Gross Income Comparison for Hydroponic Tomato Production in

Autopot and Rockwool Run-to-waste Systems

Andrew McIntyre and Tom McRae
School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin University
Warrnambool, Victoria
Australia
Keywords: Zero-runoff system, innovation, nutrient consumption, water consumption,
comparative yield
Abstract
The results of an experiment to compare gross income for hydroponic tomato
(Lycoperiscon esculentum Petula) production in Autopot and rockwool run-to-
waste systems are presented, summarised and discussed. The Autopot system is a
relatively new and innovative zero-runoff hydroponic system that is being introduced
into the hydroponics industry. It will compete with recirculating and run-to-waste
production systems that already benefit from decades of cumulative research and
practical experience. As very little information is available concerning the
management and economics for commercial production, uptake of the Autopot system
within the Australian industry has so far been limited. This experiment was conducted
at Elmac Hydroponics in southwest Victoria, Australia in 2003. Short-term tomato
crops were grown in the Autopot and rockwool run-to-waste systems, according to
Elmac Hydroponics routine-practices for management in each system. Fruit number,
weight and farm gate value, and water and nutrient costs per plant were used to
determine gross income for production in each system. The Autopot system produced
a significantly lesser number, weight and farm gate value of fruit per plant than the
rockwool run-to-waste system, but used significantly less water and nutrient.
However, the saving in water and nutrient was not enough to compensate for reduced
yield in the Autopot system. The gross income produced per plant in the Autopot
system was $10.00, compared to $17.30 in the rockwool run-to-waste system. There
was no runoff produced by the Autopot system, however there was $0.60 wasted as
runoff per plant in the rockwool run-to-waste system. No significant differences in
fruit quality were found between systems. Since labour input using the Autopot system
is lower, further analysis will be conducted using the data from this experiment to
compare net income for hydroponic tomato production in Autopot and rockwool run-
to-waste systems.

INTRODUCTION
The Autopot system is a relatively new production system technology, and is
being introduced into the hydroponics industry where it will compete with recirculating
and run-to-waste production systems that already benefit from decades of cumulative
research and practical experience. The Autopot system uses capillary action in the
growing container media to deliver nutrient solution to the plant roots. An automatic
valve delivers new nutrient only when required, and there is no runoff of the solution.
Due to its simplicity, water-efficiency and the elimination of nutrient-loaded wastewater
the Autopot system has found a niche-market in tropical areas where it can be used for
fresh-vegetable production for resorts. However, as very little information is available
concerning the management and economics for commercial production, uptake of the
Autopot system within the Australian industry has so far been limited.
In an unpublished experiment comparing tomato production in the Autopot system
with a coconut coir dust drip-to-waste system in Malaysia, Mahamud and Izham (2001)
found that although the average yield in the drip-to-waste system was higher, the Autopot
system provided more gross income due to a considerable saving in nutrient cost. In this
experiment the yield, water/nutrient use, gross income and quality of fruit from

Proc. IS on Hort. in Asian-Pacific Region

Ed. R. Drew 197
Acta Hort. 694, ISHS 2005
commercial tomato production in Autopot and rockwool run-to-waste hydroponics
systems at Elmac Hydroponics were compared.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Site
The experiment was conducted at Elmac Hydroponics, a commercial tomato farm
in southwest Victoria, Australia. Elmacs greenhouse was a 1920 m2 twin-skin Hortinova
Greenhouses System 1900 Greenhouse (5 bay multi-span flat-arch design), with a 3 m
under-gutter height. The greenhouse had roof venting with circulation fans and a hydronic
pipe-rail heating system using an oil-fired boiler. Greenhouse climate control was
automated using a Sarnia Greenhouse Controller that controlled the temperature,
humidity and ventilation.
The experiment was conducted in three run-to-waste system rows in the northern-
centre side of the greenhouse, with a guard row planted either side. To reduce variation
between treatments rockwool slabs were randomly removed from each row and replaced
with Autopot system hydrotrays at the same planting density. Each row had 132 growing
points, being a combination of both Autopot system hydrotrays and rockwool slabs, at a
planting density of 2.61 plants.m2.

