Maybe you guys can shed some light

[GrowinGreen23]

Hey guys,

I was talking with my brother about this subject and we can't seem to come to a good agreement. We were talking about the advantages of using soil vs hydro and my take hydro vs soil. On my argument's side, i say that you have fatser growth (not by much but a difference) I also say that even thoguh you have to measure the pH and nutrient level more often, you have better nute uptake compared to soil. I know that it doesn't make the plant more potent but i feel that you can guarentee a better yield meaning a better smoke and over all quality compared to most soil grows. What are your guys thoughts on the subject? He's tryign to talk me out of a hydro grow in the next few months with him saying that i'm limited for space and it is much more tedious and more chance of error. Which i agree....to a point. He says that if i just alolow the plants to grow in soil and limit the size of the plant i will not not that much more bud or the quality will not change one bit.

Please let me know what you guys think, please do not just say one side becasue that is all you know please let me know based on real thoughts and information! :thumbsup:

GG23

GrowinGreen23 Reviewed by GrowinGreen23 on 05-09-2006. Maybe you guys can shed some light Hey guys, :cool: I was talking with my brother about this subject and we can't seem to come to a good agreement. We were talking about the advantages of using soil vs hydro and my take hydro vs soil. On my argument's side, i say that you have fatser growth (not by much but a difference) I also say that even thoguh you have to measure the pH and nutrient level more often, you have better nute uptake compared to soil. I know that it doesn't make the plant more potent but i feel that you Rating: 5

[job1.5]

well ive never grown hydro. i live by the KISS philosophy. (keep it simple stupid). hydro is too complicated for me. i have no doubt that hydo probally grows faster and a little better yield, but all the extra effort is not worth it to me. you can pull some nice grows from soil.

[GrowinGreen23]

yes and i'm not disagreeing with that, i knwo some people sware by organic soil methods then some sware by hydro, i want to knwo if anyone has or can show some scientific backing to either way!
Thanks for your reply so far every little bit helps


GG23

[John Doe]

Ive never grown hydro... but from my knowledge and and information ive gathered... Its self preferance really. I mean I do think there is some advantages in hydro...like... NO OVER WATERING... I dont really completely know the concept of hydro.... but I cant imagine you could possibly overwater a plant if its roots are submerged in water.But then comes the complexity of it.. so not just some noob grower could grow hydro and have outstanding results.
This is all just MY OPINION... Ill wait to see what the pros have to say.

[locomark]

Well,

Maybe you'll need to try both to know for sure your preference. Remember this if your Ph is off in a hydro system the next day all your plants are dead. In soil you'll have days to correct the problem by flushing. I prefer to get my hands dirty.

Loco

[John Doe]

Well said loco

[postmandave]

mobay is the best to ask on this one he has done both with exellent result.but for me soil will alway give best taste and yeild but others will disagree.I know zandor says that growing with cemicals will always give bigger buds than organic but as you say everyone has their own prefrences and mine is soil but thats only because ive never grew hydro lol.the postman.

[mand]

Hello GrowinGreen

Well to be honest I know absolutely nothing about growing Hydro . However I once asked someone what was the advantage of growing that way and they told me that the plants don't need to grow such exstensive root systems when grown the hydro way. Which means more energy can be put into growing the surface part of the plant.


Makes sense to me, but I haven't got a clue .



love mand xxx

[GrowinGreen23]

yeah i actually came across an college experiment that was done using three types of plants wheat and a bean ect, the results showed that the soil in this case actualyl grew better but then they mentioned that the hydro setup was infested with beetles and i noticed that they talked about salt build-up, i mean maybe if they refined the experiment a little more like no bugs and a flush say every few days of straight water that woudl be better, who knows i love to hear everyones comment so KEEP COMMENTING!!! Here's a few links that were sent to me...just a decent read to get the mind thinking..

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2374.html
http://www.southwestern.edu/academic.../05/000205.php
http://www.growingedge.com/magazine/...hp3?AID=170555


GG23

[bongerstonerd00d]

I dont know of any hyrdo systems where the roots remain "submerged". They are flooded, misted, or use a drip system periodically, but they do not spend 100% of their time in the solution.

I am completing my new grow room now, and I have researched both methods very throughly, and it seems that hydro remains the top choice among growers.

If you dont mind reading you can find 1000's of articles using google and make your own determination. It seems with hydro you can control exactly what the plants get, when they get it, and get in in the proper concentration.

Growing anything is all about the growing conditions, common sense tells us that. So, I do believe that you could more precisely control the variables using hydro. And, but being able to control such, you would normally expect a higher yield, and better quality.

Thats just the old fashioned common sense method of reasoning. I am not saying I am right, nor wrong. Hell, I dont know enough yet for all that. I am just looking at all things considered.

b0nger