Why spend $$$ on a flowering lamp if you have a $ veg lamp?

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
I switched from DWC to coco about 14 years ago. There are pros and cons to each.

DWC is faster and produces mostly waste nutrient solution. It is a little harder to manage nutrients as water provides no buffer. It is also sensitive to ambient temperatures, unless you run reservoir coolers and heaters. Ideally you want to maintain your reservoir at around 15-20C, but your plants like to be a little warmer. There is a trade-off off between lower temperatures, which dissolve more oxygen, and warmer temperatures, which stimulate root and plant growth. Reservoir temperatures over 25C can promote anaerobic pathogens, such as pythium (root rot) as oxygen falls out of suspension. Below 15C, your plants start to stunt as transpiration of nutrient slows.

When I grew in apartments, I liked the convenience of DWC, as all I needed to do was dump my reservoir every couple of weeks, and bin my plant waste and small amounts of rockwool. I reused my hydroton.

Coco was a revelation in some ways, as it offered much faster growth than soil - it is hydro, after all - but with some of the benefits of soil, such as nutrient buffering and resistance to temperature - a big plus in a hot environment, or under hot HID lamps. Coco can be reused several times, though it does break down eventually and loses is aeration ability as it becomes denser - and it must be flushed after each grow. It can also be recycled into your outside vege garden.

DWC can be a bit noisy if you have a decent air pump - which you will need. Coco is pretty much silent and can be auto watered. The more you water coco - as long as you have good drainage - the faster the growth, as you introduce fresh, oxygenated nutrient solution into the root zone with each watering.

Many people believe run-to-waste coco wastes a lot of nutrient, but in reality if you grow DWC you are dumping your reservoir at least every two weeks. Run-to-waste is very easy to manage, as it flushes the roots zone as it adds fresh nutrient, meaning salt build-up is slower and nutrient ratios remain for the most part optimum (though salts will build up over time, especially near the surface where there is evaporation). In DWC, you never really know what is in your reservoir. A TDS or EC meter will only tell you the amount of dissolved salts - but wont' tell you what those salts are.

Coco attracts bugs - especial fungus gnats - which DWC doesn't (at least, not so much at the root zone - you can still get fungus gnats in DWC, believe it or not). DWC also needs some sort of support, like a large hydroton basket or tie-ups to support the branches and main stem. Coco is generally self -supporting.

Another great advantage of coco is that if an pump breaks in DWC and you don't catch it, you can eventually lose a crop to root rot. If you have a recirculating hydro system and a water pump breaks, you can lose a crop in a day to dehydration. Coco will retain moisture for up to a few days, depending on plant and pot size, and can save your crop in the event of a timer or auto pump failure.

I don't keep mother plants - I perpetually clone - but if I were, I would most definitely keep them in coco pots instead of DWC.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I switched from DWC to coco about 14 years ago. There are pros and cons to each.

DWC is faster and produces mostly waste nutrient solution. It is a little harder to manage nutrients as water provides no buffer. It is also sensitive to ambient temperatures, unless you run reservoir coolers and heaters. Ideally you want to maintain your reservoir at around 15-20C, but your plants like to be a little warmer. There is a trade-off off between lower temperatures, which dissolve more oxygen, and warmer temperatures, which stimulate root and plant growth. Reservoir temperatures over 25C can promote anaerobic pathogens, such as pythium (root rot) as oxygen falls out of suspension. Below 15C, your plants start to stunt as transpiration of nutrient slows.

When I grew in apartments, I liked the convenience of DWC, as all I needed to do was dump my reservoir every couple of weeks, and bin my plant waste and small amounts of rockwool. I reused my hydroton.

Coco was a revelation in some ways, as it offered much faster growth than soil - it is hydro, after all - but with some of the benefits of soil, such as nutrient buffering and resistance to temperature - a big plus in a hot environment, or under hot HID lamps. Coco can be reused several times, though it does break down eventually and loses is aeration ability as it becomes denser - and it must be flushed after each grow. It can also be recycled into your outside vege garden.

DWC can be a bit noisy if you have a decent air pump - which you will need. Coco is pretty much silent and can be auto watered. The more you water coco - as long as you have good drainage - the faster the growth, as you introduce fresh, oxygenated nutrient solution into the root zone with each watering.

