The differences in hydroponic methods. Is it all just bells and whistles?

So, here's where I am.. I finished up a grow in a bubbleponics system, and I was about to prep my next grow. As I did I started thinking about some of the issues\hassles I ran in to, and was trying to decide how to improve on it for a better overall experience this time around. I've been back and forth looking at all of the different methods from nft, dwc, swc, hempy buckets, krusty buckets, drip, ebb and flow, aero, wick, etc ... There's really such a little difference between their materials and all, that with a little creativity I could turn all sorts of junk I have laying around in to any of the above, or even a combination of them.

This is where I hit my block. When trying to decide on how to best adapt it, I couldn't figure out which parts of which systems lead to the best results and why. There's tons of X vs Y vs Z threads offering comparisons, but they all seem so biased, general, and full of bs that it's hard to really discern what's fact and what's people just trying to boast their personally preferred method.

It seems I could simply trade out the drip manifold for a sprayer\fogger and turn it in to more of an aero system. I could separate my res and build a table of sorts for an ebb and flow\nft, etc etc. Slight changes and it's an entirely different system. However, some of these systems claim to be faster or lead to larger yields. That's not something I want to miss out on.

So, any advice? I don't want to just flat out ask 'which system is best'. I understand they all have their pros and cons. I'm more interested in the facts of why this or that difference in the system is better. I've heard people say 'bubbleponics is awesome cause the drip lines feed them when they're babies and their roots can't quite reach the res, then thanks to the bubbles in the solution, the plants grow like crazy because of all the oxygen!'. If that's the case, then wouldn't an ebb and flow\nft be even better, since their roots are exposed to air even more of the time? Are the drip lines really all that great? Wouldn't a sprayer\fogger in the res achieve the same, without the hassle of all those damn tubes?


TL;DR? Also just to sum it up more directly, yet generally, with a few questions:

For the majority of the time, do the roots prefer to be suspended in air or swimming in water?

If suspended in air, would they prefer the occasional dunk, a shallow stream to wade around in, a nice misty spray, or fog?

If swimming, what would be the preferred method of supplying water\nutes to the medium\cups\whatever? Drip, spray, fog, wick?

For the last two questions would they prefer the stream, spray, fog, and\or drip to be constant or timed?

With any of the above methods, would they prefer one or the other based on something such as different stages of plant maturity?

Or is it all just BS, with them each performing on par with each other? Is it all really just apples, oranges, bells, and whistles? Meaning things like convenience should take priority in my decision, instead of any slight difference there may or may not be?


Supporting explanations, references, or links will be highly appreciated!

you can have the best system in the world,but without the know how on how to put it to use its useless,I think you can get the same results from any system with the proper know how,for me dwc is fine im on my second dwc grow and will never grow in soil again,dwc is economical,easy to maintain and doesnt take up much space,although im always finding ways to make it easyer I think I finally got my set up to where I want it.easy to control nute temps easy res changes and easy to flush. good luck on your choice

"TL;DR? Also just to sum it up more directly, yet generally, with a few questions:"

AKA: Cliffnotes!
Sorry, that's all I got...

Haha, yeah.. TL;DR = Too Long; Didn't Read. So yeah, Cliffnotes for the lazy stoners out there that didn't wanna listen to the back story of where I was coming from with these questions lol..

I just felt I had a grasp enough on how the systems actually worked, and was planning to improve mine. I just couldn't decide how, because I was unsure whether or not the different methods of supplying nutrients\oxygen to the roots actually affected growth speed\overall yields and which ways were more ideal methods of feeding over the others, that sort of thing.. I'm lacking factual data.

While I'm sure you can grow just fine any which way, I was just curious on flat out how the roots would ideally prefer to be fed. Even convenience only really comes in to play when I'd be changing out the res or something, aside from that the system just does it's thing while I only occasionally check to make sure nothing stopped and check levels of this or that. So to me, the main know how I need is how to best provide my babies with what they want. They're doing all of the growing, I just need to support that fact and pamper them as best as I can.

I just assumed that with all of the different methods, someone would've tried to break down the actual methods of feeding to discover which was more or less ideal, or if it's all just bells and whistles and anyone touting about this or that method's productivity over another is simply doing it to defend their investment.

I personally have 3 different systems. 1 is nft, 2 is diy waterfarm, and 3 is flood and drain. The NFT is the least productive of the 3 and is being phased out. I do like the production on the remaining two and there seems to be little difference when growing the same strains and even clones off the same mother plant. I will say that the flood and drain is more energy efficient but a hell of a lot more hassle to clean up after harvest.

Anyways just my opinion of those 3 setups.

