Pros & Cons: Soil Vs. Hydro?

[Alleyenoisdope]

As a new grower, I still have yet to fully decided on what of type medium I would like to use for my very first crop. Although I have done my fair share of research, I still am left with mixed feelings on the subject.(Is it really a matter of personal preference? )

 

That being said, with this thread I would like to obtain some of the Pros & Cons of growing in Soil vs. Hydro. 

 

-How do they compare as far as cost?

 

-What are some of the benefits of growing in Soil vs. Hydro? Or vice versa?

 

-Is there a difference in quality of produce?

 

-Which would you recommend for a beginning grower? 

 

(Just a few questions to get the ball rolling. )

 

Thank you in advance for your replies. As always, your knowledge is valued and greatly appreciated.

 

-AENID

[Hydraulic Jack]

When I first started growing it was in Hydro....Grew that way for several years..I think the stress level of growing hydro isnt worth the hassle..With soil growing you don't have to worry as much about power failures....My system was a continuous flow that when power when out my girls went limp within 2-3 hours...I switched to soil just over a year ago and I'm never going back...

[free420country]

Hydo is just to unforgiving and requires lots of attention, soil is the way to go for a first time grow

[+Malamute]

First of all,  it is wtvr works best for you. :-)

 

But here is a quick OLD post from me... too lazy to go get the rest of it. I have some other info, but it is a quickie..:

 

full story   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1203343/JOANNA-BLYTHMAN-A-cancerous-conspiracy-poison-faith-organic-food.html#ixzz0Mv40D9Ug

 

According to the FSA's findings, organic vegetables contain 53.6 per cent more betacarotene - which helps combat cancer and heart disease - than non-organic ones.

Similarly, organic food has 11.3 per cent more zinc, 38.4 per cent more flavonoids and 12.7 per cent more proteins.

In addition, an in-depth study by Newcastle University, far deeper than the one conducted by the FSA, has shown that organic produce contains 40 per cent more antioxidants than non-organic foods, research the FSA appears to have overlooked. But the concentration solely on nutrition is to play into the hands of the anti-organic, pro-industrial lobby.

---------------------------------------------

 

michigancannabispatients.com -  link dead

A way to think of organic versus chemical fertilizers is vitamins versus a well-rounded, healthy diet. If a person takes a lot of vitamins, thinking that it will make up for a poor diet, they are fooling themselves. The body cannot absorb concentrated amounts of vitamins in a short amount of time. What the body cannot absorb at one time, goes down the toilet. As well, the vitamin pills do not provide fiber, good fats and oils, and other elements which comprise a healthy diet.

It's the same for plants. Chemical fertilizers provide a concentrated rush of a small spectrum of nutrients. What the plant cannot absorb, runs off or leaches away. This can cause problems in the environment. As well, plants, like us, need trade minerals, and bacterially active soil. Chemical fertilizers cannot provide this.

Anyhow..

A plant can filter out the impurities from an acid based salt fertilizer and store it within the leaves and flowers of the plant. Hydrochloric and sulfuric acids can build up. Odd things like certain antibiotics can be stored within the plant. Many many substances in some fertilizers are easily absorbed into the plant. Chemical fertilizers are directly responsible for destroying our aquaculture in the world. Read up about it. "dead" zones. Most chemical fertilizer companies tend to pollute the area where they are made. It finds it way into groundwater then all of us get to drink your crappy leftovers from growing. Thanks for the pollution. ;-p

The plants do not recognize the difference between organic and chemical. Mr happy would be correct in that point when it comes to NPK.

But what do you do with your leftover water? put it down the drain? run it into your backyard to be absorbed into the groundwater? This is where organic and chemical become two different monsters. Post use.

Chemical fertilizers are salts, manufactured from coal or natural gas. The chemical salts, that white crusty residue left from chemical fertilizers, “suck the life right out of beneficial soil microbes which is the very heart of healthy soil”.

Organic fertilizers increase a plants resistance to disease (Artificial fertilizers do the opposite which works out nicely for the manufacturers since they sell more insecticide, fungicides and other chemical poisons. Plants become addicted to the chemicals.)