Many people believe run-to-waste coco wastes a lot of nutrient, but in reality if you grow DWC you are dumping your reservoir at least every two weeks. Run-to-waste is very easy to manage, as it flushes the roots zone as it adds fresh nutrient, meaning salt build-up is slower and nutrient ratios remain for the most part optimum (though salts will build up over time, especially near the surface where there is evaporation). In DWC, you never really know what is in your reservoir. A TDS or EC meter will only tell you the amount of dissolved salts - but wont' tell you what those salts are.

Coco attracts bugs - especial fungus gnats - which DWC doesn't (at least, not so much at the root zone - you can still get fungus gnats in DWC, believe it or not). DWC also needs some sort of support, like a large hydroton basket or tie-ups to support the branches and main stem. Coco is generally self -supporting.

Another great advantage of coco is that if an pump breaks in DWC and you don't catch it, you can eventually lose a crop to root rot. If you have a recirculating hydro system and a water pump breaks, you can lose a crop in a day to dehydration. Coco will retain moisture for up to a few days, depending on plant and pot size, and can save your crop in the event of a timer or auto pump failure.

I don't keep mother plants - I perpetually clone - but if I were, I would most definitely keep them in coco pots instead of DWC.
A solid synopsis
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
My more data-dictated approach shows that a full canopy of taller plants with more veg time will tend to yield more than a full canopy of shorter plants with less veg time.

Whether it's a better use of light or space is a completely different question all together.
 

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
I switched from DWC to coco about 14 years ago. There are pros and cons to each.

DWC is faster and produces mostly waste nutrient solution. It is a little harder to manage nutrients as water provides no buffer. It is also sensitive to ambient temperatures, unless you run reservoir coolers and heaters. Ideally you want to maintain your reservoir at around 15-20C, but your plants like to be a little warmer. There is a trade-off off between lower temperatures, which dissolve more oxygen, and warmer temperatures, which stimulate root and plant growth. Reservoir temperatures over 25C can promote anaerobic pathogens, such as pythium (root rot) as oxygen falls out of suspension. Below 15C, your plants start to stunt as transpiration of nutrient slows.

When I grew in apartments, I liked the convenience of DWC, as all I needed to do was dump my reservoir every couple of weeks, and bin my plant waste and small amounts of rockwool. I reused my hydroton.

Coco was a revelation in some ways, as it offered much faster growth than soil - it is hydro, after all - but with some of the benefits of soil, such as nutrient buffering and resistance to temperature - a big plus in a hot environment, or under hot HID lamps. Coco can be reused several times, though it does break down eventually and loses is aeration ability as it becomes denser - and it must be flushed after each grow. It can also be recycled into your outside vege garden.

DWC can be a bit noisy if you have a decent air pump - which you will need. Coco is pretty much silent and can be auto watered. The more you water coco - as long as you have good drainage - the faster the growth, as you introduce fresh, oxygenated nutrient solution into the root zone with each watering.

Many people believe run-to-waste coco wastes a lot of nutrient, but in reality if you grow DWC you are dumping your reservoir at least every two weeks. Run-to-waste is very easy to manage, as it flushes the roots zone as it adds fresh nutrient, meaning salt build-up is slower and nutrient ratios remain for the most part optimum (though salts will build up over time, especially near the surface where there is evaporation). In DWC, you never really know what is in your reservoir. A TDS or EC meter will only tell you the amount of dissolved salts - but wont' tell you what those salts are.

Coco attracts bugs - especial fungus gnats - which DWC doesn't (at least, not so much at the root zone - you can still get fungus gnats in DWC, believe it or not). DWC also needs some sort of support, like a large hydroton basket or tie-ups to support the branches and main stem. Coco is generally self -supporting.

Another great advantage of coco is that if an pump breaks in DWC and you don't catch it, you can eventually lose a crop to root rot. If you have a recirculating hydro system and a water pump breaks, you can lose a crop in a day to dehydration. Coco will retain moisture for up to a few days, depending on plant and pot size, and can save your crop in the event of a timer or auto pump failure.

