able to garden without the use of soil–who’d have thunk it? Although works on soilless culture was first published in as early as 1627 (Sylva Sylvarum by the great Francis Bacon), hydroponics did not become wildly popular until the 1930s.

So you have to wonder, if plants grow better and cheaper by either hydroponics or the normal way, why don’t all farmers and horticulturists go with just one technique? It is because both have advantages and disadvantages. People will have to decide which technique to adopt based on their resources, and other elements involved in plant growth.

Here are the pros and cons when it comes to hydroponics:

Advantages

Plants don’t need soil to grow. Substitutes can be used, but some plants will not require these, too. Just plain mineral nutrient solution (plus of course, sunshine) will be enough. One can save on space and go vertical instead of horizontal.

Lower regular costs are involved. Water can be reused for the whole system. The use of nutrients to be added to the mineral solution can be tailored down to the last drop. This makes for both diminished cost in materials, and better nutrient tailoring for the plants.

Pollution is greatly minimized, as compared to traditional techniques, because of the controlled environment. The controlled environment also makes for easier pest and disease control.

Because plants are immersed in nutrient-rich solution, yields will be increased. One can also expect predictable, stable outcomes.

Disadvantages

The combination of high humidity and fertilizer has proven to stimulate salmonella growth. Plants will also be prone to other kinds of pathogen attacks because of the high moisture levels.

Setting up a hydroponic system may be more costly, specially if one wants to grow not just one or two varieties of plants. As opposed to traditional techniques, where all one needs is soil and sunshine, hydroponic systems require much more planning and effort.

Juliet:
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Juliet is quite right. What does it matter what anything is called? Calling something other than it is properly called would not change anything about it.

William Frederick Gericke disagrees though. He was the one who coined the term “hydroponics” in 1934. He started developing his techniques in 1929; back then he called it “aquaculture,” but had to change the term when he discovered that it had already been taken by another scientific branch (aquaculture means the culture of aquatic organisms).

What REALLY bugged him though, is when people started using “hydroponics” and “soilless culture” or “soilless gardening” interchangeably. It also irked him when people classify sand culture or gravel culture under hydroponics, when really they aren’t necessarily so.

The thing that sets hydroponics apart from all other culture techniques is the mineral nutrient solution. Hydroponics can be considered as part of soilless culture, but soilless culture need not be hydroponics.

It was his own fault, though, really. Because he had refused to explain further how the mineral nutrient solution is made. He viewed all his research as private domain. One had to buy the book he had written (Complete Guide to Soilless Gardening) to fully understand how his technique worked. Plus, he made wildly exaggerated claims about growth rate and other elements related to crop growth.

What mattered is that he got the public interested in hydroponics. Other scientists and horticulturists were more than willing to discover what he refused to share. His contemporaries, Dennis Hoagland and Daniel Arnon (both plant nutritionists), made efforts to learn more about Gericke’s hydroponics and nutrient solution.

The two published a controversial piece about the true effects of hydroponics. Although it does not yield higher crop rates as Gericke had claimed, there still are some benefits to it. Up to now, modified versions of Hoagland’s mineral nutrient solutions are widely used.