"Plants grown with ammonia- based synthetic fertilizers actually attract pest insects (Earth Kind Gardening, 1993). Many studies since then have confirmed that insects and diseases are attracted to plants that have had artificial fertilizers applied.

Evidence is accumulating that synthetic chelates (fertilizers) are ineffective and have harmful side effects. Synthetic chelates are alien molecules, and plants can absorb them slowly. Also, after the chelating molecule releases its payload it may latch on to other nutrients in the plants, thus making them unavailable. For example: synthetic iron chelates cause a manganese deficiency and lower zinc and copper levels; EDTA grabs calcium ions and thus upsets the calcium-potassium balance. September 1981, Acres U.S.A., p. 32-33

Repeated applications of chemical fertilizers may result in a toxic buildup of chemicals such as arsenic, cadmium, and uranium in the soil. These toxic chemicals can eventually make their way into your fruits and vegetables.

Plant growth is often limited by the amount of CO2 available to the plant. C.H. Wadleigh, 1957 USDA Yearbook of Agriculture, "Soils", (p.41). Agronomists and farmers are increasing yields by adding carbon dioxide (CO2) to their bag of practices...Carbon dioxide is a basic requirement for plant growth (October 1968, World Farming, p.31). We have evidence that CO2 produced by the respiration of microorganisms in the soil is an important factor in the supply of the gas to photosynthesizing plants. A soil rich in decomposing organic matter provides a much higher level of CO2 in the air just above the soil than a barren, infertile soil.

Using compost as an organic soil amendment stimulates microorganisms to take nitrogen from the air and fix it in the soil where plants can use it.

High nitrogen artificial fertilizers can increase yields in some cases (temporarily) of certain grains, however the amino acid content of the protein is actually adversely affected. For example in wheat and barley grown with synthetic fertilizers are less nutritious even though the total protein weight may be higher since critical amino acids are missing or reduced in quantity as compared to organically grown (USDA Researcher).

Synthetic nitrogen fertilizers increase the amounts of toxic nitrates in dietary intake. According to the National Research Council, 6 of the top 7 and 9 of the top 15, foods with oncogenic (cancer causing) risk are produce items with high nitrate content from pesticides or nitrogen fertilizers. A 12 year study comparing organically grown versus chemically grown showed that chemically grown foods had 16 times more nitrate (a carcinogen).

Excess synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) can also reduce carbohydrate synthesis which results in lower glucose content which affects taste (Soil Scientist, USDA).

Artificial synthetic nitrogen (fertilizers) has been found to reduce insect and disease resistance of plants (Soil Scientist, USDA). Numerous studies have now confirmed that the use of artificial fertilizers significantly increase the amount of insects and disease problems one has.

Four metals that are considered harmful to humans; aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury are lower in foods grown organically as compared to those with synthetic chemicals. Doctor's Data Analytical Laboratories.

The toxic chemicals found in chemical fertilizers can be absorbed into the plants and enter the food chain via vegetables and cereals. although the biggest health risk is when the chemicals seep into the ground water which is then extracted for drinking water. This water can contain high levels of nitrates and nitrites and have been known to cause blue-baby syndrome (methemoglobinemia) and can also lead to miscarriage in pregnant women. Mercury, lead, cadmium and uranium are some of the toxic heavy metals that have been found in chemical fertilizers and can cause disturbances of the kidneys, lungs and liver and cause cancer - depending on how much has been consumed.

Synthetic fertilizers use strong chemical salts used to carry nutrients that create a thatch buildup by killing both microorganisms and earthworms in the soil that eat and breakdown thatch. Thick layers of thatch (high lignin content) create a fertile breeding ground for diseases and destructive insects unlike mulch.

Excess salts used in synthetic fertilizers cause 2 problems. First, they reduce the moisture holding ability of soils and cause what moisture is present to be bound more tightly to the soil making it harder for plants to absorb. Second, also salt exposure reduces a plants roots ability to absorb water even if the soil is fully saturated. Since most commercial fertilizers are composed of soluble salts (ammonium nitrate, potassium chloride, etc.) and as these salt build up in the soil more water (irrigation) is required, the plants are weaker and more susceptible to insects and disease hence require more pesticides, fungicides, etc.