I don't keep mother plants - I perpetually clone - but if I were, I would most definitely keep them in coco pots instead of DWC.
Very nice contrast and comparison between the two methods. I have grown in NFT and Coco so I can't speak intelligently about DWC. I especially enjoyed your excellent explanation of the Oxygen Dissociation Curve few people understand that or VPD.

I come to LED lighting every now and again to see if the tech is ready for me to deploy and in my most recent venture here I have really enjoyed your posts.
Thank you,
Annie
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
My more data-dictated approach shows that a full canopy of taller plants with more veg time will tend to yield more than a full canopy of shorter plants with less veg time.

Whether it's a better use of light or space is a completely different question all together.
Tell that to the SOG. If you have the space and plant numbers, it is one of the most efficient forms of growing there is. The Dutch have known it for years.

I don't know where you get your "data" from, but it's clearly not from actual grows!
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
Tell that to the SOG. If you have the space and plant numbers, it is one of the most efficient forms of growing there is. The Dutch have known it for years.

I don't know where you get your "data" from, but it's clearly not from actual grows!
I never said it wasn't the most efficient form of growing. Never questioned it. In fact you have me on record now agreeing. Of course it is. (I've never thought otherwise actually)
 

Prawn Connery

Well-Known Member
Very nice contrast and comparison between the two methods. I have grown in NFT and Coco so I can't speak intelligently about DWC. I especially enjoyed your excellent explanation of the Oxygen Dissociation Curve few people understand that or VPD.

I come to LED lighting every now and again to see if the tech is ready for me to deploy and in my most recent venture here I have really enjoyed your posts.
Thank you,
Annie
Thank you. I was a LED skeptic myself a couple of years ago, but the more I read, the more I learned. And the more I learned, the more I wanted to try. Once I tried, I soon discovered a proper LED grow could actually surpass a horizontal HPS grow of similar wattage. Vertical HPS is a bit closer, as less light is wasted bouncing off reflectors and trapping heat, but the way LED efficiencies have evolved - and continue to evolve - I'm now rivaling my best HPS vertical grows on a gram-per-watt basis, as are some of my friends I have helped convert.

There are some very well-educated and enlightened people in the LED forum - as you would expect in a such a progressive environment. I owe much to all of them.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I'm sure that's true, and with diminishing returns and popcorn lower buds, but @Prawn Connery was arguing that more veg time won't result in higher yield after the canopy is full, not whether it's a good idea or not.
I agree with Prawn. A SOG grow will fill the canopy quickest, and the yield will be good. As for diminishing returns and popcorn buds, I'm told lollipopping deals well with those issues.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Thank you. I was a LED skeptic myself a couple of years ago, but the more I read, the more I learned. And the more I learned, the more I wanted to try. Once I tried, I soon discovered a proper LED grow could actually surpass a horizontal HPS grow of similar wattage. Vertical HPS is a bit closer, as less light is wasted bouncing off reflectors and trapping heat, but the way LED efficiencies have evolved - and continue to evolve - I'm now rivaling my best HPS vertical grows on a gram-per-watt basis, as are some of my friends I have helped convert.

There are some very well-educated and enlightened people in the LED forum - as you would expect in a such a progressive environment. I owe much to all of them.
Whose LED lights would you recommend? I am bewildered by wattage numbers etc.
 

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I agree with Prawn. A SOG grow will fill the canopy quickest, and the yield will be good. As for diminishing returns and popcorn buds, I'm told lollipopping deals well with those issues.
That's not the argument he made though. He said it will yield the same or more.
 

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
Thank you. I was a LED skeptic myself a couple of years ago, but the more I read, the more I learned. And the more I learned, the more I wanted to try. Once I tried, I soon discovered a proper LED grow could actually surpass a horizontal HPS grow of similar wattage. Vertical HPS is a bit closer, as less light is wasted bouncing off reflectors and trapping heat, but the way LED efficiencies have evolved - and continue to evolve - I'm now rivaling my best HPS vertical grows on a gram-per-watt basis, as are some of my friends I have helped convert.

There are some very well-educated and enlightened people in the LED forum - as you would expect in a such a progressive environment. I owe much to all of them.
From the evolution I have witnessed I'm no longer at if but when and that's more about price point and ease of deployment now.
 
Top