In my opinion an ebb/flow is the best. I like to have the plants in each their own pot, so that i can move them around and take a plant out to the working table to work with it. Also ebb/flow is very effective and give me way bigger buds on smaller plants with only little rooting systems. I never clear my reservoir out. When i flush plants i just put the pot in a larger bucket (with no holes in it) and leave the plant where it is. Now the nute water don't come to the flushing plant. This can be done with a plastic bag as well. When i move the plants around etc. i just take a piece of cloth and vipe the tray over to remove the little bit of algea that will grow. Very easy system i think. Another cool thing with the ebb/flow is that you can put in plants all the time and always have a plant that is almost ready for harvest - just nice to have something to cut in all the time - for us hobby growers.

They all have their own Pros and Cons, things like resistance to high/low temps, ability to sustain plants without power, cost to maintain, consistency of pH, susceptability to mold etc etc. Most importantly, how comfortable you are growing the particular style.

Its by prioritising what's most important in your grow that you can make a more educated decision on your growing style. The comparisons have all been done as they're all used in commercial agricultural production.

I choose DWC as it's the most fool proof system IMO. Ive added drippers up to this point because I'm lazy and had the parts handy. I would prefer a recirc DWC system like a waterfarm as it's far easier to manage 1 central res for daily checks/changes.

I've only tried two methods and the system that works best for you is dependent on your time, space and budget. I use ebb and flow because it's easy to set up, easy to clean, and the performance is stellar. Again, it's something that fits me and my garden which is not to say it's the best for everyone.

See, Knickers, that's what I figured. The comparisons must've been done, being used commercially and all. So, which is most productive? Dealing with things like temps, power, pH, mold, pests, etc. I can handle. If one method or the other is better for my babies in terms of productivity and yields, I'll gladly put forth any extra amount of effort required on the other parts. That's how I've prioritized it, my plants come first. I want them to grow to be as big, beautiful, healthy, green, and sticky as they can, as quickly as they can.

However, I'm not finding these comparisons. Instead you hear about these other pros\cons, such as these varying levels of convenience. As far as how comfortable I am, again I can't foresee having any issues I couldn't handle with any of these methods. I'm very confident I could successfully grow using any of them. My question is strictly about whether or not any of these methods of feeding are more ideal than the others, if so then by how much, or if the difference would be so small that it really wouldn't make a difference in the end, hence all just being bells and whistles.


IrishDoc, thanks for the feedback on productivity, the topic I was aiming for. Exactly why I was asking though. I've seen some places say Aero is hands down the most productive, others saying DWC\Bubbleponics, and I just saw another saying NFT was hands down the best. So, definitely interesting to hear that it was actually your least productive of those three. At this point, I'm almost tempted to go aero, strictly based on the fact that I remember reading that NASA deals with a lot of aeroponics. I mean, if they're using it, it can't be a shoddy system, right? lol..

homebrewer said:

I've only tried two methods and the system that works best for you is dependent on your time, space and budget. I use ebb and flow because it's easy to set up, easy to clean, and the performance is stellar. Again, it's something that fits me and my garden which is not to say it's the best for everyone.

Click to expand...

See that's where I have a bit of an advantage. Time most certainly isn't an issue. Space isn't so much of an issue that any of these wouldn't be an option. Budget, well.. That's always an issue, but I could at least afford to construct a basic DIY version of any of the above, that I could later expand and improve in as it became affordable. Ebb and Flo I could actually set up right now with very little effort. I've got TONS of crap around my house and I've been looking at empty dressers, drawers, cabinets, closets, etc. and my imagination's just gone wild coming up with different ways I could do these different setups.

Also, sorry if this ends up a double post, you replied right as I had posted this last time haha

rawrrrz said:

See that's where I have a bit of an advantage. Time most certainly isn't an issue. Space isn't so much of an issue that any of these wouldn't be an option. Budget, well.. That's always an issue, but I could at least afford to construct a basic DIY version of any of the above, that I could later expand and improve in as it became affordable. Ebb and Flo I could actually set up right now with very little effort. I've got TONS of crap around my house and I've been looking at empty dressers, drawers, cabinets, closets, etc. and my imagination's just gone wild coming up with different ways I could do these different setups.

Also, sorry if this ends up a double post, you replied right as I had posted this last time haha

Click to expand...

By time and space, I'm really referring to larger scale grows. Changing out 100+ gallons of total res water each week from multiple reservoirs is time consuming and tedious. There is no best system, just the system that works best for the grower.

Again, I'm not asking which is the best, but which is the most productive. There's quite a few claims of some methods being more productive than others.

"a 30% growth rate increase over Aeroponics in the early vegetative stage;" referring to DWC\Bubbleponics.
"NFT and aeroponic systems are the most productive sorts of systems"
"Passive hydroponics is the simplest and lowest production method of growing hydroponically." - they follow this quote up by claiming it's because passive hydro is generally restricted to pot size, instead of being in a resevoir where the roots would have a lot more room to grow.
"N.F.T. is the most yield productive hydroponics method for a number of reasons."
"Aeroponic Systems is the most productive technique of hydroponic gardening."

