12/1 lighting--Any truth or banana in the tail pipe?

[RequiredUsername]

Here we can agree. Everything that's commercial is corrupted and money driven. No different in the "canna scene".

That's why I don't need all those overpriced flashy supernutes and ferts with colourfull labels. I re-use my soil and only amment it with homemade wormcompost, cheap NPK meals and some molasses based liquid ferts if needed. Works like a charm, costs next to nothing.

But its not "they" who convinced me, its my own experiences with 12/1.

These lightschemes are used by cash croppers stashing the coffeeshops for decades now. If they run huge growing operations - illegal or legal like Bedrocan - they probably found out by now which lightschemes are the most efficient. Simple matter of profit maximalisation for those guys.

So I don't need to re-invent the wheel. As far as I know 12/1 is the exception rather then the rule, so I believe there is some reasoning and logic behind that.

This linked to my own personal experience - and those of some others in this thread - with slower growth in veg when running 12/1, is why I don't use it anymore. That's just my personal conclusion for my set up, after running several grows 12/1. I'm no scientist,so don't know the exact reasons behind it - I can just guess (temps, light intensity, energy input, reduced light hours, etc.).

So for me there is no "right way". Nothing to do with "greed" or me being a "victim of marketing". I just don't see why I should implement it, if in the end the same light hour input leads to a longer grow for the same yield. I can also just skip the veg all together by taking a sativa-dominant strain going straight 12/12. More then one road leads to Rome...

As I say: to each his own. Just don't act like you are the only one with the holy grail knowledge of growing and the whole world is behind on you. Each grower does what works best for his settings and needs. I'll be the last to be the judge of that.

You're just writing to react, it's not a response. I've never claimed photoperiodism or photoperiodic control. I gave the names credited for the discovery in 1920. The horticultural practices for long night plants I am speaking of began there.

The grow disinformation that cannabis hobbyists get is a totally new creation. It was invented recently, and only for cannabis. That right there should be the first tip off that something is wrong.

None of what you are saying is proving photoprotection in plants to be false.

Your arguement is your grows, at your conditions, at your ability level of that time. I value direct experience highly myself! But we must not fail to apply doubt to our own experiences, thoughts, and even memories. Perhaps it doesnt make a difference in all situations. For example, let's say you dont have enough light. Or you have enough light, but you only give 50%. It may take 14 hours for the plant to reach its saturation point. And hundreds of other variables. But we cant speak in a way that covers all variables. We can say, that in good conditions... generally, often, blah blah.

I'm not asking anyone to defend their beliefs. If you are able, try it. If you have good to adequate light and conditions then you could save money. Be more environmentally friendly. Maybe even have some extra resinous thicker buds. You stand to gain more than you would lose especially long term. And you wont be so gullible next time when it comes to something else. Maybe buying your next lamp. You got to watch for the bullshit. Because you now know it's coming. You know it's coming.

You have done it your way. Try this way.

 

[RequiredUsername]

Hey bud, tbh idk im a basic grower keeping it simple, I did google the subject though to check it out.

It makes sense that plants could protect themselves?
I only read the short google version and I was thinking why does bleaching occur if plants have the ability to switch off?

Your interest or search for knowledge is good. Good luck to you in your horticultural studies!

Light stress? Study chlorosis. But to attempt to answer your question briefly, hold a bottle of water at arms length. For as long as you can. How long can you do it? Feels like 50 pounds after a while. Eventually something will give out. That's one possibility.

Then other variables come into play. What type of light frequency, what light pressure, nutrients blah blah. It may be interesting to you that a protective measure the plant has is to move the cells in the leaf. But of course this movement is limited to the space available in the leaf.

You get an B+ in research 101.
A for listening skills.

You can know write this into the margins of your cannabis grow guide. They left this part out.

 

[Cannabis Critic]

scholar.google.com
Search for:
S. Chandra cannabis

Please forgive the spoon feeding…

Peace…Jeff

 

[Asentrouw]

The grow disinformation that cannabis hobbyists get is a totally new creation. It was invented recently, and only for cannabis. That right there should be the first tip off that something is wrong.

Cash croppers here running big operations use the same 18/6 schedules before there was internet.

I doubt it all was a big growshop conspiracy to provide desinformation for profits. They make more money on the weed, then on the bulbs.

I'm pretty sure the pioneers who started indoors with it, took their inspiration from horticulture to begin with. That's all I'm saying.

None of what you are saying is proving photoprotection in plants to be false.

Your arguement is your grows, at your conditions, at your ability level of that time. I value direct experience highly myself! But we must not fail to apply doubt to our own experiences, thoughts, and even memories.

You come with some abstract texts about these issues, but no context. That's hardly a discussion.

Nobody here suggested photoprotection and photoperiodism was false to begin with.

