Automated EC/pH fertigation, irrigation and greenhouse control system

Automated EC/pH fertigation, irrigation and greenhouse control system

This profile defines a sourcing requirement for automated fertigation and irrigation control system. Suitable suppliers, origin, availability, and commercial terms are confirmed for the buyer’s project. The sourcing brief is structured around capacity, application, operating environment, required standards, destination, and delivery scope; the exact configuration requires supplier confirmation.

For greenhouse growers, soilless production teams, open-field farms, and irrigation integrators in Türkiye, a fertigation project should be evaluated as a water, nutrient, hydraulic, control, and data system rather than as a fertilizer injector alone.

Automated fertigation combines EC/pH-controlled fertilizer and acid dosing with crop-stage recipes, parcel and zone irrigation, weather and root-zone sensing, valve and pump automation, greenhouse climate coordination, remote supervision, alarms, and traceable reporting. The dosing section can use direct inline injection, a batch or mix-tank architecture, or a compact dosing skid; the hydraulic design selects the arrangement according to flow, recipe diversity, stock-solution chemistry, number of blocks, and required dosing precision.

The central Project specification is therefore not simply “Which dosing machine should we buy?” It is “Can the complete system measure the right variables, prepare and deliver the intended nutrient solution, control irrigation hydraulically, react safely to faults, preserve usable records, and remain serviceable through the production season?”

What the automation architecture combines

Dosing-unit configurations and reference operating ranges

Three dosing architectures cover different installation scales and operating rhythms: direct inline injection for continuous proportional dosing, mix-tank preparation for batch recipes and larger multi-block systems, and compact dosing skids for smaller installations. 15–60 m³/hour design flow, 3.0–5.0 bar line pressure, and 60–1000 L/hour dosing provide useful reference ranges; final capacity follows the project water analysis, hydraulic calculation, simultaneous-zone demand, stock concentration, and dosing-channel design.

These figures are useful for early comparison, but they are not a complete hydraulic design or a guarantee for every configuration. Buyers should request the approved project technical schedule and hydraulic calculation for the exact number of lines, fertilizer channels, water source, pressure technical specification, irrigation demand, and greenhouse or field layout.

EC and pH control: what the numbers do and do not prove

Electrical conductivity is a useful control variable for the total ionic strength of a nutrient solution, while pH is a critical operating variable for solution chemistry and nutrient-management decisions. However, an EC target does not prove that the intended nutrient recipe is chemically correct. Two solutions can reach similar EC values with different ionic compositions.

For this reason, a serious fertigation design should keep three layers separate:

1. Recipe definition: which fertilizers, acids, stock concentrations, and crop-stage targets are intended.
2. Dosing execution: how pumps, injectors, mixing, hydraulic flow, and control loops deliver the recipe.
3. Verification: how EC, pH, flow, drainage or root-zone measurements, lab analysis, and operating records are used to check whether the strategy is working.

EC/pH feedback, recipe sets, trend monitoring, and alarms form the core dosing-control loop. The engineering control philosophy defines sensor placement, sample conditioning, calibration, dosing sequence, response time, interlocks, fallback behavior, and the boundary between automatic and operator-approved actions.

• Where are EC and pH measured: before injection, in the mixing tank, after injection, at the main manifold, or at more than one point?
• What is the sample-loop design and how much transport delay exists between dosing action and sensor response?
• Is temperature compensation automatic and documented?
• Which calibration buffers and conductivity standards are specified?
• How often should probes be cleaned, calibrated, verified, and replaced?
• Is there a second reference instrument for commissioning or fault diagnosis?
• What happens if EC rises while pH also moves outside target?
• Are maximum dosing-time, maximum pump-output, low-stock, no-flow, and implausible-sensor interlocks available?
• Can the system continue irrigation without fertilizer after a dosing fault, and who defines that fallback?
• How are fertilizer incompatibilities and concentrated stock solutions separated?

For broader greenhouse technical context, FAO’s Good Agricultural Practices for greenhouse vegetable crops: Principles for Mediterranean climate areas is a useful reference when defining water, nutrient, irrigation, and protected-cropping requirements. Project setpoints should still be crop-, substrate-, water-, climate-, and production-strategy-specific.

Water analysis comes before controller selection

An EC-pH controller cannot compensate for an undefined water source. The procurement team should agree the required water-analysis panel before the dosing architecture is finalized.

Depending on the crop and production system, the project team may need to review source-water EC and pH together with alkalinity or bicarbonate, hardness, major ions, sodium, chloride, iron, manganese, suspended solids, and parameters relevant to biological or emitter-clogging risk. The point is not to create a generic laboratory checklist for every farm; it is to ensure that acid demand, fertilizer compatibility, filtration, precipitation risk, emitter protection, and recipe design are based on the actual source water.