Treatments and Experimental Design

The experiment rows were randomly divided into two treatments using a crossed
design and planted with tomato (Lycoperiscon esculentum Petula) on 6 June 2003. 60
sample plants were randomly assigned from each treatment (20 plants per treatment per
row) with the remaining plants being part of Elmacs commercial crop. Crop management
practice for each treatment was according to Elmacs routine-practices for that production
system. The crop was removed and the experiment finished on 19 January 2004, at the
start of week 33.
Routine-practices for Management of Rockwool Run-to-waste System
Tomato seedlings were germinated in rockwool wedges on capillary propagation
tables and raised for 2 weeks. The wedges were then placed into rockwool cubes, which
were placed onto rockwool slabs in the experiment rows and spiked according to normal
commercial practice. The plants were irrigated with 3.1 mS.cm-1 growth formula
nutrient solution for the first 9 weeks and then with 3.1 mS.cm-1 fruiting formula
nutrient solution for the remainder of the crop life (Hydroponic Designs (Vic) P/L
Nutrient Formulas No 2 and 3, respectively). Irrigation starts were triggered as the daily
light total reached set-points determined ad-hoc by Elmac. In general the set point for
irrigation starts on overcast days was 0.5-1.0 MJ.m-2 accumulated solar energy, and 1.4-
2.0 MJ.m-2 accumulated solar energy units on sunny days. Each irrigation pulse was for a
duration of 30-60 seconds, depending upon the stage of crop development.
The crops were trained, layered and truss pruned as necessary, and lateral shoots
and basal leaves regularly removed. A vibrating-wand pollinator was used every second
day to enhance pollination. Plants were decapitated six weeks prior to the end of the crop
life, at a point 2 leaves above the truss at most convenient working height. Chemical
spraying was used to control pest and disease outbreak. Fruit was harvested twice a week,
and graded and packed on-site according to Hydroponic Farmers Federation (HFF)
tomato quality standards (Blainey, 1998).

Routine-practices for Management of Autopot System

Tomato seedlings were germinated in rockwool wedges on capillary propagation
tables and raised for 2 weeks. The wedges were then planted directly into the scoria media
in the Autopot system growing containers. The plants were irrigated with 2.5 mS.cm-1
Autopot system two-part mix nutrient for the duration of the crop life. Roots were
removed from the Autopot system nutrient reservoir if fouling of the Smart-valve

198
occurred. All other crop management practices were according to routine-practices for the
run-to-waste system.
Data Collected
1. Yield. The mean number, weight and farm gate value of saleable fruit harvested per
plant were measured in each system. Fruit were graded according to HFF standards and
farm gate value was determined from the mean fruit market values received by Elmac
from Melbourne wholesalers and direct sales during the experiment harvest period.
2. Water/Nutrient Use. Water and nutrient used in the Autopot system was determined
by flow meter measurement of water supplied and direct measurement of nutrient
concentrate volume. For the run-to-waste system, the volume of nutrient delivered by 3
representative drippers and the run-off from 12 plants were measured directly. Mean
water and nutrient use per plant was determined at the end of the experiment from the
total water or nutrient solution use.
3. Gross Income. Gross income from each system was determined by subtracting the
mean water/nutrient cost per plant from the mean farm gate value of fruit produced per
plant.
4. Organoleptic Analysis. Total soluble solids (TSS), percentage dry matter (%DM), pH
and titratable acidity (TA, expressed as % citric acid) were determined for large and small
fruit harvested from each system in week 20 of the experiment. Small fruit were defined
as fruit from class 28/1 and 25/1 (55-68 mm diameter), and large fruit defined as fruit
from class 18/1 and 16/1 (76-95 mm diameter), according to HFF grading standards
(Blainey, 1998). Three randomly selected fruit from each treatment and size class, from
the same breaker stage were used. Fruit samples were cut into halves, and pured using a
blending machine. The pH of the resulting pure was determined using a pH meter
(Hanna instruments model HI 8519N), before the pure was separated by centrifuging and
the clear solution used to determine TSS and TA. The concentration of TSS was
determined by an Eclipse refractometer. TA was determined by titration with sodium
hydroxide to a bromothymol blue endpoint. To determine %DM, the remainder of each
fruit sample was weighed, cut into quarters and placed in a ventilated oven at 60C for at
least 1 week. Dry weight of each sample was then recorded and percentage dry matter
calculated.
5. Consumer Taste Panel. A 30 person taste panel was conducted in week 20 of the
experiment according the Ranked Preference (forced choice) method described by
Lawless and Heymann (1998) to determine consumer taste preference between large and
small fruit produced in each system.