Perhaps it doesnt make a difference in all situations. For example, let's say you dont have enough light. Or you have enough light, but you only give 50%. It may take 14 hours for the plant to reach its saturation point. And hundreds of other variables. But we cant speak in a way that covers all variables. We can say, that in good conditions... generally, often, blah blah.

That's why there can't be a "right way" as you seem to suggest. The light schedule depends on all those variables - what works for you, doesn't need to work for me.

What's the ecological and economic difference if I achief the same results with more hours of less intense light = less energy input?

For instance how you determine 12/1 is a good schedule if you don't take into account the before mentioned DLI range (light spectrum, wattage, lumen, whatever)?

So unless you know the exact viables and what they mean for these processes, it's a non-discussion. That's pretty much the whole point I try to make.

I tried it, did not like the result and changed to something else that works better for me (for instance 16/8 and veg under less wattage). I can only talk from personal experience here.

 

[RequiredUsername]

I love that there are people here friendly, aggressive, doubtful, towards me here. Once we get past the conflict reaction and we start ourselves being connected to one another, the discussion begins. I am glad that things flared up and cooled down. This allows space, a darkness for the light to come into.

We have already arrived because questions are arising. Then we can turn that energy we gave nurturing conflict, defensiveness, friendliness, to a different cause.

So we have the phenomenon of photoprotection. That is a fact.

Lets begin with fact, and go on with facts. Can we go from there? Are we all in this together?

 

[RequiredUsername]

Cash croppers here running big operations use the same 18/6 schedules before there was internet.

I doubt it all was a big growshop conspiracy to provide desinformation for profits. They make more money on the weed, then on the bulbs.

I'm pretty sure the pioneers who started indoors with it, took their inspiration from horticulture to begin with. That's all I'm saying.



You come with some abstract texts about these issues, but no context. That's hardly a discussion.

Nobody here suggested photoprotection and photoperiodism was false to begin with.



That's why there can't be a "right way" as you seem to suggest. The light schedule depends on all those variables - what works for you, doesn't need to work for me.

What's the ecological and economic difference if I achief the same results with more hours of less intense light = less energy input?

For instance how you determine 12/1 is a good schedule if you don't take into account the before mentioned DLI range (light spectrum, wattage, lumen, whatever)?

So unless you know the exact viables and what they mean for these processes, it's a non-discussion. That's pretty much the whole point I try to make.

I tried it, did not like the result and changed to something else that works better for me (for instance 16/8 and veg under less wattage). I can only talk from personal experience here.

We cant speak in a way that covers all possible variables. That's impossible. We can only say under good or adequate conditions, generally the result is, commonly, etc. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

So photoprotection exists as a fact. "With adequate light, when does the plant reach saturation and shut of processing CO2?" Why isnt that your question? Do you understand?

Go into it.

 

[RequiredUsername]

Friends, I am trying to turn this from a discussion into a dialogue. Does anyone understand that?

We start with a fact and go on with facts until we finally have it. So, Photoprotection is a fact, it is function where the plant no longer needs light as energy, and shuts down. You have to understand this first because it is directly and unexcludable to what this topic is about, and how to answer it.

It's not about mentally agreeing or disagreeing according to your particular background, your knowledge. That does not lead anywhere but chaos, as evident in the 9 pages of posting before now.

So we accept that photoprotection happens, and we need to know more about it. When does it happen?

We dont have to list when it happens for every strain under the sky or whatever various conditions you can dream up... Let's go forward with everyone's general direction:

Good to adequate light and growing conditions.

What happens if we try 12-1 on an affected landrace on the moon....let's keep it simple folks. Fact to fact until we have it. If you think you have the answer, fantastic. Others are here to question, let them. There is no right or wrong, just facts.

Now, go into it sirs. What was the question we needed to ask?

 

[RequiredUsername]

When you see the benefits of 12-1 8-16, I want you to post a pic of you burning the grow book that didnt teach you photoperiodism. I want to see Rosenthals books going up in flames. Up in flames folks. And dont forget to smile in the photo! It's high time for an old fashioned book burning to send a message to the exploiters that we arent as stupid as they think we are. Flames baby! Flames!

 

[CocoNut 420]

It's difficult to get anyone to change from what works for them and that's fair we're all creatures of habit.

I can't comment on 12/1 but I'd encourage everyone to try vegging in 12-12 unless you're growing a single plant and space is ample after stretching, don't be mistaken you get good sized chunky plant/s.

I recently tried 11-13 after vegging/sexing under 12-12 that made one of the biggest differences I've ever seen around growing, it's remarkable what an hour can do

I've only fairly recently realised how much we can influence the time frame of a crop and ultimately its size and weight using the timer.

