Hello @ivan92,



You are right, liquid nutrients are used in the closed water cycle. However, these are identical to the granulated fertilizer used for outdoor production. Hydro lettuce is therefore in no way more harmful than traditional production methods. In fact, the environmental impact of hydroponic lettuce is significantly lower than that of CH open-air cultivation.



Best regards,

Silvia

The article says that the lettuce is sold with roots. Are they edible? If not, why are they not disposed of? Then their organic recycling would be much better guaranteed than for the end consumer, who sometimes can't even benefit from separate green waste collection.

Presumably so that the salad stays fresh and crunchy for longer...

Hello@remoapeter



I'll be happy to clarify this for you. As soon as I know more, I'll get back to you.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards,
Silvia

Hello@remoapeter



I have now received an answer. The roots should not be eaten. However, the roots are deliberately not removed before sale. This is because they help to maintain the plant cell pressure so that the lettuce stays fresh and crunchy for longer.


If you cannot benefit from a separate green waste collection, you should try to incorporate the root ball into a flower pot.


Best regards,
Silvia

There is also more weight on the scales when shopping, so the price is also higher if the salad is sold by weight and not by number. So I'm paying for something that I can't eat. It's not just lettuce that is cheated, but also packaged cauliflower.

K-Tip: "Hors-Sol vegetables and fruits are less healthy than normally grown products." https://www.ktipp.ch/artikel/d/hors-sol-deklaration-offener-brief-an-migros-co

>Hors-Sol vegetables and fruits are less healthy than normally grown products.
This is simply wrong in general. First of all, you need to define the metric by which you measure 'produce is healthy'.
And then perhaps we should look at the real data and not just summaries of summaries of summaries. So something like http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2004.11511784 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.4236/fns.2015.69084 orhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.03.011 (although that's a pretty random selection ... I'm not a nutrition or agricultural scientist).
The point is, yes, there are differences between soil and hors-sol crops, but even more so is the influence of the environmental conditions and nutrient solutions created in hors-sol production. The nutritional values of Hors-Sol plants can even be considerably better than those of conventionally produced plants, depending on the species and cultivation method.

I don't see anything that would speak against declaring Hors-Sol products accordingly (apart from the questionable scaremongering). But I don't really think it's necessary either.

For me, it makes a big difference whether something is grown in soil or in a chemical liquid. Well, hopefully Migros' behavior will at least encourage consumers to buy more organic produce.

And what exactly is the difference?
As I said, the nutrient content obviously varies depending on the cultivation and environmental conditions. However, the environmental conditions and nutrient supply can generally be controlled and adjusted more precisely in the hors-sol greenhouse than in the open air.

Or to put it another way: could you tell me exactly what is in a bucket of soil in which the lettuce is growing? Not 'soil', but the chemical composition? Are there perhaps harmful substances in it that you would rather not have in your vegetables, such as various heavy metals?
On the other hand, you know exactly what is in the 'chemical liquid' and can adapt it to the exact needs of the plants you are growing.