NaNO3 - "sodium nitrate or nitrate of soda", contains 16% Nitrogen, very soluble hence leaches easily and pollutes (not good for conifers or hardwoods).
NH3NO3 (NH4NO3) - Ammonium nitrate, 33.5% nitrogen (50% in nitrate form & 50% in Ammonium form), highly soluble hence leaches and pollutes lakes and streams. Also flammable and can explode if stored in a closed warehouse. Also absorbs water. Commonly used in nurseries, may also be used as a top dressing, acidifies soil. Kills soil microbes that prevent diseases.
(NH4)2SO4 - "ammonium sulfate", source of N and S, can acidify soil, may be used as a top dressing, kills microbes in the soil that prevents disease.
CO(NH2)2 - "urea", nitrogen loss by volatilization can be a problem, dissolves rapidly and suffers leaching losses.
KNO3 - "potassium Nitrate or nitrate of potash", 13% nitrogen (not good for trees as a N source, may be okay for K), raises soil pH
CaNo3 - Calcium nitrate, 15% nitrogen, raises soil pH
Anhydrous Ammonia - 82% nitrogen, a particularly lethal form of nitrogen, combines with soil moisture to form colloids that stay in soil, when applied to soils low in humus over 2/3 (67%) can be lost to the atmosphere

Most (all) synthetic fertilizers use "fillers" to help carry the nutrients. These fillers are not listed on the label. These can be chemical salts, sand, lime, dolomite, or even (as it was recently discovered) contaminated wastes containing dangerous heavy metals and hazardous wastes. These fillers can often cause problems. For example, if your soil has high magnesium relative to calcium, then using a fertilizer with a dolomitic lime filler will make the soil imbalance worse.

Synthetic fertilizers kill the soil microbes that are so essential for healthy soil and healthy plants. The residues from these fertilizers can adversely affect the soil biology for years.

If anhydrous ammonia (synthetic fertilizer and a particularly lethal form of nitrogen) is applied to a field low in humus, over 2/3 of the material can be lost to the atmosphere, sometimes before the farmer can move from one end of a field to the other. Acres USA Primer, 1992

Chemical fertilizers are generally used far in excess of the requirements of the crop. The unutilized fertilizers cause soil pollution.
Toxic concentrations of nitrogen fertilizers cause characteristic symptoms of nitrite or nitrate toxicity in plants, particularly in the leaves. Nitrogenous fertilizers generally cause
deficiency of potassium,
increased carbohydrate storage and reduced proteins,
alteration in amino acid balance and consequently change in the quality of proteins.
Ammonium fertilizers produce ammonia around the roots that may escape the soil and cause ammonia injury to plants.
Ammonium and nitrate produce acids in the soil and increase soil acidity.
Nitrate and nitrite bacteria are reduced while ammonifying bacteria are increased in the soil disturbing the nitrogen cycle.
Excessive potash in the soil decreases ascorbic acid and carotene in the plants.
Superphosphates cause deficiency of Cu and Zn in plants by interfering with their uptake.
Excessive lime prevents the release of Co, Ni, Mn and Zn from the soil and their uptake by plants is reduced causing their deficiency symptoms.

Excessive deposition of various substances released from chemical fertilizers into the soil generally causes their over-absorption by plants. These over-absorbed substances become accumulated in plant parts (bioaccumulation) e.g. nitrogen and sulphur are deposited in the leaves.

High nitrogen artificial fertilizers can increase yields in some cases (temporarily) of certain grains, however the amino acid content of the protein is actually adversely affected. For example in wheat and barley grown with synthetic fertilizers are less nutritious even though the total protein weight may be higher since critical amino acids are missing or reduced in quantity as compared to organically grown (USDA Researcher).

Ok that is it for now. I hope you understand why organic is better than chemical now.

Especially for those making medibles.

Edited June 21, 2016 by imiubu
removed dead link :)

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Canna Coco for silly stupid easy results for a beginner or even an advanced grower. Airpots or Smartpots for container.

Good luck.