Statistical Analysis
The significance of variation (p<0.05) in yield results between treatments and
between replicate rows within each treatment was assessed in Minitab 12 using the
factorial (crossed) analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. If graphical exploration of
the data residuals suggested that the data did not meet the ANOVA assumptions of
normality and homogeneity of variance than the data was transformed logarithmically
before analysis. However, all results are presented here untransformed. The data
contained common outliers, but removing these did not change the significance of results,
which are reported here with the outliers included to demonstrate the real variation in the
data.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yield
A significantly greater mean number, weight and farm gate value of fruit was
produced per plant in the run-to-waste system than in the Autopot system (p=<0.001).
There was no significant difference in results between rows within either treatment
(p=>0.10). Plants in the run-to-waste system produced a mean yield per plant of 56.4

199
fruit, weighing 7.14 kg and of farm gate value $18.78; compared to a mean yield per plant
in the Autopot system of 49.9 fruit, weighing 5.00 kg and of farm gate value $10.70.
Although the crop life in Mahamud and Izhams (2001) experiment was only one
week shorter than in this experiment, their highest average yield in the Autopot system
(3.23 kg per plant) was considerably less than found in this experiment. However, the
different climate conditions (tropical in Malaysia compared to cool temperate at Elmac),
production facilities and practices under which the experiments were conducted make any
further direct comparisons between experiments impractical.
Water/Nutrient Use
A considerably greater mean volume of water and concentrated nutrient solution
was used per plant in the run-to-waste system than in the Autopot system. An average of
298 L water and 13.4 L concentrated nutrient solution was used per plant in the run-to-
waste system, compared to 94 L water and 1.4 L concentrated nutrient solution used per
plant in the Autopot system. Further, the run-to-waste system operated at final average
40% runoff, and with an average of 119 L water and 5.3 L concentrated nutrient solution
runoff as waste per plant. This runoff solution was 1.2 mS.cm-1 average higher than the
input solution. Dorais et al. (2001) reported that generally in open systems, at least 10-
15% of the water and nutrients are run off from the root environment during low light
periods, and 30-50% run off during high light periods to avoid salt accumulation. In the
Autopot system there was no runoff to avoid to potential salt accumulation, and a
significant accumulation of nutrient salts was found in the media during the experiment.
By week 28, the nutrient reservoir solution measured 3.4 mS.cm-1. This accumulation of
nutrient salts in the Autopot system during this experiment will be the focus of a further
paper, therefore the results are not discussed further here.