 

[Asentrouw]

We cant speak in a way that covers all possible variables. That's impossible. We can only say under good or adequate conditions, generally the result is, commonly, etc. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

So photoprotection exists as a fact. "With adequate light, when does the plant reach saturation and shut of processing CO2?" Why isnt that your question? Do you understand?

Go into it.

As I said before it depends among others on light intensity. No artificial light can copy the sun in regards of intensity. So that's a important viable to begin with.

What exact spectrum you have (red/blue/uv light)? How much lumens does it produce? How efficient is it in turning the energy into lumens (CFL, HPS, LED)?

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure how fast a plant can be "saturated" has a lot to do with that.

So what's exactly that "adequate light" according to you?

You make a firm statement on how much time/light a cannabis plant needs according to you ("8h intense light", "12-1 schedule", "love darkness"). But you don't give further specs - is this under sunlight, burple or full spectrum LED, HPS or doesn't matter?

Isn't this also a matter of the lighting used and all the viables above?

Saturation is always with 12-1 according to you?

If its darkness you are after, why not just 10-1?

A certain set up needs to be dialed in according to the above viables. But you fail to come with exact scientific facts or data. You only come with vague notions and a picture/graphic without any numbers attached - so that's quite useless without further data.

Then there is genetics: isn't the saturation of a plant not also a matter of genetics?

A equatorial cannabis plant (where a day is roughly 12h) has other needs as a plant from the Caucasus/Hindu Kush/Asia which gets much more light hours (the longest day in Kabul is 16 hours) - hybrids probably need all a mix in between.

How about light intensity for highland and lowland strains?

So again also there a lot of viables.

I simply doubt that saturation and light schemes are a fixed matter for each plant and more darkness or interrupted darkness is by definition always better.

When you start talking about ecological footprints even more viables come to play.

Not only the effeciency of the lights and energy they use. Let say you use the light also to heat the growroom in winter and you need to turn the heater up which uses much more energy.

What's more effecient and cost-effective then?

So yes, I agree that a dark period can benefit the plants. But I highly doubt 12-1 is by definition the most effecient light schedule. GLR is just one of many methods used in horticulture in regard of photoperiod plants. And you have not provided any solid sources stating otherwise. Tossing a few names and terms around and a meaningless graphic without any data does not convince me just yet. It remains bro-science. Sorry.

 

[CocoNut 420]

I am familiar with keeping plants under 24hrs light, I've not had any problems with health besides the occasional bit yellowing.

I'd just trimmed them after letting them grow to take clones.

The clones rooted fine under 24hrs.

Some of the mums are near two years in 24hrs.

I'm not using 24hrs light because I think it's better it's mostly for the environment stability especially in winter!!

 

[RequiredUsername]

As I said before it depends among others on light intensity. No artificial light can copy the sun in regards of intensity. So that's a important viable to begin with.

What exact spectrum you have (red/blue/uv light)? How much lumens does it produce? How efficient is it in turning the energy into lumens (CFL, HPS, LED)?

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure how fast a plant can be "saturated" has a lot to do with that.

So what's exactly that "adequate light" according to you?

You make a firm statement on how much time/light a cannabis plant needs according to you ("8h intense light", "12-1 schedule", "love darkness").

But isn't this also a matter of the lighting used and all the viables above?

Saturation is always with 12-1 according to you?

If its darkness you are after, why not just 10-1?

A certain set up needs to be dialed in according to the above viables. But you fail to come with exact scientific facts, but only come with vague notions and a picture/graphic without any numbers attached- so quite useless.

Then there is genetics: isn't the saturation of a plant not also a matter of genetics?

A equatorial cannabis plant has other needs as a plant from the Caucasus or Hindu Kush which gets much more light hours - hybrids probably all a mix in between. How about light intensity for highland and lowland strains? So again also there a lot of viables.

So I simply doubt that saturation and light schemes are a fixed matter for each plant and more darkness or interrupted darkness is by definition always better.

When you start talking about ecological footprints even more viables come to play.

Not only the effeciency of the lights and energy they use. Let say you use the light also to heat the growroom in winter and you need to turn the heater up which uses much more energy. What's more effecient and cost-effective then?

So yes, I agree that a dark period can benefit the plants. But I highly doubt 12-1 is by definition the most effecient light schedule. And you have not provided any solid sources stating otherwise. Tossing a few names and terms around and a meaningless graphic does not convince me just yet. It remains bro-science. Sorry.

I would say adequate light is going to be the manufacturer's recommendations on the footprint and height of their lamp, if they are honest about the output of their product.

Youre getting stuck on variables repeatedly. Missing what I am writing- Yes, actually I did post about differences between narrow leaf and broad leaf plants. To repeat, give indica types 6 hours light, sativas 8 for flowering. This too is a "General" guideline. Like buddy said, he noticed a difference in just 1 hour light difference. With his own eyes. It wasn't written out for him with several variable adjustments in the supplimental tables at the end of the chapter. The mind is limited. Knowledge is limited. Anything that comes from knowledge is limited.