[+Malamute]

This is always a pepsi/coke discussion. 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

This is always a pepsi/coke discussion.

 

Exactly

[WET]

Totally a preference, but here is my opinion anyway.

 

First, decide what hydro and dirt means to you. Technically any soil-less medium and bottled organic nutrient amounts to hydro, but some hydro guys would call that soil. For the organic/soil-minded, soil growing requires worm dung at a minimum. Now, where to draw the line is a whole other debate....one that only the beholder decides.

 

Anywho, my hydro experience consisted of sunshine advanced premix and roots organics nutrients. I had great success with it, but did experience lock-out from time to time, some minor ph issues, and occasional defeciencies. Nothing serious, but sativas were difficult. A few finished hot in my hydro days. Again, mostly a good experience. I estimate about $500 a yr for this set-up.

 

My soil experience is equally as good. I use a basic soil recipe and a simple nutrient recipe. The beauty here is that once you mix a batch of soil and cook it thoroughly, you can run clones, veg, and flower with the same stuff. Everything seems to just finish as it sees fit with a good soil. The trouble is in pest management and the extra work. I chose to recycle soil so costs for nutrients and soil are estimated at $300-350 a year for me. If I did not recylcle soil, I feel the costs would have been the same for my hydr o method and my soil method.

 

Wet

[Kingdiamond]

Dirt is way more simplistic for the  novice grower all kinds of things can go wrong with hydro why risk failing on your first try?

[pergamum362]

Coco...best of both worlds. But if a yearly cost is your concern, dwc would probably be best. Simple, cheap and very effective minus innitial costs for a water chiller.

 

Another note is recent advancements in nutrients has made hydro worlds easier, no more need to worry about ph, ph drift etc.

Edited June 20, 2016 by pergamum362

[Wild Bill]

I prefer hydro because I don't have to bring dirt in the house and I find I have fewer problems with insects. My setup has a 50 gal. reservoir with a float valve setup so I can go out of town for up to a month and leave it unattended.

 

Once you get everything dialed in it's basically just switching out plants.

 

Dirt can be easier but hydro seems more efficient to me. Faster growth rates.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Wild Bill

[Willy]

Put me down for rdwc, i did dirt first, but when i went to hydro, my whole world changed.  first off ther is a lot of checking on stuff.. you can have issues, but with hydro you can get a few days off if planned out right..but thats it. hydro can be a bit of work, but less ork than gettin rid of tons of dirt.. you only can put so much out in the yard.. in winter its worse, black dirt pile on white snow.. pretty noticable from the air.. if your concerned about it, but then if  you want to see major growth hydro is the way to go, 2.5 inches  a day unbelievable.. it does have some issues but I love it.. easy and clean..  

 

And just to add , my meds dont taste like dirt .. LOL 

Edited June 20, 2016 by Willy

[medmanmike]

Exactly

Agreed, with one caveat: any time you don't have to depend on "technology" the better. The ideal grow? Outdoors, full sun, rain every third day or so, rich soil. Indoors, we all depend on various technologies. My 2cents is the less the better, which makes hydro less of an option IMHO.

[medmanmike]

A point of clarification please: when using the word "soil", is one referring to "dirt", i.e. from the back yard or, "soilless". As in coco, pro mix, etc.?

 

I grow in Promix, EWC and minerals and call it soil, but believe that technically it's not.

 

From my point of view, "soilless" elininates a lot of the issues growing in "dirt" does. I make my "soil" as such: one 3.8 cuft of Promix, 15-20 lbs of 1-0-0 organic earth worm castings, approx. 1 lb of minerals (CannaPharms ) and 5 gallons of water. I mix this up real well and put it in two 32 gal plastics cans and let it cook (around 70°) for a month. This make enough soil for 30 soft of raised bed, or 6 seven gal (trade gal.) pots. Promix hp has a lot of Perlite in it so the soil is light and airy,which helps with watering, root development, etc.

 

As long as I don't have any bug/disease issues, I'll reuse it 3 and even 4 times before replacing. Each recycle gets additional EWC and minerals. The cost for the Promix, EWC and minerals: about $100.