Ask the integrator to show how the water analysis changes:

• acid-selection and acid-dosing assumptions;
• fertilizer stock recipes and tank separation;
• filter selection and backwash strategy;
• injection sequence;
• line-flushing requirements;
• target EC-pH strategy;
• maintenance frequency; and
• acceptance-test limits.

Parcel irrigation automation: measurement should lead to hydraulic action

The irrigation architecture connects measurement + automation + traceability. Inputs can include weather-station data, soil moisture and temperature, flow, pressure, tank or reservoir level, water quality, and source status. The execution layer coordinates pumps, filters, valves, flushing, pressure regulation, and line management with time-based or condition-based logic.

The control architecture supports scheduled and condition-based irrigation using calendar, rainfall, wind, and soil-moisture inputs, together with remote monitoring and authorized intervention. Wireless valve control can be added for drip, sprinkler, pivot, and linear irrigation projects.

Drip-irrigation and field-zone context. Photo by Anil Sharma on Pexels. Photo source · Pexels License.

Hydraulic questions that should be answered before automation

Automation cannot correct a poorly defined hydraulic network. The technical file should identify:

• design flow for each block and parcel;
• operating pressure at the controller, mainline, submain, and representative laterals;
• pump duty points and staging logic;
• pressure-regulation strategy;
• filtration type, filtration rating, backwash logic, and differential-pressure monitoring;
• flowmeter location and measurement range;
• minimum detectable flow deviation;
• valve type, actuation method, fail position, and manual bypass;
• maximum simultaneous irrigation demand;
• irrigation-water storage and source-level logic;
• flushing points and flushing sequence;
• dosing injection location relative to filters and measurement points;
• pipe and fitting material compatibility with fertilizers and acids; and
• expansion capacity for new parcels or greenhouse blocks.

A buyer should request a hydraulic schematic, I/O list, valve schedule, pump schedule, sensor schedule, and cause-and-effect matrix. A dashboard screenshot is not a substitute for these project documents.

Greenhouse climate and root-zone control

The greenhouse-control layer combines climate, irrigation, and root-zone data. A project sensor package can include temperature, relative humidity, CO₂, solar radiation or PAR, light, substrate moisture, drain EC/pH, and weather-station data, while the control layer coordinates vents, fans, heating, cooling, screens, irrigation, alarms, remote access, and energy or KPI reports.

Scenario-based actions can include:

• staged window and fan activation when temperature rises;
• ventilation and circulation scenarios when humidity or condensation risk increases;
• irrigation-rhythm and dosing-parameter adjustment when root-zone moisture is off target; and
• safe-limit behavior for windows and equipment when external weather is unsuitable.

These examples are technically meaningful, but they should not be read as proof that every quoted project includes every sensor, actuator, climate device, or control strategy. The contract and bill of materials should state exactly which equipment is controlled and which equipment is only monitored.

Greenhouse package design

Commissioning should be treated as an acceptance test

A fertigation system is not commissioned merely because pumps run and a dashboard opens. AgriTech.tr recommends defining a written site-acceptance test before final handover.

A practical acceptance plan can include:

1. Document review: approved process diagram, hydraulic schematic, electrical/control drawings, I/O list, instrument list, valve schedule, network diagram, and software version.
2. Sensor verification: EC, pH, pressure, flow, moisture, temperature, weather, and source-level instruments checked against agreed references.
3. Calibration records: standards used, date, technician, before/after values, slope or acceptance values where applicable, and next due date.
4. Recipe test: create, approve, run, pause, edit, version, and restore a test recipe with a complete audit trail.
5. Dynamic dosing test: challenge the system at more than one operating flow and record response, overshoot, settling behavior, alarms, and final delivered values.
6. Hydraulic zone test: open representative zones, check pressure and flow against design values, and document deviations.
7. Fault simulation: no-flow, low tank, failed or implausible sensor, out-of-range EC/pH, communication loss, valve failure, pump trip, and power interruption.
8. Alarm test: notification route, acknowledgement, escalation, event timestamp, and operator instructions.
9. Manual fallback: verify how irrigation and dosing can be placed in a defined safe operating mode without bypassing essential protections.
10. Data and report test: export representative recipe, irrigation, consumption, sensor, alarm, and operator-action records.
11. Training sign-off: named operators complete daily checks, calibration, alarm response, recipe handling, and shutdown/startup procedures.
12. Handover: spare-parts list, recommended consumables, warranty route, remote-support method, service contacts, backup files, and current configuration archive.