Gross Income
Considerably more gross income was generated per plant from production in the
run-to-waste system than in the Autopot system. Based on a price of 0.10 $.L (unmixed
stock nutrients) and 0.47 $.L (premixed two part nutrients) for concentrated nutrient in the
run-to-waste and Autopot systems respectively (prices current for April 2004), and 56.83
c.kL water (South West Water Authority charges, price current for March 2004), plants in
the run-to-waste system produced an average gross income of $17.30 per plant compared
to an average of $10.00 in the Autopot system. An average of $0.60 worth of
water/nutrient was runoff from each plant in the run-to-waste system.
The runoff nutrient solution at Elmac was used to irrigate adjoining dairy pasture,
and was therefore disposed of at no cost. However, even if this option was not available to
Elmac, the cost of disposing of the runoff nutrient solution would have had little affect
upon the gross income comparison. According to Southwest Water Authority standards
(the authority to which Elmac would be subject), the runoff nutrient solution would be
classed as Category 1 Minor Trade Waste, indicating that the runoff had a low volume and
low pollutant load. The charge in 2004 for <1 ML.y discharge was a fixed annual fee of
$61.65, and 1-5 ML.y a fee of 30.17 c.kL discharged. If the Elmac greenhouse was given
over entirely to run-to-waste system production, the added cost of nutrient runoff disposal
per plant each year under the current charge would only be $0.01.
Organoleptic Analysis and Consumer Taste Panel
No significant differences were detected in the mean %DM, TA or pH between
large or small fruit produced in either system (Table 1). There was a significant difference
found in TSS between small and large fruit produced in the run-to-waste system, but only
because of a very low standard deviation for the large fruit. There was no significant
difference in TSS between fruit produced in either system.
Consumers showed no significant preference for large or small fruit produced in
either the Autopot or run-to-waste systems. The results were highly non-significant,
suggesting that consumers probably detected almost no difference at all between samples.

200
CONCLUSIONS
A significantly greater yield and gross income were produced per plant in the
rockwool run-to-waste system than in the Autopot system at Elmac Hydroponics, with no
difference in fruit quality produced between the systems found. In contrast to findings of
Mahamud and Izham (2001) (comparing the Autopot system with a coir dust drip-to-
waste system in Malaysia), the saving in water and nutrient cost in the Autopot system
compared to the rockwool run-to-waste system was not enough to compensate for
reduced yield in the Autopot system at Elmac. This result was not unexpected. While
growers using run-to-waste production systems can access information based on decades
of cumulative research and practical experience, the Autopot system is a relatively new
technology and very little information is currently available to growers concerning the
management and economics for commercial production.
A key priority of future research in the Autopot system should be exploring
nutrient irrigation regime, and addressing the problem of nutrient salt accumulation in the
Autopot system.
Since labour input using the Autopot system is lower, further analysis will also be
conducted using the data from this experiment to compare net income for hydroponic
tomato production in Autopot and rockwool run-to-waste systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This experiment was part of a research project supported by the Australian
Research Council through a postgraduate award to Andrew McIntyre, and by Elmac
Hydroponics through a financial contribution, provision of the facilities and contribution
of farming expertise. Thanks also to Dr. Chrissie Berryman for assistance with the initial
development of the project.
Literature Cited
Blainey, E.C. 1998. Hydroponic Farmers Federation Hydroponic Tomato Quality
Standards. Hydroponic Farmers Federation (www.hff.org.au).
Dorais, M., Papadopoulos, A.P. and Gosselin, A. 2001. Influence of electrical conduc-
tivity management on greenhouse tomato yield and fruit quality. Agronomie
21(4):367-383.
Lawless, H. and Heymann, H. 1998. Sensory Evaluation of Food - Principles and
Practice. Chapman & Hall.
Mahamud, S. and Izham, A. 2001. (Unpublished). Final report of contract research
between MARDI and Syarikat Capillary Agrotech (M) Sdn. Bhd. Horticulture
Research Centre, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute.

Tables
Table 1. Percentage dry matter, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and pH of large and
small fruit produced in the Autopot and rockwool run-to-waste systems. Figures in
parentheses are standard deviations.

Treatment Fruit size n %DM TSS TA pH

Autopot Small 3 5.4 (0.6) 4.2 (0.5) 0.45 (0.12) 4.3 (0.1)
Autopot Large 3 5.9 (0.8) 4.8 (0.5) 0.47 (0.09) 4.3 (0.1)
Run-to-waste Small 3 5.0 (0.4) 4.0 (0.3) 0.47 (0.02) 4.2 (0.1)
Run-to-waste Large 3 5.1 (0.3) 4.5 (0.1) 0.46 (0.03) 4.2 (0.1)

201