"I agree that a dark period can benefit the plants. But I highly doubt 12-1 is by definition the most effecient light schedule. GLR is just one of many methods used in horticulture in regard of photoperiod plants. And you have not provided any solid sources stating otherwise"

12-1 is standard of horticultural operations for long night plants. Best quality at the lowest cost, down to the penny. All the proof is right there. I'm not here to spoon it into ya. Go get it if you want it.

Your questions are good, I encourage you to seek the answers on your own. If you come to a discovery, many would be interested. I wish you luck in your horticultural studies. Take care.

 

[Asentrouw]

I'm not using 24hrs light because I think it's better it's mostly for the environment stability especially in winter!!

I think that shouldn't matter as photosythesis stops anyway at a certain point. So cannabis "sleeps" with lights on nonetheless.

At worst it is a waste of energy because of that, but not ofcourse if you use it to heat the growroom and to provide a stable enviroment.

That's why everybody should just do what they see fit and what works for their personal situation, rather then following selfproclaimed growguru's that know it all. Just keep on experimenting with those things.

 

[RequiredUsername]

I think that shouldn't matter as photosythesis stops anyway at a certain point. So cannabis "sleeps" with lights on nonetheless.

At worst it is a waste of energy because of that, but not ofcourse if you use it to heat the growroom and to provide a stable enviroment.

That's why everybody should just do what they see fit and what works for their personal situation, rather then following selfproclaimed growguru's that know it all. Just keep on experimenting with those things.

That's the problem. You dont know what phytochromes and cryptochromes, and other operations that go on during the dark period. You just have questions. Once you educate yourself, these questions will be replaced by different ones.

 

[Asentrouw]

I would say adequate light is going to be the manufacturer's recommendations on the footprint and height of their lamp, if they are honest about the output of their product.

Youre getting stuck on variables repeatedly.

Because the data, specs, variables or how you want to call it are the principles from which you usually work. If you don't know those, then you know nothing.

Only if you know the spectrum and intensity of your light, you can calculate the photosynthesis of your plant, right?

Only if you know your genetics, you can mimic its natural habitat, right?

I'm all for playing around with these things and experiment. There are so many factors at play here, its hard to put a hard scientific analysis over it.

That's why I say if 12-1 gives you great results stick with it. I like 16 on 8 off better in veg [say "an optimal grow day in Kabul"], as I think that's more efficient for most hybrid strains I grow. I flower them usually just 12/12. As I have limited space, longflowering strains I put straight on 11/13 or 10/14. Works like a charm. 12/1 I use to combat heat in summer if needed or if I need to pro-long vegtime for some reason. That's what brings me personally the best results. With a gram per watt or more I'm perfectly happy.

 

[Asentrouw]

That's the problem. You dont know what phytochromes and cryptochromes, and other operations that go on during the dark period. You just have questions. Once you educate yourself, these questions will be replaced by different ones.

Then one more question: you mean during the dark period or just after photosynthesis?

 

[CocoNut 420]

That's the problem. You dont know what phytochromes and cryptochromes, and other operations that go on during the dark period.

Tbh I don't know what photo or crypto operations are going on during the dark period, afaik the plant doesn't sleep because the light goes off, i assumed they just continues to grow using sugar/ starches through the night that has been stored in the leaves?

 

[RequiredUsername]

Tbh I don't know what photo or crypto operations are going on during the dark period, afaik the plant doesn't sleep because the light goes off, i assumed they just continues to grow using sugar/ starches through the night that has been stored in the leaves?

Right, well that's pretty much where everyone is unless you studied plant biology. But you dont need to study biology to grow good weed. The plant wants to grow too and is good at it.

So generally, we have to take into account the credibility of the opinions and beliefs expressed, and what is theory, and what is direct experience.

The problem is that not everyone is willing to take the first step of finding out. They go off on too many tangents, so the discussion stalls again. Because the journey begins with one step. Not a flying headlong leap towards an open window. So the thread leaves people remaining retarded, childish, not knowing. But we must not remain that way.

So, for the final time.

If we accept photoprotection as fact, the first step of the journey is to understand that. What is photoprotection. How does it work. And move towards finding out when your plants reach that point.

Right?

 

[Asentrouw]

If we accept photoprotection as fact, the first step of the journey is to understand that. What is photoprotection. How does it work. And move towards finding out when your plants reach that point.

So enlighten us?

"Photoprotection is defined as the prevention against damaging effects of intense solar radiation."

"Beyond a saturation point, the excess light intensity may reduce photosynthetic efficiency."

 

[CocoNut 420]

Something I watch out for after flipping under led is foliage looking limp before the light goes off, @usernamerequired has that got anything to do with what you're talking about?