The reason I came here to talk about this is simply because I think it's wrong that vert is portrayed by some to be so much more efficient in practice than horizontal. I think there's very little between them.
It can be if the grow requires it to be. In my space you will never get the yield I get with a flat grow. But it will take more effort to get that increase yield. It is just more efficient with the space I have. Maybe not in your grow but deffinately in my grow
For me that thread is all about the numbers, that's all. If people keep to the subject then, even if certain styles of approach are challenging, the right things still come out of it. Even if people flat out disagree with each other, the numbers don't lie, you know... that's what it's all about.
My numbers don't lie.
There definitely isn't as much in it as I think some people are led to believe and I think the premise on the first page of "yields horizontal can't compete with" should be tied in with the reality that, in practice and for many reasons, horizontal often out-yields it.
There is a lot of training that goes into growing vert. If you don't learn it you will not get the yield. Same as flat but maybe a little more less forgiving.
Vertical growing comes with some serious challenges, and it's those challenges that stop it from being the hyper efficient super yielder that a lot of people go into it thinking it will be.
It can be quite difficult to master. To get top yield for flat growing the same can be said. I get a lot of questions in private chat which can attest to the difficulty that vert has.
It's those challenges which ultimately balance the scales with horizontal, and mean that in the end the results don't marry up with statistics like "135% more growing area" If they did, there's be no debate.
That quote of 135% is not accurate in my opinion and was to refering to the square footage more than 135% efficient. The challenge I see with vert is that it requires more light to cover that increase in area. With that comes heat issues.