Initial Efforts to Improve the Management of Substrates in Greenhouse

Vegetable Production in Australia

S.E. Parks, R.J. Worrall, C.T. Low and J.A. Jarvis
National Centre for Greenhouse Horticulture
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Gosford, New South Wales
Australia

Keywords: Autopot, coir, hydroponics

Abstract
A small and predominately low-technology greenhouse vegetable industry has
developed in Australia. In these production systems, readily available, inexpensive
substrates such as composted pine bark and coir are used for tomato and cucumber
production. To minimise costs growers may switch to cheaper substrate types, or in
some cases reuse substrates for up to five years. A poor understanding of substrates
leads to production difficulties and the inefficient use of water and nutrients. Two
trials were conducted, using coir and pine bark based substrates, to investigate water
use in cucumber and tomato production, and to evaluate some basic tools such as self-
watering pots and run-off collectors to assist in irrigation management. Although the
substrates differed in their physical characteristics, the amount of water used in
production was not affected. The self-watering pot was a reliable indicator of plant
water use and could be used as a tool to assist in irrigation management.

INTRODUCTION
A large proportion (up to approximately 80%) of the Australian greenhouse
vegetable industry uses low to medium technologies. This is characterised by structures
that do not allow for good management of the internal climate, for example having poor
ventilation, and the use of substrate hydroponics irrigated according to a fixed schedule,
rather than to reflect the water used by the crop.
Skills vary among growers in irrigation and substrate management. Some growers
can have few management skills. For example, in a survey of 14 low to medium
technology growers in the Sydney Basin vegetable production area, 11 did not know the
volume of runoff from their crop (Mubiru, 2007). Increasing pressure is being placed on
producers to become more resource efficient with many growers adopting environmental
management system approaches. However, for greenhouse growers with few management
skills, it is difficult for them to take the first steps towards greater efficiency with few
resources aimed to assist them.
Two trials were conducted to demonstrate how simple tools can be utilised to
better manage irrigation and substrates in greenhouse crops. The tools included the
Autopot, a self-watering subirrigation system, fed by an individual tank, and an
inexpensive runoff collector. Two physically different substrates were compared. One
medium contained by volume 25% sand, 25% perlite and 50% composted pine bark and
the other medium was similar, except that half the composted pine bark was replaced with
coir. The Autopot system was tested in a cucumber crop and the runoff collector was
tested in a cherry tomato crop growing in a bag culture system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cucumber seedlings, raised on rockwool blocks, were planted into one of two
media (A and B) in a subirrigated self-watering pot (Autopot with a height of 18 cm and
volume of 7 L), each supplied with a 6.5 L tank. There were 12 replicates and pots were
randomised within the greenhouse. Medium A contained by volume: 25% sand 25%
perlite 25% composted pine bark 25% coir. Medium B contained by volume: 25% sand
25% perlite 50% composted pine bark. Water-holding capacity and air-filled porosity

Proc. IS on Growing Media 2007

Eds.: W.R. Carlile et al. 331
Acta Hort. 819, ISHS 2009
were measured using the Australian standard for potting media (Standards Association of
Australia, 1996). Water adsorption of the media was measured using the method of
Kymalainen et al. (2001). To measure plant water use, the decline in volume of tanks was
recorded several times per week. When fruit was ready for picking it was harvested and
weighed. At week 4, week 7, week 9 and week 12, three replicate plants were harvested,
oven-dried and then weighed.
In a second experiment, 8 bags each of medium A and B were individually set up
with a runoff collector. Cherry tomato seedlings were placed in half the bags, the rest
remaining without plants. Nutrient solution was fed through drippers. The runoff volume
collected over a 24 h period was measured several times a week. Tomatoes produced were
counted and weighed (data not shown).
Analysis of variance was used to analyse the substrate quality data, and the plant
water use and yield data. The relationship between water use and shoot dry weight of
cucumber plants, grown in the two substrate mixes, was determined using regression
analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The two media differed significantly (p0.05) in their physical characteristics. The
medium containing 25% coir had a lower air-filled porosity (Fig. 1) and a greater water-
holding capacity (Fig. 2) than the medium containing 50% composted pine bark. The
greater water-holding capacity of the coir was also reflected in the ability of this medium
to adsorb water more quickly than the composted pine medium (Fig. 3).
The media, although physically different, did not affect the water used by
cucumber plants over time, growing in the Autopot experiment (Fig. 4). Also, at the same
irrigation input, runoff volumes did not significantly differ (p0.05) between the media in
the bag system (Fig. 5). Perhaps, as the irrigation volume was large, yielding
approximately 50% as runoff, differences were too small to be identified. This
demonstration may well be unsuitable in such an inefficient system. In addition to water
use, the media did not affect shoot dry weight of cucumber plants (Fig. 6) or fruit number
and fresh weight of cucumbers, and tomatoes (data not shown).
The Autopot system, when used as a means to measure water use by the cucumber
plants, proved to be successful. There was a significant linear relationship (p0.05)
between the amount of water used and cucumber growth for the two media (Fig. 7). The
only problem with this system in the current experiment was that the 6.5 L tanks used
were too large to sensitively measure water use on a daily basis, particularly when the
plants were young. However, this could be easily remedied with a smaller tank size. An
additional issue might occur if a single Autopot unit is used for this purpose within a crop
being produced in another type of system. For example, McIntyre and McRae (2005)
demonstrated a reduced number, weight and farm-gate value of tomatoes grown in
Autopots, compared to a rockwool run-to-waste system. Nonetheless, one would expect
similar trends in water use between two different systems in the same growing environ-
ment.
Substrates can differ in the amount of water they have available for uptake by
plants. As this increases, the time between irrigations can increase (Handreck and Black,
1994). Cresswell (2002) also states that the time it takes to irrigate a substrate can be
reduced if a substrate with a high water retention efficiency is chosen. In further work it
would be useful to demonstrate these features of substrates to growers using trial crops
produced in a range of media.