That's what a quick google search of 'most productive hydroponic method' will find. This is the crap I'm talking about. I'm not asking for opinions on which people like the most, or which is more popular, which is more convenient during which scenario, blah blah.

Hands down - Which is most productive? Are all of these people touting their own systems strictly for marketing, etc? Is there any sort of truth behind any of these claims? Is any one method of feeding any more productive than the others? I'm assuming there had to have been some sort of tests regarding this out there, and that's what I'm after, facts.

Well in my book, best = most productive. And if there was such a thing, you wouldn't see a dozen different styles of hydro growing. Your best bet is to educate yourself on what it is that each system is doing that the other isn't, then figure out if your plants can benefit from that.

You claim you don't want opinions, but that's what you're going to get because no one has tried all dozen growing systems under the same conditions with the same strains.

Agreed, the most productive would certainly be the best in my book, as well. And sure, maybe no one on these forums has, but I was still assuming that with people making these claims, there had to have been some sort of tests for these claims to be as widely spread as they are. The problem is, I can't find the actual details or results of any of these tests. This leads me to believe it may just be marketing and hearsay, which it is very possible. However, if there's any sort of truth to it, I'd certainly like to know. However, I disagree that you wouldn't see a dozen different styles. It's still an experimental science and people are coming out with more and more newer methods. For others, simplicity, convenience, and time are larger factors than any differences in productivity there may or may not be. Just look at soil growers, for example. It's pretty widely claimed that hydroponics in general is a more productive means of growing than soil. However, you still see lots of people growing in soil for a variety of reasons.

As far as the differences in the systems, I'm fully aware of what they're doing, again I just have no idea as to how all of these different methods of feeding actually effect productivity. That's what I've been asking since my original post. I don't know, so I was hoping someone on here might.

I use a DWC for my small grow. I have no need to look for more produtivity. Also is very simple.
If I had a larger garden I would want a central res.

Yeah, it's not so much that I feel that I need more productivity, I only grow for personal usage and I grow more than I can smoke by the time my next harvest hits, so really I'm good (although I certainly wouldn't complain), I just got curious once I started thinking. Either way I'll be setting up something before the night's over with. I definitely like the idea of having a separate res as well. That was one of the first things I thought about changing, along with switching out the drip lines for some sprayers, because I absolutely hated those damn tubes lol.. Just the more I thought about it, I realized how easily I could build a variety of different systems. I thought about how I could expand, and that's when I started thinking of ebb and flow, where I wouldn't be limited by the amount of net pots I could efficiently fit in the lid of my res.. Then started wondering about how the individual bits would effect my plants..

Just one thought kept leading to the next, eventually I was overwhelmed with possibility, and I just figured it'd be simplest to ask lol

IMO, it's about synchronizing and maximizing everything that the plant can use.

Assuming the the basic climatic conditions are spot on the plant can use more co2, more light, more nutrients, more water and more oxygen at the root base, but they're all relative. It can only use so much light without extra co2, so much oxygen without more light...

If you had the best true aeroponics system in the world, but they're only getting 10 watts/sq ft of light and no co2, it probably won't function any better than a simple DWC. I however, personally believe that available oxygen is the final "cherry on top" that can make a great grow a little better.

I probably should have qualified my statement earlier by stating that I have anywhere from 100 to 125 plants in flowering at all times and I do run co2 with 12000 watts. So when I said that the diy waterfarm and the flood and drain produced the best you can get a better idea of what I ment. I have also tried a ton of different nutrients and foliar sprays to up the yeild on the nft (aero) system and it didn't improve much, but when I added the same "additives" to the other plants on the other systems the yeild was dramaticaly increased.

But to each their own. I like you I read a ton about how this system was the best and read another saying this system would out do that one. So I decided to try the 3 I thought would work for me in my room and my budget. The only plants that out do those systems, that I grow, are outside and they are close to 9ft tall right now and there is no way that I can do that indoors.

Im interested to see this thread take off.. Im in the same boat as you right now, trying each system, to see what works best. I just switch to hydro a few months back, and started with a recirc. DWC drip system, then built a bubbleponics set-up a week or two after. I just built my 3rd set up which is a mini aero sprayer. I'll report anything I learn as I go, but hopefully we can get some more experienced member involved in the mean time.

What we found works for us is the dwc scrog using Igloo Coolers.
We do grow it other ways but the dwc has proven itself to us over the last ten years.

I cannot describe the improvement overall.

We don't grow quantity. Just quality. Individual coolers allows us to
control each plants feeding, water, and care. Problem with a res?
Drain it and refill it individually. No shared res problems.

dwc scrog in our set up produces more per plant than average.
Why grow two plants when one will give the same if not more.

Monitoring, maintenance and care is pretty simple.

We have tried multiple methods over the years.

With the equipment available today, maximizing
yields is getting easier.

bb57