Data, remote access, and cybersecurity questions

The platform can provide remote access, monitoring, alarms, time-stamped records, role-based authorization, and operational reporting. The project specification defines:

• Who owns the operational data?
• Which legal entity creates and controls user accounts?
• Can the farm create and remove administrators without technical support intervention?
• Are operator actions, setpoint changes, overrides, and alarm acknowledgements logged?
• Can raw time-series data be exported in a documented format?
• Is there an API, scheduled export, database connector, or only screen-level reporting?
• How long are high-resolution sensor records retained?
• What happens to historical data when a subscription or service agreement ends?
• Which remote-support accounts exist and when can they connect?
• Is multi-factor authentication supported?
• How are controller, gateway, and application updates approved and recorded?
• What is the backup and restore procedure after hardware failure?
• Can the system continue local automation during an internet outage?
• Which functions remain available if the greenhouse operations reporting layer or a cloud service is unavailable?

For larger greenhouse and multi-block projects, network segmentation, remote vendor access, backup configuration files, time synchronization, and disaster recovery should be discussed during design rather than after an incident.

Best-fit use cases

This type of integrated fertigation and irrigation automation can be relevant for:

• Soilless greenhouse production where crop-stage recipes, EC-pH control, root-zone moisture, irrigation frequency, and climate conditions need coordinated management.
• High-value greenhouse vegetables and berries where operators need repeatable dosing procedures, alarm thresholds, and traceable production records.
• Multi-block greenhouse operations managing different crop stages, recipes, irrigation scenarios, and operator permissions.
• Open-field parcel irrigation where weather, soil, flow, pressure, valve, pump, and line information can be linked to zone-level decisions.
• Retrofit projects replacing timer-only or heavily manual irrigation with measured, logged, scenario-based control.
• Greenhouse modernization where existing pumps, valves, dosing equipment, sensors, and climate devices must be assessed before selective integration.
• Technical procurement and investment due diligence where a farm, cooperative, investor, EPC contractor, or integrator needs to separate dosing hardware, hydraulics, automation, climate control, software, and service responsibilities.

Project definition checklist for Türkiye fertigation and irrigation projects

1. Start with the crop, production system, substrate or soil, greenhouse or field layout, and crop-stage strategy.
2. Obtain source-water analysis before finalizing acid, fertilizer, filtration, and dosing architecture.
3. Define peak irrigation flow, operating pressure, zone count, simultaneous-zone logic, pump duty, storage, and expansion demand.
4. Select direct inline injection, batch or mix-tank preparation, or a compact dosing skid from the hydraulic and recipe requirements.
5. Define dosing channels, pump or injector type, sensor package, calibration procedure, wetted materials, and chemical compatibility.
6. State where EC and pH are measured, how temperature compensation is applied, and how dynamic response and dosing accuracy will be accepted.
7. Separate greenhouse climate control, irrigation control, dosing control, and operational reporting in the bill of materials and responsibility matrix.
8. Approve a cause-and-effect and alarm matrix for sensor faults, no flow, low stock, pump trips, valve faults, communications loss, and unsafe EC/pH conditions.
9. Confirm data export, account ownership, roles, remote support, offline behavior, cybersecurity, backup, and restore.
10. Include commissioning, site acceptance, operator training, warranty, spare parts, and seasonal service response in the project scope.
11. Use reference projects with comparable crops, design flow, greenhouse scale, and control complexity.
12. Measure water, fertilizer, energy, labor, and crop-performance outcomes against an approved baseline.

How to measure value without exaggerating savings

Water, fertilizer, labor, energy, quality, or yield improvements should be treated as project-specific until supported by operating records. Before installation, establish a baseline and agree on the measurement method.

Useful comparison indicators may include:

• irrigation water volume by parcel, block, crop cycle, hectare, or production unit;
• fertilizer and acid consumption by recipe and crop stage;
• pump energy per cubic metre of irrigation water;
• number and duration of EC-pH out-of-range events;
• time spent outside root-zone moisture targets;
• drainage or leach information where the production system measures it;
• irrigation-event count, duration, and volume;
• flow or pressure deviation events;
• unplanned downtime and service calls;
• calibration frequency and sensor replacements;
• operator hours spent on mixing, irrigation changes, alarm handling, and reporting; and
• marketable yield or quality indicators measured with an agreed attribution method.

A before-and-after result is not automatically caused by the automation system. Crop variety, season, greenhouse climate, substrate, labor, pest pressure, fertilizer program, and other operational changes should be documented when interpreting results.

Need help defining a fertigation or irrigation automation project?

The sourcing brief can be used to define the application, technical interfaces, documentation, and service requirements before supplier research begins.

For guidance on comparing solution architectures, preparing a vendor questionnaire, or defining a site-acceptance checklist, contact info@agritech.tr.

The article photographs provide greenhouse and field-irrigation context and are used under the Pexels License. Photographer and source credits are retained in the reference section.

Procurement and project delivery

AgriTech.tr can structure the technical requirement and compare current supplier responses for the buyer’s project. Installation, commissioning, operator training, warranty, spare-parts, and after-sales scope must be confirmed in each supplier quotation. The final scope should be documented against the approved application, capacity, site conditions, destination, and delivery schedule in the selected supplier quotation and contract.