CONCLUSIONS
This work has demonstrated that as a learning tool the Autopot system could be
particularly useful for new growers, or for growers moving from soil-based production to
substrate-based systems, to monitor crop water use for improving the efficiency of
irrigation practices. The two physically different growing media under high irrigation, a
practice typical of the low technology sector, did not affect plant water use or growth in

332
this study. Thus the choice of a growing medium perhaps does not have as an important
effect on production as some practices concerning growing media, such as the reuse of
growing media and its associated increased risk of disease occurrence.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by AusAID (CARD) funding. The authors gratefully
acknowledge the technical skills of Wayne Pitt in helping with the experimental work.

Literature Cited
Cresswell, G.C. 2002. Water retention efficiency of potting mediums. The Nursery Papers.
2002/7:1-4.
Handreck, K.A. and Black, N.D. 1994. Growing media for ornamental plants and turf.
Sydney, University of New South Wales Press.
Kymalainen, H.R., Hautala, M., Kuisma, R. and Pasila, A. 2001 Capillarity of flax/linseed
(Linum usitatissimum L.) and fibre hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) straw fractions.
Industrial Crops and Products. 14:1, 41-50.
McIntyre, A. and McRae, T. 2005. Gross income comparison for hydroponic tomato
production in AutopotReg. and rockwool run-to-waste systems. Acta Hort 694:197-
201.
Mubiru, R. 2007. Survey on the performance of greenhouse vegetable systems within the
NSW Sydney Basin. Unpublished data.
Standards Association of Australia 1996. Australian standard for potting mixes: AS 3743.
http://www.standards.com.au.

Figurese

16

14

12
Air-filled porosity (%)

10

0
Medium A Medium B
Substrate

Fig. 1. Mean air-filled porosity of medium A (containing 25% coir and 25% composted
pine bark) and medium B (containing 50% composted pine bark) n=4, bars
represent standard error.

333
 60

50

Water-holding capacity (%)

40

30

20

10

0
Medium A Medium B
Substrate

Fig. 2. Mean water-holding capacity of medium A (containing 25% coir and 25%
composted pine bark) and medium B (containing 50% composted pine bark) n=4,
bars represent standard error.

25
Adsorption (% increase in weight)

20

15

10 Medium A
Medium B

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (minutes)

Fig. 3. Mean water adsorption, percent increase in weight, over time of medium A
(containing 25% coir and 25% composted pine bark) and medium B (containing
50% composted pine bark) n=4, bars represent standard error.

334
 100000

90000
Medium A
80000
Medium B
70000

Total water use (ml) 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
4 7 9 12
Number of weeks after planting

Fig. 4. Mean water use of cucumber plants grown in medium A (containing 25% coir and
25% composted pine bark) and medium B (containing 50% composted pine bark)
n=3, bars represent standard error.

2000

1800
No plants medium A
1600 No plants medium B
Plants medium A
1400
Plants medium B
Runoff volume (ml)

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 8
Tim e

Fig. 5. Mean 24 hour run-off volumes from pots with or without plants (tomatoes) in
medium A (containing 25% coir and 25% composted pine bark) and medium B
(containing 50% composted pine bark) n=3, bars represent standard error.

335
 110

100
Medium A
90
Medium B
80
Shoot dry weight (g)
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
4 7 9 12
Number of weeks after planting

Fig. 6. Mean shoot dry weight of cucumber plants grown in medium A (containing 25%
coir and 25% composted pine bark) and medium B (containing 50% composted
pine bark) n=3, bars represent standard error.

140

120

100
Shoot dry weight (g)

80

60 Medium A
Medium B
40 Linear (Medium A )
Linear (Medium B)

20

0
0 30000 60000 90000 120000
Total w ate r us e (m l)

Fig. 7. Relationship between water use and shoot dry weight of cucumber plants grown in
medium A (containing 25% coir and 25% composted pine bark) and medium B
(containing 50% composted pine bark) Adjusted r2=0.97 for medium A and 0.88
for medium B.

336