[imiubu]

I chose 'soiless' (?) organic due to my living situation.

While I am still struggling, it is not the fault of my choice of grow mediums.

 

Best of luck to you in what ever you decide.

 

Will you please update us on what you decide upon?

thx

[Alleyenoisdope]

When I first started growing it was in Hydro....Grew that way for several years..I think the stress level of growing hydro isnt worth the hassle..With soil growing you don't have to worry as much about power failures....My system was a continuous flow that when power when out my girls went limp within 2-3 hours...I switched to soil just over a year ago and I'm never going back...

 

Ahhh..the dreaded power outage. Good point, Jack. You mention that your gals went limp within 2-3 hours, do plants grown in soil have the same reaction and time frame from a lack of light?

[Alleyenoisdope]

Totally a preference, but here is my opinion anyway.

 

First, decide what hydro and dirt means to you. Technically any soil-less medium and bottled organic nutrient amounts to hydro, but some hydro guys would call that soil. For the organic/soil-minded, soil growing requires worm dung at a minimum. Now, where to draw the line is a whole other debate....one that only the beholder decides.

 

Anywho, my hydro experience consisted of sunshine advanced premix and roots organics nutrients. I had great success with it, but did experience lock-out from time to time, some minor ph issues, and occasional defeciencies. Nothing serious, but sativas were difficult. A few finished hot in my hydro days. Again, mostly a good experience. I estimate about $500 a yr for this set-up.

 

My soil experience is equally as good. I use a basic soil recipe and a simple nutrient recipe. The beauty here is that once you mix a batch of soil and cook it thoroughly, you can run clones, veg, and flower with the same stuff. Everything seems to just finish as it sees fit with a good soil. The trouble is in pest management and the extra work. I chose to recycle soil so costs for nutrients and soil are estimated at $300-350 a year for me. If I did not recylcle soil, I feel the costs would have been the same for my hydr o method and my soil method.

 

Wet

 

Very interesting. How does one cook soil? This a new concept all together for me.

[Alleyenoisdope]

Dirt is way more simplistic for the  novice grower all kinds of things can go wrong with hydro why risk failing on your first try?

 

I hear you, KD. Reducing the risk of failure on my first go-round is one of my main objectives.

 

Which also reminds me of a certain acronym....K.I.S.S.

(Or at least until that last "S" does not apply )

[Alleyenoisdope]

Coco...best of both worlds. But if a yearly cost is your concern, dwc would probably be best. Simple, cheap and very effective minus innitial costs for a water chiller.

 

Another note is recent advancements in nutrients has made hydro worlds easier, no more need to worry about ph, ph drift etc.

 

I was curious about Coco. I just recently saw a Home Depot commercial advertising Black Magic Coco Coir Mix. Are you familiar with this product? Any other brand suggestions?

[Alleyenoisdope]

I prefer hydro because I don't have to bring dirt in the house and I find I have fewer problems with insects. My setup has a 50 gal. reservoir with a float valve setup so I can go out of town for up to a month and leave it unattended.

 

Once you get everything dialed in it's basically just switching out plants.

 

Dirt can be easier but hydro seems more efficient to me. Faster growth rates.

 

Is it the dirt itself that contains the insects or does the dirt attract foreign pests?  How does the float valve enable you to leave your plants unattended? Sounds like a pretty hassle free setup.

[Alleyenoisdope]

Put me down for rdwc, i did dirt first, but when i went to hydro, my whole world changed.  first off ther is a lot of checking on stuff.. you can have issues, but with hydro you can get a few days off if planned out right..but thats it. hydro can be a bit of work, but less ork than gettin rid of tons of dirt.. you only can put so much out in the yard.. in winter its worse, black dirt pile on white snow.. pretty noticable from the air.. if your concerned about it, but then if  you want to see major growth hydro is the way to go, 2.5 inches  a day unbelievable.. it does have some issues but I love it.. easy and clean..  

 

And just to add , my meds dont taste like dirt .. LOL 

 

Right on, Willy. I like the idea of being able to take a little vacay every now and then without having to worry if my girls will be alright. (A reliable babysitter can be tough to find ) Initially, it was the rapid growth rates produced by hydro that peaked my interest. Outside of power failures, what would you say are some of the most common problems faced by hydroponics grower?

