JWM2
Premium Member
Supporter
- 3,806
- 263
Ok guess we’ll discuss this here. Lol.
My theory is that soil provides things the plant needs outside of a typical nutrient line or regime. With hydroponics your plant is limited to what you feed it. The growing medium does not have microbes, bacteria, beneficial organisms (nematodes), some micro nutrients, etc present.
Hydroponic growing mediums are generally inert. Meaning they have no nutritional value at all. They are there more as a structure for the roots to hold on to in order for the plant to grow and to retain some of the nutrients that are imparted through feeding.
In soil you have lots of micro life that takes place and breaks down nutrients and delivers these in a slower more controlled manner. In hydroponics you have complete control over their nutrient uptake so the grower has more on their plate. In soil these micro ecosystems have evolved over millions of years to be efficient at their task and to support life in the rhyzosphere as best as possible.
Each growing method has its pros and cons and each method when done correctly can produce fantastic results. It’s just a little easier to have some help in achieving those results and with hydro there simply is no safety net in place. That’s why things can go horribly wrong in such a short amount of time in hydroponics. But done correctly and you can end up with great quality end product that is reproducible on any scale. It’s much harder to scale up soil and organic growing due to the resources involved and variables involved within it.
Imo it’s been an apples to oranges comparison in that good quality organic product is often compared to horribly grown hydroponics. It takes a lot of time to dial any system in and it’s easy to discount one method over the other. Each has merits and disadvantages.
But properly grown hydroponics can rival well grown organics in terms of quality. It’s really quantity, scalability and sustainability where hydroponics really shines.
However I have always been a soil grower so my opinion may be skewed.
My theory is that soil provides things the plant needs outside of a typical nutrient line or regime. With hydroponics your plant is limited to what you feed it. The growing medium does not have microbes, bacteria, beneficial organisms (nematodes), some micro nutrients, etc present.
Hydroponic growing mediums are generally inert. Meaning they have no nutritional value at all. They are there more as a structure for the roots to hold on to in order for the plant to grow and to retain some of the nutrients that are imparted through feeding.
In soil you have lots of micro life that takes place and breaks down nutrients and delivers these in a slower more controlled manner. In hydroponics you have complete control over their nutrient uptake so the grower has more on their plate. In soil these micro ecosystems have evolved over millions of years to be efficient at their task and to support life in the rhyzosphere as best as possible.
Each growing method has its pros and cons and each method when done correctly can produce fantastic results. It’s just a little easier to have some help in achieving those results and with hydro there simply is no safety net in place. That’s why things can go horribly wrong in such a short amount of time in hydroponics. But done correctly and you can end up with great quality end product that is reproducible on any scale. It’s much harder to scale up soil and organic growing due to the resources involved and variables involved within it.
Imo it’s been an apples to oranges comparison in that good quality organic product is often compared to horribly grown hydroponics. It takes a lot of time to dial any system in and it’s easy to discount one method over the other. Each has merits and disadvantages.
But properly grown hydroponics can rival well grown organics in terms of quality. It’s really quantity, scalability and sustainability where hydroponics really shines.
However I have always been a soil grower so my opinion may be skewed.