[Wild Bill]

Is it the dirt itself that contains the insects or does the dirt attract foreign pests?  

I see fewer insects with hydro than with soil. I know people who firmly believe that their infestations came from soil purchased at a grow store.

 

How does the float valve enable you to leave your plants unattended? Sounds like a pretty hassle free setup.

 

My bubble buckets are connected by tubing. One bucket doesn't contain plants but has a float valve similar to the ones that are in toilets. This bucket controls the water level.

 

The water enters this bucket from the 50 gal. drum. The float is set to let in water when it gets down below the level desired just below the net pots. Since water seeks the same level in all buckets all of them stay the same.

 

I do need to set the lights higher to make sure the plants don't grow up into the lights while I'm gone. I recently had to go out of town unexpectedly and didn't get back for a month.

 

One plant fell over from the weight but fortunately the roots stayed in the water and it didn't die. (a little misshapen though, like a bonsai tree)

 

I wouldn't recommend leaving them unattended for that long but it is possible in a pinch.

 

It's essentially this system but with bubble buckets instead of pots.

 

[Alleyenoisdope]

A point of clarification please: when using the word "soil", is one referring to "dirt", i.e. from the back yard or, "soilless". As in coco, pro mix, etc.?

 

I grow in Promix, EWC and minerals and call it soil, but believe that technically it's not.

 

From my point of view, "soilless" elininates a lot of the issues growing in "dirt" does. I make my "soil" as such: one 3.8 cuft of Promix, 15-20 lbs of 1-0-0 organic earth worm castings, approx. 1 lb of minerals (CannaPharms ) and 5 gallons of water. I mix this up real well and put it in two 32 gal plastics cans and let it cook (around 70°) for a month. This make enough soil for 30 soft of raised bed, or 6 seven gal (trade gal.) pots. Promix hp has a lot of Perlite in it so the soil is light and airy,which helps with watering, root development, etc.

 

As long as I don't have any bug/disease issues, I'll reuse it 3 and even 4 times before replacing. Each recycle gets additional EWC and minerals. The cost for the Promix, EWC and minerals: about $100.

 

Yup, dirt. (I'm still getting familiar with all the terms and grow jargon  ) How often do you have problems with bugs and diseases? Is this a common occurrence using dirt as a medium?

Edited June 21, 2016 by Alleyenoisdope

[Alleyenoisdope]

I chose 'soiless' (?) organic due to my living situation.

While I am still struggling, it is not the fault of my choice of grow mediums.

 

Best of luck to you in what ever you decide.

 

Will you please update us on what you decide upon?

thx

 

Gotcha, Imiubu. (Figured it would be too easy to blame the medium, aye?   )

 

And sure thing. I'm finally getting rid of the last minute jitters and gaining more confidence with each post. I'll be sure to let you all know how it goes.

[Alleyenoisdope]

I see fewer insects with hydro than with soil. I know people who firmly believe that their infestations came from soil purchased at a grow store.

 

 

My bubble buckets are connected by tubing. One bucket doesn't contain plants but has a float valve similar to the ones that are in toilets. This bucket controls the water level.

 

The water enters this bucket from the 50 gal. drum. The float is set to let in water when it gets down below the level desired just below the net pots. Since water seeks the same level in all buckets all of them stay the same.

 

I do need to set the lights higher to make sure the plants don't grow up into the lights while I'm gone. I recently had to go out of town unexpectedly and didn't get back for a month.

 

One plant fell over from the weight but fortunately the roots stayed in the water and it didn't die. (a little misshapen though, like a bonsai tree)

 

I wouldn't recommend leaving them unattended for that long but it is possible in a pinch.

 

It's essentially this system but with bubble buckets instead of pots.

 

 

 

Sweeeet!! And thanks for the visual, WB. Is this a setup that you actually constructed yourself or can one purchase this sort of thing online? How would you compare "self-made" configurations to the ones that only need to be assembled?

Edited June 21, 2016 by Alleyenoisdope